If October seemed chilly to you, you weren't just imagining it.
In its "State of the Climate" report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notes that the average temperature for October -- 50.8 degrees -- was a full 4 degrees below the 20th century average for that month.
In fact, nationwide, it was the third-coldest October on record, the NOAA reported. Of the nine climate regions in the United States, temperatures were below normal in eight and far below normal in five.
Does that -- or even the several consecutive years we have now had of "global cooling" -- "disprove" the theory that man's use of fossil fuels is catastrophically heating up the environment? Environmentalists would be quick to say it doesn't.
But it is certainly ironic how, every time we have a warm spell, many environmental activists are eager to point to it as "proof" of "global warming."
And when we have a "cool spell" those who advocate continued, unchecked use of fossil fuels point to it as "proof" that "climate change" is a farce.
In actuality, empirical evidence is lacking due to the relatively short amount of time weather patterns have been recorded. It is certain, however, that use of fossil fuels, especially in the amounts currently used, causes pollution and is affecting more than just the temperature.
Common sense tells us that if we continue to pollute faster than nature can remove toxins, there will be adverse effects. We need only look to Kingston in our own back yard to see this is true.
Warm spells are not "proof" of global warming, and cool spells are not "proof" that global warming isn't occurring. Global "warming" is the small increase in mean global temps. That is happening due to increasing CO2 level. It does not result in higher temps everywhere, but in shifting climate patterns. More rain in some areas, with cooler temps, less rain in some areas, more snow or less snow, earlier frosts or later frosts (mostly later it appears) earlier spring, less sea ice. The earth's climate is so complicated; a shift in climate may have no impact on us, but might on those that live closer to the edge-drought, flood, rising sea level, reduction in crop output, shift or crash of fish population.
We can't depend on fossil fuels forever; if we commit ourselves to developing alternative energy sources, saving the remaining fossil fuels for those things that there are no better methods (like aircraft) then we will be the ones selling these new technologies worldwide. On the other hand, other countries like China may do all the development, leaving us to purchase from them. Better efficiency, living less wasteful lives, and consuming less oil-based material such as plastic are all part of the picture.
Somethingorother wrote,
"It is certain, however, that use of fossil fuels, especially in the amounts currently used, causes pollution and is affecting more than just the temperature."
and Ikeithlu wrote,
"Global "warming" is the small increase in mean global temps. That is happening due to increasing CO2 level."
Proof, cite it please. Actual real, reproducible physical science, please. Computer models designed to produce the predetermined outcome do not count. GIGO, ya know.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have good satellite based records for about 30 years. Does any one see the problem.
If we plucked 40 random people up from all over the globe and photographed them, would we be able to infer who is unusual looking? Further, could we then blame the fact that others look different than our random set on the fact that we add vitamin D to our milk? Seriously, this is, basically, what the Global Warming charlatans are doing.
The CO2/Global Climate (Global Warming cum Climate Change) connection is a discredited hoax, though some are a little slow on the uptake.
"The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate."
source: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.2.html
Does a lag in CO2 levels debunk global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
Myth vs. fact on the "hockey stick graph" of temperatures and CO2 level:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
Paleo-climate and temp changes:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/
Let me know if you want more.
In case you were wondering, the cites above reference primary literature as sources.
"realclimate" LOL!
"IPCC" ROTFLMAO!!
What next, are you going quote Al Gore? He is likely the only "expert" who is even more discredited than the above.
It seems you are a true believer. Good luck with that. Gavin Schmidt LOL!!! Michael Mann...ha, good gracious, do you know how funny it is that you believe this crap? Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well?
Paraphrasing the IPCC: "We don't know what causes the climate to fluctuate so it HAS to be anthropogenic CO2 because our our operational charter says that is what we are supposed to say. We just bury any contradictory science."
Michael Mann just keeps coming up with new and inventive ways to statistically manipulate data from a small number of "treemometers" to make scary looking graphs. They keep getting shot down by real statisticians as the crap that they are. The man has ZERO credibility. Gavin is just a close-minded moron being payed to spread stupidity.
(Reposted from a previous post) A few questions for those who believe.
Why do high resolution ice cores show that temperature changes precede CO2 changes by 500-900 years?
Why have temperatures been dropping for the last ten years all the while CO2 has been rising?
Why have the oceans been cooling?
Why has Antarctica been accumulating ice?
Why has the Arctic seasonal ice reverted back almost to average in the last 2 years?
Where is that tropical tropospheric "hotspot"? This was supposed to be THE fingerprint of AGW, till it wasn't there. OOPS!
Why did the climate make huge swings in the past when there were no anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
Why do plants thrive when the CO2 concentration is pushed up to 1000+ ppm?
Why the name change from "Anthropogenic Global Warming" to "Anthropogenic Climate Change"?
Why won't Al Gore, James Hansen, or any other pro-AGW people debate the skeptics?
Why do the media give big coverage to new AGW supporting studies and then bury the retractions when the studies are found to be fatally flawed?
Why does the media give ZERO coverage to the large number of scientific studies which contradict the AGW dogma?
What is the optimal temperature for the globe, and how should it be measured?
Why do Hansen's "adjustments" to the GISS temp records make up nearly all of the warming he claims?
Why are there so many instances of AGW supporting scientists refusing to divulge their data, and methods they use to compile said data?
Why should we believe that the 30 years of good, satellite based data we have about global temperatures and polar ice mass/extent are sufficient to know what the normal fluctuations are on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old?
Scotty, did you even go to the realclimate site? A lot of the points you are raising are addressed on this site. Are you a climate scientist? If so, where are your findings published? If not, what criteria do you use to dismiss the huge amount of information on the realclimate site? Could you please give citations for all the scientific studies that contradict the AGW "dogma". I provided what you asked for, now it's your turn.
Why have the oceans been cooling?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/
Where is that tropical tropospheric "hotspot"? This was supposed to be THE fingerprint of AGW, till it wasn't there. OOPS!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
Why have temperatures been dropping for the last ten years all the while CO2 has been rising?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Why did the climate make huge swings in the past when there were no anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/
"It seems you are a true believer. Good luck with that. Gavin Schmidt LOL!!! Michael Mann...ha, good gracious, do you know how funny it is that you believe this crap? Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well?"
Both of these men have multiple publications every year in peer reviewed journals on the science involved. What are your qualifications and from what platform do you feel able to judge their work? Do you understand the process of peer review? Are you yourself published in scientific journals?
Ikiethlu,
I'm sorry to see you are as ideologically tied up in this as creationists, UFOologists, moonhoaxers and various other faith based groups are in their own pet theories.
Realclimate is a political based site where dissenting views are not allowed. Science is no where to be found, despite Gavin's proclamations to the contrary.
I've read plenty over there, it's always good for a laugh.
Maybe you should check the dates on the page you've linked to. The world has moved on. The only recent one is an attempt to spin the 8-11 years (depends on how you look at the numbers) of cooling into something that is separate from climate. Unless your side is willing to admit that Hansen was full of it when he went before a Congressional hearing in '88 after only 8-12 years (again, depending on how you look at the numbers) of warming, then the argument that the recent cooling means nothing is merely adjusting the standards to suit your own side. It also exposes the intellectual back-flips required to continue supporting a failed hypothesis.
Go to some other sites. Dig around. Read up on all sides of the argument. After doing that, even if you still believe that CO2 can have a measurable effect on global temperatures, you'll at least be better informed about the state of the science. There is a lot more out there than the narrow orthodoxy presented by those stoking the fires on Big Al's gravy train.
"Do you understand the process of peer review?"
The "peer review" process in climate circles is not what you seem think it is. When the "scientists" refuse to divulge the data they use to arrive at their conclusions, there can be no true peer review. When the vaunted "science" journals refuse to enforce their own rules about archiving data, they lose all claim to science. Reading through a paper a buddy of yours wrote and saying, "Oh yeah, I agree!" is NOT peer review.(Except in climate circles.)
True scientific peer review involves checking and or replicating every assumption, every data source, every calculation, and every experiment. Multiple times, by different people, in far flung locations. Without the underlying data this is not possible.
You are aware that this sort of thing is the norm in "climate science", right?
"Are you yourself published in scientific journals?"
Are you?
I'm a technical nerd. My livelihood is centered around precise measurements, exacting interpretation of said measurements, and hours of painstaking calculations with multiple layers of peer checking at every step. One little mistake could cost my clients millions of dollars. If I made the sort of mistakes that are common in climate science, I'd not only be unemployable, I'd likely be in jail. My employer is retiring, the clients are sticking with me. I'd say I do alright, though my type of work is more of the applied science type and doesn't lend itself to the flights of fancy involved in the more cutting edge sciences.
I'm not knocking flights of fancy, they are required for the advancement of mans knowledge base. It is the unfounded certainty attached to certain flights of fancy that burns me up.
I am not a climate scientist, if I were, I'd be ashamed of the behavior of my colleagues.
For anyone actually interested in the science being done by non-agenda driven professionals, here is a good start:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
One source? From Popular Technology? Is that the best you can do? Sorry, Scotty, that isn't good enough. You claim to have information that overturns what climate science is reporting. You need to do better than one pop source.
The site I gave you addresses all the claims you made, with evidence to back it up. Most of it is recent.
But of course, if you have made up your mind already, that's your business. Your evidence hardly convinces others.
See, there you go. In your arrogant ignorance you've stepped into a giant pile of poo.
It's an aggregation of articles dipstick. LOL
You'd know that if you had the intellectual curiosity to check the link. It seems it is you who has already made up your mind.
450 of them. Click-n-see.
My mind is open, you are the one mired in orthodoxy.
Sorry hon-a popular mag is not a scientific source. Got anything else?
You still haven't looked have you?
I suppose ignorance is bliss.
Reminds me of the Church leaders who refused to look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter, lest their belief system come crashing down around their feeble minds.
I will check the site out as soon as I can, but a popular site is still not a scientific source. I know I won't convince you of anything, but we as Americans need to know this: The rest of the world DOES buy it, and they will be demanding the new technology and alternative sources of energy. China, India, Germany, Japan, Korea will develop these and reap the benefits, while we will have to pay them for it. America is the greatest nation in the world; we have the resources and the brains to find a newer, cleaner, more efficient way to do things. Even if the climate is not threatened, a hundred years from now we will have used up most of the better quality fossil fuels.
Most anti-clean energy, anti-efficiency, anti-climate change pushes are backed by big energy companies, that benefit by leaving things as they are. In addition, conservatives oppose most environmental changes because they are associated with liberals and are, in their minds, anti-business.
Well done, ScottyM, well done. When I have time I will check out some of the articles you suggested (and I am a Faith in YHWH believer) I know He laughs at the arrogant, because when the poohbahs say "cooling", suddenly it's warming and when they shout "warming", then the earth is cooling. (the last 30 years, hilarious). No true scientist should assume they know everything or even close to everything. And they should never say to a smarter (even self-educated person), "what are your qualifications"? Very stupid and very close-minded.
One question I have. I read recently that since the early 1900's scientists and observers have been able to determine that during a decade or two there has been cooling trends and then warming trends. Right on up to the present. Is this true? Also, during the Middle Ages, one of the areas I've studied, there was a devastating Ice Age over all of Europe and environs. There seems to be much about the earth and the universe we don't know enough about to form exact conclusions.
What we "conservatives" oppose is lying, hypocrisy and people (nations) jumping on a bandwagon because it looks like a good way to make even more money. There are many thoughtful Christians and Conservatives who have been recycling, reducing waste and doing our part for decades, while this generation thinks they invented the wheel (in their arrogance). Many of us have continually spoken out about protecting our planet and its creatures, being good stewards, etc. To make it a partisan issue as if there are no rich, nasty leftists, liberals and dictators in the world looking out for their own interests, is another huge lie. I don't see George Soros, Sting, Bono and Oprah rowing boats when they want to visit Europe or Africa (or living in "Green"-friendly grass huts).
In Europe, most climate scientists and metereologists did indeed disapprove of Al Gore's and his paid cronies findings. They prefer to hold out for more evidence. Their findings were suppressed by the Press for the most part.
We'll see if China and India et al will sign the Copenhagen agreement-they held out on the Kyoto agreement because they knew as the US did that they would be stuck with most of the bill. No one on the Left complained about their actions. Big surprise.
Evidence for these claims, canary? Or is it part of the GREAT LIBERAL CONSPIRACY, along with evolution?
Just ignore it, canaryinthecoalmine. It knows not whereof it speaks and is merely one of those bandwagon jumpers-on-ers of which you spoke.
You, SCOTTYM, and Lightnup have his number...
Don't worry, I do and I will. he should know how to do his own research, yet chooses to limit the closed mind laden with his own agenda to 'facts' he can handle, as Scotty so aptly revealed. Everything else given to him by others is not 'qualified' by his peers reviews. The last time I checked historically, 'peers' with that same mindset were populating the Third Reich and the Gulag Archipelago.
Some interesting finds so far:
Some papers are old (late 1990's) Some don't actually state that they deny the idea, just some detail. One was a survey of scientists, but found the differences of opinion existed between various disciplines but not within climate science. A prominent name is Michaels, Patrick J, who sourcewatch reveals has been on the payroll of big energy companies such as Edison Electric and Western Fuels Association as recently as 2007. Some are exploring the effect of increased CO2 on agriculture, which is interesting. Some links are broken. Some, like this one, don't really address climate change:
Claim of Largest Flood on Record Proves False (Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Number 12, pp. 109-109, 2003) - N. A. Sheffer et al.
That's just what I found in half an hour, focusing on those links whose title indicates that they disagree (except the last one, one of many that appear to be unrelated and when opened, actually do not address climate change)
Ikeithlu,
The aggregator of the information is not who I'm referencing. It is the 450 papers linked to within which I was putting forth.
"The rest of the world DOES buy it, and they will be demanding the new technology and alternative sources of energy."
This is another area of misinformation. There are thinking, scientifically literate people on every continent who are speaking out against this malarkey.
In addition, they can demand new technology all they'd like, it will not make it materialize. For now, our most affordable and accessible energy source are coal, natural gas, fission nuke plants, and hydroelectric. Until a breakthrough happens in nuke fusion tech, or some other as-yet unknown new technology arises, our choices are: use what we have, or go back to the lifestyles our ancestors lived 200 years ago. Wind and solar do not have the required energy density to power our modern lives. They do have some uses to which they can be applied, but base load power is not one of them.
Even if I believed the AGW B.S. I would not submit to the reduced economic advantages and truncated lifespans required to actually do anything about it anyway. I'm not the only one who feels this way.
China and India will never willingly stifle their path into the 1st world status by limiting their energy use. For us to do so would be economic suicide, in defense against imaginary hobgoblins.
"The aggregator of the information is not who I'm referencing. It is the 450 papers linked to within which I was putting forth."
It was the linked papers I was talking about in my latest post, not the site where they were assembled.
Here's an interesting pair: the first is showing that climate change is not responsible for polar bear decline, the second is a rebuttal.
Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? (PDF) (Ecological Complexity, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp. 73-84, September 2007) - M.G. Dyck, W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, L.O. Hancock
The list is not well vetted. There are lots of papers that are not actually up to date or refuting AGW.
canary,
Nature is indeed messing with the tempo and exposing the lack of chops possessed by Ozone Al and the Sycophants. This is a fact in which I find no end of amusement.
As for your question, I make no claims to be an expert but for what it's worth, about the only thing regarding past climate that we can truly deduce from all the evidence is that it does it's own thing. We have clear indications that the global temperatures have swung wildly from well above current levels to well below on all sorts of time scales, from very short to very long. The sea levels have repeatedly risen and fallen. The north and south poles have repeatedly frozen and thawed. Plate tectonics can be pointed out as a contributing factor for some of this activity over long time periods, as the re-routing of ocean currents can have huge impacts on the energy movement from the equator toward the poles. Orbital mechanics can most assuredly have an effect over long time periods as well. As for the shorter oscillations, well, we don't really know at this point.
Here is what we do know. The climate on earth is dominated by the oceans which can hold 1000's of times as much energy as the atmosphere. Most all the energy(disregarding the decay of radioactive particles in the Earth itself) on Earth comes from the our local star, the sun.
We know that stars do vary their power production as fuel is used up and the gravity/pressure balance reaches a new equilibrium. These changes are relatively small in the grand scheme and so are dismissed by the AGW crowd. The part they miss is that the actual amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth, which is mostly ocean, is controlled by cloud cover. This is obvious to anyone who has been outside on a partly cloudy day. Even with a blindfold on you can feel the change when a cloud scoots between you and the sun. We also know that clouds and water vapor are in the drivers seat as far as controlling the flow of energy away from the surface. This is obvious to anyone who notes the difference in nighttime temperature drops between cloudy and non-cloudy nights.
So a very good question would be; What controls cloud formation?
We don't really know. There is a theory being tested at CERN that galactic cosmic rays have a discernible effect on cloud formation as these particles may form the nucleus for water droplets in the atmosphere. It is worthy of consideration as the amount of CGR's reaching the inner solar system is modulated by the sun's magnetic cycles, which are hugely variable. If indeed GCR's can be shown to modulate the cloud cover of the planet, we will have greatly advanced our understanding of our little corner of the universe. I'm eagerly awaiting the results of the CERN tests on this as it seems to be a very good explanation. The AGW's do not like the theory as there is no human causality and their religion is based upon the assumption of man's destruction of the Earth.
cont. below
We also know that Earths climate is a non-linear, chaotic system which is dominated by negative feedbacks. This is obvious because otherwise it would have "hit the rail" billions of years ago and be either a permanent snowball, or way to hot for life to survive. Those things obviously haven't happened, therefore we can deduce that they will not happen in the future, much to the chagrin of the AGW proponents.
cont. from above
Any non-linear, chaotic, negative feedback system is going to oscillate around a mean. It is just the way it adjusts to outside perturbations. This is why no two years will ever be the exact same, and we should not expect them to be.
Of course there could be an alien race in a nearby star system using a terraforming beam messing with our minds.
;-)
Sorry for the long rambling post.
Ikeithlu,
So you're saying that there is a diversity of opinion as opposed to a monolithic "consensus"?
Does this surprise you?
Pay attention to the way you "refute" the issues. Dismissing papers about floods as being not related to climate change flies in the face of AGW claims of greater rain intensity and more serious flooding.
Are energy company employees automatically suspect, but those who gain grant monies, or NGO pay for supporting the AGW orthodoxy are unimpeachable? Watch out for the double standards, it is a leftist habit that is easy to acquire.
As for Polar bears, can we agree that the controversy over them is drivel?
Actually, my point was that the list of 450 is not carefully vetted. It is labeled as a list of 450 papers that are "skeptical" of the AGW, when in fact not all of them even address this issue, and some are seriously outdated. That a prominent name turns out to be funded by energy companies IS pretty important. Corporate funding and interference is pretty significant. Corporations have huge amounts of money to invest in their party line, especially if the opposite view interferes with their profit. Science is especially vulnerable to corporations; they will make sure that the "science" supports their bottom line. That is not saying that there aren't good papers that are skeptical, but I wonder why all these unrelated or outdated or tainted ones are included. Is this to pad the numbers?
The polar bear controversy and one's opinion depends on which of the two papers you believe. One says no, the other says yes. In the absence of other papers, it's a toss up.
There will always be diversity of opinion, especially on details, magnitude of effect, etc. To say that NOTHING is happening, well, it's hard to find anyone who legitimately believes that. There is far more disagreement with what should be don, if anything, nationally and globally.
Ikeithlu,
NGO's, i.e. Sierra Club, WorldWildlifeFund, etc, are just as well funded, and just as interested in pushing their viewpoint as any corporation. Governments are even more interested in pushing the CO2/Climate connection as they stand to reap huge amounts of tax dollars and control by scaring the populace into buying the AGW line of bull, therefore we should be just as skeptical of .gov funded and NGO funded science as we are of industry funded science. This is obvious to any who will think about it for a bit, and look at the fact that corporations spend a mere pittance compared to the NGO's and governments.
As for non-AGW related papers, try scooting over here http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2045/ and check out the list of things that have been tied to AGW. It is very funny.
The Polar bear controversy is a farce. The numbers continue to climb even with the continued hunting.
"To say that NOTHING is happening, well, it's hard to find anyone who legitimately believes that."
Did someone say that somewhere here, or you just throwing out a strawman to destroy?
"There is far more disagreement with what should be done, if anything, nationally and globally."
I'll agree with that, especially the "if anything" part.
To suppose that we humans can change the climate in anyway short of a full arsenal nuclear exchange between the U.S/Britain/France and the Russians/Chinese, is pure hubris.
Okay, now that was a strange list. So, I picked one-it was about how to protect the elderly living in locations without air-conditioning during a heat wave. It got linked because the writer claimed (without any scientific credentials) that heat waves may present more of a risk due to global warming.
So I picked another: http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressReleases/011023.asp This one said in 2001 that the coast of Florida needs to plan how to respond to rising seal levels. I found another, more recent paper:
http://spacecoastclimatechange.com/documents/090429%20Parkinson%20Adaptation%20Manuscript.pdf.
This shows that indeed, the sea level rise accelerated between 1998 and 2008 compared to the previous century and to the previous 3000 years. The numbers come from peer-reviewed sources, and the paper was directed at coastal municipalities.
My point is that, anyone can "blame" anything on Global Warming. That means nothing. People "blame" today's culture on taking prayer out of schools or teaching evolution, for pity's sake, with no proof whatever. But, if you look at some phenomena, there seems to be evidence that things are changing, and changing faster than they have in the past.
"Ozone Al and the Sycophants"... Hilarious. Score up one, SCOTTYM.
To drift a bit, I would add that creationism is not a theory by any means. It is nothing so solid. Same thing with Darwinism.
It is merely a personal belief with a bit of possible evidence in support [1,500 year old documents, for instance].
Incidentally, non-belief is also a belief...only it is based not on evidence but the lack of it. So we all have our hang-ups.
I still love the name.
Ikiethlu wrote,
"But, if you look at some phenomena, there seems to be evidence that things are changing, and changing faster than they have in the past."
I agree to a certain extent, however that word "SEEMS" is a very important qualifier.
We have very little high resolution data to base our judgments upon. As I wrote before, It is generally accepted that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. The fact that things may be changing in ways not seen in thousands of years doesn't mean much of anything other than that we are comparing the present day to a very small sample of data in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention that our present data collection systems are fraught with errors in in themselves, such as fact that the surface temp measurement from today can not be reliably compared to surface temp measurements from 20 years ago due to urban expansion, station drop out, and instrument changes.
My point is that to cut our economic throats to fight against an impossible and unquantifiable threat is absurd at the least.
Scientists don't use the term much. It's called the Theory of Evolution, and it's well supported by tons of evidence from all areas of science. Creationism is supported by some evidence, but requires the ignoring of the rest of the evidence, and suspension of basic physical laws. What 1500 year old documents? The bible is older than that, isn't it?
What does this have to do with this thread?
rolando,
That got me pretty tickled when it popped into my head as well. LOL
I'm a hardcore disbeliever in lots of things which are not supported by evidence. Sometimes it can be a problem, but then I'm not very likely to be taken in by con-men and hucksters either.
I do not disagree with your points.
Ikeithlu,
I stuck a little bit about Creationism in one of those posts up-page. That is what rolando was hitting at.
"Creationism is supported by some evidence, but requires the ignoring of the rest of the evidence, and suspension of basic physical laws."
True.
Anthropogenic CO2 Global Warming is supported by some evidence, but requires the ignoring of the rest of the evidence, and suspension of basic physical laws.
True, as well, except the evidence part, and this is my whole point. CO2 cannot physically do what the AGW proponents claim, as its warming effect is logarithmic and peters out around 300 PPM. This is why the climate modelers have to introduce positive feedbacks into their imaginary digital worlds to get any kind of noticeable temperature gain. As I wrote before, the Earth MUST be dominated by negative feedbacks otherwise it would have "hit the rail" and stuck there billions of years ago. The simplest examination makes it quite clear that the AGW hypothesis is physical nonsense.
Isn't the CO2 level at 390 ppm right now? Are you saying that the effects stop at 300 ppm even if the level rises above that? How can that be?
BTW, rolando rejects Evolution. Just so you know.
Ikeithlu,
Rolando's belief or non-belief in evolution will never cost me a single penny. Widespread belief in AGW most certainly will cost me a lot when the politicians and bureaucrats start trying to control nature.
The warming effect of CO2 is not linear, i.e. each additional increment does not have the same effect as the preceding increment. The effect is logarithmic, each additional increment has less of an effect than the preceding increment.
If we were to begin with an exact duplicate of the Earth but with zero PPM of CO2 and we add enough to bring the CO2 concentration up to 20 PPM we would see some increase in the time required for energy to reach the top of the atmosphere. This would result in a total increase in energy retained by the atmosphere and thus we would see an increase in temperatures. We'll call it 1 degree just to make it easy for me to explain. (I'm lazy tonight, and don't feel like dragging out the text books) The next increment of 20 PPM (doubling the concentration) would not result in another 1 degree of temperature increase, it would be more like 0.8 degrees. An additional 40 PPM (doubling again) would result in 0.6 additional degrees of warming. The next 80 PPM (doubling) would give us 0.3 degrees of warming. Were only at 160 PPM and the warming effect is disappearing quickly(but we have almost enough to support plant life!). An additional doubling, to 320 PPM would only give us an additional 0.1 degree of warming. Double again to 640 PPM and you get 0.06 degrees of warming. Not very scary, hard to measure and imposable to perceive. This is a simplified version. Dig around and you'll find much more accurate numbers, but the effect is real.
Another way to visualize what is happening is to imagine getting some black paint that blocks 50% of the light and paint a window that has the sun shining through it. The first layer will block half of the light from being transmitted, but the next layer will only block half of the remaining available light which is only half of what was available to begin with, you end up with 25% of the original light. The third layer will only block 12.5% of the original light. The fourth layer will only block 6.25% of the original light. The fifth layer will only block 3.125%, the sixth will block 1.5625%. Pretty soon it won't matter how much light the paint is capable of blocking because it won't have much of anything to block.
cont. below
This is even more pronounced in our atmosphere because of the fact that the absorption spectrum of CO2 is overlapped to a certain extent by the H2O spectrum. H2O vapor is responsible for 95%+ of the "greenhouse" effect here on Earth so that above 300PPM CO2 just doesn't have the omph left to do much of anything.
This is the actual physics. The warmists gloss over it by adding imaginary positive feedbacks, i.e. the CO2 causes a little bit of warming which causes more H2O to evaporate into the atmosphere, which causes more warming, which causes the oceans to outgas more CO2 which warms the atmosphere further, which causes the more H2O to evaporate, which causes more warming, which causes the oceans to outgas more CO2, etc, on to infinity. Viola, Al's runaway global warming/Venus example.
It ain't ever going to happen, even if we could push the CO2 concentration back up to the few thousand PPM it was in the geological past(we can't, that carbon is now locked up in the lithosphere and well out of reach). It didn't happen then, it won't happen now or in the future unless someone manages to change the laws of physics.
That's pretty interesting. What about the loss of albedo? Or the release of methane from permafrost?
I looked into the CO2 thing and did find this question and answer: (is this what you meant?) the estimate of climate sensitivity and the added CO2 released from ecosystems. If the temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic, adding more CO2 will have diminishing effect. I also wonder if the infra-red absorption bands can become saturated?
[Response: The logarithmic effect is already incorporated in radiative transfer models. And a "diminishing effect" does not necessarily mean a "small effect," if that's what you're getting at. Look at it this way: we all agree that the effect of doubling CO2 will be substantial, and any feedback that accelerates CO2 release will make the day of doubling come sooner, giving ecosystems and society less time to adapt, and requiring tighter emissions targets if one is to avoid doubling. The answer to your question at the end is "no." At least not in any sense that should concern us in the least. The CO2 bands are still not completely saturated even for Venus, insofar as the effect on the top of atmosphere radiation budget goes. There are still bands that are relatively transparent to infrared and can be strongly affected by adding more CO2. In fact, the question of saturation doesn't even completely make sense as applied to greenhouse warming, because even in an optically thick atmosphere the radiation that escapes to space always comes from the high (and generally cold) tenuous part of the atmosphere, where the bands are by definition not saturated. In that sense you never reach a point where adding more CO2 stops increasing surface temperature.
This Q&A is what I'm talking about, but notice some of the assumptions and misunderstandings built into the answer.
"we all agree that the effect of doubling CO2 will be substantial"
no "we" do not.
Then the discussion of irrelevant factors is injected to force the reader's eyes off the ball.
"The CO2 bands are still not completely saturated even for Venus, insofar as the effect on the top of atmosphere radiation budget goes."
The radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere is not really a concern of ours being that we live 50 miles below that at the bottom of the atmosphere. The radiation budget down here is what matters.
"There are still bands that are relatively transparent to infrared and can be strongly affected by adding more CO2."
The infrared absorption is what the AGW theory is all about, absorption bands that are transparent to infrared have no bearing on the discussion as it is the temporarily detained infrared energy that would cause any additional warming.
graphic of absorption bands http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
"In fact, the question of saturation doesn't even completely make sense as applied to greenhouse warming, because even in an optically thick atmosphere the radiation that escapes to space always comes from the high (and generally cold) tenuous part of the atmosphere, where the bands are by definition not saturated."
This bit has me a little dumbfounded as energy leaving the atmosphere is obviously exiting out the top. Maybe the author thinks that absorbed radiation is held indefinitely in a saturated scenario(it's not). To paraphrase the quote, "It is obvious that the water runs out of the open top of an overturned bucket where it is by definition not contained." Either the author is clueless, or he/she believes the reader is.
I'm not sure where this came from, but the author of the answer section is clearly trying to obfuscate a very clear and well understood physical effect.
cont. below
cont. from above(darned 3000 character limit, I have too much character, LOL)
"In that sense you never reach a point where adding more CO2 stops increasing surface temperature."
This part reminds me of an old joke.
An Engineer and a Mathematician are presented with a scenario involving a teenage boy, a couch and a cute teenage girl. The Engineer and the Mathematician are instructed to calculate how long it will take for the boy to reach the girl if they start out five feet apart on opposite ends of the couch and the boy halves the distance every minute.
The Mathematician correctly states that by halving the distance every minute, the boy will take an infinite amount of time to reach the girl.
The Engineer states, correctly also, that it will take 3 minutes to be within striking range.
I'm saying that it can be argued that there is still a warming effect above 300PPM, but the fact is, it is so small of an effect as to be irrelevant and continues to diminish with increasing concentration.
If doubling the CO2 from the currently accepted number of 390ish PPM to 780PPM has the effect of raising the global average temperature by 0.05 degrees over the course of 100 years, do we really believe it will have any noticeable effect, seeing as how we can barely even measure the difference with the very best of equipment and that the daily temperature variation can be on the order of 50 degrees F in some places?
"If doubling the CO2 from the currently accepted number of 390ish PPM to 780PPM has the effect of raising the global average temperature by 0.05 degrees over the course of 100 years, do we really believe it will have any noticeable effect,..."
Now this is very specific-can you tell me where it came from?
Ikeithlu,
I'm kicking around rough numbers from tons of reading. For the next doubling I've seen estimates anywhere from 0.01 F to 1.5 F. The important part is to look at what the claimed warming is without the positive feedbacks which cannot exist. I call it on the low end, call it on the high if you like, it still will not result in any catastrophic outcome and most likely will not even be noticeable.
I honestly doubt we could push the number up that high if we tried, as we would have to double the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere and we are only contributing 3-4% of the yearly addition. Figure in the fact that the true resident time is on the order of 7-12 years, it looks totally impossible to me.
Still, unless you are actively involved in the actual science, I'd appreciate a source from someone who is. I'm also not sure about the environmental agencies/organizations being as well funded as the energy industries (not sure they are paying their exec's those enormous bonuses) but I haven't had the time to check those out yet.
It was on-topic in an aside in reply to another's post, lkeithlu, you were not mentioned, it did not address your precious belief in "Evolution", per se, and finally, it did not concern you.
Take your lithium or whatever paranoia meds you take and look elsewhere.
Have a nice day.
Great mini-lesson, SCOTTYM. Thanks.
Somewhere in the deep past [pre-dirt, some say], I read something about the moon slowly stripping away our original "excess" atmosphere through tidal forces. AS I recall that had something to do with the switch of our atmosphere from a reducing to an oxidizing one...and also allowed/aided heat loss through a shallower atmosphere. It was pointed out that Venus, without a moon, has a deeper atmosphere.
[Amazing the things a mind holds and the length of time it holds it...]
Butt out, rolando. I am having a civil exchange with Scotty, who unlike you, isn't dismissing my sources, failing to provide sources of his own, and not using personal attacks. He also doesn't bolt when asked to back up his claims. Why would you want to converse with me anyway? According to you, I am an evil, drug-addled, grad student who is immoral and into S&M.
As far as this:
"Somewhere in the deep past [pre-dirt, some say], I read something about the moon slowly stripping away our original "excess" atmosphere through tidal forces. AS I recall that had something to do with the switch of our atmosphere from a reducing to an oxidizing one...and also allowed/aided heat loss through a shallower atmosphere. It was pointed out that Venus, without a moon, has a deeper atmosphere."
if you had half a brain, you'd know that oxygen was emitted by blue-green algae, accumulating in the atmosphere and switched it from reducing to oxidizing.
Ikeithlu,
I've been through so many different papers and articles since I first became concerned about this topic back when Hansen went before a Congressional hearing in '88, that I hate to try to guess which ones have been most influential on my understanding. I was a believer for quite some time. Those ice cores showing CO2 and temperature proxies moving in lockstep sealed the deal in my mind, regardless of the physics. I figured there must have been some basic misunderstanding in the mathematical assumptions.
Then the new higher resolution ice core data was released and an approximate 800 year time lag showed up between the temperature rises and the CO2 increases. This was also about the time that Hansen's temperature projections were pushing through the decade+ time horizon and obviously were not even close to reality. Shortly after that, and with more digging, I learned that some of the bigger names in the field were not sharing data. Worse yet, evidence was uncovered that data was being "adjusted" to fit the theory, and data that was to far out to be adjusted was summarily tossed.
A few more years of hockeystick shenanigans and the degradation and expulsion of dissenting voices and I am now convinced that it is all a sham.
The only convincing piece of evidence is gone, the physics were never in agreement with the hypothesis, and those who continue to push the idea are engaging in outright deceptions, unbelievable exaggerations, and personal attacks against well qualified dissenters. This is not the science that dragged us out of the dark ages, but it sure has the potential to send us back.
Keep digging on your own, but be wary of those making outrageous claims. Pay close attention to the numbers as many things get blown way out of proportion, and many will try to snow you with irrelevant ideas and data.
Lastly, remember that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Our data sets are not even a blink of the eye at that scale. We really have no clue what "normal" is.
I really hope that, as more people learn the truth of the matter, science itself will not be irreparably damaged.
Thanks, this is helpful. I won't make up my mind yet, but I appreciate the time spent, in spite of the fact that we don't see eye-to-eye on everything. (It's refreshing not to be called a liar just because I disagree) I don't worry about science being irreparably damaged: people deny even good science if it conflicts with their preconceived notions. Always have, always will. I blame science educators (me included) for not doing a better job educating the public on what science is and removing misconceptions about the physical world.
Oh, by the way, whatever will happen, will happen. Perhaps in 30 years, we should meet and the "winner" buy the other a beer. I'll be pushing eighty...
lkeithlu
Your turn to butt out. I have no interest in your odd-ball comments and theories. My discourse is with others.
Blah blah blah rolando. Why do you keep addressing them to me? Your pathologies are showing.
Ikeithlu,
I hope you are right about the resiliency of science. I know you're right about good science being ignored in the name of ideology.
I had a few very good science teachers/professors in my time. The really good ones noticed my spark of interest and feed it kindling till they got a good fire going. I thank them all. Follow the data, where ever it may lead. Words to live by.
I like beer.
rolando,
You're very welcome if I've at least put you onto a line of thinking that hadn't occurred before. And, you are still welcome around my campfire anytime. Ikeithlu might even bring the beer. ;-)
Or maybe not.
No beer for rolando. Bad boy! Well, maybe.... beer is great for making peace.
For a human, Scotty you're formidable and make more sense than any other 'science-guy' on this site. Plus, you don't come across as pitifully arrogant, which is refreshing. Whoever you work for, is blessed to have you.
Interesting Scotty, you asked: "So a very good question would be; What controls cloud formation?" I know you guys completely rule out a higher Intelligence, unless you're one of those guys who keeps looking for Alien life-forms on Mars and Venus; yet we believe this incredibly complex system you so carefully laid out for us, didn't just happen by chance or by chaos. Genesis 2 relates the creation of the earth and universe, no rain fell on the earth, "because there was no one to cultivate it yet...rather a mist went up from the earth which watered the entire ground surface.." This was a perfect, bio-diverse 'greenhouse', made for the humans who would inhabit it. All food and medicine they would ever need was contained in it. It and they were made perfectly.
This also reminds me of something I read about scientists in Australia stating, that with fossil/plant discoveries there, they were able to determine plant life (and animals/reptiles) were enormous compared to the present life forms. Yes, we have physical evidence (of Creation, I say) but if one of us were able to create something complex (the eye, or physics eg.) out of nothing, wouldn't this be supra-natural and very 'normal' for such a one? Why rule that out unless you know your own mind is finite (can only hold and learn a certain amount of information), the world is finite, physical Laws are finite, etc?
What about the universe? Why are the rest of the planets fixed in orbit and not inhabited, why haven't they been subject to that "chaotic" change, that evolution you mentioned earth has been subject to? I loved that analogy you used, "We also know that Earths climate is a non-linear, chaotic system which is dominated by negative feedbacks." I believe it has become that type of system due to the Fall, the disobedience of humanity, now we are in chaos, we are the negative feedbacks!
With all the back and forth and scientific points you both made, it is still evident to us that there is and always will be much that is not known by the human inhabitants of earth. Maybe a static reality exists for now, maybe logarithms and empirical data will ebb and flow a bit over the next few decades-or not. When I read something you guys wouldn't touch with a hundred foot pole-Prophecy, well I read what was written by 'mere' men thousands of years ago on parchment scrolls and it has mostly come true as of this day. There is still a bit more to come to pass. In 10, 20, 30 years we all may know. And that will be really interesting.
Just try to remember, in all the 'glory' of self-knowledge in your fields, none of us knows everything and all of us knows something about some things. Rolando has a wealth of life experience that not many do. He could record it for posterity and as a warning to the naive coming up. Those who know little about life would be wise to listen. You guys are going to need it in the coming years.
Art may be golden and science a wonderful conundrum for many, but life is a Teacher for us all.
PS: Scotty, I bet you did a lot of peoples homework today
Scotty and lkeith, I really enjoyed reading these posts. I will say, I've never looked into global warming. I know nothing about the science of it (well, I know some now, thanks to you two). This was a very interesting read. Just to put my two cents in: Though I have never been concerned with Global Warming, and do not know if I believe it is true or not, I must agree with a comment lkeith said toward the beginning of this thread that we cannot depend on fossil fuels forever. Alternate energy sources need to be found... not only for environmental reasons. But if we had a non-renewable energy resource, I think we would all be better off financially. And yes, I do hope that American's come up with the idea, that we can market globally... it would help our enormous debt. However, as much as I like to think about some ideas, I believe it will take greater minds than mine to come up with the ideas that will work. Anyway, thanks again for the education today!
I appreciate your patience and time, Scotty. It has renewed my faith in the possibility that those with different opinions can still converse!
canary, most of what you posted is religious (or philosophical) not scientific. Though interesting, as a non-believer I don't really find it of value the way a religious person might. As there is no physical evidence for the supernatural, it is not in the realm of science.
lkeithlu and Scotty - great discussion guys - well done and thanks
Thanks to everyone for the kind words. I know I can be an a** at times.(When I forget that fact, my wife quickly reminds me.)
I'm no expert on anything outside my little field, but I love to read and I tend to retain the most inane of things. Sharing is fun, and I often learn a lot as well. The internet is one of the greatest tools ever devised by man. We can access data sources that were at one time stowed away in the bowels of university libraries. We can look up parts diagrams and parts list for nearly any item we use in our daily lives. Any recipe you'd ever want is at our fingertips. We can buy nearly anything on the planet while wearing our pajamas at 4 a.m. on a Sunday morning. We can learn from experts on nearly any topic, from gardening to making explosives. We can stay on top of the news like never before, and we can converse with people we'd likely never have met otherwise.
We can all have differences of opinion and still laugh at ourselves and learn from one another.
Ain't life grand?
hear hear! (raises glass)
POP! (a can, I'm lazy)
Sounds like me after work. Jar of peanut butter and a spoon makes a decent dinner.
I generally do not make it a habit of flogging old thread, but this is relevant and may be the end of serious debate on AGW.
1000+ Hacked e-mail's from some of the biggest names in the AGW science field. The original link is down, but a lot of quicker folks than I got it.(I was late getting online this evening.) I'll get hold of the entire file soon. The climate blogs are hopping.
Anyone who has read-up a bit on the subject matter will recognize the names.
"We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
This is a limited time offer, download now:
(LINKDEAD SM)http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
Sample:
0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal 1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!” 0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU 0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve” 0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground 1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve 1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry 1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty 0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic 0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies 0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960 0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible 0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results” 0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results” 1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news” 1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not? 1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29) 1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point” 1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations 1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4"
No sleep for SCOTTYM tonight.
1089318616.txt
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers Phil
That one would be a bombshell. BOOM!!!!
Or login with:
New Account