I have posted on this a zillion times over here, and most of you are up to speed on this, but I posted this for my Coyote Blog readers and thought it would be good to repost over here.
Take all the psuedo-quasi-scientific stuff you read in the media about global warming. Of all that mess, it turns out there is really only one scientific question that really matters on the topic of man-made global warming: Feedback.
While the climate models are complex, and the actual climate even, err, complexer, we can shortcut the reaction of global temperatures to CO2 to a single figure called climate sensitivity. How many degrees of warming should the world expect for each doubling of CO2 concentrations (the relationship is logarithmic, so that is why sensitivity is based on doublings, rather than absolute increases — an increase of CO2 from 280 to 290 ppm should have a higher impact on temperatures than the increase from, say, 380 to 390 ppm).
The IPCC reached a climate sensitivity to CO2 of about 3C per doubling. More popular (at least in the media) catastrophic forecasts range from 5C on up to about any number you can imagine, way past any range one might consider reasonable.
But here is the key fact — Most folks, including the IPCC, believe the warming sensitivity from CO2 alone (before feedbacks) is around 1C or a bit higher (arch-alarmist Michael Mann did the research the IPCC relied on for this figure). All the rest of the sensitivity between this 1C and 3C or 5C or whatever the forecast is comes from feedbacks (e.g. hotter weather melts ice, which causes less sunlight to be reflected, which warms the world more). Feedbacks, by the way can be negative as well, acting to reduce the warming effect. In fact, most feedbacks in our physical world are negative, but alarmist climate scientists tend to assume very high positive feedbacks.
What this means is that 70-80% or more of the warming in catastrophic warming forecasts comes from feedback, not CO2 acting alone. If it turns out that feedbacks are not wildly positive, or even are negative, then the climate sensitivity is 1C or less, and we likely will see little warming over the next century due to man.
This means that the only really important question in the manmade global warming debate is the sign and magnitude of feedbacks. And how much of this have you seen in the media? About zero? Nearly 100% of what you see in the media is not only so much bullshit (like whether global warming is causing the cold weather this year) but it is also irrelevant. Entirely tangential to the core question. Its all so much magician handwaving trying to hide what is going on, or in this case not going on, with the other hand.
To this end, Dr. Roy Spencer has a nice update. Parts are a bit dense, but the first half explains this feedback question in layman’s terms. The second half shows some attempts to quantify feedback. His message is basically that no one knows even the sign and much less the magnitude of feedback, but the empirical data we are starting to see (which has admitted flaws) points to negative rather than positive feedback, at least in the short term. His analysis looks at the change in radiative heat transfer in and out of the earth as measured by satellites around transient peaks in ocean temperatures (oceans are the world’s temperature flywheel — most of the Earth’s surface heat content is in the oceans).
Read it all, but this is an interesting note:
In fact, NO ONE HAS YET FOUND A WAY WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA TO TEST CLIMATE MODEL SENSITIVITY. This means we have no idea which of the climate models projections are more likely to come true.
This dirty little secret of the climate modeling community is seldom mentioned outside the community. Don’t tell anyone I told you.
This is why climate researchers talk about probable ranges of climate sensitivity. Whatever that means!…there is no statistical probability involved with one-of-a-kind events like global warming!
There is HUGE uncertainty on this issue. And I will continue to contend that this uncertainty is a DIRECT RESULT of researchers not distinguishing between cause and effect when analyzing data.
If you find this topic interesting, I recommend my video and/or powerpoint presentation to you.
netdr:
The point is that CO2 seems to be over rated as a GHG. Most of the warming on earth, comes from water vapor which reacts to any warming even solar. The sign and magnitude of this reaction is unknown.
##########################################################
my response
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Your opinion just doesn’t match the observations by our top scientists.
Adam:
To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support
the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to
increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from
1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that
occurred from 1920 to 1930.”
##########################################################
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joel_M._Schwartz
Affiliations
Schwartz is a Senior Consultant with Blue Sky Consulting Group in Sacramento, California.[1]
He has done stints at the Reason Public Policy Institute, the RAND Corporation, and the American Enterprise Institute[1]. He has been listed as an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute[2] and an an adjunct scholar at the John Locke Foundation[3].
He is listed as a National Center for Policy Analysis “E-Team expert”[4], and by the Heartland Institute among its global warming experts.
#########################################################
I’ve looked the paper over. The paper itself does not come to Joel Schwartz’s conclusion. Basically he has added his own emphasis on a paper that does a temperature discussion. Joel is basically an energy lobbyist.
Adam:
Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years
(((((Willie W.-H. Soon))))))
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Received 9 May 2005; revised 12 July 2005; accepted 29 July 2005; published 27 August 2005.
#########################################################
I’m not even going to bother with Willie Soon. I got a good laugh out of it though.
Adam:
“Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
##########################################################
What seems to be missing is an explanation of the forcings of that time. When on a thread about feedbacks and climate, the person or scientist that can provide the whole picture rules the day. Professional skeptics aren’t interested in the whole picture. Their job is to dealy the inevitable and have done their job well.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=79&&n=61
Adam:
Renewable Guy, John Cook’s very unskeptical website is not a reliable source of information.
I suggest that you actually do your own proper research on the subject, rather than just accept anything off Cook’s website like it’s the word of God.
It may shock you; but skepticalscience.com is not the complete and total centre of the universe.
##########################################################
I have used other sources. John Cook has done such a thorough and quality job with complete science backup. I do read some of the papers that he bases his rebutals on.
Interesting note, all the papers and rebuttals written on his sight are done by volunteers. Can you say that about whats up with that?
sigh….. Typical warmist.
Just completely dismiss anything that disagrees with them. Renewable Guy I gave you peer reviewed studies supporting direct skepisicm of AGW, and you have shown nothing wrong with them. You just don’t like it that it goes against your views.
“I have used other sources. John Cook has done such a thorough and quality job with complete science backup.”
Renewable Guy you believe what you read on that website, simply because it’s what you want to believe. You just accept anything off that site unquestionably, as if it was the word of God.
Renewable Guy, Cook’s website is for weak minded and uninformed. It gives AGW alarmists a scientific basis for their religion.
I mean, the claims made on Skeptical Science are preposterous. Like that link you gave us earlier in which Cook claimed that satellites measured the outgoing radiation being trapped.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
Cook’s claim about satellites measuring the outgoing radiation being trapped is debunked here (point 2)
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/
and here
http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/CookRebuttalb.pdf
here
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
His claim was ridiculous, yet you just accepted it unquestionably and started repeating it as ’empirical evidence’.
Adam:
sigh….. Typical warmist.
Just completely dismiss anything that disagrees with them. Renewable Guy I gave you peer reviewed studies supporting direct skepisicm of AGW, and you have shown nothing wrong with them. You just don’t like it that it goes against your views.
#########################################################
I haven’t dismissed the warming trends of Greenland. I may have even enhanced them. If you look at my links provided, there is a more throrough explanation of what is going on. Joel Schwartz is an energy lobbyist and a very biased source in favor of big polluters. What do think this fight is really about? Polluters don’t want to pay for a cleaner environment. Fossil fuels are on their way out. They are just hanging on as long as they can before the inevitable happens. The science of co2 is known down to the hair on a gnat’s ass. I have just basic college physics and math. The phd’s have trouble arguing with me because I stick to the science.
Renewable Guy what you did was just a simple ad hominem attack.
Renewable Guy that paper had ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER with Joel Schwartz, the only thing where Joel schwartz is even mentioned, is simply that the link to the pdf had his name on it.
Other than that, it had no connection.
At all.
Renewable Guy why don’t you just stop using ad homs and actually focus on the argument
Renewable Guy Sourcewatch is just a smear campaign blog, much like Desmogblog.
And it’s funny how you call them “big polluters” because you do realise that co2 is not pollution. It is a natural trace gas. Pollution and co2 are two entirely different things.
And Renewable Guy I laughed out loud and your statemnt that Energy Industries were “a very biased source” and that “Polluters don’t want to pay for a cleaner environment.” and that they’re just “delaying the inevitable”
Renewable Guy statements like those are completely ridiculous.
I suggest that you read Exxonmobil’s 2009 corporate citizenship report, and once you’ve read it why don’t you try repeating your claims, that oil industries are against climate change and will lose loads of money and all that.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Imports/ccr2009/pdf/community_ccr_2009.pdf
Adam:
Renewable Guy you believe what you read on that website, simply because it’s what you want to believe. You just accept anything off that site unquestionably, as if it was the word of God.
Renewable Guy, Cook’s website is for weak minded and uninformed. It gives AGW alarmists a scientific basis for their religion.
##########################################################
religion is faith when there is no evidence. Science is all evidence. They ( the scientists) are quite honest about what they don’t know.
##########################################################
Douglass, Spencer, Lindzen
##########################################################
The Lindzen Choi paper fell flat on its face. These guys come up wrong again and again in science.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
pick any person you want to quote. These volunteers publishing the rebuttals are tired of the false science being put out by the fossil fuel lobbyists.
##########################################################
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/
The Shell Game — pretend evidence for 1 degree is really evidence for 3 degree
##########################################################
If you read my first post, I have spent a lot time reading up on feedbacks for climate. This thread on this blog is supposedly about feedbacks. In actuality, he/she has done a poor job of really going into the science of it.
Joanne Nova is so far out in right field, its just about all conspiracy theory. Which is an extremely weak presmise to make an argument on. She covers a little more territory than I have time for. But looking at them, I will be happy to reply to them if you want to bring them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
1 Positive
1.1 Arctic methane release
1.2 Cloud feedback
1.3 Decomposition
1.4 Gas release
1.5 Ice-albedo feedback
1.6 CO2 in the oceans
1.7 Water vapor feedback
2 Negative
2.1 Le Chatelier’s principle
2.2 Blackbody radiation
2.3 Chemical weathering
2.4 Lapse rate
3 Abrupt or irreversible climate change
3.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs
3.2 Methane release from hydrates
3.3 Carbon cycle feedbacks
3.4 Forest fires
3.5 Retreat of sea ice
http://www.desmogblog.com/petr-chylek
One of Chylek’s articles is published by the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute has received funding from several tobacco companies including Rothman’s, British American Tobacco and Phillip Morris. It has also received funding from Exxonmobil to work on “climate change.”
http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf
#########################################################
I didn’t pull Joel Schwartz out of thin air. Obviously Joel and Petr Chylek have the same interests.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven.
#########################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009). More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation over the central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004).
Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
#########################################################
American thinker is a conservative blog. Have you ever heard them talk about AGW is true?
Adam:
Renewable Guy Sourcewatch is just a smear campaign blog, much like Desmogblog.
And it’s funny how you call them “big polluters” because you do realise that co2 is not pollution. It is a natural trace gas. Pollution and co2 are two entirely different things.
#########################################################
CO2 made the planet what it is today in climate. Warming.
Adam:
Adam:
And Renewable Guy I laughed out loud and your statemnt that Energy Industries were “a very biased source” and that “Polluters don’t want to pay for a cleaner environment.” and that they’re just “delaying the inevitable”
Renewable Guy statements like those are completely ridiculous.
#########################################################
Exxon Mobile is the one that got the ball rolling for denial of global warming. It used to be there was no global warming. Where are we now?
Renewable Guy,
“The models are also tested with hindcasting.”
Tested, created, tuned or all of the above? This is very tricky business. The basic problem is that these models are created using previous data, right? So if you test the model with the same data that you created it with, you’re going to get a good match no matter what. There are ways to split data up into two different groups, but in things like climate its pretty difficult to get those two groups to be independent of each other.
“There is relationship of radiative forcing to temperature.”
Right, but what that exactly is, is still an open question. That’s the entire point of this whole debate.
Heh I note you don’t have any good answer to the question what is the earths normal temperature.
As I noted before the earth has been much warmer than it is now with lush rain forest covering most of it and even to the point desert covered most of it. From the opposite side it has been much much colder too.
So given that pair of basic facts why should anyone be concerned with the earth warming? Is it warmer than normal? It certainly isn’t as warm as it has been in the past so …
Renewable Guy
[quote]Exxon Mobile is the one that got the ball rolling for denial of global warming. It used to be there was no global warming. Where are we now?[/quote]
*******************
And? You do know that all of the major oil and gas companies fund the pro global warming research also. Actually they pour more money into the pro side. So are you holding that any research that has funding from an oil or gas company is bad research? 😀 I really hope you are going to take that position. ::rubs hands in anticipation::
TomT:
regarding your question. I am pretty sure there is no normal earth temp. There is no central tendency or homeostatic optimum that the earth ‘wants’ to return to re. temp. The problem is not that the earth is diverging from any norm. The problem is that climate is changing at an unprecedented rate from the status quo that our economy and communities (and other species) cannot adapt quickly enough to. That is my understanding anyway.
Adam says:
‘And it’s funny how you call them “big polluters” because you do realise that co2 is not pollution. It is a natural trace gas. Pollution and co2 are two entirely different things.’
Hmm. No. I think in this informal arena, and the context, we can call Co2 a pollutant if we choose. We have such terms in our language such as ‘noise pollution’ and ‘thermal pollution’ which are denotations of types of sound and heat — harmless things in small quantities. So why not? (just a bit bored, but you brought it up)
Wally:
Renewable Guy,
“The models are also tested with hindcasting.”
Tested, created, tuned or all of the above? This is very tricky business. The basic problem is that these models are created using previous data, right? So if you test the model with the same data that you created it with, you’re going to get a good match no matter what. There are ways to split data up into two different groups, but in things like climate its pretty difficult to get those two groups to be independent of each other.
“There is relationship of radiative forcing to temperature.”
Right, but what that exactly is, is still an open question. That’s the entire point of this whole debate.
##########################################################
We would have to look under the hood of the model and see what’s in it. Some of it is equations, some of it is data tables, some of it is historical data. I don’t begin to know a tenth of how they do it. The guy below teaches I believe at the University of Chicago. If you like you can take his class for free and yet the U of I students pay top dollar for it.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
Renewable,
I’ve actually done a fair amount of digging into the specifics of the models. And as a mathematical modeler in a different field, I believe I’m perfectly able to understand the models as published (and certainly don’t need some dumbed down lecture built for what looks like a college freshman with little to no knowledge of physics, much less mathematical modeling or even differential equations). Anyway, you’re basically correct. Parts of the model are fairly well understood based on more classical physics and experimentally backed up (black body radiation, for example). Other parts however are basically guess (even if they are ‘educated’ ones) that need to be “tuned” to historical data. These things range from cloud formation to ice sheet expansion/retraction. So, while parts of the models are based on very well understood physics, other parts are guesses tuned to make models fit past data.
Now more or less guessing to make a model is fine. Creating models is difficult and it is often hard to have enough data to really nail everything down (the scientific term for this under-parameterization). However, this means you can’t test your model through “hind-casting”, because you’ve just used that data you want to test it against to create the model in the first place.
Also, with things like climate, were the state at t=10 is heavily dependent on the state at t=9, you can’t just randomize your data, bin it into two groups, use one group for creating the model, then test with the other (you’re not going to be able to do this with any time or spacial series of data, climate happens to be both). That will just lead to gumbled up mess. You also can’t just use odd month data to create the model, then test against even month data. The dependance issue (or auto-correlation) would then lead you to tuning just about any set of equations to fit.
So, in short, its tricky. I simpathize with climate modelers and thinking about what they have to work with makes me glad I can use experiments in my model creation/validation. However, I think it is possible that in their desire to be considered relavant, they have attempted to convince the public (and possibly even themselves) that their models have a much higher degree of confidence, and real world application, than they really do.
Shills,
I guess if we went by the EPA’s list, then yes its pollutant (though actually enforcing that ruling is going to impossible). However, “pollutant” generally means that this chemical makes something “harmful”. Considering that CO2 is naturally occuring, and can not be considered dangerous without some gross misrepresentation of the facts and specific definition of “danger”….then no, its not a pollutant. Do you want to tell me H20 is a pollutant next?
You are correct Shills there is no “normal” Earth temperature. Which is the point I’m making.
As for the speed being the thing to be concerned about. Hmm, maybe yes and maybe no. The thing is we again don’t know how fast the climate normally changes. It appears to be cyclic and it appears it can spike one direction or the other fairly rapidly either over a short span of years or over century’s.
Look at the end of the Medieval Warm period. We know from records that in under a century temperatures went from nice fall conditions to the local pond being frozen over at the same seasonal time and people ice skating on it. This from actual historical records.
But it is shear arrogance to imagine that the primary driver of climate change is man and not nature. Sure we can change things on a local scale but on the scale of the world? Hmm not without insane effort on our part.
The sad thing is that we don’t know answers like what is the normal speed of a cycle and what might be a fairly normal temperature range because the core ‘Climate Scientists’ have been focused on pushing their theory of what is happening.
This isn’t the first time science has lost decades to bad science and it won’t be the last time it happens. At least people are starting to realize that the science isn’t there to support the claims. At best it is built on massaged data and computer models and while a computer model is a fine tool it has severe limits that climate science ignores and misuses.
Wally says: ”Considering that CO2 is naturally occuring, and can not be considered dangerous without some gross misrepresentation of the facts and specific definition of “danger”….then no, its not a pollutant.’
From wikipedia:
‘Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:
1% can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[6]
At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[54]
At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory center, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[54] Panic attacks may also occur at this concentration.[56][57]
At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[54]’
‘Carbon dioxide, while vital for photosynthesis, is sometimes referred to as pollution, because raised levels of the gas in the atmosphere are affecting the Earth’s climate.’
‘Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or energies, or naturally occurring’
(but the ‘naturally occurring’ distinction is irrelevant here because the Co2 in question is man made).
Wally says: ‘Do you want to tell me H20 is a pollutant next?’
Do you want to grow out of your tedious teenybopper angst and drop the ‘tude?
TomT
the MWP was not global.
And all that other stuff you say are legit questions that your would imagine the scientists are dealing with. I don’t have any reason to suppose it is being dealt with using ‘bad science’ and I would like to know why you think it is.
Must-read Hansen and Sato paper: We are at a climate tipping point that, once crossed, enables multi-meter sea level rise this century
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
According to Hansen and Sato, the earth has now warmed to the maximum level of the Holocene. Meaning since the last ice age. This is thanks mostly to the exhaust of burning fossil fuels. It will be easy for us to reach the Eocene temperature level in which sea levels were much higher than today. Acording to the paper it was only 1 degree centigrade higher. Its an indication of how sensitive the earth is to temperature.
You may ask what temperture the earth should be. As you pointed out there is no right temperature. But each temperature has different climate conditions. We are moving out of even our present climate to a new one some time in the future. The final resting point of the new radiative balance is up to us (humans).
###########################################################
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
There is a close analogy to be drawn between the way an ordinary thermostat maintains the temperature of a house, and the way that atmospheric carbon dioxide (and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases) control the global temperature of Earth.
###########################################################
In the long term effect on climate it is the non-condensing gases that play the major role. Water condenses out of the atmosphere where as co2 does not. It stays in the atmospher for hundreds of years. Very stable.
CO2 controls how much H20 is in the atmosphere even though it is a trace gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Projections_of_future_climate_change
The 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report figure 9.3 shows the global mean response of 19 different coupled models to an idealised experiment in which CO2 is increased at 1% per year [7]. Figure 9.5 shows the response of a smaller number of models to more realistic forcing. For the 7 climate models shown there, the temperature change to 2100 varies from 2 to 4.5 °C with a median of about 3 °C.
##########################################################
different models do come up with different outcomes. The scientists live in defining the level of uncertainty. One of the ways to check out the validity of a future cast is to do a hindcast of the known climate record.
Keep in mind from the assertion of the Hansen-Sato paper, that in the paleoclimatic interpretaion of the past the eocene was only one degree warmer. So over a 100 years we might get 3 feet of sea level rise, but that same co2 hasn'[t left the atmosphere yet. Over a 1000 years is where the 10’s of meters of sea level rise comes in. All due to a trace gas co2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Do we know enough to act?
Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
Models don’t need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects – and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you’d be in a car crash, you wouldn’t get in the car (or at the very least, you’d wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.
Actually shills the MWP turns out to be a global phenomenon which is why the claim that it was local lingers but isn’t being pushed anymore. If you look around you will see that the historic, archeological, and geologic record doesn’t support the claim that it was local only.
The claim was one of the questionable manipulations that have been done to support the current claim that modern warming was extra ordinary. Given that there is evidence that we have not reached as warm as it was during the medieval period one wonders why all the rush to do something now.
Renewable guy we don’t know enough to act. Actually we know enough to if we are smart do nothing about trying to actively manipulate the climate. The precious models you keep focusing on didn’t see that temperature increases would stop in 1998 and start to cool slightly. Instead all of the models claimed we would be having disasters NOW. So based on that why should we trust them to take drastic action that wouldn’t actually have any real impact on the climate. At best the proposed actions do nothing but decrease the quality of life world wide.
TomT:
Actually shills the MWP turns out to be a global phenomenon which is why the claim that it was local lingers but isn’t being pushed anymore. If you look around you will see that the historic, archeological, and geologic record doesn’t support the claim that it was local only.
The claim was one of the questionable manipulations that have been done to support the current claim that modern warming was extra ordinary. Given that there is evidence that we have not reached as warm as it was during the medieval period one wonders why all the rush to do something now.
##########################################################
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
In this you tube video,Ellen Mosley-Thompson explains their key findings from tropical ice cores. She shows eviedence that there wasn’t a MWP globally.
##########################################################
Renewable guy we don’t know enough to act. Actually we know enough to if we are smart do nothing about trying to actively manipulate the climate.
##########################################################
If co2 and ch4 give us our present living climate, how can more of the same not make it warmer? IPCC AR4 catalogued 28500 observations. 90+% agreed with AGW theory.
##########################################################
The precious models you keep focusing on didn’t see that temperature increases would stop in 1998 and start to cool slightly. Instead all of the models claimed we would be having disasters NOW. So based on that why should we trust them to take drastic action that wouldn’t actually have any real impact on the climate. At best the proposed actions do nothing but decrease the quality of life world wide.
##########################################################
Back in the 1990’s you last staement would have tracktion. Not any more. The most obvious is the
Tom T
I accidently submitted that last statement early.
The most obvious is the early melting of the glaciers world wide.
The next economic wave is the green energy wave. If we stay with fossil fuels, we face peak oil and global warming combined in all its economic destruction. The only way is green energy.
100 Percent Renewable Energy Possible by 2030
http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3421
Shills,
1% CO2 would be about a 25 fold increase in from normal atmospheric concentrations today. And that only leads to drowsiness? Um, yeah, I’ll grow out of my “tude” as soon as you grow out of your gross ignorance and idiocy.
Anyway, changes of that magantude are simply not going to happen, at least not caused by humans. You could also post similar kinds of “dangers” for every other gas in our atmosphere. O2 concentrations, for example, are around 21%, a few percent change in O2 one way or another, and we’d all be dead. So is O2 a pollutant?
A change of scale you’re talking about with CO2 happening in H2 would make our atmosphere combustable!
Changing N2, the far and away main component of our atmosphere, levels much would also have drastic effects, since it would basically mean rising/lowering concentration of everything else.
So, if CO2 is a pollutant, so is everything. Litterally, every possible molecular compound. And if that’s the case, what meaning does this word really have anymore, if it can’t discriminate between ANYTHING?
Not to anyone in particular relating to the MWP:
This is another issue of, “We don’t really know?”
Even a fairly short lit. search would reveal that sometimes we find evidence of warming globally and sometimes we don’t. Those arguing for one side or the other are simply cherry-picking their evidence to support their claims. (see this fairly recent summary: http://www.springerlink.com/content/c1411j3532u1n241/)
This problem of uncertainty probably has more to do with our reconstruction methods from “proxies” than anything else. Since, you know, we didn’t have thermometers in umpteen-thousand places over the last 1000 years or so. Which I believe speaks more to our great ignorance of the true historical climate than anything else. Yes, we know the basics, and can probably resolve large scale climate changes that take place over thousands of years. But we really only have knowledge of how the climate can change globally over decades or even centuries from the last ~150 years. The responce from things like ice cores is just too slow to be a reliable proxy for short time frame changes.
Wally
CO2 is the driver or thermostat for the earth. We are getting warmer now on 30 year average. There is .6 degrees centigrade left in the pipeline of the present co2 in the atmosphere. Indonesia and China are increasing their co2 output rather than lowering. If you think we are going to be cooling, then you would have to show on a science level how the earth can cool while adding more co2.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
In this you tube video,Ellen Mosley-Thompson explains their key findings from tropical ice cores. She shows eviedence that there wasn’t a MWP globally.
##########################################################
I didn’t complete this statement. If you look at 3:20 to about 5:00 the ice core data strongly suggests there wasn’t global MWP.
#########################################################
Wally
If there is this uncertainty, then how do know there is a MWP at all. Which set of data counts and which one doesn’t. Going in with a predetermeined agenda doesn’t get the truth out.
Renewable,
CO2 is no more the “thermostat” of the earth than host other factors, known and unknown. Such simplistic statements of ours just damage your argument, not enhance it.
“If you think we are going to be cooling, then you would have to show on a science level how the earth can cool while adding more co2.”
Umm… First, what’s with the total strawman created to serve as an appeal to ridicule? I never said anything like this. HOWEVER, this has happened you know? And historically CO2 concentration changes have lagged temperature changes (this is basic stuff here, http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf). Do a little google search, and compare the CO2 concentrations to temp. You’ll see that while they generally match fairly well (them along with CH4, O2 and Ar), CO2 changes usually lag temp changes, and that in a few peroids CO2 will go up while temps go down, or visa-versa.
Anyway, your challange is plainly stupid, and would not ‘prove’ anything one way or another. The termpature of the earth is controlled by a great many factors. Theoretically, CO2 could go up but other factors could change to easily compensate.
Renewable,
“If there is this uncertainty, then how do know there is a MWP at all. Which set of data counts and which one doesn’t. Going in with a predetermeined agenda doesn’t get the truth out.”
That was my point. You can’t prove the MWP wasn’t global any better than someone else can prove the MWP was. The data is conflicting and pretty weak to boot. My personal interpritation, however, is that even if it wasn’t completely global, why does it matter? If the northern hemisphere saw significant warming, and the southern hemisphere stayed pretty flat, doesn’t that still mean the Earth warmed? Obviously, we shouldn’t expect Earth to behave as a completely homogenious blob, right? Isn’t this even part of the pro-catastrophic-AGW argument now, that ‘global warming’ might not really mean warming in all climates? Thus, it appears to me that arguing on one hand that cooling seen in X, Y and Z today doesn’t disprove global warming, but that the lack of warming seen in A, B and C yesterday does disprove global warming is hypocritical.
Which gets us back full circle to how the pro-catastrophic-AGW argument just doesn’t make much logical sense.
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
Finally, the situation at Termination III differs
from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase.
As recently noted by Kump (38), we
should distinguish between internal influences
(such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external
influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2
increase) on the climate system. Although the
recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed
first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it
naturally takes, at Termination III, some time
for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts
to react to a climate change that is first felt in the
atmosphere. The sequence of events during this
Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating
in the latter 4200 years of the warming.
((((((The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve
as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is
then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks
(39) that are also at work for the presentday
and future climate.))))))
##########################################################
This article appears to confirm what I have been talking about. Orbital forcing that is taking place now, we should be cooling as you want to climate to go in its natural way. The anthroprogenic co2 is overwheling the orbital forcing. We will miss the next age due to antroprogenic co2.
In the past the orbital forcing came first. With the mild warming form orbital forcing, co2 solubility is reduced leaving the ground and ocean adding more co2 to the atmosphere. Therefore a warming spiral would take off reach a plateau of about 280ppm by the past ice records. We are now almost to 400 parts per million.
Wally:
The science is very clear that we will warm. The information coming in is that MWP isn’t global.
CO2 is no more the “thermostat” of the earth than host other factors, known and unknown. Such simplistic statements of ours just damage your argument, not enhance it.
#########################################################
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Nasa does their homework on their arguments unlike most skeptical statements of facts on this thread.
This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect.
From this it follows that these (((((non-condensing greenhouse gases))))) provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate,
without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
##########################################################
Non condensable GHG’s carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons drive the level of H20 in the atmosphere. WIth lower temperatures H2O drops out of the atmosphere. The ice ages were also a much dryer time.
You add more GHG’s to the atmosphere, it gets warmer. One thing the author of this thread didn’t talk about was most of the positive feedbacks are dominating the climate change. So far the negative feedbacks are not going to ride to the rescue like the calvary on TV. We are responsible and we are the ones who can change it if we want to.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Radiative modeling analyses of the terrestrial greenhouse structure described in a parallel study in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Schmidt et al., 2010) found that
(((((((water vapor accounts for about 50% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, carbon dioxide 20%, and the minor greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%)))))))))))),
as shown in Fig. 1. Thus, while the non-condensing greenhouse gases account for only 25% of the total greenhouse effect, ((((((((it is these non-condensing GHGs that actually control the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect since the water vapor and cloud feedback contributions are not self-sustaining and as such, only provide amplification.))))))))
Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth.
##########################################################
You may disagree with the scientists all that you want. If you don’t believe this to be true, what better explanation can you come up with that will pass the scrutiny test that this peice of science went through to get here.
Water vapor is a feedback controled by the noncondensable GHG’s. The forcing of the water vapor feedback is much stronger than all of the GHG’s put together. With lower noncondensable GHG’s, water vapor decreases, trapping less long wave infrared radiation. There by cooling the earth.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
The numerical climate experiment described in Fig. 2. demonstrates the fundamental radiative forcing role of the non-condensing GHGs, and the feedback (only) role of water vapor and clouds. This climate modeling experiment was performed using the GISS ModelE general circulation coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by
((((((zeroing out all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases.))))))
Doing this removed the radiative forcing that sustains the temperature support for water vapor and cloud feedbacks, causing rapid condensation and precipitation of water vapor from the atmosphere, collapsing the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and plunging the Earth into an icebound state.
The scope of the climate impact becomes apparent in just 10 years.
During the first year alone, global mean surface temperature falls by 4.6 °C.
After 50 years, the global temperature stands at -21 °C, a decrease by 34.8 °C. Atmospheric water vapor is at ~10% of the control climate value (22.6 to 2.2 mm).
((((((Global cloud cover increases from its 58% control value to more than 75%;)))))
the global sea ice fraction goes from 4.6% to 46.7%, causing the planetary albedo of Earth to increase from ~29% to 41.8%.
This has the effect to reduce the absorbed solar energy to further exacerbate the global cooling. After 50 years, one third of the ocean surface still remains ice-free, even though the global surface temperature is colder than -21 °C. At tropical latitudes, incident solar radiation is enough to keep the ocean from freezing. While this thermal oasis within an otherwise icebound Earth appears to be stable, at least on the short timescale illustrated, further calculations with an interactive ocean are needed to verify the potential for long-term stability. The surface temperatures in Fig. 3 are only marginally warmer than 1 °C within the remaining low latitude heat island.
##########################################################
The beauty of a computer model is that you can do what if scenarios.
Renewable,
Wait, so first you tell me that CO2 is the thermostat of the earth’s climate. I basically say, “BS there is a lot more to it than that”. Then you start insinuating that I need to do ‘homework’ and finally you go on to give me a short lecture about how a handful of gases make up the green house effect? Does something seem out of place here to you? Like, I don’t know, those handful of other gases? Maybe next time, instead of spouting off some stupid simplistic generalization, and then getting up set when people don’t buy it, only to finally change your story to something more correct, just start with the correct argument in the first place and save the ridicules. Sound good?
Second, try changing other factors than just GHG concentrations and see how those things effect this ‘thermostat’. Things such as ocean currents, placement of the continents, radiative output of the sun, the continual process of gravitational potential energy turning to heat and kinetic energy in our earth’s core, just to name a few, and find out just how much our planet’s temps would change. You’ve quite obviously let your myopia over this “CO2 is the thermostat of the earth’s climate” lead you into some very bad arguments and conclusions. CO2 is an important part of the climate, we got it, thank you sooooo much for clarifying this fact….but….there is a lot more to it that you’re glossing over.
“One thing the author of this thread didn’t talk about was most of the positive feedbacks are dominating the climate change. So far the negative feedbacks are not going to ride to the rescue like the calvary on TV.”
Wow, that’s a bold statement. I think its your turn to scientifically prove this claim of yours.
Renewable,
“This article appears to confirm what I have been talking about. Orbital forcing that is taking place now, we should be cooling as you want to climate to go in its natural way. The anthroprogenic co2 is overwheling the orbital forcing.”
Say what? Solar out put is down, heating has stopped. You, nor anyone else, can prove exactly how hot or cold the Earth should be given current solar output.
“In the past the orbital forcing came first. With the mild warming form orbital forcing, co2 solubility is reduced leaving the ground and ocean adding more co2 to the atmosphere. Therefore a warming spiral would take off reach a plateau of about 280ppm by the past ice records. We are now almost to 400 parts per million.”
First, you must only be looking back around ~400 kya. Go back just a few million, you’ll see higher CO2 concentrations than 280ppm is quite regular a regular thing. In fact, if you go back hundreds of millions of years ago (around the time where the common ancestor of mice and men would be walking around), the Earth was perfectly habitable for life with CO2 concentrations 3+ times higher than today. All you’re doing is cherry-picking your data in order to support to pet hypothesis here.
And second, you, nor anyone else, can prove that CO2 alone will set off some sort of ‘warming spiral’, much less can you even tell me that would be a bad thing even if it did happen, as it would probably be one a whole beneficial to life.
“The beauty of a computer model is that you can do what if scenarios.”
Assuming your model has been validated to prove it can accurately predict the effects of what ever “ifs” you put into it, which is impossible in this field.
Wow, hold on, I shouldn’t have just looked at your concluding statement, and assumed how stupid the entire post was, obviously it quite a bit worse than I thought.
“This climate modeling experiment was performed using the GISS ModelE general circulation coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by
((((((zeroing out all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases.))))))
Doing this removed the radiative forcing that sustains the temperature support for water vapor and cloud feedbacks, causing rapid condensation and precipitation of water vapor from the atmosphere, collapsing the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and plunging the Earth into an icebound state.”
Here’s the problem: Can you actually test this prediction? The answer is no. Second, this highlights how changing a few parameters in a model is not an experiment. And experiment would give real data that you know is relevant to the real world. Here you’ve only shown what would happen inside your model, not on planet Earth. Sure, losing these noncondensable GHGs would probably be catastrophic, but:
A) No shit; who cares?
B) Would it actually look anything like the model predictions? Would happen faster even? Maybe more slowly? There is no way to test that with a REAL experiment.
Wally:
Renewable,
Wait, so first you tell me that CO2 is the thermostat of the earth’s climate. I basically say, “BS there is a lot more to it than that”. Then you start insinuating that I need to do ‘homework’ and finally you go on to give me a short lecture about how a handful of gases make up the green house effect? Does something seem out of place here to you? Like, I don’t know, those handful of other gases? Maybe next time, instead of spouting off some stupid simplistic generalization, and then getting up set when people don’t buy it, only to finally change your story to something more correct, just start with the correct argument in the first place and save the ridicules. Sound good?
#########################################################
Sounds like you are loosing it Wally. I’ve been playing this game for a long time. To be honest I’ve been treating you with kid gloves. I’ve been on places where they are quite rough.
I don’t want you to hurt yourself with your level of anger. Possibly you might need to take a break before you really loose it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument…It’s the sun
“Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer.” (BBC)
What the science says…
Select a level… Basic Intermediate Advanced
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
##########################################################
If you choose to read this, the sun has slightly decreased in the last 30 years. It strengthens the hand of the AGW argument.
How reliable are climate models?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument…Models are unreliable
“Models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They are full of fudge factors so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2.” (Freeman Dyson)
What the science says…
Select a level… Basic Intermediate
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800’s – both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
##########################################################
If you choose to read the article, you can see what is known about computer modeling to predict with and without co2.