PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming: Real or not?



Pages : [1] 2 3

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2005-Sep-23, 06:25 PM
Okay is global warming a real phenomenon caused by man made pollution/changes to the environment? Or, is it a natural cycle that the Earth goes through every now and then?

aurora
2005-Sep-23, 06:41 PM
The possible answers are different from the question. There are two parts, first, whether the Earth is warming, and second, if so, what is the largest or most important cause.

Glom
2005-Sep-23, 06:44 PM
BBP, you have actually preempted a thread I was thinking about starting. A discussion of the issues specifically is somewhat redundant given that they are constantly being discussed in many threads across this board. But this thread could be useful in determining how people stand on this issue at the moment.

Obviously, my position is that there is no conclusive evidence for GWT and plenty of contradictory evidence (such as the cooling of Antarctica and the carbon lag). That the climate change is not in dispute. The problem is some people can't distinguish the logical difference between evidence of change and evidence of GWT.

Argos
2005-Sep-23, 06:50 PM
The principle of precaution demands me to assume that GW is anthropogenic. Sorry.:shifty:

pghnative
2005-Sep-23, 09:02 PM
Conversely, the principle of precaution demands me to assume that forced reductions in energy consumption will hurt the world economy.:shifty:

Edited to add that in my field, I tend to be very leery of computer models. So I'm predisposed to being skeptical of apocalyptic claims based on Computer Model X, Y or Z. I think that there is nothing humans can do to destroy the environment on a geological time scale, so I worry more about what we should do to maximize human usage* of the environment.

(Usage includes about everything you can think of --- food production from, resource mining from, enjoyment of, etc...)

ranugad
2005-Sep-24, 12:47 AM
Have you seen the thread on the effects of precession on the seasons?
I can't remember where it is off-hand.

the way I understand it now
currently the Northern hemisphere experiences winter at perihelion
as a result, winter is shorter in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere.

this situation reverses as precession causes the seasons to occur earlier in the earth's orbit about the sun.

could it be possible that current climate is being doubly affected by an increase in solar output AND and a lengthened northern summer that may not have coincided in eons?

dgruss23
2005-Sep-24, 01:22 PM
Interesting, I expected the poll might show about equal support for the first and second options.

Argos
2005-Sep-24, 01:37 PM
Conversely, the principle of precaution demands me to assume that forced reductions in energy consumption will hurt the world economy.:shifty:

No doubt about it. The problem is that the GW itself (whether human-generated or not) will also hurt.

Archer17
2005-Sep-24, 05:43 PM
I voted "no." I agree with those that are skeptical of the GWT and think natural cycles should not be ruled out. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaner air, but I'm just not ready to buy into the kind of thinking that gives us things like the Kyoto Protocol, which I still believe is more of an attempt to level the economic playing field than anything else.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-24, 06:02 PM
The climate is changing. Why is it changing? I'm leaning to the idea that a detectable fraction of the change is anthropogenic, but I haven't made any effort to prove it one way or the other, so you won't see me taking a hard stand either way until I do.

novaderrik
2005-Sep-24, 06:26 PM
i don't know what to believe.
one day, you'll have a group of scientists saying that the rate that the earth is warming up now is unprecedented.
then, the next day, you'll hear about some scientists digging up core samples from the ocean or antarctica saying that millions of years ago the earth warmed up at a rate that would be catastrophic to human society as we know it if it happened today.
i think it mostly matters who is either funding each particular research group and what they are looking for, or in how ti is presented.

like Dennis Miller said (or something like it, anyways)
"they say the earth is warming up 1.5 degrees over the next 30 years. sounds good to me.
and my kids? 3.0
and my grand kid? 4.5
after that point, i don't care, becasue i'll never know the people that will be alive then. it's hard to care about people you'll never meet".

or something like that.
and, before you get your feathers all ruffled over that, he is a comedian. and i have a weird sense of humor..

Fortunate
2005-Sep-24, 07:22 PM
aurora pointed out that the original question broke down into two parts. Some of the subsequent posters were influenced by the potential policy ramifications to the extent of basing their answers to these questions at least in part on their social preferences. I think we are better served by attempting to ascertain the correct answers. I don't know what those correct answers are.

Archer17
2005-Sep-24, 08:34 PM
aurora pointed out that the original question broke down into two parts. Some of the subsequent posters were influenced by the potential policy ramifications to the extent of basing their answers to these questions at least in part on their social preferences. I think we are better served by attempting to ascertain the correct answers. I don't know what those correct answers are.I don't know if this was directed at me but since I brought up Kyoto I'll assume I had something to do with it. Just to clarify my POV: I agree with aurora that there's really two issues here but my skepticism has nothing to do with "social preferences" as a result of "potential policy ramifications." (I would be opposed to the Kyoto treaty even if I voted "yes" but I won't continue a sidebar about it's flaws here). I actually had an "undecided" attitude about the whole thing until I read some input on this board from dgruss23 and did some digging on my own. IMO this whole issue hasn't been demonstrated to exist outside of natural cycles.

Kristophe
2005-Sep-24, 08:38 PM
Smog is of much greater concern to me at the moment than CO2 output. And since H2O is a much better greenhouse gass than CO2, I don't see why we're not focusing on that. It's always seemed just a little strange to me.

Call me skeptically neutral. In such a heated debate, I'm leery of both sides.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Sep-24, 08:41 PM
plenty of contradictory evidence

Your position, not just on climate change but your also your Nuke-attitude has been proven to be fraud on many other threads, to quote NASA's top scientists on this issue they remark that 'some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. '

Archer17
2005-Sep-24, 08:59 PM
plenty of contradictory evidenceYour position, not just on climate change but your also your Nuke-attitude has been proven to be fraud on many other threads, to quote NASA's top scientists on this issue they remark that 'some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. 'Easy there Manchurian Taikonaut. There are two sides to this issue and one's position on a topic unrelated to this one is irrelevant. Let's keep this "nice."

Glom
2005-Sep-24, 09:35 PM
Your position, not just on climate change but your also your Nuke-attitude has been proven to be fraud on many other threads, to quote NASA's top scientists on this issue they remark that 'some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. '

So you ignore all the threads discussing the issue apart from when you drop in to affirm the consequent and involve Dubya on occasion and then decide to launch into this attack? You're not going to win many friends that way.

And I missed where my positions on climate change, let alone nuclear power, were proven to be fraud. Can you point them to me?

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Sep-24, 10:08 PM
I recall that there are over 50 times in which Glom has been proven to be false while chosing to ignore other evidence


Here are some quick examples : in the 'Freezing to Death' thread other posters and members ask Glom ' is this some kind of standard response you give to every remark about any climate change ' in the Hiroshima remembers' debate Glom makes incorrect claims that the Kyoto CO2 plan is a political stunt by Al-Gore, in the 'weather divers' topic Glom decalred that Climate Change and all appearances of Global Warming were caused by a Cosmic rays or Solar-sunspot cycle, Scientists have shown an article linking cosmic rays and changes in temperature was "scientifically ill-founded" and also NASA scientists and Danish meteorologists suggest another factor is involved - probably other issues which are described in great detail like human activity.

In the topic ' Trickery - stifle scientific evidence on Climate-Change' Glom remarks that higher temperatures mean less severe weather, it is unsure what Glom means by 'severe weather' perhaps he means flooding, drought, Hurricanes, Heatwaves...? Glom also declares that the USA should not sign Kyoto as India produces more pollution - now while nations like India and China are stating to produce lots of pollution and should do something about this quickly, the USA remains the world's number one producer of pollution and CO2 emissions. In the tread 'What's with the animosity towards Climate Change advocates' Glom makes false claims that the only reason Russia decided to cut down on pollution is because the Ruskies were bullied and bribed by Green-Socialists in the EU. In the 'Green is noble; if only it was intelligent' topic Glom declare that Oil and Fission will produce far less pollution than Solar or Hydro power ever will. Glom also declares that the South section of planet Earth is cooling while the North is heating up due to some tilt in the Earth's axis, and he makes some kind of an effort to use 'Antartica' as proof of this so-called 'fact' while he turns a blind eye to the Glaciers melting at alarming rates in areas like Parque Nacional los Glaciares-Argentina, New Zealand, NASA and ESA observations of our Earth, temperature mapping, glaciers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Uganda....

Glom
2005-Sep-24, 11:09 PM
Here are some quick examples : in the 'Freezing to Death' thread other posters and members ask Glom ' is this some kind of standard response you give to every remark about any climate change '

That's not exposing my position as fraud. That's a compaint about my launching into a rant about the opportunistic use of contradictory weather of the day for the political cause, which was perhaps uncalled for in that thread.


in the Hiroshima remembers' debate Glom makes incorrect claims that the Kyoto CO2 plan is a political stunt by Al-Gore,

Can't find the thread.


in the 'weather divers' topic Glom decalred that Climate Change and all appearances of Global Warming were caused by a Cosmic rays or Solar-sunspot cycle, Scientists have shown an article linking cosmic rays and changes in temperature was "scientifically ill-founded" and also NASA scientists and Danish meteorologists suggest another factor is involved - probably other issues which are described in great detail like human activity.

That refutation is no where in that thread. You offer no sources.


In the topic ' Trickery - stifle scientific evidence on Climate-Change' Glom remarks that higher temperatures mean less severe weather, it is unsure what Glom means by 'severe weather' perhaps he means flooding, drought, Hurricanes, Heatwaves...?

Severe weather events generally refer to storms etc. But this ambiguity is hardly my position being proven a fraud.


Glom also declares that the USA should not sign Kyoto as India produces more pollution - now while nations like India and China are stating to produce lots of pollution and should do something about this quickly, the USA remains the world's number one producer of pollution and CO2 emissions.

I never said that the gross pollution from those nations was greater than the US. I said eventually it will. And the US is not the number polluter in per capita terms. Canada and Australia are worse.


In the tread 'What's with the animosity towards Climate Change advocates' Glom makes false claims that the only reason Russia decided to cut down on pollution is because the Ruskies were bullied and bribed by Green-Socialists in the EU.

That's correct. The Russian government's advisors had always said that they opposed Kyoto. It wasn't until the EU made a deal with Russia involving dropping their opposition to her entry into the WTO that Russia signed.


In the 'Green is noble; if only it was intelligent' topic Glom declare that Oil and Fission will produce far less pollution than Solar or Hydro power ever will.

Pruned so I can't verify what I said. It doesn't sound like me to imply that oil would necessarily be cleaner, but that is certainly the case with fission, whether you choose to listen or not.


Glom also declares that the South section of planet Earth is cooling while the North is heating up due to some tilt in the Earth's axis, and he makes some kind of an effort to use 'Antartica' as proof of this so-called 'fact' while he turns a blind eye to the Glaciers melting at alarming rates in areas like Parque Nacional los Glaciares-Argentina, New Zealand, NASA and ESA observations of our Earth, temperature mapping, glaciers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Uganda....

I never said anything of the kind. Antarctica is cooling in contradiction with climate models, which say it should be warming rapidly. I never extended this trend to the entire hemisphere.

Andreas
2005-Sep-24, 11:12 PM
And since H2O is a much better greenhouse gass than CO2, I don't see why we're not focusing on that. It's always seemed just a little strange to me.
Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but isn't produced directly (much) by us. Warming will cause more water to evaporate and be retained in the atmosphere. It's therefore somewhat linked with the levels of other greenhouse gases and amplifies their effect.

Not that I'm an expert, but that's the gist of it as I understand it.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-25, 12:04 AM
Glom decalred that Climate Change and all appearances of Global Warming were caused by a Cosmic rays or Solar-sunspot cycle, Scientists have shown an article linking cosmic rays and changes in temperature was "scientifically ill-founded" and also NASA scientists and Danish meteorologists suggest another factor is involved - probably other issues which are described in great detail like human activity.

Could you provide references? It is well established that climate changes correlate with solar activity. I've provided numerous references to back that up. What scientists showed that this evidence is "ill-founded" and what was their evidence to the contrary?

What is this other factor that is described in great detail? Where is it described in great detail?

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Sep-25, 12:59 AM
correlate with solar activity

It isn't just solar activity as Glom has claimed - climate studies, Danish scientists, NASA websites, Canadian arctic studies say otherwise, changes can happen for any number of reasons from our Earth orbit, human activity, a comet smashing into our planet....

The fact of the matter is I and many other people think nuclear energy if done correctly could be very beneficial to mankind, I think there are a number of factors involved in climate change, and that nuclear power can help space exploration - points which Glom has often made.

However the way Glom presents his case with 'greenpeace-bashing', incorrect statements, wrong sceintific facts, and political rants makes it hard for me and many others to agree with him.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-25, 01:46 AM
It isn't just solar activity as Glom has claimed - climate studies, Danish scientists, NASA websites, Canadian arctic studies say otherwise, changes can happen for any number of reasons from our Earth orbit, human activity, a comet smashing into our planet....

I'm just wondering what specific articles/links you've read that provide evidence that solar activity is not important in climate change - because I've found numerous references that say otherwise.

Archer17
2005-Sep-25, 06:13 AM
It isn't just solar activity as Glom has claimed - climate studies, Danish scientists, NASA websites, Canadian arctic studies say otherwise, changes can happen for any number of reasons from our Earth orbit, human activity, a comet smashing into our planet....

The fact of the matter is I and many other people think nuclear energy if done correctly could be very beneficial to mankind, I think there are a number of factors involved in climate change, and that nuclear power can help space exploration - points which Glom has often made.

However the way Glom presents his case with 'greenpeace-bashing', incorrect statements, wrong sceintific facts, and political rants makes it hard for me and many others to agree with him.So? Don't agree with him then. I'm waiting for you or anyone else that is sympathetic to the GWT to change my thinking. Let's stick with the issues and avoid past bad blood, OK?

In case you haven't noticed, I haven't posted too much in these GW threads outside of a post on the BABB many moons ago pointing out the flaws of Kyoto and objections to the ideology of Greenpeace (the resultant "scrum" with Lee ended up being diverted to FWIS because it was considered too political for the BABB). While I'm not sold on the GWT at this point, I'm not all that emotionally involved. I have no axe to grind and am willing to "listen" to intelligent input from those more sympathetic to the GWT than I am.

On that note, I'm still waiting for you to post something substantive here in that respect Manchurian Taikanaut .. all I've read from you so far is Glom posted this here - Glom posted that there. That's personal, tell me why you think I should believe in the GWT. Spare me what others think, they can speak for themselves if they want to.

Fr. Wayne
2005-Sep-25, 08:32 AM
GWT fans! With all the dust storms on Mars and all the hurricanes on earth, I cast my vote for all the major influences are totally out of our hands. How the Sun will behave given the neighborhood it is in should remind us of our very vulnerable situation as a planet. Since we can not nuke the Sun when it won't behave, we remain totally contingent on its moods. One direct hit from a major solar flare would put this discussion on permanent hold. There may be very good reasons why we don't bother colonizing the Moon or modifying our gas-guzzling SUV's. Personally I trust there are and I don't really need to know why as long as Walgreen's has sun screen on sale.

Glom
2005-Sep-25, 08:42 AM
It isn't just solar activity as Glom has claimed - climate studies, Danish scientists, NASA websites, Canadian arctic studies say otherwise, changes can happen for any number of reasons from our Earth orbit, human activity, a comet smashing into our planet....

All change horses!

You said that the solar-terrestrial connection was proven as fraud. Now you're saying that other factors are involved, which is not dispute. You haven't been paying attention. I never said solar activity was the only factor. That would be pretty dumb.


The fact of the matter is I and many other people think nuclear energy if done correctly could be very beneficial to mankind, I think there are a number of factors involved in climate change, and that nuclear power can help space exploration - points which Glom has often made.

Then what part of my nuclear position is fraud?


However the way Glom presents his case with 'greenpeace-bashing', incorrect statements, wrong sceintific facts, and political rants makes it hard for me and many others to agree with him.

I haven't brought Greenpeace into this in ages and I haven't seen you make public apology for all the ad hominem straw men and Bush bashing you've used in the past. You have yet to demonstrate where I made any significant incorrect statement and wrong scientific facts other than those things you misremembered.

And if my presentation is all of a sudden the only quibble you have, then that hardly exposes my position to be fraud.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-25, 01:43 PM
I haven't brought Greenpeace into this in ages and I haven't seen you make public apology for all the ad hominem straw men and Bush bashing you've used in the past. You have yet to demonstrate where I made any significant incorrect statement and wrong scientific facts other than those things you misremembered.


A good place to start MT would be the claim you've made that the solar-climate connection was shown to be "scientifically ill-founded". I'd be interested in seeing any such claims because it does contradict what I've read.

That would be a lot more productive than going after Glom about his posting style.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Sep-25, 02:46 PM
Let me repeat myself again for those of you who didn't get it the first time, Glom had made many dubious claims about climate activity and aswell he claimed ( which he is now trying to deny ) that the current change in climate was indeed due to solar activity. This claim was proven to be false by other posters and the posted links to sources like Canadaian scientific reports, newscientist, NASA's website, nationalgeographic, and other Danish sceintists studies, and I think Glom had chosen to ignore those posts. I'm not sure what Glom means by saying I should apologise for 'Bush bashing', I have in the past been critical of ISS-plans, or Shuttle-tiles but this was not an attack aimed directly at the United States President, it's difficult to see what Glom is on about here, is he angry that I couldn't vote for the guy ? I - myself still have an open-mind on this whole climate change issue, it could be mankind, it could be part of a natural cycle, but one thing I am totally against is some folks trying to shovel their unfounded claims. There was a link in one of the other threads that greatly described the impact on native Inuit and Eskimo populations because of disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. NASA satellites have also reported on this - their satellite data -- the unique view from space -- are allowing researchers to more clearly see Arctic changes and develop an improved understanding of the possible effect on climate worldwide. People like Dr. Josefino C. Comiso, Hansen director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Michael Steele and others have all gone into great detail on this process. NASA's Pathfinder had show that the temperature of the Earth's surface had increased at a rate of almost 0.5C or 0.8F per decade, it is easy to describe a greenhouse effect one of the worst examples perhaps being the scorching planet Venus. Space based observation to our Planet Earth enhance our scientific understanding that ground based scientists cannot realistically achieve.

There has also been the claim made that our Earth is cooling and I've seen posters use Antarctica as example while choxing to ignore scientific models that predicted the loss of dissolved oxygen in the Antarctic ocean, NASA temp records, Glaciers in South America, New Zealand and some of Collapsing ice-shelf in the Antarctic Peninsula, and strong warming trends in the Southern Ocean. Glom himself has claimed that the south section of our Earth is in fact cooling because of this 'Antarctic evidence'. The Scientific community has also noted that permanent ice cover of nine lakes on Signey Island has decreased by about almost 50 % in the past 45 or so years. It is true that in the past 20 years some small spots on our planet have in fact got 'Cooler' rather than warmer but using NASA's 21 years of accumulated data indicate temperature trends in the Arctic, the overall direction of the trend suggests 'Warming' for the Northern region of our Planet Earth.

Sadly the scientifc studies of climate change are sometimes taken hostage by the radical-left or the far-right for whatever reason that may be. I would rather people stick to the facts of Climate Change rather than starting to bash Al-Gore, or do some Dick-Cheney hunting or make remarks that the corrupt Europeans blackmailed the Russians into cutting back on emissions. Studies by many American and European scientists have shown that Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. The NASA reports say polar caps not only hold much of the planet's total fresh water, but they also play an important role in regulating the Earth's temperature under a characteristic called albedo. There are many other issues to be solved and other studies to be taken before this climate change question is answered, but let's all try to stick to the facts rather than start 'Green bashing', doing a witch hunt on Cheney, or saying corrupt Europeans are trying to bribe the Russians. There are many people doing good serious work on this subject who haven't be hijacked by politics, NASA satellites bring back good data, there are many studies by American sceintists, we have the European Envi-Sat and NASA's ICESat spacecraft. There have also been a number of scientific predictions of an intensifying a feedback loop, one example being sunlight that otherwise would have been reflected back into space now gets absorbed by our Planet as the Earth's ice caps start to recede.

Archer17
2005-Sep-25, 03:21 PM
I think you need to take a step back and reflect on some things Manchurian Taikonaut. You've spent more time on Glom than addressing the topic and obviously have some preconceived notions that are open to debate. I didn't want Kyoto to be a distraction after I brought it up earlier but geo-politics is a hobby of mine and Russia's about-face regarding Kyoto had nothing to do with climate. They weren't "bullied" into signing on, they were seduced. Glom is correct in this thread as to why Russia finally signed on.

Regarding the GWT, I have yet to be convinced. I've read the various pro-GW citations (hard to miss it nowadays) and won't deny that we have some warming going on, but I'm skeptical at this juncture that it's more than a natural cycle.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Sep-25, 03:43 PM
Glom is correct in this thread as to why Russia finally signed on.




Did you ever think, maybe just maybe the Russians ( who have very intelligent scientists ) might be onto something without getting bullied and blackmailed by corrupt Europeans ?
Russian area near the South of the nation - the Caspian sea and Black sea is very low lying, Russian and former Soviet researchers just back from the area around Siberia have been finding large melts, the area near St Petersberg ( Leningrad ) is very low in altitude, Russians have been going through years of CO2 emissions, a number of Msocow scientists have predicted increased flooding in climate change. There are many Russians who weren't bribed by Euros but are instead concerned by the changes it will bring to Russian, the human impact that climate change can cause.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-25, 03:55 PM
Let me repeat myself again for those of you who didn't get it the first time, Glom had made many dubious claims about climate activity and aswell he claimed ( which he is now trying to deny ) that the current change in climate was indeed due to solar activity. This claim was proven to be false by other posters and the posted links to sources like Canadaian scientific reports, newscientist, NASA's website, nationalgeographic, and other Danish sceintists studies, and I think Glom had chosen to ignore those posts.

No it wasn't. Not on BABB. Nobody linked to any papers that demonstrated the Sun does not play an important role in climate change on Earth. I have asked three times (this will be the 4th) what references you have that make such a case. If it is going to take time for you to find them that is fine, I can wait. But generic references to NASA, New Scientist, and National geographic do not constitute references.

You've also suggested people here have provided such evidence. I've read no such thing. Could you provide links to the threads?

Here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376&page=1) is a thread in which a lot of this was discussed. Numerous other threads and articles were linked to there. Take your time, but you'll find in that thread the reasons why we are skeptical of the AAGW scenario.

Launch window
2005-Sep-25, 04:16 PM
Sadly the scientifc studies of climate change are sometimes taken hostage by the radical-left or the far-right for whatever reason that may be.

So Glom insults the Europeans and uses slurs against Russians, what else is new ? At least his manners are a lot better than Project Orion's

Archer17
2005-Sep-25, 04:25 PM
Glom is correct in this thread as to why Russia finally signed on.Did you ever think, maybe just maybe the Russians ( who have very intelligent scientists ) might be onto something without getting bullied and blackmailed by corrupt Europeans ?
Russian area near the South of the nation - the Caspian sea and Black sea is very low lying, Russian and former Soviet researchers just back from the area around Siberia have been finding large melts, the area near St Petersberg ( Leningrad ) is very low in altitude, Russians have been going through years of CO2 emissions, a number of Msocow scientists have predicted increased flooding in climate change. There are many Russians who weren't bribed by Euros but are instead concerned by the changes it will bring to Russian, the human impact that climate change can cause.I don't know why you keep mentioning "blackmail" or "bullying" regarding Russia's change of heart or this "corrupt" European thing. It was simply a "you scratch our back" - "we'll scratch yours" kinda thing. This kind of give-and-take is common in diplomacy. As far as Kyoto goes, it's a joke. It hasn't been irrefutably demonstrated that climate is predicated on emissions nor is the concept of major polluters (like your country among others) being exempt a logical solution for reducing emissions. I don't blame this current administration for rejecting it. My idea of a genuine treaty addressing emissions would involve all countries, no exceptions.

Glom
2005-Sep-25, 04:43 PM
Let me repeat myself again for those of you who didn't get it the first time, Glom had made many dubious claims about climate activity and aswell he claimed ( which he is now trying to deny ) that the current change in climate was indeed due to solar activity. This claim was proven to be false by other posters and the posted links to sources like Canadaian scientific reports, newscientist, NASA's website, nationalgeographic, and other Danish sceintists studies, and I think Glom had chosen to ignore those posts.

You keep on changing horses on this one. First you say that any suggestion of a solar-terrestrial connection is false. Then you say simply the suggestion that it is the only factor is false. Now you're back to the original one. Where was this refutation?


I'm not sure what Glom means by saying I should apologise for 'Bush bashing',

You blamed him for AAGW.


I - myself still have an open-mind on this whole climate change issue,

Based on your posting history that seems unlikely. You have repeatedly made long posts attempting to affirm the consquent. If you have an open mind, you wouldn't jump to conclusions about the cause of the observations.


it could be mankind, it could be part of a natural cycle, but one thing I am totally against is some folks trying to shovel their unfounded claims.

These claims are not of my origin.


There was a link in one of the other threads that greatly described the impact on native Inuit and Eskimo populations because of disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. NASA satellites have also reported on this - their satellite data -- the unique view from space -- are allowing researchers to more clearly see Arctic changes and develop an improved understanding of the possible effect on climate worldwide. People like Dr. Josefino C. Comiso, Hansen director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Michael Steele and others have all gone into great detail on this process. NASA's Pathfinder had show that the temperature of the Earth's surface had increased at a rate of almost 0.5C or 0.8F per decade, it is easy to describe a greenhouse effect one of the worst examples perhaps being the scorching planet Venus. Space based observation to our Planet Earth enhance our scientific understanding that ground based scientists cannot realistically achieve.

Affirming the consequent again. Change happens. The role the enhanced greenhouse effect plays is undetermined.


There has also been the claim made that our Earth is cooling and I've seen posters use Antarctica as example while choxing to ignore scientific models that predicted the loss of dissolved oxygen in the Antarctic ocean, NASA temp records, Glaciers in South America, New Zealand and some of Collapsing ice-shelf in the Antarctic Peninsula, and strong warming trends in the Southern Ocean.

No-one has claimed that. Antarctica and other areas are cooling, but we never extended that to the whole planet or even half of it.


Glom himself has claimed that the south section of our Earth is in fact cooling because of this 'Antarctic evidence'.

I never said that. Show me where I did.


The Scientific community has also noted that permanent ice cover of nine lakes on Signey Island has decreased by about almost 50 % in the past 45 or so years. It is true that in the past 20 years some small spots on our planet have in fact got 'Cooler' rather than warmer but using NASA's 21 years of accumulated data indicate temperature trends in the Arctic, the overall direction of the trend suggests 'Warming' for the Northern region of our Planet Earth.

That's not in dispute.


Sadly the scientifc studies of climate change are sometimes taken hostage by the radical-left or the far-right for whatever reason that may be. I would rather people stick to the facts of Climate Change rather than starting to bash Al-Gore, or do some Dick-Cheney hunting or make remarks that the corrupt Europeans blackmailed the Russians into cutting back on emissions. Studies by many American and European scientists have shown that Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years -

What about thirty years in the first half of the century?


a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down.

Not the case with solar activity.


There are many other issues to be solved and other studies to be taken before this climate change question is answered, but let's all try to stick to the facts rather than start 'Green bashing',

I haven't brought the Greens into it in ages, not since I publicly apologised for it.


Did you ever think, maybe just maybe the Russians ( who have very intelligent scientists ) might be onto something without getting bullied and blackmailed by corrupt Europeans ?

The Russian Academy of Sciences still accuse Kyoto of being junk. They recommended rejecting it.

Launch window
2005-Sep-25, 06:10 PM
dgruss23, it is my opinion that countries around the globe should invest in climate defences even before we solve this issue of climate change causes and whether humans or nature are responsible for the greenhouse effect. I saw a picture before perhaps it was National Geographic that illustrated its possible effects on a global level. Rising sea levels be they 1 meter, a rise of 15 feet, or as much as 50 meters will cause massive damage on a global scale. Even just a small 1.5 feet (50-centimeter) rise in sea level could cause the coastline to move 150 feet (45 meters) inland, resulting in substantial economic, social, and environmental impact in low-lying areas. In South America, Brazil and Colombia would see massive damage, the United States of America could literally be cut in two, with Sea coming in the Gulf coast, taking out Florida and flloding Nashville and going right up as far as Detroit and Lake Michigan. In Asia a lot of India, Pakistan, the Chinese cities near the Yellow Sea, Tokyo Japan, Bangladesh would see massive destruction, the Gulf of Guinea in Africa, and France, England, Poland and a lot of other areas would see great flooding. Scientific studies have shown portion of the Earth's ice sheet has the ability to cause major damage, which contains enough water to raise the worldwide sea level by about 23 feet (about 7 meters). The political role in the science of Greenhouse changes was brought to everyone's attention some months back when some top NASA scientists accused the whitehouse admin of trying to stifle scientific evidence for climate change, GW has since gone and done U-turn on his CO2 statements, during the G8 meeting in Scotland Bush admitted the human role on climate change but the whitehouse still hasn't given any solutions as example.

Archer17, there are observations which show that our Earth's climate is changing or that we are seeing some kind of Greenhouse effect. A worrying indicator is the significant decrease in the Arctic sea ice observed over similar periods of time. There are many ideas to the causes of climate change and I'm not sure what article or papers Manchurian Taikonaut is refering to. Neumann, H Ameden, and P Marshall wrote on the Economic cost of Greenhouse induced sea-level rise. Knud Lassen and Danish scientist Eigil Friis-Christensen found that solar activity does sometimes explain some periods of climate change but overall has a minor effect and recent solar activity fails to explain a large deviation and current rise, even Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Institute who strongly believes in solar activity, admitted that in the last 20 years Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period and it means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming. Over the past 20 years, however, the solar activity scale has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase and it was said this is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. There were also good papers by Schneider and Chen which described Carbon Dioxide and Flooding and an article by Park, Leatherman and Weggel who wrote about the Greenhouse effect and sea level rise.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-25, 06:25 PM
Over the past 20 years, however, the solar activity scale has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase and it was said this is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

If there is a huiman caused increase in global temperature, the combustion of fossil fuels is only a portion of the cause. Certainly the increase in population of ruminating animals, and overall deforestation have to play a part too. Have you seen anything that makes a clear breakdown of the fraction of the warming caused by these activities. I haven't, but I haven't really looked till now, and I'm thinking about beginning to understand this subject. So I'm looking for help on both sides.

Launch window
2005-Sep-25, 06:57 PM
If there is a huiman caused increase in global temperature, the combustion of fossil fuels is only a portion of the cause. Certainly the increase in population of ruminating animals, and overall deforestation have to play a part too.

You're very right here antoniseb, many papers and reports I've seen think that shrinking forests and industrial waste have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by almost 100 parts per million. Clearing forests, burning material and chopping down the rain forests have greatly increased concentrations by producing these gases faster than plants and oceans can soak them up.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-25, 07:50 PM
Knud Lassen and Danish scientist Eigil Friis-Christensen found that solar activity does sometimes explain some periods of climate change but overall has a minor effect and recent solar activity fails to explain a large deviation and current rise, even Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Institute who strongly believes in solar activity, admitted that in the last 20 years Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period and it means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming. Over the past 20 years, however, the solar activity scale has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase and it was said this is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

First, the Lassen study is disputed by Willie Soon (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=15) - a Harvard researcher that has been studying the Sun-Climate connection.

Overviews of the evidence for a Sun-climate connection can be found here (http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html) and here (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf) (pdf).

The climate records show a correlation between solar activity and the Earth's climate. In the last several thousand years the Little Ice Age and Medieval Maximum are more significant cool and warm periods respectively that correlate with solar activity. It is well known that solar output does not vary enough to explain this correlation. However there are other factors.


Cosmic Rays (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2173295.stm) have been identified as an important player in the Sun climate connection. Here too. Research (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0409123)by Shaviv has shown that about 2/3 of the warming of the last 100 years can be accounted for by direct (variations in solar irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray flux) solar influences on climate. That means that a best case scenario for AAGW is that 1/3 of the warming is anthropogenic.

The sun is more active (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321) than in the last 1000 years. And the Sun climate connection has been traced back to time scales of a hundred thousand (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/dc-1c060602.php) years.

Nasa has shown that jet contrails (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16528%20) may be a significant anthropogenic contribution - but that has nothing to do with CO2.

Finally, you'll find a lot of the arguments and references in the thread I linked to in post #31 of this thread. One of the biggest problems for AAGW is that the climate record does not support the notion that CO2 is an important climate forcer. See the de Freitas article that talks about the 800 year lag in which CO2 increases occur 800 years after temperature increases.

I know that's a lot of reading. So take your time. This is a sampling of what I've based my conclusion that CO2 increases are not an important climate factor upon.

Added: I have no idea what the heck is wrong with the links. If a moderator wants to fix them it would be appreciated because I've tried two times. I pasted them into word before the post box here, so I don't know what the problem is. I type xxx (http://link/)and its deleting the initial "url=". Never had that happen before. And it decided to turn everything purple on me too. Its beyond me.

Launch window
2005-Sep-25, 08:02 PM
First, the Lassen study is disputed by Willie Soon (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=15) - a Harvard researcher that has been studying the Sun-Climate connection.

Overviews of the evidence for a Sun-climate connection can be found here (http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html) and here (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf) (pdf).

The climate records show a correlation between solar activity and the Earth's climate. In the last several thousand years the Little Ice Age and Medieval Maximum are more significant cool and warm periods respectively that correlate with solar activity. It is well known that solar output does not vary enough to explain this correlation. However there are other factors.


Cosmic Rays (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2173295.stm) have been identified as an important player in the Sun climate connection. Here too. Research (ttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0409123) by Shaviv has shown that about 2/3 of the warming of the last 100 years can be accounted for by direct (variations in solar irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray flux) solar influences on climate. That means that a best case scenario for AAGW is that 1/3 of the warming is anthropogenic.

The sun is more active (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321) than in the last 1000 years. And the Sun climate connection has been traced back to time scales of a hundred thousand (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/dc-1c060602.php) years.

Nasa has shown that jet contrails (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16528%20) may be a significant anthropogenic contribution - but that has nothing to do with CO2.

Finally, you'll find a lot of the arguments and references in the thread I linked to in post #31 of this thread. One of the biggest problems for AAGW is that the climate record does not support the notion that CO2 is an important climate forcer. See the de Freitas article that talks about the 800 year lag in which CO2 increases occur 800 years after temperature increases.

I know that's a lot of reading. So take your time. This is a sampling of what I've based my conclusion that CO2 increases are not an important climate factor upon.


Some very well respected scientists think that mankind is able to change our enviornment and human activity can cause weather effects. I had been reading a lot of those articles before, may I remind you the 'Little Ice' age was hundreds and hundreds of years ago ( the USA didn't even exist then ), today climate changes appear to be influenced by other factors. Scientists say climate changes today are caused by other factors like the combined effects of deforestation and doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as well as feed back loops from ice melts.

Wolverine
2005-Sep-25, 10:50 PM
Apologies for the OT post -- dgruss23, I attempted to respond to your PM but your inbox is full.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-25, 11:25 PM
Apologies for the OT post -- dgruss23, I attempted to respond to your PM but your inbox is full.

Yeah I just cleared a few. I guess I need to go through and get a few more out of there.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-25, 11:40 PM
Some very well respected scientists think that mankind is able to change our enviornment and human activity can cause weather effects. I had been reading a lot of those articles before, may I remind you the 'Little Ice' age was hundreds and hundreds of years ago ( the USA didn't even exist then ), today climate changes appear to be influenced by other factors. Scientists say climate changes today are caused by other factors like the combined effects of deforestation and doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as well as feed back loops from ice melts.

You're just going to appeal to authority instead of addressing any of the points I've made? I've rolled up my sleeves and explained the Sun-climate connection on a number of threads. I've also explained reasons why CO2 is not very likely to be an important climate forcer.

The 1940-1970 cooling period corresponds with a decrease in solar activity even as CO2 was increasing. Ice cores show that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by 800 years. You can't just handwave away several hundred thousand years of climate record showing that the Sun plays an important role in climate fluctuations.

Archer17
2005-Sep-26, 12:18 AM
..Archer17, there are observations which show that our Earth's climate is changing or that we are seeing some kind of Greenhouse effect. A worrying indicator is the significant decrease in the Arctic sea ice observed over similar periods of time. There are many ideas to the causes of climate change and I'm not sure what article or papers Manchurian Taikonaut is refering to. Neumann, H Ameden, and P Marshall wrote on the Economic cost of Greenhouse induced sea-level rise. Knud Lassen and Danish scientist Eigil Friis-Christensen found that solar activity does sometimes explain some periods of climate change but overall has a minor effect and recent solar activity fails to explain a large deviation and current rise, even Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Institute who strongly believes in solar activity, admitted that in the last 20 years Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period and it means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming. Over the past 20 years, however, the solar activity scale has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase and it was said this is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. There were also good papers by Schneider and Chen which described Carbon Dioxide and Flooding and an article by Park, Leatherman and Weggel who wrote about the Greenhouse effect and sea level rise.I did some digging regarding this topic after reading another GW thread a little ways back and am aware of the various arguments and the credentials of the people making them but I'm not sold. Your next post helps me explain why..
Some very well respected scientists think that mankind is able to change our enviornment and human activity can cause weather effects. I had been reading a lot of those articles before, may I remind you the 'Little Ice' age was hundreds and hundreds of years ago ( the USA didn't even exist then ), today climate changes appear to be influenced by other factors. Scientists say climate changes today are caused by other factors like the combined effects of deforestation and doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as well as feed back loops from ice melts.I bolded the part of your post that applies to why I'm skeptical at this point. We are told by proponents of GW that our current "climate change" is different from the others, but is it really? :think: You might think so, but I'm not so sure.

Superluminal
2005-Sep-26, 02:02 AM
The little ice age ended "hundred and hundreds of years ago". That is still a short time ago, geologically speaking. Earth didn't heat up overnight, and ice doesn't melt that fast. So, its not surprising that glaciers and arctic ice are receding.

Particularly glaciers near the equator such as Mt. Kilamanjaro. Last I read 80% of Kilamanjaro's glaciers had disappeared in the last century.

Taks
2005-Sep-26, 06:23 PM
Some very well respected scientists think that mankind is able to change our enviornment and human activity can cause weather effects.an appeal to authority. there are plenty of respected scientists that disagree, too.


I had been reading a lot of those articles before,news articles? why don't you start reading scientific papers instead. that way you won't get as much bias in the information. i'm not specifically accusing anybody of intentionally skewing information, but a writer will add in his interpretation of data. they aren't always scientists, so that bias could easily be significant.


may I remind you the 'Little Ice' age was hundreds and hundreds of years ago ( the USA didn't even exist then )actually, the little ice age was not completely "hundreds and hundreds" of years ago. the last minima was in 1850, and the US most definitely existed then. it began hundreds and hundreds of years ago, but did not end till the 1800s.


today climate changes appear to be influenced by other factors. Scientists say climate changes today are caused by other factors like the combined effects of deforestation and doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as well as feed back loops from ice melts.appear. the problem is that for whatever reason, AAGWs only want to include man-made causes as the drivers. why are others not considered? also, the doubled CO2 concentration in the atmosphere number has fallen under suspicion recently for various reasons.

taks

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-26, 07:07 PM
Nobody linked to any papers that demonstrated the Sun does not play an important role in climate change on Earth.A long time ago, in the previous forum (I forget the thread, but I'll search for it if you want) I linked to the IPCC's report on climate change, which stated that the Sun does play a role in climate change, but that role is too small to account for the observed changes.

Besides, the burden of proof is hardly on us to disprove that claim.

Taks
2005-Sep-26, 07:37 PM
A long time ago, in the previous forum (I forget the thread, but I'll search for it if you want) I linked to the IPCC's report on climate change, which stated that the Sun does play a role in climate change, but that role is too small to account for the observed changes.

Besides, the burden of proof is hardly on us to disprove that claim.uh, the IPCC report used as its smoking gun michael mann's now infamous hockey stick, which has been debunked for many reasons. mcintyre and mckitrick (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html) have taken it to task. so far, most of the "rebuttals" are centered around ad-hominems. also, keep in mind the IPCC report found correlation, not causation. given that the hockey stick is at best questionable, i'd say even correlation is difficult to prove now.

taks

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-26, 07:57 PM
uh, the IPCC report used as its smoking gun michael mann's now infamous hockey stick, which has been debunked for many reasons.
MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.

MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999). (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11)


so far, most of the "rebuttals" are centered around ad-hominems.I haven't looked at the rest of the thread, to know whether that's true (there don't seem to be many rebuttals at all in it), but I hope you'll agree that that's quite irrelevant to what I wrote.


also, keep in mind the IPCC report found correlation, not causation.I don't think so:


That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is so obvious that few people question it and in consequence few people rebut skepticism of it (though Eric has done so recently here; and the IPCC mention it). That the recent increase in temperature is unprecedented in the last 1000 years (see e.g. posts 64 or 7 by Mike) is one (but by no means the only) line of evidence indicating that recent change is likely to be unnatural (see update).

source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86#comments)

pghnative
2005-Sep-26, 08:01 PM
A long time ago, in the previous forum (I forget the thread, but I'll search for it if you want) I linked to the IPCC's report on climate change, which stated that the Sun does play a role in climate change, but that role is too small to account for the observed changes.

Besides, the burden of proof is hardly on us to disprove that claim.
In general, I agree --- those who seek to make the claim are the ones to prove it.

However, in the context of this thread, the burden of proof shifted once Manchurian T. claimed that a) the solar effect is too small (i.e. "scientifically ill-founded") and b) that since the solar effect is too small, Posters X, Y and Z are liars, cheats, and/or frauds (or words to that effect)

Personally, I'd rather see some data, rather than rhetoric. A few questions that I have:

1) Regarding the claims that global temperatures correlate better with solar activity and cosmic rays, just what is the proposed mechanism. When one talks about solar activity, are we talking about sunspots? (which is what I think of by solar activity, but maybe I misunderstand). Does solar activity correlate with solar energy output? If so, is there data on solar energy output over the last X years? If not, just how would solar activity affect climate? Similarly, just how would cosmic rays affect climate?

I ask that since while I am very skeptical of AGW's claims, at least their mechanism makes sense. No one debates that CO2 traps heat. No one debates that extra heat means more H2O in the atmosphere. No one debates that H2O also traps heat. Do the A-AAGW's (anti-apocalyptic anthropogenic global warming) have good mechanism that explains how cosmic rays / solar activity would warm the planet?

2) Regarding the hockey stick, do both sides agree that feeding in random data to the model also results in a hockey stick? (That claim has been made, but never refuted as far as I've seen.)

3) Given that Earth has had ice ages in the past, does anyone think that we should be surprised that glaciars are retreating? (at least some of them). Or that temperatures in general are rising? Personally, I'm very repulsed when I hear any of the following claims
a) temperatures are going up --- it MUST BE US
b) glaciars are retreating --- it MUST BE US

Given the Earth's history of non-human driven climate change, it seems to me that those conclusions are illogical.

pghnative
2005-Sep-26, 08:21 PM
I see that Disinfo Agent has addressed one of my questions while I was typing it.

I don't understand this statement though: "The recent increase in temperature is unprecedented in the last 1000 years". 1000 years isn't terribly long.

There are two reasons why one would limit themselves to 1000 years in that argument. Either
a) there have been similar temperature increases earlier in Earth's history (2000 yrs ago; 10,000 years ago, etc).
Or b) we don't have data beyond 1000 years.

Does anyone know which of those is true? Again, given the Earth's history of non-human driven climate change, 1000 years isn't terribly compelling.

Maksutov
2005-Sep-26, 08:25 PM
Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but isn't produced directly (much) by us.[edit]An average adult excretes approximately 400-600 ml of sweat daily through perspiration. Let's say 75% of that becomes water vapor through evaporation (the way sweating most efficiently regulates body temperature). Also let's go with the lower figure as a way to account for there being more children (less sweat) than manual laborers/athletes (more sweat).

Therefore we wind up with 300 ml per person per day. 300 ml x 6,000,000,000 is 1,800,000,000,000 ml of water vapor added to the atmosphere by humans every day, or 657,000,000,000,000 ml of human-originated water vapor every year. In terms of mass, that's 657,000,000,000 kg of this dangerous pollutant added annually by humans to our precious atmosphere.

It's time to take action to reduce this effluent! Join V.A.P.O.R. (Volunteers Against Perspiration in Our Rain) today!


Or maybe there are just too many people.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-26, 08:26 PM
I think the mention of the 1,000 year time period is a reference to the "Hocky Stick" part of the argument; but there are other sources of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Taks
2005-Sep-26, 08:39 PM
snip linksshow me where i said only. please don't put words into my mouth. i said, specifically, "smoking gun." the hockey stick is bandied about as the best evidence, and it is primarily based on a study whose source of temperature reading pre-recorded history is the bristlecone pine. this has been debunked.


I haven't looked at the rest of the thread, to know whether that's true (there don't seem to be many rebuttals at all in it), but I hope you'll agree that that's quite irrelevant to what I wrote. i didn't say it was relevant to what you wrote. i was commenting on rebuttals to the M&M studies. they are mostly ad-hominems (not necessarily on that web-page, but easy to find using google).


I don't think so:


Quote:
That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is so obvious that few people question it and in consequence few people rebut skepticism of it (though Eric has done so recently here; and the IPCC mention it). That the recent increase in temperature is unprecedented in the last 1000 years (see e.g. posts 64 or 7 by Mike) is one (but by no means the only) line of evidence indicating that recent change is likely to be unnatural (see update).again, this is correlation. "evidence of" means at best, correlation. "proof of" would mean causation.

be careful lest your own evidence prove you wrong. ;)

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-26, 08:46 PM
2) Regarding the hockey stick, do both sides agree that feeding in random data to the model also results in a hockey stick? (That claim has been made, but never refuted as far as I've seen.)depends upon who you ask. M&M certainly do. mann has sort of indicated he agrees, but thinks other methods will work anyway (no dogma there). i have yet to see that data. there are other problems as well, as mann referred to what methods climatologists "prefer" which implies some pre-existing dogma. why would the prefer one method over another in an objective analysis?

btw, some of what they implemented were auto-regressive moving average models, which do trend one way or another by design. these are common implementations in adaptive filtering. i have simulations that work, and not coincidentally, trend up or down entirely dependent upon the initial "seed" value.

taks

dgruss23
2005-Sep-26, 08:52 PM
In general, I agree --- those who seek to make the claim are the ones to prove it.

Personally, I'd rather see some data, rather than rhetoric. A few questions that I have:

1) Regarding the claims that global temperatures correlate better with solar activity and cosmic rays, just what is the proposed mechanism. When one talks about solar activity, are we talking about sunspots? (which is what I think of by solar activity, but maybe I misunderstand). Does solar activity correlate with solar energy output? If so, is there data on solar energy output over the last X years? If not, just how would solar activity affect climate? Similarly, just how would cosmic rays affect climate?

I ask that since while I am very skeptical of AGW's claims, at least their mechanism makes sense. No one debates that CO2 traps heat. No one debates that extra heat means more H2O in the atmosphere. No one debates that H2O also traps heat. Do the A-AAGW's (anti-apocalyptic anthropogenic global warming) have good mechanism that explains how cosmic rays / solar activity would warm the planet?



Good questions.

As I've pointed out on this and other threads - it is understood that solar output does not vary enough to explain the observed climate fluctuations. The Shaviv article I've linked to is consistent with others in suggesting that variations in solar irradiance can account for about 0.16 deg C of the 0.54 deg C observed warming.

However, cosmic rays have been identified as another factor because they effect cloud cover. The correlation is such that the solar irradiance variations and the cosmic ray influence work together so that the net result is a stronger influence on climate.

Here's the proposed mechanism. Cosmic rays are modulated by the solar wind. When the Sun is more active (and thus putting out more energy) its also putting out a stronger solar wind which deflects more of the solar rays. Now the cosmic rays strike the Earth's atmosphere and the collisions produce secondary particles that penetrate deeper into the atmosphere. These collisions ultimately effect the amount of aerosols which effects cloud formation. What is important is that the cosmic ray intensity correlates with low lying clouds which have a net cooling effect.

So when the sun is less active (putting out less energy) more cosmic rays strike the Earth and therefore more clouds are formed. The low lying clouds reflect more sunlight. So in combination, as noted in the Shaviv paper, the combination of decreased energy output at sunspot minima and increased cloudcover from cosmic ray activity can account for 0.37 of 0.54 deg C of observed warming (2/3 of the observed warming). I've seen a more controversial proposal that interstellar dust also is deflected by the solar wind and enters the atmosphere in increasing amounts at sunspot minima. If correct this mechanism could add additional cooling.

Good articles on this cosmic ray/cloud connection can be found here (http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/). The 4th article explains what I've discussed in more detail.

But I think its also important to emphasize the correlations that have been observed. C-14 and Be-10 isotope records provide a tool to track the variations in solar activity back before Sunspot observations. These records have been tracked back over 100,000 years and show that the Sun has been influencing the Earth's climate on both smaller and longer time scales. This is not rhetoric. I've linked to the articles on this and other threads. See my response to Launch Window yesterday.

The maunder minimum and medieval maximum of the last 100+ years correlate with solar activity. The 1940-1970 cooling correlates with solar activity. The ice ages of the last 100,000 years correlate with solar activity.

As I've noted on several occasions - its not established that CO2 is capable of forcing climate change. Why do CO2 increases lag behind Temp increases in the ice core record? If CO2 is a climate forcer, then why were CO2 increases overwhelmed by decreases in solar activity from 1940-1970?

These are questions that AAGW supporters have not answered.

And Disinfo Agent. I remember your IPCC link although I couldn't find it in a search. But I also recall it said nothing of substance on the Sun-climate connection.

What evidence do you have in support of anthropogenic warming? What evidence is there that demonstrates that the observed warming is not part of a natural cycle? What evidence is there that CO2 is the anthropogenic source of any anthropogenic warming?

pghnative
2005-Sep-26, 09:45 PM
dgruss23
Thanks for the response --- hopefully others on this thread will also cease with the rhetoric and debate the science instead.
The Shaviv article I've linked to is consistent with others in suggesting that variations in solar irradiance can account for about 0.16 deg C of the 0.54 deg C observed warming.
Out of curiosity, is that 0.54 deg C observed warming agreed upon by both camps? Or is corrected for the "heat island effect".

However, cosmic rays have been identified as another factor because they effect cloud cover. The correlation is such that the solar irradiance variations and the cosmic ray influence work together so that the net result is a stronger influence on climate.

Here's the proposed mechanism. Cosmic rays are modulated by the solar wind. When the Sun is more active (and thus putting out more energy) its also putting out a stronger solar wind which deflects more of the solar rays. Now the cosmic rays strike the Earth's atmosphere and the collisions produce secondary particles that penetrate deeper into the atmosphere. These collisions ultimately effect the amount of aerosols which effects cloud formation. What is important is that the cosmic ray intensity correlates with low lying clouds which have a net cooling effect.
For what it's worth, that strikes me as handwaving --- I'm not saying it is, (I haven't investigated it), but my point is that in the absence of data, the AGW's model is more believable to me (and probably the average Joe) than that model. Also, the unfortunate thing about this theory is there is no good way to test it. Or does anyone have data on % cloud cover for the past 80 years? (80 yrs is minimum to be compelling to me, since I'd want it to cover the '40's-70's cooling period)

Why do CO2 increases lag behind Temp increases in the ice core record? for what it's worth, I don't find that to be compelling --- that just means that there has never before been a strong CO2 source in Earth's history.
If CO2 is a climate forcer, then why were CO2 increases overwhelmed by decreases in solar activity from 1940-1970? That, on the other hand, is quite compelling. Also the fact (mentioned by you on other threads), that when CO2 responded to previous temp increases, there was no runaway greenhouse effect. Why do AAGW's think there will be now? (question posed to AAGW's)

Thanks again for the response --- I'm hoping the continued debate can be as civil. I'm very skeptical about AAGW's claims, but am not convinced either way, so I'm eager to see unbiased science presented from both camps.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-26, 09:57 PM
And Disinfo Agent. I remember your IPCC link although I couldn't find it in a search.I think the BA deleted the thread when he pruned the old 'BABBling' forum.


But I also recall it said nothing of substance on the Sun-climate connection.I guess that depends on what you mean by 'of substance'. Solar influence is definitely discussed in the IPCC's 2001 report. See chapter 12.2 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm), chapter 6.11 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/212.htm), and Table 6.13 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/254.htm#tab613).


show me where i said only. please don't put words into my mouth. i said, specifically, "smoking gun." the hockey stick is bandied about as the best evidence, and it is primarily based on a study whose source of temperature reading pre-recorded history is the bristlecone pine. this has been debunked.

i didn't say it was relevant to what you wrote. i was commenting on rebuttals to the M&M studies.In that case, what makes you say that the Hockey Stick is "at best questionable"?


again, this is correlation.In your opinion, perhaps, but not according to the IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm):


Several additional lines of evidence confirm that the recent and continuing increase of atmospheric CO2 content is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions most importantly fossil fuel burning. First, atmospheric O2 is declining at a rate comparable with fossil fuel emissions of CO2 (combustion consumes O2). Second, the characteristic isotopic signatures of fossil fuel (its lack of 14C, and depleted content of 13C) leave their mark in the atmosphere. Third, the increase in observed CO2 concentration has been faster in the northern hemisphere, where most fossil fuel burning occurs. In addition, I suggest reading How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87)

Glom
2005-Sep-26, 10:11 PM
For what it's worth, that strikes me as handwaving --- I'm not saying it is, (I haven't investigated it), but my point is that in the absence of data, the AGW's model is more believable to me (and probably the average Joe) than that model.

To simplify (a big mistake in this field but never mind), more heliomagnetic activity means more GCRs pentrating to the lower atmosphere to initiate cloud formation inducing cooling.


I don't find that to be compelling --- that just means that there has never before been a strong CO2 source in Earth's history.

Well saying Earth's history is a bit of an exaggeration given that carbon dioxide was many times today's levels in eons past (eg Mesozoic). I was going to check if this ice core record extended to times of elevated carbon dioxide but I can't verify it.

Taks
2005-Sep-26, 11:48 PM
In that case, what makes you say that the Hockey Stick is "at best questionable"?i clearly posted a link to the M&M (mcintyre and mckitrick) discussions. please read before asking me the same question again. not only did mann use questionable statistics, he relied heavily on one data source, the bristlecone pine, for plenty of his data.


In your opinion, perhaps, but not according to the IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm):first of all, that statement clearly says that increases in CO2 are caused by humans, not that GW is caused by CO2. the increase in CO2 is debatable, but certainly possible (perhaps probable?). second, the correlation/causation effect i'm referring to, which has not been proven, is regarding CO2 as a climate forcer. i.e. the IPCC found correlation between CO2 increases and human activity, but no causation between climate change and CO2/human activity.

as many have shown, however, even the CO2 evidence itself is in question since it is based nearly entirely on ice core samples, which have been shown to lose their CO2 over time (which implies the concentration was higher in the past than models account for).


In addition, I suggest reading How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87)realclimate has been thoroughly debunked by many discussions and papers over at M&M. michael mann is a primary contributor to realclimate, btw, and it is his paper that is under attack (therfore it is not surprising their take is pro-GW). in contrast, realclimate is pretty persistent in attacking M&M, however, but not their work.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-26, 11:56 PM
dgruss23Out of curiosity, is that 0.54 deg C observed warming agreed upon by both camps? Or is corrected for the "heat island effect".no. it also depends upon which data you use to arrive at a number.


Or does anyone have data on % cloud cover for the past 80 years? (80 yrs is minimum to be compelling to me, since I'd want it to cover the '40's-70's cooling period) for what it's worth, I don't find that to be compelling --- that just means that there has never before been a strong CO2 source in Earth's history.actually, the biggest problem models face is cloud cover. how do you predict when clouds form, how much cloud cover and just as important when is cloudcover more prevalent. there's also the resolution issue (apparently only 200 miles... i'll find the link again). these things are nearly impossible to model, and they are a huge impact on any climate estimation. hmmm... very much handwaving.


Why do AAGW's think there will be now?i'll avoid the socio-economic reasons for now, but i have plenty. right now, i'd say these are a lot of the same people that predicted doom from the ozone holes in the 80s and even some left overs from the impending ice age from the 70s. somebody cries "the sky is falling" and the media picks up on it till the scientific community settles on an answer. hysteria rules and sells news. there will be no retractions when the debate is settled.

taks

dgruss23
2005-Sep-27, 12:24 AM
dgruss23
Thanks for the response --- hopefully others on this thread will also cease with the rhetoric and debate the science instead.

Well hold on - I've been consistently citing research on this topic and explaining the solar climate connection. No rhetoric from me - I always back up what I'm saying.


Out of curiosity, is that 0.54 deg C observed warming agreed upon by both camps? Or is corrected for the "heat island effect".

I don't think there is any correction for urban heat island in that, but the exact amount of warming is probably subject to some debate anyway.


For what it's worth, that strikes me as handwaving --- I'm not saying it is, (I haven't investigated it), but my point is that in the absence of data,

Did you look at the articles on the link I provided? The cosmic rays, clouds, and climate article (article 4 on that website) explains the evidence. Like I said - no rhetoric from me. No handwaving either. I back up my points with something besides opinion.


the AGW's model is more believable to me (and probably the average Joe) than that model.

But that assessment comes without - by your own admission - having "investigated it". The results on this thread's poll suggest that when points such as those Glom and I have made are explained, the average joe is quite capable of seeing which theory is lacking in support. Archer noted that he dug into this after seeing the discussions here and - you can see where he stands.


Also, the unfortunate thing about this theory is there is no good way to test it.

The links I provided have the research results on this. Yes - the research shows that cosmic ray flux varies with the sunspot cycle and that cloudcover varies with the sunspot cycle.


Or does anyone have data on % cloud cover for the past 80 years? (80 yrs is minimum to be compelling to me, since I'd want it to cover the '40's-70's cooling period) for what it's worth, I don't find that to be compelling --- that just means that there has never before been a strong CO2 source in Earth's history.

Careful - the last part of that statement is handwaving if I follow your meaning.


That, on the other hand, is quite compelling. Also the fact (mentioned by you on other threads), that when CO2 responded to previous temp increases, there was no runaway greenhouse effect. Why do AAGW's think there will be now? (question posed to AAGW's)

The argument is basically what you've stated makes more sense to you. CO2 traps heat therefore more CO2 means a warmer planet. Fortunately, the climate record provides nothing to support the claim that CO2 is an important climate forcer. The 800 year lag is an example. CO2 levels respond to climate changes.


Thanks again for the response --- I'm hoping the continued debate can be as civil. I'm very skeptical about AAGW's claims, but am not convinced either way, so I'm eager to see unbiased science presented from both camps.

Thanks for asking genuine questions! :)

dgruss23
2005-Sep-27, 12:39 AM
I guess that depends on what you mean by 'of substance'. Solar influence is definitely discussed in the IPCC's 2001 report. See chapter 12.2 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm), chapter 6.11 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/212.htm), and Table 6.13 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/254.htm#tab613).



Now you're talking about something interesting. When you brought that up before you linked to a summary brief that said very little about the matter. What you're linking to here is from the more detailed full report I believe.

But here is a good example of how they get it wrong:


Kernthaler et al. (1999) have also studied the ISCCP dataset, using both geostationary and polar orbiter data and suggested that the correlation with cosmic ray flux is reduced if high latitude data are included. This would not be expected if cosmic rays were directly inducing increases in cloudiness, as cosmic ray flux is greatest at high latitudes. Kernthaler et al. (1999), Jrgensen and Hansen (2000), and Gierens and Ponater (1999), also noted that a mechanism whereby cosmic rays resulted in greater cloud cover would be most likely to affect high cloud as ionisation is greatest at these altitudes. Even if high cloud did respond to cosmic rays, it is not clear that this would cause global cooling as for thin high cloud the long-wave warming effects dominate the short-wave cooling effect.

They seem to be missing part of the process when they suggest that only high altitudes should be included in this. See this pdf (http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/SSR_Paper.pdf).

On page 2 they explain:


GCR's (cosmic rays) interact with the Earth's atmosphere through nuclear collisions producing secondary particles (protons, neutrons, and muons) which can penetrate deeper into the atmosphere; these undergo further collisions, which leads to a cascade of particles. The cascade of particles reaches a maximum at about 16 km.

and later:


Clearly,GCR flux over this period is correlated with a ~2% absolute change (~7% relative change) in low cloud cover, while there is no correlation with middle and high clouds. Since low clouds tend to be optically thick they are efficient reflectors of sunlight and have a negative impact on the Earth Radiation Budget.

pghnative
2005-Sep-27, 02:30 AM
Thanks for the response --- hopefully others on this thread will also cease with the rhetoric and debate the science instead.Well hold on - I've been consistently citing research on this topic and explaining the solar climate connection. No rhetoric from me - I always back up what I'm saying.
:(Mea culpa --- that was not what I meant to imply. (The word "also" applies only to the "debate the science" portion of the sentance)


the AGW's model is more believable to me (and probably the average Joe) than that model.
But that assessment comes without - by your own admission - having "investigated it". Agreed. I barely have time to surf these astronomy pages, so taking time to carefully research the climate issue is out of the question.


Or does anyone have data on % cloud cover for the past 80 years? (80 yrs is minimum to be compelling to me, since I'd want it to cover the '40's-70's cooling period) for what it's worth, I don't find that to be compelling --- that just means that there has never before been a strong CO2 source in Earth's history.Careful - the last part of that statement is handwaving if I follow your meaning. Hmm... perhaps, but I still think that that is another logical possibility.

Admittedly, as Glom pointed out, the phrase "never before in Earth's history" is an (unintended) exaggeration. "Never before in the portion of Earth's history that we have good CO2 data for" would be more accurate.

GOURDHEAD
2005-Sep-27, 03:08 AM
Within the last year or so NASA has measured from low Earth orbit the infra-red radiation specific to CO2 and compared the results to earlier measurements. Their results indicate that less CO2 specific infra-red energy is escaping Earth than was doing so earlier, so there is an effect, but it is not clear how this effect plugs into a very complex system of variables that can range over varying extremes. Since the CO2 non-specific portion of the infra-red spectrum should not be affected by the increase in atmospheric CO2 and since the CO2 specific portion is relatively small, it's amazing how CO2 has such an enormous effect (as on Venus). Do some of you know about references that address the entire infra-red portion of the spectrum and which chunks of the atmosphere block various wavelingths?

As the temperature of Earth's atmosphere rises the mean velocity of CO2 molecules will increase and the component of this velocity that is aligned with the paths of the photons will cause the broadening of the absorption spectral lines thus allowing CO2 to absorb more than its share of the energy. Is there a link that quantifies this effect?

Since different chunks of the Earth's surface are at different temperatures, treating pieces of this surface as black body radiators, one would expect the portion of the radiation that is specific to CO2, and each of the heat absorbers, to vary with temperature. Do the models account for this variability?

CalabashCorolla
2005-Sep-27, 03:54 AM
Have you seen the thread on the effects of precession on the seasons?
I can't remember where it is off-hand.

the way I understand it now
currently the Northern hemisphere experiences winter at perihelion
as a result, winter is shorter in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere.

this situation reverses as precession causes the seasons to occur earlier in the earth's orbit about the sun.

could it be possible that current climate is being doubly affected by an increase in solar output AND and a lengthened northern summer that may not have coincided in eons?

That is a very good point. It is also of note that southern hemisphere winters are actually more temperate than northern hemisphere winters, even though they occur at aphelion, since a greater proportion of the SH is water, which tends to temper the climate greatly because of its high heat capacity.

Milankovich cycles are also a huge factor; changes in the character of the Earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis over thousands of years produce climate changes, some of which we aren't even aware of (although ice ages are attributed to such cycles). Then there are the numerous global atmospheric oscillations, such as El Nino-La Nina and the North Atlantic oscillation, that can cause climate shifts on the order of a few years to a few decades. Other cycles, such as the theorized 20 to 30-year North Atlantic hurricane cycle, have been observed but thus far the exact causes are unknown.

So there is clearly a whole lot going on, climate-wise. There are undoubtedly cycles at work that we are not aware of, which makes climate modeling a sticky field at present. I generally tend to snub climate change theories that are based on only a few decades of weather data, since many of the known climate cycles operate over much greater periods of time. However, I find paleoclimatology to be an interesting and useful field, in terms of further understading what actually CAN lead to climate change.

If anything, anti-pollution legislation should focus primarily on threats to health and environmental degradation, since there are bales of evidence to support how bad pollution is in these areas. Climate change grabs a lot of headlines, but few people actually realize that there are mechanisms at work other than ourselves.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-27, 10:38 AM
In that case, what makes you say that the Hockey Stick is "at best questionable"?i clearly posted a link to the M&M (mcintyre and mckitrick) discussions. please read before asking me the same question again.You posted a link to a website, nothing more.


not only did mann use questionable statistics, he relied heavily on one data source, the bristlecone pine, for plenty of his data.M&M's objections have been refuted (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8).


realclimate has been thoroughly debunked by many discussions and papers over at M&M.Where, for example?


first of all, that statement clearly says that increases in CO2 are caused by humans, not that GW is caused by CO2.As I understand, CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are the main factor affecting climate change.


the increase in CO2 is debatable, but certainly possible (perhaps probable?).No, Taks, it's not "debatable, certainly possible, perhaps probable." It's a well-established, clear-cut fact.


second, the correlation/causation effect i'm referring to, which has not been proven, is regarding CO2 as a climate forcer. i.e. the IPCC found correlation between CO2 increases and human activity, but no causation between climate change and CO2/human activity.In the 2001 report, they say otherwise. I bolded the relevant section in my previous post. I don't see how I can make it any clearer for you.


michael mann is a primary contributor to realclimate, btw, and it is his paper that is under attack (therfore it is not surprising their take is pro-GW).And you accuse others of ad hominem?...


in contrast, realclimate is pretty persistent in attacking M&M, however, but not their work.Quite the opposite is true, as far as I see. They attack the work, but avoid making negative assumptions about the motivations of M&M (which, by the way, wouldn't be difficult).

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-27, 10:57 AM
Now you're talking about something interesting. When you brought that up before you linked to a summary brief that said very little about the matter. What you're linking to here is from the more detailed full report I believe.I wasn't able to find the pdf that I quoted the other time around. Anyway, it must have been a summary, as you say.

Glom
2005-Sep-27, 11:25 AM
As I understand, CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are the main factor affecting climate change.

You understand incorrectly. Water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect.


No, Taks, it's not "debatable, certainly possible, perhaps probable." It's a well-established, clear-cut fact.

You sound like Joni trying to intimidate us with strongly worded posts. It is highly likely that human activity of some form is responsible for the rise in carbon dioxide levels (of course that depends on settling the dispute over ice core depletion) but to state it with that level of certainty is fallacy.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-27, 01:39 PM
You sound like Joni trying to intimidate us with strongly worded posts.Ad hominem, you say?... :)

Fram
2005-Sep-27, 03:12 PM
You understand incorrectly. Water vapour accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect.



You sound like Joni trying to intimidate us with strongly worded posts. It is highly likely that human activity of some form is responsible for the rise in carbon dioxide levels (of course that depends on settling the dispute over ice core depletion) but to state it with that level of certainty is fallacy.

Well, this calls for a pot/kettle reply. It seems after some searching that only anti-AGW sites give the 95%. Other sites (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142#more-142) (pro-AGW) give a max of some 80%; with CO2 accounting for at least 9%. The Environmental Health Center (http://www.nsc.org/ehc/climate/ccucla6.htm) gives water vapor an even more limited role:

Water vapor is responsible for about two-thirds of the natural greenhouse effect.
And Climate Change Solutions (http://www.climatechangesolutions.com/science/greenhouse/gases.shtml?o=gases) gives:

Up to 2% of the atmosphere is water vapour,1 and it causes about 60% of the total greenhouse effect.2
Finally, a more scientific website, from people of the Max Planck Institute (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,55a304092d09/2__Radiation___greenhouse_gases/-_water_l9.html) gives again:

Water vapour is known to be the most important greenhouse gas accounting for about 60% 1 of the greenhouse effect.
Considering that the greenhouse effect is responsible for a 30 warmer Earth than it would be without it (and I'm grateful that we have it), CO2 is responsible for some 3 degrees. If the amount of CO2 changes by 50%, we can expect a raise in the temperature of 1.5. So perhaps these alarm calls about the CO2 rise aren't so farfetched after all?

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-27, 04:01 PM
The results on this thread's poll suggest that when points such as those Glom and I have made are explained, the average joe is quite capable of seeing which theory is lacking in support.The current results of the poll are:


'caused by human activity', 16.39%;
'Natural cycles': 42.62%;
'A combination of both': 36.07%;
'Bring it on- I live in Nova Scotia' 4.92%.I can't resist pointing out that one way to report this is to say that 'over half of the respondents (16.39% + 36.07% = 52.46%) believe that global warming is at least in part anthropogenic, with 10 percentage points of lead over the opposite proposition'. Politicians might kill for such good ratings.

Glom
2005-Sep-27, 04:11 PM
Well, this calls for a pot/kettle reply. It seems after some searching that only anti-AGW sites give the 95%. Other sites (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142#more-142) (pro-AGW) give a max of some 80%; with CO2 accounting for at least 9%.

You've misread the blog. They say water vapour is 80% of the GHG by mass (which means that it is an even higher proportion of the molarity given that water is a light molecule) but they also say that the potential as a GHG is different. The matter of dispute is that they say that water vapour is less effective than carbon dioxide, which is the first time I've heard of it.


Considering that the greenhouse effect is responsible for a 30 warmer Earth than it would be without it (and I'm grateful that we have it), CO2 is responsible for some 3 degrees. If the amount of CO2 changes by 50%, we can expect a raise in the temperature of 1.5. So perhaps these alarm calls about the CO2 rise aren't so farfetched after all?

1) The greenhouse effect does not vary linearly with concentration (I think it was logarithmically but I can't be sure and for all I know the exact relationship might prove your point even more if it was, say, a quadratic).
2) The state of the biosphere is not just determined by radiative forcing.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-27, 04:44 PM
The current results of the poll are:

I can't resist pointing out that one way to report this is to say that 'over half of the respondents (16.39% + 36.07% = 52.46%) believe that global warming is at least in part anthropogenic, with 10 percentage points of lead over the opposite proposition'. Politicians might kill for such good ratings.

I hardly think the poll shows popular support of the position the people Glom and I are debating - who are arguing against a natural climate influence on the current warming. The percentage of people that think the natural cycles are important factors is 79% - an overwhelming majority. For the people that think both natural and anthropogenic factors contribute - it is doubtful that all of them think that the anthropogenic contribution is a cause for concern. If we assume its half and half on that, then we'd have 61.3% of the respondents think that anthropogenic contributions to climate are insignificant.

Edited to add - actually the 4.84% that think it should be brought on because they live in Nova Scotia belong on the side that is not concerned about anthropogenic contributions. So that makes it ~66% minimum that are not concerned about the Human contribution to climate factors.

You can spin it how you wish but the fact that only 16.4% of the responses are in favor of the AAGW scenario on this message board is a statement about just how compelling the evidence for AAGW actually is when the alternative viewpoint is given a forum for clear explanation.

Archer17
2005-Sep-27, 04:44 PM
The results on this thread's poll suggest that when points such as those Glom and I have made are explained, the average joe is quite capable of seeing which theory is lacking in support.The current results of the poll are:

'caused by human activity', 16.39%;
'Natural cycles': 42.62%;
'A combination of both': 36.07%;
'Bring it on- I live in Nova Scotia' 4.92%.I can't resist pointing out that one way to report this is to say that 'over half of the respondents (16.39% + 36.07% = 52.46%) believe that global warming is at least in part anthropogenic, with 10 percentage points of lead over the opposite proposition'. Politicians might kill for such good ratings.I could just as easily point out that the largest group reflects my vote without having to try to shoehorn the 'combination of both' into it. What dgruss23 pointed out is that many people are skeptical regarding the rush to judgement by the GWT alarmists and the poll reflects that.

I'm willing to listen to those that voted "yes" but haven't seen anything new and am still waiting for someone to actually refute the points dgruss23 has made regarding this subject.

Glom
2005-Sep-27, 05:08 PM
Of course, I should note that it only really shows that we're doing a good job of arguing our case rather than reflecting how correct we are because of course what is correct in science is not decided by majority vote. So this is a bit of irrelevance.

Regarding MBH vs M&M, as you would expect M&M take issue with the MBH response (le shock!). Here (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6) is where they first acknowledge the response Disinfo Agent linked. I know it's not much.

MBH refer to a study by Rutherford that confims their result. M&M take issue with that as well (le shock!) here (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=53). But if we're in that mood to use outside help to affirm the position, let's acknowledge that M&M weren't the first to challenge the Hockey Stick. Soon and Baulinius were. The Hockey Stick was also in contradiction with established climate history (eg the MWP) and as such should have been subjected to a proper peer review before being taken as a poster child for the global warming lobby. There are still issues with MBH withholding proper information needed for review of the paper.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-27, 05:09 PM
You can spin it how you wish but the fact that only 16.4% of the responses are in favor of the AAGW scenario on this message board is a statement about just how compelling the evidence for AAGW actually is when the alternative viewpoint is given a forum for clear explanation.Sigh... Another ad hominem? From Archer?! I'm getting out this thread.

Glom
2005-Sep-27, 05:13 PM
Sigh... Another ad hominem? From Archer?! I'm getting out this thread.

Okay, what do you think an ad hominem actually is?

Archer17
2005-Sep-27, 05:49 PM
You can spin it how you wish but the fact that only 16.4% of the responses are in favor of the AAGW scenario on this message board is a statement about just how compelling the evidence for AAGW actually is when the alternative viewpoint is given a forum for clear explanation.Sigh... Another ad hominem? From Archer?! I'm getting out this thread.Ad hominem? This a serous post and run accusation Disinfo Agent and one that's unfounded. Why quote dgruss23 here after making such a claim against me?


If this is how you respond to people with a differing POV then I think you are doing the right thing by leaving this thread.

Fram
2005-Sep-27, 07:57 PM
You've misread the blog. They say water vapour is 80% of the GHG by mass (which means that it is an even higher proportion of the molarity given that water is a light molecule) but they also say that the potential as a GHG is different. The matter of dispute is that they say that water vapour is less effective than carbon dioxide, which is the first time I've heard of it.


Umm, I've given four references, not just a blog. Why do you ignore the others? And all references I've seen, both pro and anti AGW, say that water vapour has a higher percentage of volume than of effectiveness (compared to CO2, and certainly compared to even more powerful greenhouse gases like methane). But please feel free to give me a reference to the contrary.

Argos
2005-Sep-27, 08:10 PM
You cant say that everybody taking part in this poll has a firm grasp of the complexities of the GW debate. Its possible that a significant fraction of the voters are just echoing misconceptions. I believe that psychology plays an important role in polls like this one. When you are baseless to make choices its very easy to lose yourself into the slipstream of the GW denial, especially if you are the one to be required a lifestyle change. So, I think that the results of this poll must be taken with reserve.

Fram
2005-Sep-27, 08:21 PM
You cant say that everybody taking part in this poll has a firm grasp of the complexities of the GW debate. Its possible that a significant fraction of the voters are just echoing misconceptions. I believe that psychology plays an important role in polls like this one. When you are baseless to make choices its very easy to lose yourself into the slipstream of the GW denial, especially if you are the one to be required a lifestyle change. So, I think that the results of this poll must be taken with reserve.

True, but in both directions, not only those blindly scared by the GW scenario, but also those that blindly trust it. The poll is good as it shows what a lot of people on this board think (and I would interpret it as pretty much undecided), but not why they do so.

Argos
2005-Sep-27, 08:28 PM
But some of the members seem to imply that that majority represents a nihil obstat for the natural GW proponents.

Argos
2005-Sep-27, 08:39 PM
Also, saying that "the average Joe now understands, given the compelling evidence, that the Global Warming is a myth" is the falling-in-love-with-your-beliefs fallacy.

:)

Archer17
2005-Sep-27, 09:07 PM
Outside of reflecting lack of unanimity on this issue I don't think one can make assertions as to why others voted a particular way - I know you have me wrong Argos. If I thought there was "compelling" evidence for the AAGW I would have voted "yes." We know there has been climate changes in the past and in my case it's simply a matter of believing natural cycles have not been refuted as the causative factor. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not close-minded about this, nor do I fear potential "life-style" changes.

Wolverine
2005-Sep-27, 09:16 PM
There have been some excellent GW discussions here in the past; it's something I'd definitely like to see continue as they've been tremendously informative. The forum rules provide an excellent environment for covering this topic without unnecessary baggage. As such, I'd like to request participants maintain their cool (no pun intended).

Glom
2005-Sep-27, 10:35 PM
Umm, I've given four references, not just a blog. Why do you ignore the others? And all references I've seen, both pro and anti AGW, say that water vapour has a higher percentage of volume than of effectiveness (compared to CO2, and certainly compared to even more powerful greenhouse gases like methane). But please feel free to give me a reference to the contrary.

Well one of them gave no number. The other two give 60% but the Max Planck Institute link qualifies it with a source suggesting 80%. There is uncertainty. I'll go with the 60-80% figure then.

Taks
2005-Sep-27, 11:23 PM
You posted a link to a website, nothing more.which has a dozen discussions about the M&M paper and specific links with MBH98 rebuttals. if you cannot follow a link it is not my problem.


M&M's objections have been refuted (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8).i will post more on this, but realclimate's "rebuttal" has been shown to be in error.


Where, for example?should you actually choose to follow up you'd know. in short, just because the links contain information you don't like does not invalidate them. real science is about reading all evidence, not just the cherry picked bits you favor.


As I understand, CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are the main factor affecting climate change.oh boy, you really got that wrong. water vapor is 95% of the impact. do a little research, even AAGW scientists don't dispute this.


No, Taks, it's not "debatable, certainly possible, perhaps probable." It's a well-established, clear-cut fact.no, it's not. it's not fact until proved and given that the debate is still raging, my statement is 100% correct. as glom noted, strong words don't improve your position any.


In the 2001 report, they say otherwise. I bolded the relevant section in my previous post. I don't see how I can make it any clearer for you.in that same report they say quite clearly the word "likely." in other words, we think so, but it is not proved. i don't know how much more clearer i can make it for you.


And you accuse others of ad hominem?... how is that an ad-hom? michael mann is pro-GW, therefore his opinions are pro-GW. no insult nor did i refute any opinion because of it. realclimate.org was founded particularly to combat anti-GW claims. again, no ad-hom.


Quite the opposite is true, as far as I see. They attack the work, but avoid making negative assumptions about the motivations of M&M (which, by the way, wouldn't be difficult).excuse me? even in your links they start off by noting that M&M aren't scientists, an attempt to show that their understanding of the problem is flawed, i.e. an attack on M&M. the fact that M&M are experts with statistical methods is lost on realclimate. further, mann has called M&M "charlatans" in his interviews before the senate, and other contributors to the site are not particularly nice.

(edit: your last little bit on this is an ad-hominem. you directly state that it wouldn't be difficult to make negative assumptions about M&M's motives yet sit in here and whine about being attacked yourself? you have a lot of gall for sure).

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-27, 11:31 PM
(pro-AGW) give a max of some 80%; with CO2 accounting for at least 9%.so even by these numbers water vapor is 9 times greater than CO2. so, how is this pot/kettle when disinfo clearly stated CO2 was the majority? also, as glom has show, this is a weight number... which further supports the 95% number.

kinda like when people that gripe about 3.2% beer (by weight), which is actually about (on average) 4.1% by volume. most 5% (by volume) are actually less than 4.5% by volume (bud is one of the highest at 4.6%).

taks

dgruss23
2005-Sep-28, 03:18 AM
Also, saying that "the average Joe now understands, given the compelling evidence, that the Global Warming is a myth" is the falling-in-love-with-your-beliefs fallacy.

:)


If the points against AAGW made on this and other threads were simply a matter of "belief". We're citing published research AND explaining it - a lot more than we're getting in response.

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 07:45 AM
Well one of them gave no number. The other two give 60% but the Max Planck Institute link qualifies it with a source suggesting 80%. There is uncertainty. I'll go with the 60-80% figure then.

Fine by me!

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 07:52 AM
so even by these numbers water vapor is 9 times greater than CO2. so, how is this pot/kettle when disinfo clearly stated CO2 was the majority? also, as glom has show, this is a weight number... which further supports the 95% number.

kinda like when people that gripe about 3.2% beer (by weight), which is actually about (on average) 4.1% by volume. most 5% (by volume) are actually less than 4.5% by volume (bud is one of the highest at 4.6%).

taks

Taks, really... They are not weight numbers, mass numbers or volume numbers. The numbers I gave are all related to the percentage of the greenhouse effect that is caused by water vapour. This is clear from all links I gave and the short quotes I included. So disinfo gave wrong info, and Glom corrected him with info that was wrong as well, hence pot/kettle. I'm not interested in a discussion which of the two was blacker...

You said against disinfo agent

oh boy, you really got that wrong. water vapor is 95% of the impact. do a little research, even AAGW scientists don't dispute this.
If you had either read this thread or done some research yourself, you wouldn't make such wrong statements.

Jens
2005-Sep-28, 08:37 AM
You can spin it how you wish but the fact that only 16.4% of the responses are in favor of the AAGW scenario on this message board is a statement about just how compelling the evidence for AAGW actually is when the alternative viewpoint is given a forum for clear explanation.

Well, I'm one of the people who voted for "both." And I did so because I don't feel the evidence is good enough to rule out either. And hence, I'm in favor of the principle of caution. So that doesn't exactly make me an opponent of the AAGW scenario, does it. Of course, I can't speak for any of the other people who responded "both."

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 10:11 AM
Well, I'm one of the people who voted for "both." And I did so because I don't feel the evidence is good enough to rule out either. And hence, I'm in favor of the principle of caution. So that doesn't exactly make me an opponent of the AAGW scenario, does it. Of course, I can't speak for any of the other people who responded "both."

Same here.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-28, 10:17 AM
Well, I'm one of the people who voted for "both." And I did so because I don't feel the evidence is good enough to rule out either. And hence, I'm in favor of the principle of caution. So that doesn't exactly make me an opponent of the AAGW scenario, does it. Of course, I can't speak for any of the other people who responded "both."

What are your thoughts on the 800 year lag in which CO2 increases follow Temperature increases? What about the fact that there was a 1940-1970 cooling period that corresponded with a decreases in solar activity even as CO2 was increasing?

These are not rhetorical or "gotcha" questions. Everybody seems more interested in talking about the poll than talking about the evidence. So I'm trying to get the discussion back on track in the context of evidence.

And a comment about my initial comment about the poll results. Pghnative had indicated that the cosmic ray influence I was discussing would probably make less sense to the average Joe than the CO2 forcing. I was merely pointing out that the poll results show that a significant number of people take the possibility of natural influences seriously. Given the large numbers of discussions we've had on this topic, the in depth explanation of the solar-climate connection that has been provided, and the acknowledgement of some people that the arguments made here have changed their opinions, I don't think it is off the mark to suggest that the evidence discussed in these threads has resulted in a different % of support for AAGW vs. Sun-climate than if no such discussions had taken place. That was my point - and it was in context of what I was responding to. And now its gotten blown out of proportion.

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 11:08 AM
Ah, the 800 year lag.
Let me quote from the Nicolas Caillon paper (a 4 page pdf (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf)that appeared in Science in 2003) which gives us this number. I hope I've transcribed it correctly, as I can't copy-paste from a pdf.

This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. [snip] This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation. [snip]


The conclusion of the paper clearly states that the situation when the 800 year lag occurred "differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase", and sees no problem with the AGW model. So that looks to me like one argument against AGW less.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-28, 11:27 AM
Ad hominem? This a serous post and run accusation Disinfo Agent and one that's unfounded. Why quote dgruss23 here after making such a claim against me?Oops, sorry, Archer! I was so disappointed by the silly accusation that I had 'spun' the poll results that I misread who had made it. Again, my apologies.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-28, 11:48 AM
As for this:


I could just as easily point out that the largest group reflects my vote without having to try to shoehorn the 'combination of both' into it. What dgruss23 pointed out is that many people are skeptical regarding the rush to judgement by the GWT alarmists and the poll reflects that....see what Jens and Fram wrote above. The poll tells us very little about what people think, and nothing about what they feel should be done. Replying that climate change is caused by "both" can mean:

a) That most of it is caused by man;
b) That only a tiny, harmless fraction is caused by man;
c) That it's 50/50;
d) Something else.

Furthermore, global warming skeptics sometimes try to argue that no climate change at all is anthropogenic. Clearly, most people who replied to the poll would disagree with that.

In any case, as I said before, the poll is not very informative, because it mixes different issues:

A) 'Global warming, real or not'?
B) What are its causes?

Are global mean temperatures rising? Yes. That's not even an issue. Whether the increase is cause for concern, and what are the causes behind the increase, are yet two different questions.

Normally, I wouldn't even give an Internet poll in a message board a second look. But since dgruss tried to use it as ammunition for his side, I felt I should object.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-28, 12:27 PM
Oops, sorry, Archer! I was so disappointed by the silly accusation that I had 'spun' the poll results that I misread who had made it. Again, my apologies.

You did Spin the results Disinfo Agent. Spin is when a person tries to make data/results/polls say something that they don't. The poll shows that by a >2-1 margin people have responded that they think the observed climate changes are more likely to be due to natural cycles than anthropogenic causes. Yet you blended in the "undecided (both category)" and then argued that you have more support for your position and a rating that politicians would kill for. That is "spin" and there was no insult intended by describing it as such - just a description of what you did. My response was to show that if I wanted I could have spun the results even more strongly in the other direction. All I said to Pghnative was that the poll shows that some average joes that have read the arguments on this board have found that the sun climate arguments make more sense than the AAGW claims. Please go back and actually try to look at that point in proper context.

As I say - I back up my statements and you've suggested that was an ad-hominem. It wasn't. But since you were offended I appologize for my use of the word "spin". Even though it was the right description, I suppose it wasn't necessary.

Now can we get back to the science? I have to read Fram's article. Won't have a chance until this afternoon so I probably won't be able to respond until tonight - or possibly tomorrow. But I'll get back to you on that Fram.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-28, 12:31 PM
Normally, I wouldn't even give an Internet poll in a message board a second look. But since dgruss tried to use it as ammunition for his side, I felt I should object.

That is not all what I tried to do. You totally missed the point. Pghnative was suggesting that average joes will find the AAGW mechanism more plausible. I was simply pointing out that based upon the fact that by a >2-1 margin people on this board that have been following these discussions have found the arguments compelling enough to respond that they think it is natural cycles.

That is not the same thing as saying that the poll supports the scientific validity of the Sun-climate evidence. Not the same thing at all. I never said that my points are right because people voted for the natural cycles.

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 12:40 PM
The poll shows that by a >2-1 margin people have responded that they think the observed climate changes are more likely to be due to natural cycles than anthropogenic causes.

No problem on the delay in responding, dgruss. I often need way longer to get to some of your points, so...

Anyway, I don't want to interfere in your dispute with disinfo, but the poll does not show what you say here. The 'more likely' is purely your interpretation of the statistics, and leaves out the large group who thinks it is likely caused by both. So a clear minority thinks that the observed climate changes are more likely to be due to natural cycles than anthropogenic causes.
This is a typical example of why it is said that you (not you personally) can prove anything with statistics.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-28, 02:11 PM
You did Spin the results Disinfo Agent. Spin is when a person tries to make data/results/polls say something that they don't. The poll shows that by a >2-1 margin people have responded that they think the observed climate changes are more likely to be due to natural cycles than anthropogenic causes. Yet you blended in the "undecided (both category)" and then argued that you have more support for your position and a rating that politicians would kill for. That is "spin" and there was no insult intended by describing it as such - just a description of what you did.Dgruss, there is no "undecided" category in the poll. The category I think you're referring to is labeled "A combination of both". This is not just nitpicking, and here's why:

If I asked a mainstream (sorry; can't think of a softer term) climate scientist what are the causes of the current temperature increase, would he reply it's definitely exclusively due to human activity? I don't think so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change)

Even "orthodox" climate scientists acknowledge that natural phenomena probably have a role in global warming. So, a person who chooses the third option in the poll, "A combination of both", is literally within the mainstream. People who choose the first option, "Yes: it is caused by human activity", IMHO, may well have replied to the spirit of the poll, rather than its letter. This is why replies to the third option can't be simply brushed aside as "neutral".

Now, perhaps you'll tell me that many (most?) global warming skeptics also acknowledge that climate change is not exclusively attributable to natural causes, although they feel that the human contribution has been grossly exaggerated. And so we can't just dump all the votes for option 3 into the "mainstream" camp. That's also true.

Notice, however, that I never said your interpretation of the poll was wrong, and mine was right. I simply pointed out that there were other viable interpretations.

On the word spin. Sometimes, it can be a fine line between 'spin' and 'interpretation'. At the same time, though, a statistic without some amount of interpretation is meaningless. But the word 'spin' implies dishonest manipulation of data, and I do not agree that my interpretation was dishonest. It was one possible interpretation of the data, although not the only one. The same could be said about your interpretation -- which was my point.


All I said to Pghnative was that the poll shows that some average joes that have read the arguments on this board have found that the sun climate arguments make more sense than the AAGW claims.How do you know that the opinions of the people who replied to the poll were formed from the arguments they read on this board? More precisely, how do you know which percentage of the people who replied to the poll formed their opinion based on the arguments in this board? Was it 80%? 30%? Just Archer?
For that matter, how do you know which percentage of the respondents have looked into any scientific arguments at all?


Now can we get back to the science?Statistics is a science, too. And an important one, if you want to affect policies. :)


That is not the same thing as saying that the poll supports the scientific validity of the Sun-climate evidence. Not the same thing at all. I never said that my points are right because people voted for the natural cycles.I did not mean to imply you had, but point taken.

Glom
2005-Sep-28, 02:21 PM
The conclusion of the paper clearly states that the situation when the 800 year lag occurred "differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase", and sees no problem with the AGW model. So that looks to me like one argument against AGW less.

That's basically along the lines of the rationalisation that MBH gave, which made RealClimate a laughing stock for a while. As an attempt to dismiss the issue of the carbon lag, it is poor.

It agrees carbon dioxide does not cause the initial temperature rise. It obviously doesn't cause the end of the temperature rise. But it might cause the middle bit. Occam's Razor anyone? If it amplifies the warming, why does the warming stop? Again, it implies that carbon dioxide's ability to force the climate is minimal compared to other factors.

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 02:43 PM
That's basically along the lines of the rationalisation that MBH gave, which made RealClimate a laughing stock for a while. As an attempt to dismiss the issue of the carbon lag, it is poor.

It agrees carbon dioxide does not cause the initial temperature rise. It obviously doesn't cause the end of the temperature rise. But it might cause the middle bit. Occam's Razor anyone? If it amplifies the warming, why does the warming stop? Again, it implies that carbon dioxide's ability to force the climate is minimal compared to other factors.

I don't care if RealClimate was the laughing stock (for whom, by the way?), I gave you a peer-reviewed recent article from Science magazine. Referencing back to RealClimate comes across as an attempt to make ridicule of it. I notice you don't give any reason why it is a poor attempt, except some dubious logic.

I'll try some handwaving of my own to reply to yours. Something causes the initial temperature rise. This causes more CO2 to be released, and this in turn causes a further rise in temperature. Why does the warming stop? Well, perhaps because a new equilibrium is reached? What reason is there that this natural rise in CO2 production won't stop (i.e. reach a steady level) at a certain temperature? You just assume that because when the temperature starts to rise, the CO2 production starts to rise, that this mechanism has to continue ad infinitum. This is a baseless assumption. The implication you draw from it ("carbon dioxide's ability to force the climate is minimal compared to other factors") is thus baseless as a criticism of this paper. I could give Venus as a counterexample... It's ability is of course less than that of some other greenhouse gases, but no serious scientist disputes that.
Talking of Venus; the current theory (http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm) doesn't give CO2 as the initial starter of the runaway greenhouse effect either, but water vapour. CO2 kicked in a bit later, and contrary to what happened here, the new climate equilibrium was reached a bit too late. So a good question is why the new equilibrium was reached here at a comfortable temperature (for us) and not later. Probably, at some temperature, the production of CO2 leveled out, and thus the temperature didn't rise anymore.

One of the differences with AGW is of course that this time, part of the CO2 production is independent of the temperature.

Glom
2005-Sep-28, 03:01 PM
Why does the warming stop? Well, perhaps because a new equilibrium is reached?

Speculation and rationalisation necessary because you are assuming a prominent role for carbon dioxide.


What reason is there that this natural rise in CO2 production won't stop (i.e. reach a steady level) at a certain temperature?

The temperature rise stops before the rise in carbon dioxide. What causes the rise in temperature to stop?

Archer17
2005-Sep-28, 03:07 PM
Oops, sorry, Archer! I was so disappointed by the silly accusation that I had 'spun' the poll results that I misread who had made it. Again, my apologies.Apology accepted Disinfo Agent. I'm surprised at the passion this subject invokes here. I can understand the contention this subject fosters when people politicize it but was unaware this topic is so polarizing outside of that. The way the poll was composed might have had something to do with that. Anyway, if you remove the AAGW equation, I think most of us are on the same page regarding pollutants in general. While I am skeptical of the conclusions of AAGW proponents, which I think is premature, I am a very strong advocate of the reduction of all pollutants (I voiced opposition to Kyoto earlier here and on other threads, but that's because I don't think it goes far enough). All one has to do is look at the LA skyline or see the annual pictures of the haze that covers much of Southeast Asia to realize we need to address the air pollution issue (among others), whether it factors into GW or not.

I think I'm done here. I'll continue to look into this AAGW issue but really have nothing else to add.

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 03:11 PM
Why does the warming stop? Well, perhaps because a new equilibrium is reached?
Speculation and rationalisation necessary because you are assuming a prominent role for carbon dioxide.
Umm, this is not speculation and rationalisation. If you would have called it a truism, you may have been correct, but there is no speculation involved in this sentence. As for the rest of the paragraph: I at least give a scenario, which you give no arguments against except attacking the motif. Weak...




What reason is there that this natural rise in CO2 production won't stop (i.e. reach a steady level) at a certain temperature?
The temperature rise stops before the rise in carbon dioxide. What causes the rise in temperature to stop?
Any source for this? I know it starts before, but does it stop earlier as well?

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-28, 03:42 PM
excuse me? even in your links they start off by noting that M&M aren't scientists [...]Where do they ever say that M&M aren't scientists?! They clearly state that MacKitrick is an economist!

dgruss23
2005-Sep-28, 03:46 PM
Dgruss, there is no "undecided" category in the poll. The category I think you're referring to is labeled "A combination of both". This is not just nitpicking, and here's why:

Yep that's the category I was referring to undecided was the wrong term. I was rushing due to time constraints.


If I asked a mainstream (sorry; can't think of a softer term) climate scientist what are the causes of the current temperature increase, would he reply it's definitely exclusively due to human activity? I don't think so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change)

Even "orthodox" climate scientists acknowledge that natural phenomena probably have a role in global warming. So, a person who chooses the third option in the poll, "A combination of both", is literally within the mainstream. People who choose the first option, "Yes: it is caused by human activity", IMHO, may well have replied to the spirit of the poll, rather than its letter. This is why replies to the third option can't be simply brushed aside as "neutral".

Now, perhaps you'll tell me that many (most?) global warming skeptics also acknowledge that climate change is not exclusively attributable to natural causes, although they feel that the human contribution has been grossly exaggerated. And so we can't just dump all the votes for option 3 into the "mainstream" camp. That's also true. [/QUOTE]

This is all fine. No disagreements - but its also exactly why I got annoyed with your initial response. None of it has anything to do with my point. My point was a simple response to what Pghnative said about average joes. You read way too much into it.


Notice, however, that I never said your interpretation of the poll was wrong, and mine was right. I simply pointed out that there were other viable interpretations.

On the word spin. Sometimes, it can be a fine line between 'spin' and 'interpretation'. At the same time, though, a statistic without some amount of interpretation is meaningless. But the word 'spin' implies dishonest manipulation of data, and I do not agree that my interpretation was dishonest. It was one possible interpretation of the data, although not the only one. The same could be said about your interpretation -- which was my point.

No your interpretation was not dishonest. I appologized for using a term that offended you. I wasn't distinguishing spin that is dishonest from spin that is wrong. I considered yours to be spin that was wrong. In my observations people often spin the evidence not to be dishonest - but in making wrong connections. If you prefer incorrect interpretation that's fine with me.


How do you know that the opinions of the people who replied to the poll were formed from the arguments they read on this board? More precisely, how do you know which percentage of the people who replied to the poll formed their opinion based on the arguments in this board? Was it 80%? 30%? Just Archer?

I don't know the exact percentage - but I know that when I first started talking about this Sun-climate connection on this board, there was very little agreement with my position. The more we've discussed the topic the more the opinion on the board seems to have switched. Where is that switch coming from? If you read the animosity thread you'll see that some people piped in with comments essentially saying: "Wait I thought AAGW had overwhelming evidence. Why aren't people responding to the points being raised against AAGW?"

This is just getting absurd. With all the effort I've devoted to discussing referenced science on this board, you're quibbling about my statements about a poll - when you're the one that took those statements and exaggerated my intent.

You're right - I can't quantify how many of the poll respondents responded because of these specific threads - but are you actually going to suggest that if we had this poll 2 years ago - that the AAGW scenario would come out 2-1 behind the natural causes scenario? Glom, myself, bobjohnson, jrkeller and others have been making this case for several years. I don't think its a coincidence that the popular response on this forum is vastly different than what you'd get from the average news media survey on this topic - and I'd wager on most other forums. And I'm not going to quantify that. Who cares? My point was simple - we've changed some minds on this board - and that was the appropriate response to Pghnative's comment about the average joe's not thinking what I was proposing would make sense. Some of those people read the arguments on this board and concluded from the debate that the natural causes scenario has merit. That's all I meant. If the Sun-climate side is well explained - some people will see the merits of the argument.

I just think its ridiculous that after all the time I've taken to discuss science, that the thing that generates all the response from the other side is a simple comment about the poll. You didn't respond to my comments on the IPCC report section about cosmic rays/clouds.


Statistics is a science, too. And an important one, if you want to affect policies. :)

True - but science statistics not poll statistics. I've based my arguments on referenced science.


I did not mean to imply you had, but point taken.

Thank you.

Taks
2005-Sep-28, 04:01 PM
They clearly state that MacKitrick is an economist!an economist is not generally regarded as a scientist. but that's my point. why do they have to tell you what M&M are? all that is required is an evalution of their work. what their careers are is irrelevant.

this is the very definition of ad-hominem that you somehow don't get.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-28, 04:04 PM
Umm, this is not speculation and rationalisation. If you would have called it a truism, you may have been correct, but there is no speculation involved in this sentence. As for the rest of the paragraph: I at least give a scenario, which you give no arguments against except attacking the motif. Weak...there's nothing weak about what glom said at all. you put out a theory without any evidence to support it. that is, by definition, speculation. and it is clearly based on an unproven tenet that CO2 has the role of climate forcer.

even your accusations are incorrect.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-28, 04:09 PM
The numbers I gave are all related to the percentage of the greenhouse effect that is caused by water vapour.so water vapor, still, is 9 times more influential than CO2? again, disinfo's comment was that CO2 was, as a fact, the primary influence, yet even by your numbers it is only 1/10th. in other words, your pot/kettle statement is completely without merit. again, which i've said before.


If you had either read this thread or done some research yourself, you wouldn't make such wrong statements.i have read and done research. your 80% number is mentioned in a few places, but 95% is mentioned much more often. don't accuse me of being wrong without much more proof than your own word.

if you are going to accuse people of not doing their research, start with yourself. just because you go out and find one news article that backs you up does not mean you've done your homework.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-28, 04:17 PM
Are global mean temperatures rising? Yes. That's not even an issue. Whether the increase is cause for concern, and what are the causes behind the increase, are yet two different questions.actually, that is an issue. the so-called "rise in temperatures" have still not been shown to be accurate. the primary problem is defining the global mean temperature. what is it? exactly how can we accurately measure it? the variance is quite a bit larger than the measured rise, which means the value is within the expected range. you're the one that mentioned using statistics...

taks

Glom
2005-Sep-28, 04:20 PM
Any source for this? I know it starts before, but does it stop earlier as well?

I'm trying to find the bloody graph that shows it. It's been a while since I've seen it.

Argos
2005-Sep-28, 04:57 PM
Im not disputing the fact that water vapor is the main Green House Gas. However, CO2 receives the focus because it is emitted in large amounts relative to the pre-existing stock in the atmosphere. Therefore, even though CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas, it accounts for most of the anthropogenic atmospheric warming.

Even marginally as it is, the radiation absorbed by CO2 warms the atmosphere and increases its humidity. Increased water vapor can amplify the effect of CO2 to produce noticeable temperature increases, even though CO2 makes up less than 0.03% of the atmosphere.

Adding: heres where Kyoto comes in. Its primary goal is to reduce that marginal contribution of CO2 to the GW. Its a very important first step.

Glom
2005-Sep-28, 05:01 PM
Im not disputing the fact that water vapor is the main Green House Gas. However, CO2 receives the focus because it is emitted in large amounts relative to the pre-existing stock in the atmosphere. Therefore, even though CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas, it accounts for most of the anthropogenic atmospheric warming.

That is true technically although of course how much of the atmospheric warming is anthropogenic is a subject of much debate.


Even marginally as it is, the radiation absorbed by CO2 warms the atmosphere and increases its humidity. Increased water vapor can amplify the effect of CO2 to produce noticeable temperature increases, even though CO2 makes up less than 0.03% of the atmosphere.

But more water vapour means more cloud formation,which increase planetary albedo, hence cooling. It's a complicated thing.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-28, 05:52 PM
an economist is not generally regarded as a scientist.'Generally', by whom?


but that's my point. why do they have to tell you what M&M are? all that is required is an evalution of their work. what their careers are is irrelevant.

this is the very definition of ad-hominem that you somehow don't get.Pointing to a person's credentials is not an ad hominem. It's relevant information.

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 06:31 PM
there's nothing weak about what glom said at all. you put out a theory without any evidence to support it. that is, by definition, speculation. and it is clearly based on an unproven tenet that CO2 has the role of climate forcer.

even your accusations are incorrect.

taks

Yeah yeah, rising water levels are a myth and CO2 as a climate forcer is an unproven tenet. I'll continue having a serious discussion with Glom and Dgruss, if you don't mind.

I didn't put out a theory, I did some handwaving of my own. But my reply to Glom was related to the part he quoted before he made his comment. What about that sentence, that quote, is either a theory or speculation? Nothing? Thank you.

Fram
2005-Sep-28, 06:46 PM
so water vapor, still, is 9 times more influential than CO2? again, disinfo's comment was that CO2 was, as a fact, the primary influence, yet even by your numbers it is only 1/10th. in other words, your pot/kettle statement is completely without merit. again, which i've said before.

i have read and done research. your 80% number is mentioned in a few places, but 95% is mentioned much more often. don't accuse me of being wrong without much more proof than your own word.

if you are going to accuse people of not doing their research, start with yourself. just because you go out and find one news article that backs you up does not mean you've done your homework.

taks

Disinfo gave wrong info, Glom gave wrong info. I have explained this in my previous answer to you about this. Your only defense is that disinfo was more wrong, or what? And therefor my statement is completely without merit? Strange reasoning, again...

A few places vs. much more often. What makes you think so? Done any quantitative research? Have any sources that have done it for you? Or just a hunch?

And I did not find one 'news article', I posted multiple links, one of them to a page from a scientist of the Max Planck Institute. This does not automatically make it correct, but don't try to win the argument by ridicule if you again don't have any better arguments.

Oh, any reply from you to this yet?

you said against disinfo agent


oh boy, you really got that wrong. water vapor is 95% of the impact. do a little research, even AAGW scientists don't dispute this. Do you still claim you have done your homework, or do you agree that this was a mistake (just like the 80% was not a 'weight number', like you said it was)?

pghnative
2005-Sep-28, 07:58 PM
Pointing to a person's credentials is not an ad hominem. It's relevant information.It seems to me that pointing to a person's credentials is always either
a) an appeal to authority (as in: he must be right, he's an economist)
or
b) an ad hominem (as in: she can't be right, she's just an economist)

Now there have been threads around here that positted that sometimes appeals to authority are valid. That may be true, but even then I think that that is just a shortcut.

For instance, if I say that the Sun is a big ball of coal, oxidizing due to collisions with hydrogen peroxide comets (:D ), and the BA says, no it's a big ball of hydrogen fusing to form helium, then anyone here could say "Gee, the BA must be right, he's an astronomer. But that's just a short cut --- it would be better to debate the data (spectroscope data, Sun's age & energy output precluding coal burning, etc.)


Adding: heres where Kyoto comes in. Its primary goal is to reduce that marginal contribution of CO2 to the GW. Its a very important first step. It's an important first step only if your sole goal is to reduce that marginal contribution of CO2 to GW. If your goal is to maximize the overall standard of living of humanity, then it is not obvious (to me, at least) that Kyoto is a good thing.

BobK
2005-Sep-28, 08:45 PM
The poll probably should have been set up with some ratios/percentages to choose from. Say 90-10 to 10-90 or some such. I don't think anyone would disagree that man has some influence on the temperature, but we certainly aren't the only influence.

I viewed the combination of both selection as representing something in the range of 60-40 one way or the other. Since this doesn't fall within my personal view, I selected the natural option.

Not being a scientist, maybe someone could explain to me why temperature is always cited and not heat content. Don't a dry 80F and a humid 80F possess different amounts of heat?

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-28, 09:16 PM
It seems to me that pointing to a person's credentials is always either
a) an appeal to authority (as in: he must be right, he's an economist)
or
b) an ad hominem (as in: she can't be right, she's just an economist)When you go to the dentist's office for a root canal, I bet you like to know whether you're going to be treated by doctor of medicine, or by a doctor of astronomy.

Call it an appeal to authority or an ad hominem, if you wish. In my humble opinion, it's not in the same league as the two examples you gave.


But that's just a short cut --- it would be better to debate the data (spectroscope data, Sun's age & energy output precluding coal burning, etc.Realclimate.org, the website which Taks accused of ad hominem, does debate the data.

pghnative
2005-Sep-28, 09:21 PM
I think the main reason that temperature alone is mentioned is because the most catastrophic predicted effects of global warming is expansion of the oceans. If the entire ocean raises its temperature by x degrees, it will expand by y%, thus raising sea levels.

It is a misconception that the predicted rise in sea levels is due to melting of ice. I believe that the change in volume due to temperature increase is the main driver for predicting the rise of sea levels.

pghnative
2005-Sep-28, 09:41 PM
When you go to the dentist's office for a root canal, I bet you like to know whether you're going to be treated by doctor of medicine, or by a doctor of astronomy.
Hopefully neither. :) A DDS would be preferrable!



Call it an appeal to authority or an ad hominem, if you wish. In my humble opinion, it's not in the same league as the two examples you gave.If you can give me a third example that is "in a different league", (perhaps by PM, since this is straying far afield), I'd be interested. It's hard for me to see how a person's qualifications are relevant to a debate other than to either a) take a short cut in accepting their side of the debate (see my third example, earlier post) or b) discredit them. Taking short cuts is necessary in life (such as accepting that a DDS will recognize the black hole in my tooth as something that needs repair, and not studied for singularities), but is unimpressive when debating a controversial topic.

(I have not read the RealClimate pages, so I cannot comment on them, but I can say that I've heard, mostly on the radio, that most climatologists agree with AGW, while most opponents are economists. This was said in such a way as to prove AGW. Clearly, the credentials of the economists were being used to discredit their side of the debate. And it may be true that the climatologists are right. But as with my example regarding a coal-fired Sun, it should be possible to give that side of the arguement without mentioning credentials.)



Realclimate.org, the website which Taks accused of ad hominem, does debate the data.Everyone's accusing everyone else of ad hominems and strawmen. It's a bit hard to keep everything straight.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-28, 09:49 PM
Hopefully neither. :) A DDS would be preferrable!Drat! I always end up making my points with the wrong metaphors. :D

Later. ;)

dgruss23
2005-Sep-29, 03:17 AM
Ah, the 800 year lag.
Let me quote from the Nicolas Caillon paper (a 4 page pdf (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf)that appeared in Science in 2003) which gives us this number. I hope I've transcribed it correctly, as I can't copy-paste from a pdf.


The conclusion of the paper clearly states that the situation when the 800 year lag occurred "differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase", and sees no problem with the AGW model. So that looks to me like one argument against AGW less.

Thanks for the interesting article Fram. Here are my thoughts:

The article supports the point I've been making that the ice cores do not support the notion that CO2 is capable of forcing climate change. Here is the quote from the article with the snipped lines included:


This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing, which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2.

This is exactly what I've been suggesting: CO2 responds to temperature increases generated by natural cycles - such as solar activity. This reduces what can be claimed about the role that CO2 may play in climate changes (continuing from end of last sentence):


This sequence is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First the 800 year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years). Second the CO2 increases clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

Wait a minute - they're claiming what RealClimate claimed. Something else may initiate the warming - but once CO2 gets involved it becomes an amplifier - but how significant an amplifier? The fact that the warming period was 5000 years doesn't say anything about how important CO2 was/was not in that warming. What it actually says that is significant where AAGW is concerned is that CO2 is not a climate forcer - but at best an amplifier. The climate of this planet does not shift direction because of CO2 increases.

Just the opposite. Radiative forcings cause warming and then CO2 increases. What is the source of this increase - the article notes the role of the oceans. There is a tremendous amount of CO2 in the oceans. This should not be overlooked. Wouldn't we expect that if CO2 was capable of generating "Hothouse Earth" conditions via feedback mechanisms, that the previous solar forced climate changes would have led to such a catastrophe already by acting on the tremendous store of CO2 in the oceans and the claimed subsequent feedback mechanisms? A system that brittle doesn't need our help to spiral out of control.

But what do we see about the strength of CO2 relative to solar forcing? We see that the ice ages themselves correlate with solar activity (Sharma study I've cited on numerous occasions). CO2 increases when we come out of the ice ages (with the 800 year lag)- but we go back into ice ages and CO2 decreases. And then back out again. CO2 increases are overwhelmed by solar forcing. We see this on a much smaller time scale with the 1940-1970 cooling. During that period the Sun became less active and the temperatures cooled in spite of increasing CO2.

Does the CO2 participate in the warming following the 800 year lag - probably, but how significant is that "amplification"? 0.1 C warmer? 0.2 C warmer? 1 deg C warmer? 3 deg C warmer? Is it significant enough to support the claims that we're causing catastrophic climate change? The behavior of the climate in the past (long term and recent) suggests that scenario is doubtful.

Fram
2005-Sep-29, 12:04 PM
I think the main reason that temperature alone is mentioned is because the most catastrophic predicted effects of global warming is expansion of the oceans. If the entire ocean raises its temperature by x degrees, it will expand by y%, thus raising sea levels.

It is a misconception that the predicted rise in sea levels is due to melting of ice. I believe that the change in volume due to temperature increase is the main driver for predicting the rise of sea levels.

I have no references for the moment, but for all I've seen is the major factor the melting of the land ice (Antarctic and Greenland mostly), and not the expansion. The expansion of water when it warms 2 or 3 degrees is minimal (not including going from 99 to 101 C of course). .

Fram
2005-Sep-29, 12:13 PM
Thanks for the interesting article Fram. Here are my thoughts:

The article supports the point I've been making that the ice cores do not support the notion that CO2 is capable of forcing climate change. Here is the quote from the article with the snipped lines included:



This is exactly what I've been suggesting: CO2 responds to temperature increases generated by natural cycles - such as solar activity. This reduces what can be claimed about the role that CO2 may play in climate changes (continuing from end of last sentence):



Wait a minute - they're claiming what RealClimate claimed. Something else may initiate the warming - but once CO2 gets involved it becomes an amplifier - but how significant an amplifier? The fact that the warming period was 5000 years doesn't say anything about how important CO2 was/was not in that warming. What it actually says that is significant where AAGW is concerned is that CO2 is not a climate forcer - but at best an amplifier. The climate of this planet does not shift direction because of CO2 increases.

Just the opposite. Radiative forcings cause warming and then CO2 increases. What is the source of this increase - the article notes the role of the oceans. There is a tremendous amount of CO2 in the oceans. This should not be overlooked. Wouldn't we expect that if CO2 was capable of generating "Hothouse Earth" conditions via feedback mechanisms, that the previous solar forced climate changes would have led to such a catastrophe already by acting on the tremendous store of CO2 in the oceans and the claimed subsequent feedback mechanisms? A system that brittle doesn't need our help to spiral out of control.

But what do we see about the strength of CO2 relative to solar forcing? We see that the ice ages themselves correlate with solar activity (Sharma study I've cited on numerous occasions). CO2 increases when we come out of the ice ages (with the 800 year lag)- but we go back into ice ages and CO2 decreases. And then back out again. CO2 increases are overwhelmed by solar forcing. We see this on a much smaller time scale with the 1940-1970 cooling. During that period the Sun became less active and the temperatures cooled in spite of increasing CO2.

Does the CO2 participate in the warming following the 800 year lag - probably, but how significant is that "amplification"? 0.1 C warmer? 0.2 C warmer? 1 deg C warmer? 3 deg C warmer? Is it significant enough to support the claims that we're causing catastrophic climate change? The behavior of the climate in the past (long term and recent) suggests that scenario is doubtful.

Thanks for the reply. I don't share all your interpretations, but that is probably no surprise :lol:
I think you have it in some ways backwards. We can conclude from the available data that a temperature rise can very well start without an increase in CO2. What we cannot conclude from these data one way or the other is the reverse: does an increase in CO2 lead to the start of rising temperatures? For this to be decided, we need one (or preferably more) periods where you start with a more or less stable temperature, then get (for some reason) a significant CO2 increase (or decrease), and see what the temperature does the years thereafter. If it stays stable, then CO2 is probably not the greenhouse gas it is supposed to be. If temperatures rise, then CO2 may be the cause (or the thing that caused the initial CO2 increase also is responsible for the temperature increase of course).
I have to say that I don't understand your point about the CO2 in the oceans completely. I'll reread it and try to see what you mean. The CO2 in the oceans (and in the ground) has no significant influence on the climate, I believe.

Argos
2005-Sep-29, 01:09 PM
But more water vapour means more cloud formation,which increase planetary albedo, hence cooling. It's a complicated thing.

Ok. What do you think works better, the CO2-induced water vapor formation (hence more heat) or the albedo-induced cooling?

Glom
2005-Sep-29, 01:27 PM
Ok. What do you think works better, the CO2-induced water vapor formation (hence more heat) or the albedo-induced cooling?

First, how do we seperate carbon dioxide induced water vapour formation from other sources of water vapour formation?

Argos
2005-Sep-29, 04:59 PM
Yeah, but were talking about the impact of CO2 on water vapor increase.

pghnative
2005-Sep-29, 06:45 PM
I have no references for the moment, but for all I've seen is the major factor the melting of the land ice (Antarctic and Greenland mostly), and not the expansion. The expansion of water when it warms 2 or 3 degrees is minimal (not including going from 99 to 101 C of course). .
I've done a little math, and found that the two factors are of the same order of magnitude.

A 1 degree Celsius change raises the volume of pure water by ~ 0.001%. (Based on density change from 10C to 11C). The earth's volume of ocean (1.4 * 10^9 km^3 from wikipedia) would increase by 14000 km^3. Spread out over ~ 3.6*10^8 km^2 (also wikipedia), this raises the oceans by about 40 meters.

If this NASA website (http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/99invest.Site/science-briefs/ice/ed-ice.html) is correct, a melting of the non-floating ice caps would raise the oceans by about 80 meters.

Of course there are caveats --- as Glom noted, water below ~ 4C decreases it's volume on warming. My rough estimate using 10C to 11C may not extrapolate well across the whole ocean, some of which is hotter, some cooler. The ocean isn't pure water, so the density change with temp of salt water may be different. The amount the ocean is predicted to warm may be more or less than 1 degree C. The amount the ice caps are predicted to melt may or may not be 100%. (There was a recent prediction of the northern ice cap melting --- but isn't the Antarctic ice cap growing? Hard to remember sometimes.)

Despite the caveats, this is a good first approximation.

Taks
2005-Sep-29, 06:57 PM
Realclimate.org, the website which Taks accused of ad hominem, does debate the data.but it starts off with the ad-hom attack to cast doubt on their work. also, the founders of realclimate regularly refer to M&M as quacks.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-29, 06:59 PM
I've done a little math, and found that the two factors are of the same order of magnitude.i've done a lot of math on this. the issue is that as you noted, water below 4 degrees actually gets denser with warming waters. this water is below the thermocline. 90% (er, nearly, offhand i don't have the exact number) of the earth's water supply is below the thermocline.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-29, 07:00 PM
The CO2 in the oceans (and in the ground) has no significant influence on the climate, I believe.most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans. volcanoes are second.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-29, 07:07 PM
Your only defense is that disinfo was more wrong, or what? And therefor my statement is completely without merit? Strange reasoning, again...disinfo said that CO2 was the primary greenhouse gas. i said water vapor was 95% then you followed with the infamous pot/kettle argument noting that it was only 80% and CO2 at 9% (which i do not agree with). my point then, is that even your numbers indicate that CO2 is not the primary source of greenhouse gas, whether by weight, contribution or othwerwise. i stated that quite clearly but again, as you do often, you put different meaning into my words.


A few places vs. much more often. What makes you think so? Done any quantitative research? Have any sources that have done it for you? Or just a hunch?irrelevant to the point i made. 95% or 80%, my point is still that water vapor is the primary contributor by a long-shot.


And I did not find one 'news article', I posted multiple links, one of them to a page from a scientist of the Max Planck Institute. This does not automatically make it correct, but don't try to win the argument by ridicule if you again don't have any better arguments.
not sure where the ridicule is.


Oh, any reply from you to this yet?
Do you still claim you have done your homework, or do you agree that this was a mistake (just like the 80% was not a 'weight number', like you said it was)?i inferred from the discussion weight. irrelevant, since i've clarified (three times now) the flaw in both your statement and disinfos.

nice of you to just dismiss those that you don't agree with "because."

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-29, 07:09 PM
I have no references for the moment, but for all I've seen is the major factor the melting of the land ice (Antarctic and Greenland mostly), and not the expansion. The expansion of water when it warms 2 or 3 degrees is minimal (not including going from 99 to 101 C of course). .unfortunately, the antarctic is growing.

taks

Fram
2005-Sep-29, 07:21 PM
most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans. volcanoes are second.

taks

You mean the natural CO2, I presume, not the rise in CO2 caused by human activity?

Fram
2005-Sep-29, 07:43 PM
Your only defense is that disinfo was more wrong, or what? And therefor my statement is completely without merit? Strange reasoning, again...
disinfo said that CO2 was the primary greenhouse gas. i said water vapor was 95% then you followed with the infamous pot/kettle argument noting that it was only 80% and CO2 at 9% (which i do not agree with). my point then, is that even your numbers indicate that CO2 is not the primary source of greenhouse gas, whether by weight, contribution or othwerwise. i stated that quite clearly but again, as you do often, you put different meaning into my words.
Are you Glom? Glom said that it was 95%, and I responded to Glom with the pot/kettle statement (which is only "infamous" in your posts).
Apart from this, I am not putting different meaning in your words, you are just trying to change what you said so you don't have to admit that you made a mistake (again).
Your quote, to which I replied, was this:
this is a weight number... which further supports the 95% number. As it was not a weight number, and did not support the 95% number, this is a mistake, simple as that.




A few places vs. much more often. What makes you think so? Done any quantitative research? Have any sources that have done it for you? Or just a hunch?
irrelevant to the point i made. 95% or 80%, my point is still that water vapor is the primary contributor by a long-shot.
Ah, again trying to change "the point" so you don't have to admit a mistake or in this case an unsupported statement. This was the statement:
I have read and done research. your 80% number is mentioned in a few places, but 95% is mentioned much more often. don't accuse me of being wrong without much more proof than your own word.
How is my reply irrelevant? You make statements "without much more proof than your own word", but when I point it out, it suddenly becomes irrelevant?




And I did not find one 'news article', I posted multiple links, one of them to a page from a scientist of the Max Planck Institute. This does not automatically make it correct, but don't try to win the argument by ridicule if you again don't have any better arguments. not sure where the ridicule is.
Then what was your intention with this factually wrong statement, if not ridicule?
just because you go out and find one news article that backs you up does not mean you've done your homework.




Oh, any reply from you to this yet?

oh boy, you really got that wrong. water vapor is 95% of the impact. do a little research, even AAGW scientists don't dispute this
Do you still claim you have done your homework, or do you agree that this was a mistake (just like the 80% was not a 'weight number', like you said it was)? i inferred from the discussion weight. irrelevant, since i've clarified (three times now) the flaw in both your statement and disinfos.
Everybody knows the flaw in disinfos statement by now, and I have pointed to it numerous times. I couldn't have made the pot/kettle statement in the first place without acknowledging that disinfo was wrong. But for some reason you still need to act as if I'm defending disinfo's statement.
Secondly, you have claimed numerous times that there is a flaw in my statement, but you have not been able to show what it is. On the contrary, I have shown (not just said, but shown) where you have made numerous mistakes (having added one in this post, by confusing glom with yourself), and you have not acknowledged one of those but just try to obscure them in a fairly unsuccessful way.
Repeating something ad nauseam doesn't make it correct.
And finally, you only tried to respond to half of my question (the part between brackets), and ignored the main half ("even AAGW..."). Again.


nice of you to just dismiss those that you don't agree with "because."
First you think you are Glom, and now you think I am you. Been breathing to much CO2?

pghnative
2005-Sep-29, 08:45 PM
You mean the natural CO2, I presume, not the rise in CO2 caused by human activity?
Fram
Please be careful. Taks was responding to your response to dgruss, which was all in the context of previous climate cycles. So human activity isn't relevant. It is such subtle changes in context that miscommunications (and subsequent accusations) occur.

(Don't misunderstand me either --- I'm not accusing you of doing this knowingly, just trying to keep the conversation focused on the scientific arguments)

Of course, to be fair, you did say that you weren't sure what dgruss meant. I think I understand, and it is something like this. If CO2 was capable of generating a runaway greenhouse effect, then the following should have occured in the past:

1) Earth warms (this has been observed in the Ice record)
2) CO2 increases in atmosphere (large store of CO2 in oceans -- CO2 is less soluble in ocean as temp rises)
3) greenhouse effect causes earth to warm a little more
4) more CO2 released (along with water vapor, etc.)
5) goto step 3

Monique
2005-Sep-29, 09:39 PM
Is problem for me on "runaway greenhouse effect". Earth at moment (include warm trend to date) more cold than most geologic history. I believe CO2 level lower also. If runaway greenhouse not happen in past, why happen now?

dgruss23
2005-Sep-29, 10:19 PM
Thanks for the reply. I don't share all your interpretations, but that is probably no surprise :lol:

:) As I expected - but the discussion is good.


I think you have it in some ways backwards. We can conclude from the available data that a temperature rise can very well start without an increase in CO2. What we cannot conclude from these data one way or the other is the reverse: does an increase in CO2 lead to the start of rising temperatures?

Well, the paper you cited actually implies that the question really is how effectively CO2 amplifies cycles of warming/cooling. My point in response is that the climate record shows that natural cycles overwhelm the CO2 effect - as evidence by the lack of a runaway greenhouse effect having happened in the past, the 1940-1970 cooling, the cycling of ice ages. CO2 responds to temperature changes - but appears incapable of forcing a dramatic warming cycle.


I have to say that I don't understand your point about the CO2 in the oceans completely. I'll reread it and try to see what you mean. The CO2 in the oceans (and in the ground) has no significant influence on the climate, I believe.

Pghnative did a great job of explaining what I meant:


Of course, to be fair, you did say that you weren't sure what dgruss meant. I think I understand, and it is something like this. If CO2 was capable of generating a runaway greenhouse effect, then the following should have occured in the past:

1) Earth warms (this has been observed in the Ice record)
2) CO2 increases in atmosphere (large store of CO2 in oceans -- CO2 is less soluble in ocean as temp rises)
3) greenhouse effect causes earth to warm a little more
4) more CO2 released (along with water vapor, etc.)
5) goto step 3

Thanks Pghnative!

Fram
2005-Sep-30, 07:33 AM
Thanks pghnative and dgruss23. I'll think about it.

Glom
2005-Sep-30, 10:25 AM
Fram, your last response to Taks was rather immature and unprofessional. The switch is me calling you on bad posting.


Yeah, but were talking about the impact of CO2 on water vapor increase.

It all depends on how much CO2 affects water vapour increase. You can't just factor out the rest of the complexities of the climate system. We could argue about which factor is stronger, the enhanced greenhouse effects or the induced albedo cooling (and I couldn't say which one would be stronger), but considering that in isolation would be somewhat irrelevant to reality.

pghnative
2005-Sep-30, 12:45 PM
...It all depends on how much CO2 affects water vapour increase. You can't just factor out the rest of the complexities of the climate system. We could argue about which factor is stronger, the enhanced greenhouse effects or the induced albedo cooling (and I couldn't say which one would be stronger), but considering that in isolation would be somewhat irrelevant to reality. Except that the only way to understand complex things is to first understand the individual pieces. And if you are going to dismiss concerns of water vapor amplification to GW by saying:

But more water vapour means more cloud formation,which increase planetary albedo, hence cooling. It's a complicated thing.
then you should at least be able to back that up with an estimate of whether the two effects are even of the same order of magnitude.

Throwing one's hands up and saying that it is too complex leads to things like Intelligent Design.

Fram
2005-Sep-30, 02:11 PM
Fram, your last response to Taks was rather immature and unprofessional. The switch is me calling you on bad posting.

Do you mean the whole post, or the last line? The last line was intended as a joke (probably a bad one), and if it came across as offensive, my apologies.

Taks
2005-Sep-30, 06:12 PM
interesting link (http://www.maxpages.com/globalwarming/global_warming_facts_to_know).
not the 95% #, but they attribute vapor's impact at 52 times greater than CO2. some real
numbers for the calculation, though interpretation is up to the reader.

another one (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html),
including the 95% that i've originally been quoting. as a matter of fact, i think this is the
reference i first heard about. he's got a better breakdown of the numbers they use. my guess
is that this workup is either the source, or based on the source for the 95% number, particularly
since the 3.6% listing from CO2 comes to mind.

taks

publiusr
2005-Sep-30, 06:30 PM
I also wonder about silent volcanic emissions of gases. In areas without lakes the gas may go undetected. I think we need to investigate volcanic emissions in a more extensive fashion:

http://www.terradaily.com/news/africa-05n.html

I once remember having a conversation about volcanic emissions perhaps causing the ozone hole, and one person told me there were no volcanoes in Antarctica.

I guess Erebus doesn't exist then.

Taks
2005-Sep-30, 08:10 PM
oft overlooked. though i have always been under the impression that the earth's magnetic field is the reason for the polar "holes".

taks

Fram
2005-Sep-30, 08:34 PM
interesting link (http://www.maxpages.com/globalwarming/global_warming_facts_to_know).
not the 95% #, but they attribute vapor's impact at 52 times greater than CO2. some real
numbers for the calculation, though interpretation is up to the reader.

another one (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html),
including the 95% that i've originally been quoting. as a matter of fact, i think this is the
reference i first heard about. he's got a better breakdown of the numbers they use. my guess
is that this workup is either the source, or based on the source for the 95% number, particularly
since the 3.6% listing from CO2 comes to mind.

taks

I have checked all the references given in the second link, and while they give a reference number for the 95% in the text, none of the references give this (some references are dead links).

Your first link is one of the only ones I have seen that states that water vapour is intrinsically a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 (i.e. if you had the same amount of both, the effect of the water vapour would be the greatest). This greatly influences its calculations of course.

This link (http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html) gives for water vapour a 60 % contribution, for CO2 a 20% contribution, and for the other gases also some 20 percent.
The website of Total (http://www.total.com/en/group/corporate_social_responsibility/special_reports/the_climate_change/focus_on_climate_change/greenhouse_effect_7812.htm) also gives for water vapour the 60% impact number, and they can hardly be considered as pro-AGW and pro-Kyoto.

Taks
2005-Sep-30, 10:59 PM
I have checked all the references given in the second link, and while they give a reference number for the 95% in the text, none of the references give this (some references are dead links). it was developed right on the first page of the link.


Your first link is one of the only ones I have seen that states that water vapour is intrinsically a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 (i.e. if you had the same amount of both, the effect of the water vapour would be the greatest).
i've never said water vapor was on equal par as a parts per million influence. i said water vapor was the primary (i'll stick by the 95% number until i see more) contributor. in terms of parts per million, water vapor at 10,000 (per the first link) is so much greater than CO2 that it can't help be be greater overall. the first link does tend to imply that each molecule of water has twice as much influence, which is why the 27:1 concentration went to 52x influence. they also explained why...


This link (http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html) gives for water vapour a 60 % contribution, for CO2 a 20% contribution, and for the other gases also some 20 percent.
The website of Total (http://www.total.com/en/group/corporate_social_responsibility/special_reports/the_climate_change/focus_on_climate_change/greenhouse_effect_7812.htm) also gives for water vapour the 60% impact number, and they can hardly be considered as pro-AGW and pro-Kyoto.i can't access the first link at the moment, so i'll comment on it later... the second uses as its sources the IPCC and the French Environment Ministry, 1997. sorry, but i've lost all respect for, particularly, the IPCC.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-30, 11:26 PM
the 95% number, btw, seems to come from a paper done by Joseph P. Sobel, the VP of forensic services of accu-weather.com. this would certainly explain why their stance on GW is decidely anti.

taks

Wolverine
2005-Oct-01, 03:12 AM
http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon4.gif Folks, I posted a reminder earlier on this thread urging participants to remain calm. Please stick to the subject matter and maintain fair debate where disagreements exist. If snide comments surface again, this thread will most likely be locked and formal warnings issued as applicable for FAQ violation. Please don't allow the discussion to reach such levels.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-01, 12:07 PM
The de Freitas (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) article doesn't specify what the % of the greenhouse effect that is from CO2 is, but it does state in Myth #2 that Anthropogenic emissions are less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir. Now if we take a bullish upper limit of CO2 being 40% of the greenhouse effect, then the human contribution to the total greenhouse effect would be 40% x .01 = 0.4% of the total greenhouse effect. If we take the minimal contribution of 3.6% then 3.6% x .01 = .036% of the total greenhouse effect.

Argos
2005-Oct-01, 12:22 PM
Is problem for me on "runaway greenhouse effect". Earth at moment (include warm trend to date) more cold than most geologic history.

Youre right. In the first three billion years Earth was hot like hell.


If runaway greenhouse not happen in past, why happen now?

Because theres a new element to the process: human activity.

Fram
2005-Oct-01, 12:56 PM
The de Freitas (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) article doesn't specify what the % of the greenhouse effect that is from CO2 is, but it does state in Myth #2 that Anthropogenic emissions are less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir. Now if we take a bullish upper limit of CO2 being 40% of the greenhouse effect, then the human contribution to the total greenhouse effect would be 40% x .01 = 0.4% of the total greenhouse effect. If we take the minimal contribution of 3.6% then 3.6% x .01 = .036% of the total greenhouse effect.

You are confusing the greenhouse effect with the atmospheric reservoir here, I think.
Sticking with your numbers (just for this post, I won't use them against you in the future ;) ): CO2 is 40 % of the greenhouse effect. Let's say one third of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human contribution. Then 40% * 0.33 = 13% of the greenhouses effect is from human contribution. If the greenhouse effect makes the earth 20 degrees warmer than it would be otherwise, then human contribution alone makes it 2.6 degrees warmer.
Never mind the exact figures, but you were mixing two things in your calculation.

Fram
2005-Oct-01, 01:14 PM
it was developed right on the first page of the link.
Well, no. They state the number without sources. Their othe numbers come from the US deparrtment of energy, but the 95% doesn't.
They say a few pages further:

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists, this is common knowledge, [snip]
Common knowledge, but no source...


i've never said water vapor was on equal par as a parts per million influence. i said water vapor was the primary (i'll stick by the 95% number until i see more) contributor. in terms of parts per million, water vapor at 10,000 (per the first link) is so much greater than CO2 that it can't help be be greater overall. the first link does tend to imply that each molecule of water has twice as much influence, which is why the 27:1 concentration went to 52x influence. they also explained why...

i can't access the first link at the moment, so i'll comment on it later... the second uses as its sources the IPCC and the French Environment Ministry, 1997. sorry, but i've lost all respect for, particularly, the IPCC.

taks
I didn't say you said it. But I don't trust the second link at all, as their explanation is very dubious in my eyes.
Basically, when looking around, you find either the 95% (on most anti-AGW sites), and 60 to 80% (on most pro-AGW sites). There don't seem to be any neutral sites. Both have scientists backing them up, and I have no way of deciding which are correct. I very much doubt the site claiming that water vapour is inherently a more powerful gas than CO2 though, as that contradicts all other sites which mention it (in passing, mostly). But for the rest, it seems to be a case of believing whichever supports your or my position.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-01, 07:39 PM
You are confusing the greenhouse effect with the atmospheric reservoir here, I think.
Sticking with your numbers (just for this post, I won't use them against you in the future ;) ): CO2 is 40 % of the greenhouse effect. Let's say one third of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human contribution. Then 40% * 0.33 = 13% of the greenhouses effect is from human contribution. If the greenhouse effect makes the earth 20 degrees warmer than it would be otherwise, then human contribution alone makes it 2.6 degrees warmer.
Never mind the exact figures, but you were mixing two things in your calculation.

Are you sure? Aren't you guys debating what % of the greenhouse effect is from water (95% vs. 60%?). If 40% of the greenhouse effect was from CO2 and we contribute ~1% of the atmospheric reserve, then wouldn't our contribution to the total greenhouse effect (including water vapor) be 0.4%? Here is the quote from de Freitas:


Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only ~3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon of 750 Gt.

I think your calculation is the same is mine - except you're using a different percentage number. But you might be right that the 1% is the wrong number. I think the emissions each year are 1% of the total reserve. However, he rightly points out that our emissions are very small compared with the exchanges between the land/sea and atmosphere.

Taks
2005-Oct-01, 09:32 PM
Common knowledge, but no source...the source is (4), but a dead link. i also pointed out that it was joseph p. sobel that authored the paper. it is not publicly available (though it must have been at one time).


Basically, when looking around, you find either the 95% (on most anti-AGW sites), and 60 to 80% (on most pro-AGW sites). There don't seem to be any neutral sites. Both have scientists backing them up, and I have no way of deciding which are correct.this is true.


I very much doubt the site claiming that water vapour is inherently a more powerful gas than CO2 though, as that contradicts all other sites which mention it (in passing, mostly). But for the rest, it seems to be a case of believing whichever supports your or my position.i don't doubt it at all as i understand the water aborption curve for electromagnetic radiation. shorter wavelengths are absorbed by water more readily (the first dropout is at about 2.2 GHz, which is why microwave ovens operate there). above about 60 GHz, the attenuation is extremely high, and also results in "black" satellites using 60 GHz crosslinks (their communications cannot be spied on from the ground).

taks

pghnative
2005-Oct-02, 01:20 AM
If runaway greenhouse not happen in past, why happen now?
Because theres a new element to the process: human activity.
Depending on which climate predictions you believe it, your comment is either correct, or it is irrelevant.

For those who think that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will raise CO2 levels by X%, but that the CO2 levels will stabilize at a new equilibrium, then your comment is correct. Depending on the validity of the models, the new, stabilized CO2 level will presumably cause an increase in average Earth temperature by Y%. What that Y% is (0.1 degree? 1 degree? 5 degrees?) is up for debate (at least on this forum).

For those who think that an increase in CO2 emissions by X% will trigger a never ending feedback loop resulting in hothouse earth (aka apocalyptic anthropogenic global warming, or AAGW), then I'd argue that your comment is irrelevant. Increasing CO2 in the past did not lead to runaway greenhouse effect, so it is hard to believe that it will now. Climate models care not whether the CO2 is from burned fossil fuels, or whether the CO2 is degassed from the ocean due to other factors (e.g. solar activity).

Fram
2005-Oct-02, 04:31 PM
Are you sure? Aren't you guys debating what % of the greenhouse effect is from water (95% vs. 60%?). If 40% of the greenhouse effect was from CO2 and we contribute ~1% of the atmospheric reserve, then wouldn't our contribution to the total greenhouse effect (including water vapor) be 0.4%? Here is the quote from de Freitas:



I think your calculation is the same is mine - except you're using a different percentage number. But you might be right that the 1% is the wrong number. I think the emissions each year are 1% of the total reserve. However, he rightly points out that our emissions are very small compared with the exchanges between the land/sea and atmosphere.

No, this is your original quote:

The de Freitas article doesn't specify what the % of the greenhouse effect that is from CO2 is, but it does state in Myth #2 that Anthropogenic emissions are less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir. Now if we take a bullish upper limit of CO2 being 40% of the greenhouse effect, then the human contribution to the total greenhouse effect would be 40% x .01 = 0.4% of the total greenhouse effect. If we take the minimal contribution of 3.6% then 3.6% x .01 = .036% of the total greenhouse effect.

CO2 = 40 % of the greenhouse effect.
Anthropogenic emissions are less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir? Total or CO2? Total, allright, but then your calculation is incorrect. Even water vapour is only 1% of the atmospheric reservoir. If De Freitas claims that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are less than 1% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, then he has to explain why the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 33% since 1800.
If by anthropogenic emissions, he means things that come out of chimneys solely or so, then you can't equate anthropogenic emissions with human contribution.
Either way, CO2 is 40% of the greenhouse effect, human contribution is 33%, so human contribution to the greenhouse effect via CO2 is 13 %, not .036%.
Even if we take the minimal contribution of 3.6%, then it still is 1,4%.

Fram
2005-Oct-02, 04:46 PM
i don't doubt it at all as i understand the water aborption curve for electromagnetic radiation. shorter wavelengths are absorbed by water more readily (the first dropout is at about 2.2 GHz, which is why microwave ovens operate there). above about 60 GHz, the attenuation is extremely high, and also results in "black" satellites using 60 GHz crosslinks (their communications cannot be spied on from the ground).


Water vapour has wavelengths it absorbs very good, and a gap where CO2 is the best greenhouse gas. However, like the Australian Uranium centre (http://www.uic.com.au/nip24.htm) says,

The particular problem arises in the 8-18m band where water vapour is a weak absorber of radiation and where the earth's thermal radiation is greatest. Part of this "window" (12.5-18m) is largely blocked by carbon dioxide absorption, even at the low levels originally existing in the atmosphere. The remainder of the "window" coincides with the absorption proclivities of the other radiative gases: methane, (tropospheric) ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. It also appears that increased levels of carbon dioxide will increase the capture of heat in its absorption band to some, perhaps significant, extent.

So CO2 absorbs a large part of those wavelengths where the Earth's thermal radiation is the greatest, which makes it potential contribution to the greenhouse effect larger than it would be if the radiation was uniform over all wavelengths.

Taks
2005-Oct-02, 10:26 PM
the problem you're running into is that to show CO2 on par with water (you're claiming 60/40 or so, i think), it needs to be 20 times more effective in the atmosphere due to the fact that water is 27 times more abundant. i've not seen that shown.

taks

Taks
2005-Oct-02, 10:51 PM
So CO2 absorbs a large part of those wavelengths where the Earth's thermal radiation is the greatest, which makes it potential contribution to the greenhouse effect larger than it would be if the radiation was uniform over all wavelengths.i think you're using this link out of context. any solar warming is a function of two variables. the amount getting in, which is not impeded by CO2 that much, and the amount getting back out, which occurs where you stated. this is an impact only for earth re-radiation.

also, if the incoming absorption numbers were based on the HITRAN database, there was a recent discovery discussed here (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?s=HITRAN), that threw many previous assumptions out the window.

taks

Taks
2005-Oct-02, 10:59 PM
btw, fram, my comment about your "news story" was actually about a different post in another thread. so many to keep track of, so hard to remember. anyway, while not really ridicule, it was incorrect to refer to the link that way.

taks

Fram
2005-Oct-03, 07:31 AM
btw, fram, my comment about your "news story" was actually about a different post in another thread. so many to keep track of, so hard to remember. anyway, while not really ridicule, it was incorrect to refer to the link that way.

taks

Thanks. Things can get complicated with the different threads indeed.

Fram
2005-Oct-03, 07:32 AM
the problem you're running into is that to show CO2 on par with water (you're claiming 60/40 or so, i think), it needs to be 20 times more effective in the atmosphere due to the fact that water is 27 times more abundant. i've not seen that shown.

taks

60/20, not 60/40 (the other 20 are the other greenhouse gasses). But indeed, it is hard to find (by Googling at least) some solid research backing up either stance (the 95/3 or the 60/20) or anything inbetween.

Taks
2005-Oct-03, 03:16 PM
60/20 would require about 9 to 1 CO2 vs. vapor.

taks

Monique
2005-Oct-03, 04:50 PM
If runaway greenhouse not happen in past, why happen now?

Because theres a new element to the process: human activity.
Is true, but little evidence that that human activity effect cycles.

Rc2000
2005-Oct-03, 05:30 PM
Natural Cycles.
The Earth is a dynamic system. The weather, temperature, other things change over time.

Rc

Argos
2005-Oct-03, 05:43 PM
As pghnative said at #159, it seems that the GW debate is all about beliefs.

It seems extremely unlikely that a natural cycle would start right now (I mean, the end of the 20th century), exactly in the moment when we reach peak of industrial activity, just to make things more confused.

None of the sides have compelling evidence in its favor(*). In this case, I think it would be wise to assume that the global trends are linked to human activity.

(*) However, I have a feeling (Im unable to confirm it) that most of the members of the scientific establishment lean towards anthropogenic global warming.

Glom
2005-Oct-03, 05:52 PM
It seems extremely unlikely that a natural cycle would start right now (I mean, the end of the 20th century), exactly in the moment when we reach peak of industrial activity, just to make things more confused.

What natural cycle is starting at the end of the 20th century? The recovery from the Little Ice Age has been going on since the early 19th century. Further, your statement has an air of the stable climate fraud. You make it sound like the present climate trends are unusual. They are not.


None of the sides have compelling evidence in its favor(*). In this case, I think it would be wise to assume that the global trends are linked to human activity.

For what purpose?

pghnative
2005-Oct-03, 05:59 PM
As pghnative said at #159, it seems that the GW debate is all about beliefs.Hmmm. I guess I did use the verb "believe", but I didn't mean to imply that the GW debate is about "beliefs" (as in belief systems). Sorry if that's the impression that people get from that post.


It seems extremely unlikely that a natural cycle would start right now (I mean, the end of the 20th century), exactly in the moment when we reach peak of industrial activity, just to make things more confused.Perhaps it started at the end of the last ice age?


None of the sides have compelling evidence in its favor(*). In this case, I think it would be wise to assume that the global trends are linked to human activity.A better word than "beliefs" would be "assumptions", since i think most of us are scientifically minded enough to change our assumptions as new evidence rolls in. I sense that individuals who fear GW assume that the global trends are linked to human activity; they also assume that the changes in human behavior necessary to reduce CO2 emissions will have a small (if not negligible) impact on humananity's standard of living. Others of us assume that the changes in human behavior to reduce CO2 emissions would be drastic, and would, at best, delay the inevitable (whatever that might be). So better to accept that the Earth's climate changes and deal with it, other than trying, probably in vain, to control it.

Interesting that economists views on climatology are dismissed, but climatologists views on the world economy are accepted at face value.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Oct-03, 06:12 PM
I sense that individuals who fear GW assume that the global trends are linked to human activity; they also assume that the changes in human behavior necessary to reduce CO2 emissions will have a small (if not negligible) impact on humananity's standard of living.The Force is failing you... :p

I do not make any assumptions whatsoever about the impact of those changes on mankind's standard of living.

In any case, that should be irrelevant to the present debate, no?



Interesting that economists views on climatology are dismissed, but climatologists views on the world economy are accepted at face value.What 'climatologists views on the world economy' are you talking about?

Glom
2005-Oct-03, 06:22 PM
And now for a review of the what this thread has shown so far.

This (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/deb/aagw.html) summarises the main sceptical points. How have these held up?

Global temperatures over the past 2000 years have correlated far better with solar activity than the concentration of any atmospheric gases.

This has not been challenged. There has been challenge to the assertion that solar activity is at a high at present to account for the warming since 1980, but that is still in dispute.

The geological record shows that carbon dioxide level lag temperature changes casting doubt on the notion of carbon dioxide as a major climate driver.

The fact itself has not been disputed. What has been disputed is the conclusion. The challenge has mostly originated from the wishful thinking fallacy. The point still remains that there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is not a major climate forcer, merely an amplfier (not in dispute) of undetermined significance.

Over the past 2000 years, the planet has undergone two full oscillations between warm periods and cool periods, which correlate to solar activity. The magnitude of these shifts cast doubt on the notion that any temperature changes today are unprecedented.

This has not been challenged.

The Mann Hockey Stick has been shown by numerous studies, researching from many different angles, to be a statistical fraud, which fails to adequately reproduce the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Attempts have been made to refute the M&M study, but this has not been conclusively done and no challenge has been made to Soon and Baulinius or Von Storch and the existence of MWP and LIA has not been directly challenged. Neither has challenge been made to the accusations that the IPCC and associated bodies failed to follow due process in its acceptance.

The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today and had a more favourable climate. It also featured significantly reduced surface ice, especially over Greenland, which was settled by Vikings.

This has not been directly challenged other than attempts to assert the validity of MBH98.

We are emerging from the Little Ice Age, which offered a sub-optimum climate.

This has not been challenged.

Water vapour is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect, with carbon dioxide a distant second. Human activities account for an insignificant proportion of water vapour exchange.

The dispute over this has been quantitative, but there is not challenge to the notion that water vapour is by far the most important individual greenhouse gas and that it is much more significant than carbon dioxide.

Human activities account for less than 5% of carbon dioxide transfer. Deforestation no doubt accounts far more increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as a significant drop in photosynthetic algae in the sea.

This has not been challenged.

Sea levels rise has shown no sign of acceleration.

This has not been challenged.

The fastest temperature increases this century happened in the 1930s before 80% of the greenhouse gases were emitted.

This has not been challenged.

The only evidence of impending doom comes from climate models, which have not been validated and which hold a poor record for accurate predictions.

This has not been challenged.

Climate models do not take into account the effects of water vapour or convective transfer.

This has not been challenged.

The most alarming climate model predictions depend on the most unrealistic emissions scenarios.

This has not been challenged.

Antarctica is cooling, in contravention of climate models.

This has not been challenged.

The troposphere has not warmed in advance of the surface, in contravention of climate models.

This has not been challenged.

Climate models do not include the effects of cosmic ray flux, heliomagnetism and geomagnetism.

This has not been challenged.

No increase in severe weather events has been observed over the past 100 years.

There has been dispute over the cause of the recent storm activity, but there has been no conclusive evidence given that Katrina and Rita have anything to do with global warming rather than multi-decadel cycles. There has been no challenge to the work of Landsea.

Carbon dioxide is an essential component to life on this planet and its enrichment in the atmosphere aids plant growth.

This has not been challenged.

Thirty years ago, during a period of cooling, the alarmism was about an impending ice age due to pollution.

This has not been challenged.

The biosphere is far too complex and non-linear to be so easily controlled by a small set of politically selected variables.

This has not been challenged.

The concept of a stable climate is an oxymoron. Climate change is a tautology since the climate is always in a state of flux.

This has not been challenged (at least intentionally).

Argos
2005-Oct-03, 06:27 PM
What natural cycle is starting at the end of the 20th century? The recovery from the Little Ice Age has been going on since the early 19th century. Further, your statement has an air of the stable climate fraud. You make it sound like the present climate trends are unusual. They are not.

Glom Id really like that a natural cycle was occurring. I have no problem with this idea. I have a problem with the industrial revolution occuring in the same time frame. My only goal is finding the truth, and for the time being I dont have necessary elements to adhere to one or another view. Your arguments along this thread are not sufficient to make things any better.


for what purpose?

Ill play your game. :)

Im a practical person, and I think it wouldnt hurt if we managed our businesses as if they were the cause of global imbalances like global warming. This would make us better, more efficient. All "environmentally correct" (I also hate these expressions, but Im using it, faut de mieux) initiatives are about efficient use of energy. That just cant be wrong.

As Im also an obsessive thinker of the long term, I should point out that other planetary environments may not be as forgiving as Earth. So, learning to do our best to minimize losses in our production processes would have valuable (and profitable) practical applications in the future, both on Earth and elsewhere.

You may say its woo-woo, but I think its a perfectly sound reasoning.

pghnative
2005-Oct-03, 06:36 PM
Interesting that economists views on climatology are dismissed, but climatologists views on the world economy are accepted at face value.

What 'climatologists views on the world economy' are you talking about?As soon as I hit "submit", I knew I'd be called on that. i thought about editing it before anyone replied, but then decided "nah, I'll just take my lumps"

I guess my point is that economists are derided for pointing to scientific data that disagrees with AGW, but yet when an environmentalist points to the downsides of GW and says "we've got to do something", it is rarely questioned what the impact of "doing something" is. At least not in the US media. But see my comment below:


I sense that individuals who fear GW assume that the global trends are linked to human activity; they also assume that the changes in human behavior necessary to reduce CO2 emissions will have a small (if not negligible) impact on humananity's standard of living.
....that should be irrelevant to the present debate, no?Not irrelevent to the overall debate, in my opinion, but it is irrelevent to this particular thread --- which is another reason I'm sorry I brought it up!

Disinfo Agent
2005-Oct-03, 06:46 PM
Fair enough, but let me just take the opportunity to stress that what the mass media say or imply is not necessarily representative of what scientists think. I'm sure that both sides of the global warming debate have strong complaints about how the mainstream media have presented their side, but that neither makes their side right nor wrong.

Argos
2005-Oct-03, 06:51 PM
Hmmm. I guess I did use the verb "believe", but I didn't mean to imply that the GW debate is about "beliefs" (as in belief systems).

OK you may not have said it, but I did. Global Warming debate is becoming just a system of beliefs.



I sense that individuals who fear GW assume that the global trends are linked to human activity; they also assume that the changes in human behavior necessary to reduce CO2 emissions will have a small (if not negligible) impact on humananity's standard of living. Others of us assume that the changes in human behavior to reduce CO2 emissions would be drastic, and would, at best, delay the inevitable (whatever that might be). So better to accept that the Earth's climate changes and deal with it, other than trying, probably in vain, to control it.

Im as skeptical as you and I`m not "an individual" who fear global warming. I think the global warming denial has become against the mainstream. Im pretty sure Im in very good company.

As a side note, its interesting how culture influences the perception of the impact of a global wearming, whether natural or not. I think the average Joe in Europe sees Global warming as the promise of great vacations in Blackpool, in complete disregard to the drastic side-effects. OTOH, certain people are not willing to take more heat, and will go the extreme lengths to avoid it. Even if it emplies trying to control nature, which is a very human trait.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Oct-03, 06:56 PM
As a side note, its interesting how culture influences the perception of the impact of a global wearming, whether natural or not. I think the average Joe in Europe sees Global warming as the promise of great vacations in Blackpool, in complete disregard to the drastic side-effects.Depends on where he lives. For Southern Europeans, it may mean more forest fires in the Summer. See this pdf. (http://inforest.jrc.it/documents/fires/2005-publications/EFFIS_Note-20050823.pdf)

Fram
2005-Oct-03, 07:24 PM
And now for a review of the what this thread has shown so far.

This (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/deb/aagw.html) summarises the main sceptical points. How have these held up?

Global temperatures over the past 2000 years have correlated far better with solar activity than the concentration of any atmospheric gases.

This has not been challenged. There has been challenge to the assertion that solar activity is at a high at present to account for the warming since 1980, but that is still in dispute.

The geological record shows that carbon dioxide level lag temperature changes casting doubt on the notion of carbon dioxide as a major climate driver.

The fact itself has not been disputed. What has been disputed is the conclusion. The challenge has mostly originated from the wishful thinking fallacy. The point still remains that there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is not a major climate forcer, merely an amplfier (not in dispute) of undetermined significance.
The 'casting doubt' is a wishful thinking falacy as well, in that case. It says nothing about the potential role of CO2 as a major climate driver. To have an indication of that, you would need a rise in CO2 without a prior serious change in climate, and then see how the climate changes (or not). And the Venus climate is a serious indication that CO2 can work as a major climate driver.


Over the past 2000 years, the planet has undergone two full oscillations between warm periods and cool periods, which correlate to solar activity. The magnitude of these shifts cast doubt on the notion that any temperature changes today are unprecedented.

This has not been challenged.
I had no idea this had to be challenged, it's a bit hard to tackle all objections at once. However, I have seen studies that claim that the current rise in temperature is the most sudden in a very long time. I'll have to look again to give sources and more details though.


The Mann Hockey Stick has been shown by numerous studies, researching from many different angles, to be a statistical fraud, which fails to adequately reproduce the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Attempts have been made to refute the M&M study, but this has not been conclusively done and no challenge has been made to Soon and Baulinius or Von Storch and the existence of MWP and LIA has not been directly challenged. Neither has challenge been made to the accusations that the IPCC and associated bodies failed to follow due process in its acceptance.

The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today and had a more favourable climate. It also featured significantly reduced surface ice, especially over Greenland, which was settled by Vikings.

This has not been directly challenged other than attempts to assert the validity of MBH98.
It is not because there have been warmer periods that AGW is or is not true.


We are emerging from the Little Ice Age, which offered a sub-optimum climate.

This has not been challenged.
It is not because there have been colder periods that AGW is or is not true. What is a sub-optimum climate, anyway?


Water vapour is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect, with carbon dioxide a distant second. Human activities account for an insignificant proportion of water vapour exchange.

The dispute over this has been quantitative, but there is not challenge to the notion that water vapour is by far the most important individual greenhouse gas and that it is much more significant than carbon dioxide.
Yes, but that is no challenge, as this is (contrary to what the anti-AGW people wants us to think) common knowledge and taken into account by the serious AGW studies (you'll find less serious websites which forget this of course).


Human activities account for less than 5% of carbon dioxide transfer. Deforestation no doubt accounts far more increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well as a significant drop in photosynthetic algae in the sea.

This has not been challenged.
Well, then I'll challenge it now. This number only works if you take a very narrow definition of what is 'human activity'. The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by some 25% the past two centuries. If not by human activity, then by what process is the other 20% explained?
Be careful: if you claim that these 20% are caused by the end of the little Ice Age, then the gap between the climate change and the CO2 rise isn't 800 years, and that point is rendered invalid.


Sea levels rise has shown no sign of acceleration.

This has not been challenged.
Untrue. Perhaps it has not been challenged in this thread, but I've seen numeroud reports that the rise in sea levels is accelerating in the last century. I'll have to check this as well though.


The fastest temperature increases this century happened in the 1930s before 80% of the greenhouse gases were emitted.

This has not been challenged.
Anecdotical evidence. If you look at the curve of the temperatures since 1880, there is a clear rise of the temperatures, and the rate has increased in the last twenty years or so. But the thirties were a small anomaly upwards, with the fifties as a correcting anomaly downwards. You cannot expect this (a climate change) to be a perfectly linear item, but you have to look at the larger picture.



The only evidence of impending doom comes from climate models, which have not been validated and which hold a poor record for accurate predictions.

This has not been challenged.
Depends on which part you mean. 'The only evidence' is false in my view, as the accelerated rise in sea levels is shown. 'Impending doom' is a try to put all AGW theoreticists into the AAGW camp, which is false.



Climate models do not take into account the effects of water vapour or convective transfer.

This has not been challenged.
Oh boy. I have yet to see one serious study or link with regards to AGW that does not take into account water vapour. I have shown (and you have acknowledged) that most AGW sites think that xater vapour has an impact of 60 to 80 % of the greenhouse. So how can you say then that they don't take it into account? The basic AGW model takes feedback mechanisms like the added water vapour when the temperature rises seriously into account. They may be wrong, but they are not stupid.



The most alarming climate model predictions depend on the most unrealistic emissions scenarios.

This has not been challenged.
That the extremes depend on the extremes, and that the most realistic climate model predictions depend on the most realistic emissions scenarios? Why would we have to challenge that?



Antarctica is cooling, in contravention of climate models.

This has not been challenged.

The troposphere has not warmed in advance of the surface, in contravention of climate models.

This has not been challenged.

Climate models do not include the effects of cosmic ray flux, heliomagnetism and geomagnetism.

This has not been challenged.

No increase in severe weather events has been observed over the past 100 years.
Well, the last ten years have the most tropical storms and hurricanes of every ten year period since the start of the recording. I have given the link somewhere on the BAUT yet. And four of the five hottest years (average global temperature) have occurred in the last seven years. That is a severe weather event, even though it is not of the sudden dramatic kind.



There has been dispute over the cause of the recent storm activity, but there has been no conclusive evidence given that Katrina and Rita have anything to do with global warming rather than multi-decadel cycles. There has been no challenge to the work of Landsea.

Carbon dioxide is an essential component to life on this planet and its enrichment in the atmosphere aids plant growth.

This has not been challenged.
This has nothing to do with the validity of AGW either. Oxygen is an essential component for us, but we would die if there was too much oxygen in the air.



Thirty years ago, during a period of cooling, the alarmism was about an impending ice age due to pollution.

This has not been challenged.
So an error of the past equals a current error? This doesn't say anything about the correctness of AGW.



The biosphere is far too complex and non-linear to be so easily controlled by a small set of politically selected variables.

This has not been challenged.
'Politically selected'? Conspiracy of the scientists perhaps? This is a cheap shot.
No one claims that they have a perfect model, but then again, a perfect model is nearly impossible. But this doesn't mean that the current model may not be good enough to give the big trends, but still allows smaller ones (like the warming of the 1930's and the cooling of the 1950's) that seem to disagree with the model, but only give the anti-AGW'ers a false sense of security and cosy stability.



The concept of a stable climate is an oxymoron. Climate change is a tautology since the climate is always in a state of flux.

This has not been challenged (at least intentionally).
And this doesn't have to be challenged either. No one says that the climate would be stable without our interference.

You have raised some serious issues, glom, which need to be adressed. But you have also raised a lot of non-issues and things that have already been discussed (and at least doubt has been cast on the certainty that the anti-AGW'ers seem to have about them).

I'll try to look into a few of the serious issues in the next couple of days, but my time and possibilities are limited.

Taks
2005-Oct-03, 07:34 PM
It seems extremely unlikely that a natural cycle would start right now (I mean, the end of the 20th century), exactly in the moment when we reach peak of industrial activity, just to make things more confused.an incredulity argument. there is no evidence to suggest that any natural cycle is unlikely at any time. in other words, you have to assume that things were relatively stable, always, in order to say that this is anything other than a coincidence (even the correlation is weak, IMO).

i realize the point you're getting at, but it's still based on the "it just can't be" mentality humans so often fall prey to. yes, it really can be given the erratic past that we've recorded, let alone what we can only guess at.

taks

Monique
2005-Oct-03, 08:23 PM
I must side with Glom. Is much evidence indicate previous warming and cooling trends not relate to industrial activity. Argos point appear to be "assume worst case". Perhaps have application for social policy, not valid argument for support global warming.

Fram
2005-Oct-03, 08:30 PM
I must side with Glom. Is much evidence indicate previous warming and cooling trends not relate to industrial activity. Argos point appear to be "assume worst case". Perhaps have application for social policy, not valid argument for support global warming.

Previous trends do not prove or disprove AGW (they do prove that the climate isn't stable of course). There is a new factor, in case the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which may cause a climate change.
There are many arguments why AGW isn't true (e.g. the list of Glom), and I am slowly looking at them and trying to decide (for myself: I don't have the means or the knowledge to prove anything) for each point how valid and certain it is. Until now, I haven't found anything which says to me: AGW isn't true (or the contrary). But many issues are still open, let there be no doubt about that! But for now, I'm still more inclined to believe in AGW than not. Just an opinion...

Taks
2005-Oct-03, 08:50 PM
The 'casting doubt' is a wishful thinking falacy as well, in that caseno it's not. CO2 changes lag temperature changes historically. as a result, CO2 has a much greater indication as a result of the change, not a cause.


And the Venus climate is a serious indication that CO2 can work as a major climate driver.nobody ever said it couldn't be given the right conditions, just that it isn't given our conditions.


It is not because there have been warmer periods that AGW is or is not true.no, it is an indication that things change on their own and that any observed changes now need to be statistically separated from past changes to be considered valid. to date, they have not. this also changes the implication of the hockey stick rather dramatically.


It is not because there have been colder periods that AGW is or is not true. What is a sub-optimum climate, anyway?i believe he means much cooler. the fact that there were colder periods, however, puts the basis for the supposed warming in a different light. in other words, sure it's warmer, thankfully.


Yes, but that is no challenge, as this is (contrary to what the anti-AGW people wants us to think) common knowledge and taken into account by the serious AGW studies (you'll find less serious websites which forget this of course). actually, the problem is that they do not provide enough credit to water vapor. also, the primary failure of most models is the inability to properly model cloud cover. they do not understand how, when and where clouds will form, which is a serious driver when considering the impact of water vapor on the climate.


If not by human activity, then by what process is the other 20% explained?first, the rise in CO2 is disputed as well. past records are judged by ice cores, which have been shown to lose their CO2 over time without melting. i think, however, by 'human activity,' glom was referring to fossil fuel burning. deforestation is certainly human activity. however, we've also shown several studies that still claim all of human activity only results in the numbers cited.


Untrue. Perhaps it has not been challenged in this thread, but I've seen numeroud reports that the rise in sea levels is accelerating in the last century. I'll have to check this as well though.not many, and usually those fail to take into account areas that are sinking. the phrase "global sea levels" is, in my opinion, as dubious as "global mean temperature," too. ;)


Anecdotical evidence. If you look at the curve of the temperatures since 1880, there is a clear rise of the temperatures, and the rate has increased in the last twenty years or so. But the thirties were a small anomaly upwards, with the fifties as a correcting anomaly downwards. You cannot expect this (a climate change) to be a perfectly linear item, but you have to look at the larger picture.so what happens when, as solar activity predicts, global temperatures drop again? will that be an anomaly also? as well, the rise isn't so "clear" from 1880 till now, and certainly is not present to the same degree in the poles (cooling) and the upper atmosphere (minor warming, but within statistical variance).


Oh boy. I have yet to see one serious study or link with regards to AGW that does not take into account water vapour. I have shown (and you have acknowledged) that most AGW sites think that xater vapour has an impact of 60 to 80 % of the greenhouse. So how can you say then that they don't take it into account? The basic AGW model takes feedback mechanisms like the added water vapour when the temperature rises seriously into account. They may be wrong, but they are not stupid. but wrong is by itself enough to cause doubt, if not outright refutation. the fact of the matter is that they do not know how to model the water vapor in the atmosphere, particularly cloud cover. as you note, even the AGWs "think" it is about 60-80%. they don't know, and rather than choose the higher extremes of other research, the tend to choose the lower. i'd be more impressed if models did a "well, if it's 60% this is the impact, but if it's 95%, this is the impact." they don't, and hence glom's "politically chosen" variables comment.


That the extremes depend on the extremes, and that the most realistic climate model predictions depend on the most realistic emissions scenarios? Why would we have to challenge that?because these are the reports that are driving the billions, nay trillions, of dollars spent on cutting back fossil fuel usage. if they're willing to use extreme worst case scenarios, why not spend a little effort on best case?


Well, the last ten years have the most tropical storms and hurricanes of every ten year period since the start of the recording. I have given the link somewhere on the BAUT yet.the key phrase here is "since the start of the recording." at least all the temperature attempts go back a thousand years or more (forgetting for the moment the implications of guessing global temperatures indirectly). hurricane records are really only accurate the past 100 years or so, and really didn't get as much attention till the 50s. drawing inferences on hurricanes suffers from the unrepresentative sample fallacy.

also, the leading research work being done in the area of hurricanes and GW indicate that the increase in el ninos should actually reduce hurricane activity. as glom noted, landsea (chris) has not be refuted to date.


And four of the five hottest years (average global temperature) have occurred in the last seven years. That is a severe weather event, even though it is not of the sudden dramatic kind. why is it severe? 4 of the 5 hottest since when? since the 30s? since the mideval warming period?


This has nothing to do with the validity of AGW either. Oxygen is an essential component for us, but we would die if there was too much oxygen in the air.but alarmists aren't selling oxygen as a pollutant. they're selling CO2 as a pollutant, and that's the stuff that makes the news.


So an error of the past equals a current error? This doesn't say anything about the correctness of AGW. no, but it shows our inability to accurately assess what it is the earth's climate will do. kinda like the weather in st. louis... wait a day or so, it'll change.


No one claims that they have a perfect model, but then again, a perfect model is nearly impossible. But this doesn't mean that the current model may not be good enough to give the big trends, but still allows smaller ones (like the warming of the 1930's and the cooling of the 1950's) that seem to disagree with the model, but only give the anti-AGW'ers a false sense of security and cosy stability.actually, right now, i think even a reasonable model is impossible. so does glom, apparently. also, if a model cannot predict decade or two long trends, shouldn't that give pause when considering it's accuracy? you say "this doesn't mean that the current model may not be good enough," but maybe it does...


And this doesn't have to be challenged either. No one says that the climate would be stable without our interference. anecdotally speaking, at least from a media perspective, this is actually implied. either way, if it is driven by natural (out of our hands) forces, why waste trillions of dollars on something we can't control anyway?


and at least doubt has been cast on the certainty that the anti-AGW'ers seem to have about them.i think the reverse is true.

taks

Taks
2005-Oct-03, 08:56 PM
Previous trends do not prove or disprove AGW (they do prove that the climate isn't stable of course). There is a new factor, in case the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which may cause a climate change. i agree with this statement almost 100%...

as i've noted, i'm still not convinced about the CO2 readings of the past (that would be the "almost 100%" portion.)

taks

Glom
2005-Oct-03, 11:24 PM
First, I apologise if my post came across as trying the inundation technique. There have been lots of talk about AGW on this board and this thread has been the one that has gotten the muddiest over specific issues. I thought a recap of the overall picture was in order.


The 'casting doubt' is a wishful thinking falacy as well, in that case. It says nothing about the potential role of CO2 as a major climate driver. To have an indication of that, you would need a rise in CO2 without a prior serious change in climate, and then see how the climate changes (or not).

Do we have that? The AGW scenario is set on the precedent that carbon dioxide is a major climate forcer. Without evidence for that precedent, all you have is a greenhouse gas with undetermined effect on a complex and non-linear system.


And the Venus climate is a serious indication that CO2 can work as a major climate driver.

Apples and oranges. This is not Venus, sitting at 0.8AU with an atmosphere on 96% carbon dioxide, no water, a suspected recent resurfacing, no moon and a potential massive asteroid impact.


I had no idea this had to be challenged, it's a bit hard to tackle all objections at once. However, I have seen studies that claim that the current rise in temperature is the most sudden in a very long time. I'll have to look again to give sources and more details though.

Not true. The rise is within the limits of rises such as the Roman and Medieval Warm Period. This is the second of the two major precedents of AGW: global temperatures are increasing at an unprecedented rate. The climate record clearly shows that they are not.


It is not because there have been warmer periods that AGW is or is not true.

It undermines the precedent that global temperatures are at "unnatural" levels. If nothing is abnormal about this change, why presume a significant anthropogenic impact, and even if there is, why be so afraid of it?


What is a sub-optimum climate, anyway?

Famines, plagues, intense storms etc. We're better off with warming than with cooling.


Yes, but that is no challenge, as this is (contrary to what the anti-AGW people wants us to think) common knowledge and taken into account by the serious AGW studies (you'll find less serious websites which forget this of course).

True, this is not so important, although it does undermine the significance of any potential anthropogenic impact.


Well, then I'll challenge it now. This number only works if you take a very narrow definition of what is 'human activity'. The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by some 25% the past two centuries. If not by human activity, then by what process is the other 20% explained?

A reduction in algae and plankton in the seas of late perhaps or a reaction to the MWP (although not that likely). Deforestation no doubt also has a significant influence, which I mentioned. In any event, the validity of the increase is not beyond doubt. Zbigniew Jaworowski has talked about the problems of carbon dioxide depletion in the ice cores, which would give false lows.


Untrue. Perhaps it has not been challenged in this thread, but I've seen numeroud reports that the rise in sea levels is accelerating in the last century. I'll have to check this as well though.

According to the work of Nils Axel-Morner, there has been no acceleration in sea level rise and sea levels have decreased in places such as Tuvalu and the Maldives.


Anecdotical evidence. If you look at the curve of the temperatures since 1880, there is a clear rise of the temperatures, and the rate has increased in the last twenty years or so. But the thirties were a small anomaly upwards, with the fifties as a correcting anomaly downwards.

Anecdotal evidence comes from word of mouth or something you saw on the train. You are suggesting this is fallacy of limited scope.

No one is disputing an overall rise in temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age. The rate of increase is not significant since the end of the mid-century cooling compared to early century warming. The late century warming is not as rapid as the early century warming and neither is it noticeably acclerating. Your assertion that the thirties temperatures were an anomaly, is wishful thinking and wreaks of circularity. What makes it so anomalous other than the fact that is not consistent with dominent anthropogenic influence?


Depends on which part you mean. 'The only evidence' is false in my view, as the accelerated rise in sea levels is shown.

No it's not. There has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. See the work of Nil-Axel Morner.


'Impending doom' is a try to put all AGW theoreticists into the AAGW camp, which is false.

If there's no impending doom, then why would we be so concerned about building nuclear reactors to avert it, which is the relevance of the page to the site?


Oh boy. I have yet to see one serious study or link with regards to AGW that does not take into account water vapour.

My bad. I should have been more specific. Not water vapour as just a greenhouse gas but the effects of cloud formation and convective transfer, which is poorly understood.


That the extremes depend on the extremes, and that the most realistic climate model predictions depend on the most realistic emissions scenarios? Why would we have to challenge that?

The most realistic (and this is relatively speaking) give unremarkable predictions.


Well, the last ten years have the most tropical storms and hurricanes of every ten year period since the start of the recording.

And when did recording start?


And four of the five hottest years (average global temperature) have occurred in the last seven years.

Hottest years of which period?


This has nothing to do with the validity of AGW either. Oxygen is an essential component for us, but we would die if there was too much oxygen in the air.

True enough. It does, however, undermine the notion that carbon dioxide increases yield only negative effects, hence the need to build more nuclear power stations to reduce its production.


So an error of the past equals a current error? This doesn't say anything about the correctness of AGW.

Not directly, but it expresses the need for caution when listening to cries that the sky is falling (and if they weren't crying that the sky was falling, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because global politics would not surround this issue because it wouldn't be supposedly a threat greater than international terrorism).


'Politically selected'? Conspiracy of the scientists perhaps? This is a cheap shot.

If the variables weren't so politically selected, America would be under no obligation to cut their carbon emissions, because the growth of their emissions have been countered by the massive regrowth of their forests, which have been absorbing them. They're in carbon balance. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will do nothing to ensure any kind of climate stability because if we don't drive the climate, something else will, hence the Kyoto protocol is worthless as far as environment goes.


No one claims that they have a perfect model, but then again, a perfect model is nearly impossible.

We're not even close to getting to a point where we can debate their perfection.


But this doesn't mean that the current model may not be good enough to give the big trends, but still allows smaller ones (like the warming of the 1930's and the cooling of the 1950's) that seem to disagree with the model, but only give the anti-AGW'ers a false sense of security and cosy stability.

The big trends? What you mean warming or cooling? There's 50% chance they'll get it right. Even quantitatively, the models are too sensitive to arbitrary changes in inputs.


And this doesn't have to be challenged either. No one says that the climate would be stable without our interference.

Politicians and journalists do.

"... make climate change history." Kirsty Wark on Newsnight
"... give us a stable climate." Some guy on BBC News once.
"... dream of a world without climate change." An MP during PMQ's.

Relating to policy, such as whether we should build loads of nuclear reactors to reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions, it is dependent on the notion of a stable climate, because if the climate will continue to do weird things, then stopping emissions of carbon dioxide is just an expensive way to alter the way in which the climate changes, which we will still have to deal with through adaptation. And it appears we agree that the apocalypse is not rising so what's the big advantage.


but alarmists aren't selling oxygen as a pollutant.

It's early yet.


I have a problem with the industrial revolution occuring in the same time frame.

This is not particularly logical. The MWP was a natural event that came a millenium after the RWP, also a natural event. Then a warm period now starts and all of a sudden you find that too strange to be natural because industrialisation happens to have occured just prior? It's like saying that a bad goalie is held responsible for a team's losing streak but then when a new midfielder is brought in for another match and they lose again, you find it more than just a coincidence that this match had been lost just after the introduction of this new midfielder.


You may say its woo-woo, but I think its a perfectly sound reasoning.

What it comes down to is the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is fallacy because it leads to an absurdity: as part of the precautionary principle you are not allowed to follow the precautionary principle.

Taks
2005-Oct-03, 11:43 PM
i'm glad i wasn't drinking anything when i read that response glom... it would have been on my screen! it's early yet... so it seems. :)

taks

Argos
2005-Oct-04, 01:25 PM
Previous trends do not prove or disprove AGW (they do prove that the climate isn't stable of course). There is a new factor, in case the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which may cause a climate change.
There are many arguments why AGW isn't true (e.g. the list of Glom), and I am slowly looking at them and trying to decide (for myself: I don't have the means or the knowledge to prove anything) for each point how valid and certain it is. Until now, I haven't found anything which says to me: AGW isn't true (or the contrary). But many issues are still open, let there be no doubt about that! But for now, I'm still more inclined to believe in AGW than not. Just an opinion...

This is a perfect example of a scientific mind. Scientists are cautious about making wholesale, peremptory assertions.

The GW debate must serve a useful purpose. Otherwise it would be only a sterile academic exercize. We should stand for more data to support our arguments, but in the meantime we should act assuming the worst prospects.

pghnative
2005-Oct-04, 01:33 PM
Scientists are cautious about making wholesale, peremptory assertions.

The GW debate must serve a useful purpose. Otherwise it would be only a sterile academic exercize. We should stand for more data to support our arguments, but in the meantime we should act assuming the worst prospects.I doubt if you'll find any disagreement here with the first 3 1/2 sentences.

Taks
2005-Oct-04, 04:17 PM
but in the meantime we should act assuming the worst prospects.pghnative is right. regarding the last 1/2 sentence, i beg to differ. given your assumptions that we don't have enough data, what happens if we cause the reverse, and it results in a new ice age? what happens to the economy if we don't just spend $18 trillion to fix this, but the hundreds of trillions it will take to affect real change?

acting on the worst possible case is irresponsible at best, both economically and environmentally.

taks

Glom
2005-Oct-04, 05:19 PM
but in the meantime we should act assuming the worst prospects.

In other words, when in doubt, cry FUD. (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/deb/fud.html)

Argos
2005-Oct-04, 06:02 PM
In other words, when in doubt, cry FUD. (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/deb/fud.html)

Paranoid, me? No, no. :)

I mean, Id admit a very slight paranoia, in right the dosage for survival. Extremely confident individuals tend to perish (in other words, when faced with a lion youd better run).

Glom
2005-Oct-04, 06:13 PM
(in other words, when faced with a lion youd better run).

That's because it is known that the lion is very deadly. That is not FUD. FUD is when you act as though something is very dangerous without any evidence, merely a suspicion, that it is.

If we use your reasoning that we should presume the worst case scenario until we know more, then we should send all Muslims to internment camps, ban alcohol, stop vaccination programs and close all hospitals (because of MRSA doncha know).

I will say again: under the precautionary principle, you are NOT allowed to follow the precautionary principle.

Monique
2005-Oct-04, 06:15 PM
This is a perfect example of a scientific mind. Scientists are cautious about making wholesale, peremptory assertions.

The GW debate must serve a useful purpose. Otherwise it would be only a sterile academic exercize. We should stand for more data to support our arguments, but in the meantime we should act assuming the worst prospects.
Based on philosophy of "we should act assuming the worst prospects." I suggest (from other thread) ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html). Case for substance more alarming, more documentation, then AGW.

;)

Argos
2005-Oct-04, 06:26 PM
Well, you (glom and others) blame me for proposing the use of a certain (weak) set of evidences in support of institutional actions, while you are proposing another (equally weak) set of evidences to justify institutional inaction. It doesnt seem coherent.

Argos
2005-Oct-04, 06:34 PM
Regarding the MWP and LIA I would like to see evidence of these short cyles receding further to the past, not a single cycle (not even a complete cycle) beginning in the 11th century. Id like to see something like a senoid with many cycles. How can we be sure that those events were not a ramdom isolated anomaly?

Glom
2005-Oct-04, 06:39 PM
Well, you (glom and others) blame me for proposing the use of a certain (weak) set of evidences in support of institutional actions, while you are proposing another (equally weak) set of evidences to justify institutional inaction. It doesnt seem coherent.

I'm not going to let you get away with that. You're proposing an action. You have of burden of proof for the justification for that action.


Regarding the MWP and LIA I would like to see evidence of these short cyles receding further to the past, not a single cycle (not even a complete cycle) beginning in the 11th century. Id like to see something like a senoid with many cycles. How can we be sure that those events were not a ramdom isolated anomaly?

The Roman Warm Period and the Dark Age cool period as an example.

Argos
2005-Oct-04, 07:12 PM
I'm not going to let you get away with that. You're proposing an action. You have of burden of proof for the justification for that action.

Inaction always translates into results, like actions themselves. Governments often use inaction to attain certain objectives. In institutional affairs (to avoid the p word), inaction can be just as effective as actions. By proposing inaction you are aiming an objective.

Both you and I are ultimately doing the same thing: using our (weak) arguments to achive objectives. Were both in action.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-04, 07:19 PM
Regarding the MWP and LIA I would like to see evidence of these short cyles receding further to the past, not a single cycle (not even a complete cycle) beginning in the 11th century. Id like to see something like a senoid with many cycles. How can we be sure that those events were not a ramdom isolated anomaly?

Two points:

First, research on much longer scales has been done and it reveals evidence for a solar-climate connection that may even control the Ice Ages (http://<font%20size=/).</FONT>

Second, Even in the absense of the above results, you're dismissing 1000+ years of evidence for a solar-climate connection while asking us to accept that the last few decades is controlled by human activities. The evidence for the solar-climate is very strong and long term.

Edited to add: (sorry, no idea why the font is larger. Maybe because I pasted the link over from wordpad. It seems every time I do that strange things happen.)

Glom
2005-Oct-04, 07:36 PM
Inaction always translates into results, like actions themselves. Governments often use inaction to attain certain objectives. In institutional affairs (to avoid the p word), inaction can be just as effective as actions. By proposing inaction you are aiming an objective.

Both you and I are ultimately doing the same thing: using our (weak) arguments to achive objectives. Were both in action.

But your action proposes changing the course we would otherwise follow.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-04, 08:43 PM
Inaction always translates into results, like actions themselves. Governments often use inaction to attain certain objectives. In institutional affairs (to avoid the p word), inaction can be just as effective as actions. By proposing inaction you are aiming an objective.

What Glom is saying is that a proposal to change the course we're already on should be verified with good science (in this case). The evidence supporting the AAGW scenario is weak at best.


Both you and I are ultimately doing the same thing: using our (weak) arguments to achive objectives. Were both in action.

No, the AAGW arguments are weak. We've presented a very strong case that the Sun is a significant player in the observed climate and that the evidence for a significant human influence is lacking.

Argos
2005-Oct-10, 01:59 PM
Im not an advocate of AAGW. Im arguing that man has a significant role in GW, and that global warming is possibly caused by mans industrial activity. Im not saying that it is going to be necessarily apocalyptic.

Btw, people are actually eager for the globalwarming (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/science/10arctic.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=64e93c8fc877d5f2&hp&ex=1129003200&partner=homepage) (requires registration). Things like these pave the way for the arguments of those who make the case for natural cycles. We tend to believe in comfortable ideas.

Meanwhile, at the tropics...

Taks
2005-Oct-10, 03:42 PM
Im not an advocate of AAGW. Im arguing that man has a significant role in GW, and that global warming is possibly caused by mans industrial activity. Im not saying that it is going to be necessarily apocalyptic."significant" has never been shown to be true, however. i do grant that you've not been harping apocalyptic and i do keep that in mind when replying. i think the others do as well though your perception may be different.

i think to argue that man has no impact would be ridiculous. however, it is up to the apocalyptic activists to show that our impact is more than negligible and then prove that it is detrimental before we should be expected to lift a finger in their direction. to date, this proof is strangely absent from anything i've read.

taks

dgruss23
2005-Oct-10, 11:03 PM
Im not an advocate of AAGW. Im arguing that man has a significant role in GW, and that global warming is possibly caused by mans industrial activity.

What do you base your argument that humans have a significant role upon?

Argos
2005-Oct-11, 03:28 PM
It my working hypothesis. I (along with many many others around the world) base it on the fact that the rise in the global temps coincides with the extensive use of fossil fuels during the last 200 years.

Taks
2005-Oct-11, 06:15 PM
I (along with many many others around the world) base it on the fact that the rise in the global temps coincides with the extensive use of fossil fuels during the last 200 years.a) current rise is not shown to be statistically signficant (yet, which means the term "fact" is a bit of a misnomer) b) correlation is not equal to causation and c) past rises have been shown to correlate more closely with solar activity, the central piece of dgruss' thesis, which would tend to imply man is NOT a significant contributor.

taks

Glom
2005-Oct-11, 06:28 PM
It my working hypothesis. I (along with many many others around the world) base it on the fact that the rise in the global temps coincides with the extensive use of fossil fuels during the last 200 years.

That's an affirmed consequent.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-12, 12:46 AM
It my working hypothesis. I (along with many many others around the world) base it on the fact that the rise in the global temps coincides with the extensive use of fossil fuels during the last 200 years.

As already noted by Glom and taks, the timing of the industrial revolution corresponds with a point in which the Sun became more active. That's a genuine coincidence. But the 1940-1970 cooling corresponds with a point when the Sun became less active - even as industrial activity and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were growing.

cran
2005-Oct-12, 01:34 AM
Youre right. In the first three billion years Earth was hot like hell. Where does that information come from? :confused:

Matthew
2005-Oct-12, 08:21 AM
The posts about terraforming Mars havge been moved here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=33581)

Argos
2005-Oct-12, 12:28 PM
The posts about terraforming Mars havge been moved here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=33581)

The question I made regarding terraforming Mars belonged in this thread and it was necessary to my reasoning. It was pertaining.

Again: Do you guys believe terraforming Mars is a concrete possibility?

pghnative
2005-Oct-12, 01:51 PM
Certainly not with today's technology. I don't think humanity has figured out how to harness enough energy to change the equilibrium conditions of a planet.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-12, 02:33 PM
The question I made regarding terraforming Mars belonged in this thread and it was necessary to my reasoning. It was pertaining.

Again: Do you guys believe terraforming Mars is a concrete possibility?

My response was this:


Do you believe that liberating enough frozen gases to actually thicken the Martian atmosphere is comparable to changing the ppm of a gas in an already very thick atmosphere?

Taks
2005-Oct-12, 06:40 PM
Again: Do you guys believe terraforming Mars is a concrete possibility?and i replied that this is a straw man (you're trying to shift the argument to something potentially weaker since we will likely agree that terraforming is possible).

then, your follow up would be to equate CO2 buildup on mars through terraforming to anthropogenic influence on earth. but you're trying to trick us into agreeing with your reasoning above which would amount to a tautology as well (your question assumes the answer).

taks

Argos
2005-Oct-15, 01:41 PM
Yes, my point is that denying that man can cause an impact on Earth&#180;s atmosphere equates to denying that any terraforming is possible. It&#180;s up to you explaining how to reconcile both views; this (apparently) contradictory reasoning.

Glom
2005-Oct-15, 02:28 PM
Alright then, if we assume that there's a terraforming experiment going on at the moment then we should prepare for global warming in about, say, 10,000 years, which is how long it would take to terraform Mars.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-15, 02:40 PM
Yes, my point is that denying that man can cause an impact on Earths atmosphere equates to denying that any terraforming is possible.

No, its a false analogy and it changes the subject anyway. Terraforming is about turning the conditions on other planets into conditions similar to Earth's. That is why I asked you this in response to which you have not responded after I've asked twice:



Do you believe that liberating enough frozen gases to actually thicken the Martian atmosphere is comparable to changing the ppm of a gas in an already very thick atmosphere?


We're changing the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. The change we're making is something that happens naturally as indicated in the ice cores. We are not terraforming the Earth. There is not even any compelling evidence that the change we've induced is responsible for anything more than perhaps a small fraction of the observed climate changes of the last 120 years. Indeed there is contradictory evidence that we've discussed.

So you're analogy is a false analogy. Its not applicable to this situation. There is a big difference between changing the ppm of a trace gas (what's happening on Earth) and increasing the thickness of a very thin atmosphere to something comparable to Earth's (Terraforming Mars).


Its up to you explaining how to reconcile both views; this (apparently) contradictory reasoning.

Nothing contradictory at all. Incorrect analogy - as was clearly hinted at in my question to you when you first raised this analogy.

Ken G
2005-Oct-15, 08:48 PM
To get back to the science, I would like to be illuminated more about the rising CO2 levels. It was my understanding that CO2 levels are very clearly rising rapidly. Is it generally accepted that this is due to human involvement? If so, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas would seem to correlate in an important way with the fact that the temperature is rising. Or is this latter point also in dispute?
From the political standpoint, a cagey question that can be asked is, who has more to gain financially: CO2 producers who would prefer us all to believe that there is no need to curb CO2 emissions, or anti-CO2 producers who... what? Are using this as a way for the developing world to increase their leverage? Like increased leverage of the developing world is a big geopolitical problem today? Like the current world's profile for energy consumption is sustainable and appropriate?

Glom
2005-Oct-15, 09:32 PM
It was my understanding that CO2 levels are very clearly rising rapidly. Is it generally accepted that this is due to human involvement?

The term "rapidly" is subjective. There is dispute over ice core depletion. Generally, changing land use has been given a lot of the blame for the rising carbon dioxide levels. The noteable thing is no acceleration of increase.


If so, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas would seem to correlate in an important way with the fact that the temperature is rising. Or is this latter point also in dispute?

What is in dispute is that carbon dioxide is that important in this system. The ice cores show it isn't.

RE the rest, don't sling ad hominems, not least because you'll lose.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-15, 09:55 PM
To get back to the science, I would like to be illuminated more about the rising CO2 levels. It was my understanding that CO2 levels are very clearly rising rapidly. Is it generally accepted that this is due to human involvement? If so, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas would seem to correlate in an important way with the fact that the temperature is rising. Or is this latter point also in dispute?
From the political standpoint, a cagey question that can be asked is, who has more to gain financially: CO2 producers who would prefer us all to believe that there is no need to curb CO2 emissions, or anti-CO2 producers who... what? Are using this as a way for the developing world to increase their leverage? Like increased leverage of the developing world is a big geopolitical problem today? Like the current world's profile for energy consumption is sustainable and appropriate?

Ken G, If you don't mind, I'm going to point you to this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376) as a primer for the nature of the global warming debate on BAUT. Quite a few of us have provided a referenced outline as to the failings of the AAGW scenario. You'll find most of the points of debate in that thread.

I'm pointing you to it as a resource. Please feel free to take your time with it and the references I have linked to in that thread. Its a lot of reading, but it will catch you up to speed about where we're coming from - scientifically.

Ken G
2005-Oct-15, 11:05 PM
That seems a reasonable request, dgruss23, if the questions I posed find answers there. Of course the nature of threads is they tend to tangle if one is not careful, and no one wants to say the same things twice.

Argos
2005-Oct-17, 01:37 PM
Alright then, if we assume that there's a terraforming experiment going on at the moment then we should prepare for global warming in about, say, 10,000 years, which is how long it would take to terraform Mars.

Yes, with a tiny terraforming effort. The pace of the venusforming of Earth is way faster (by several orders of magnitude).

Dgrusss, my analogy is not false, since the same mechanism is involved in both scenarios. Even if a natural concentration (ppm increase) of CO2 levels was going on right now, I think we could comfortably say that the artificial emissions are equally significant.

pghnative
2005-Oct-17, 05:01 PM
Venusforming??? I thought you said earlier that you didn't believe in the "apocalyptic" part of AAGW. (Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Global Warming)

Glom
2005-Oct-17, 05:34 PM
Yes, with a tiny terraforming effort. The pace of the venusforming of Earth is way faster (by several orders of magnitude).

Erm... er... what?

Do share the calculations by which you conclude that this venusforming process is happening several orders of magnitude faster than the "tiny" terraforming effort, which involve nukes, giant space mirrors and megascale structures.

And no, linear extrapolation is not valid.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-18, 02:49 AM
Dgrusss, my analogy is not false, since the same mechanism is involved in both scenarios. Even if a natural concentration (ppm increase) of CO2 levels was going on right now, I think we could comfortably say that the artificial emissions are equally significant.

Same mechanism? Why? Because humans would be releasing gases into an atmosphere in both instances? You refuse to respond to the salient point that the scale of such changes would be totally different. The atmospherid pressure on Mars is ~ 7mb. Earth's surface pressure is ~1000 mb. Terraforming would likely involve raising the air pressure on Mars into the hundreds of millibars.

Again on Earth we're talking about changing the parts per million from an estimated pre-industrial level of ~280 ppm to perhaps 600 ppm - by when?

And you refer to Venus - which has an atmospheric pressure of ~98,000 millibars?

This is all over the place and nothing in your analogy is comparable to the changing CO2 levels on Earth. The scales of change are totally different.

Argos
2005-Oct-18, 12:43 PM
Same mechanism? Why? Because humans would be releasing gases into an atmosphere in both instances?

Yes.


You refuse to respond to the salient point that the scale of such changes would be totally different.

I accept it. Thats why I told glom about a "tiny" effort. Even if we used giant structures, nukes, etc, it would still be a tiny effort compared to the huge scale of our greenhouse gas emissions.

About atm pressure, Mars has undergone a greenhouse effect, afaik, despite its low pressure. Would you please elaborate on the importance of the atm pressure to the whole process of GW (Im not challenging you; this is a sincere request, since you seem to be in a better position to clarify this, as a meteorologist)?

pghnative, by venusforming I was using a figure of language. I apologize for the drama.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-18, 01:16 PM
About atm pressure, Mars has undergone a greenhouse effect, afaik, despite its low pressure. Would you please elaborate on the importance of the atm pressure to the whole process of GW (Im not challenging you; this is a sincere request, since you seem to be in a better position to clarify this, as a meteorologist)?


I'm not a meteorologist, but that's not a requirement to discuss the issue.

The point about the atmospheric pressure is that it provides a significant part of the reason why your analogy of terraforming Mars is not an appropriate comparison with increasing CO2 levels on Earth.

The question is specifically - can CO2 increases act as a climate forcer on Earth? The empirical evidence from the climate record suggests the answer is "no".

However Mars is a different planet - the thickness of the atmosphere is relevant to the overall effect changing the amount of a gas will have. For example note in this link (http://spdxdev.estec.esa.nl/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31030) that on Mars the atmosphere is so thin that the temperature 1 Meter above the ground can be 15 deg C cooler than the surface temperature - and that the surface temperature at night will drop about 80 deg C from the daytime temp.

If we successfully terraform Mars we completely change that system. And of course significant warming will result - simply because of the significantly thicker atmosphere. Even if the Atmospheric pressure was only increased to 150 millibars, that is still over 20 times greater than the current air pressure on Mars. You could increase the thickness if the atmosphere with any gas - and the temperature is going to warm.

Nothing of that scale is happening on Earth - CO2 is not even the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth as it is on Mars. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth.

Try thinking of it this way. CO2 is 0.03% of the gas in the Earth's atmosphere. Now that means CO2 contributes 0.3 millibars of the total air pressure (1000 mb for Earth). If we double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere then the contribution would increase to 0.6 mb.

The relative thickness of the atmospheres of these two planets becomes relevant when yo're talking about climate - and it makes a comparison of terraforming Mars with changing the CO2 levels on Earth an inappropriate comparison for making any claims about the AAGW concern on Earth.

Argos
2005-Oct-18, 01:54 PM
Try thinking of it this way. CO2 is 0.03% of the gas in the Earth's atmosphere. Now that means CO2 contributes 0.3 millibars of the total air pressure (1000 mb for Earth). If we double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere then the contribution would increase to 0.6 mb.

Ok, but to what extent would this marginal concentration induce the increase of other greehouse gases, like water vapor, leading to a cascading effect?


The relative thickness of the atmospheres of these two planets becomes relevant when yo're talking about climate - and it makes a comparison of terraforming Mars with changing the CO2 levels on Earth an inappropriate comparison for making any claims about the AAGW concern on Earth.

The AAGW is certainly an exaggeration. We have all agreed on that. Introducing it in the discussion can shift the focus from the real problem: A significant (though not apocalyptic) global warming.

Glom
2005-Oct-18, 05:38 PM
Ok, but to what extent would this marginal concentration induce the increase of other greehouse gases, like water vapor, leading to a cascading effect?

Cascading effect? If that was going to happen it would have happened already.

Argos
2005-Oct-18, 06:10 PM
Whats the threshold then? The point of inflexion (i.e. the point where the generation of water vapor caused by the marginal warming of the atmosphere induced by the marginal amounts of CO2 start to become noticeable and measurable) might lie still ahead in the future, as we (and, according to you, nature) continuously add CO2 to the atmosphere. Thats the point: If we had a real theory we should be able to predict it, or to estimate it, at least.

stpbutcool1
2005-Oct-18, 06:12 PM
i think that the global worming only is affecting our weather bye only 2'f "natural cycles all the way baby":p

Glom
2005-Oct-18, 08:52 PM
Whats the threshold then? The point of inflexion (i.e. the point where the generation of water vapor caused by the marginal warming of the atmosphere induced by the marginal amounts of CO2 start to become noticeable and measurable) might lie still ahead in the future, as we (and, according to you, nature) continuously add CO2 to the atmosphere. Thats the point: If we had a real theory we should be able to predict it, or to estimate it, at least.

Okay, this is getting circular. And you know full well that our current energy sources will not be used forever. You think the energy landscape will look like anything recognisabe in a century or two?

Argos
2005-Oct-18, 10:10 PM
Now we seem to agree. No I dont think so. But I see the energy matrix staying the same for the next 50 years. That might be enough for deleterious effects.

Yes this is becoming circular because we dont have a full theory, capable of informing our arguments. Were working on assumptions.

The original question was Is Global Warming Real or Not? I think we all agree, coming from different directions, that it is real. I propose to take further discussion on the causes and effects of GW to the new Global Warming thread started by Fram. I think were done with this one.

dgruss23
2005-Oct-19, 12:46 AM
Whats the threshold then? The point of inflexion (i.e. the point where the generation of water vapor caused by the marginal warming of the atmosphere induced by the marginal amounts of CO2 start to become noticeable and measurable) might lie still ahead in the future, as we (and, according to you, nature) continuously add CO2 to the atmosphere. Thats the point: If we had a real theory we should be able to predict it, or to estimate it, at least.

Sure, so we have the empirical data to go on - which shows in a number of ways that in the past the Sun influenced climate change and CO2 was a follower rather than a forcer or climate change.

Glom's point is important. If there was such a tipping point, then it should have been reached long ago. The Earth's climate is just not that unstable. It fluctuates in and out of ice ages with smaller warm and cool periods on shorter time scales. There is no indication that a catastrophic warming is possible - because the basic mechanism proposed to cause it - could have happened already countless times.

Laser Jock
2005-Oct-21, 06:05 PM
I'm rather surprised that no one has posted this article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/21/greenland.icecap.reut/index.html) about Greenland's icecap getting thicker. I thought this part was telling:


However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.


Rather remarkable theory that global warming business. If the icecaps get thinner it is caused by global warming. If the icecaps get thicker it is caused by ... global warming. It's nice when all possible outcomes of any measurement will support your theory. :naughty: :doh:

Disinfo Agent
2005-Oct-21, 06:21 PM
I'm rather surprised that no one has posted this article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/21/greenland.icecap.reut/index.html) about Greenland's icecap getting thicker. I thought this part was telling:

Rather remarkable theory that global warming business. If the icecaps get thinner it is caused by global warming. If the icecaps get thicker it is caused by ... global warming. It's nice when all possible outcomes of any measurement will support your theory.Actually, if you bothered to read the whole article, it would make perfect sense. It goes something like this:
Glaciers at sea level are melting. The ice in them falls into the oceans. That increases the moisture in the air. That moisture turns into snow, which makes parts of the ice cap that haven't melted yet, up in higher altitudes, grow thicker.

cran
2005-Oct-21, 11:01 PM
Keep in mind, too, that snow precipitates within a fairly limited temerature range - colder regions don't get snow forming clouds (they get windblown ice), but if these regions warm up a bit ... snow forming clouds, and thickening glaciers.

Candy
2005-Oct-21, 11:56 PM
Be nice, layman here. These are just my thoughts (please try to visualize).

<front> SUN ----- earth) ----- outer solar system) <rear>
>front> SUN ----- earth) --------------- outer solar system) <rear>

Couldnt this be a thought, that as the solar system (or whatever the term) expands, then the Earth is physically getting closer to the sun? Therefore, wouldnt the Earth (and other Planets) be getting warmer from more exposure to the Sun (from front to rear)? Sorry, it just makes sense to me. Please, don't think I'm crazy for thinking this. I just like thinking outside of the box.

Fram
2005-Oct-22, 01:35 PM
The solar system isn't expanding, AFAIK. The Universe is (probably).
The Earth isn't moving closer to the Sun (or farter away), but is still in the orbit is has been in for a very long time (perhaps some minimal fluctuatoins, but nothing on this scale).
And I don't get the reason that even if the Solar system was expanding, the Earth should be getting closer to the Sun. Shouldn't it be getting farther away as well?

cran
2005-Oct-22, 08:15 PM
If anything, Candy, the Earth/Moon system has drifted further from Sun since formation, but not by very much, because the orbit is essentially stable ... the sort of drift that results from the conservation of angular momentum.

In a few billion years (give or take a Sunday) the Sun will expand, and then the Earth will be substantially closer to the Sun's outer layers ...

Candy
2005-Oct-23, 12:09 AM
The solar system isn't expanding, AFAIK. The Universe is (probably).
And I don't get the reason that even if the Solar system was expanding, the Earth should be getting closer to the Sun. Shouldn't it be getting farther away as well?
Not if the Planets stay in the same position.

That's cool to know, cran. Spooky, but cool.

cran
2005-Oct-23, 02:12 AM
Spooky, but cool. Kind of sums up how I feel about the life, the universe, and everything ... :)
but I guess we better let them get on with debating global warming ... I'll just go and check the hole in the ozone layer (3rd highest on record?) :think:

Superluminal
2005-Oct-23, 03:57 AM
The Maunder Minimum, or the little Ice Age, ended in the early 1700's. Just a tick of the clock, geologically speaking. So, it's easy to understand why glaciers and the ice caps are shrinking.

A few years ago there was a program, NOVA on PBS IIRC, about an expidition to Mt. Kilamanjaro. It was the 100th anniversary of the first European expidition. Everyone was freaked out because the glaciers were 80% smaller than they were 100 years earlier.

I've also read that Mars has warmed slightly since we have been able to make accurate readings on the red planet.

Where I live, 2004 was the hottest summer on record, yet we set a record for the fewest 100+ degree days. So did global warming cause the record highs, or did some other factor cause the fewest 100+ days?

So much data and so much of it is contradictory, and so much can be interpeted to mean what you want. So many people are not scientifically literate, they react emotionally. And it seems the GW mans fault crowd are the loudest getting people stired up when they should just stay calm and rational.

Candy
2005-Oct-23, 08:30 PM
I've also read that Mars has warmed slightly since we have been able to make accurate readings on the red planet.
:think:

Glom
2005-Oct-23, 10:06 PM
Laser Jock's point is still valid. If the glacier was to shrink it would be proclaimed to be global warming. If the glacier was to grow it would be proclaimed to be global warming. That is tautological and hence unfalsifiable. If it is unfalsifiable, it is not science, it is faith.

cran
2005-Oct-24, 12:53 AM
:think: Yes, there have been reports that Mars is also experiencing some global warming ... now, who wants to argue that it's because of all the probes we've sent there?

cran
2005-Oct-24, 12:56 AM
Laser Jock's point is still valid. If the glacier was to shrink it would be proclaimed to be global warming. If the glacier was to grow it would be proclaimed to be global warming. That is tautological and hence unfalsifiable. If it is unfalsifiable, it is not science, it is faith. No, it is water.

Candy
2005-Oct-24, 01:11 AM
Yes, there have been reports that Mars is also experiencing some global warming ... now, who wants to argue that it's because of all the probes we've sent there?
Is my idea so far out in space? Just wondering.

Fram
2005-Oct-24, 09:35 AM
Laser Jock's point is still valid. If the glacier was to shrink it would be proclaimed to be global warming. If the glacier was to grow it would be proclaimed to be global warming. That is tautological and hence unfalsifiable. If it is unfalsifiable, it is not science, it is faith.

But if they explain why the growing of the glaciers is related to global warming, it is science again. And I believe they did just that. Even the article in CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/21/greenland.icecap.reut/)gives the basic scientific explanation of why this is consistent with the GW models. So Laser Jock's point is not valid, as a simple search would have shown.

Glom
2005-Oct-24, 10:15 AM
Then I take it you assert that the shrinking of glaciers is inconsistent with global warming theory.

The issue is not the inconsistency. It is the tautology. You can't have it both ways. How are we supposed to disprove the notion if any outcome is taken to be consistent? A scientific theory is old such as long as it is falsifiable, ie it can be disproven. What it means is that glaciers can't be taken as evidence of global warming.

This is our main gripe with the AAGWers. They keep on trying to stack the deck so everyone outcome points to AAGW. There's warming, it's global warming. There's cooling, it's global warming. There's floods, it's global warming. There's droughts, it's global warming. There's shrinking glaciers, it's global warming. There's growing glaciers, it's global warming.

It's irrevelant in any case, because this activity speaks nothing of the cause. I could easily turn it around and say it is consistent with solar induced warming.