I think I will start to close down comments on some of the guide articles as the comment threads get too long and meandering, and instead direct people from there to dedicated "open threads".
So consider this the first implementation of that idea for the article "CO2 Lags, not leads". Comments there are now closed.
The main reason I want to do this article first, aside from the recent explosion of unproductive comments, is because I would like to make a correction and a couple of clarifications based on what came out there. The majority of the comments fall squarely in the "completely missing the point" category, in that they simply restate the addressed objection with not even a cursory nod to the refutation. We can ignore those.
But I think that if I wrote the article today there is in fact one thing I would change. I wrote:
So, it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.
It is this last phrase that I would alter. There is research that purports to show up to 90% of the warming/cooling of the glacial-interglacial cycles was due to GHG's, but there is also research that pegs this factor at much less, around 30%. Given that, I would like to change "greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor" to "greenhouse gas forcing was a dominant factor". This is more conservative but therefore much easier to justify and it in no way detracts from the argument. As mentioned in the original article, albedo changes from melting/growing ice sheets and orbital forcing are the other major factors.
The clarification I would like to make is in two parts: part one is that the evidence gleaned from the polar ice core records is not "proof" of GHG driven warming. I do not make that claim and no one should, but this is the straw man frequently erected around the ice core records. It is however entirely consistent with the current theories. This is all that is required of good theories and available data. As well, modeling experiments (is there another way?) confirm that GHG forcing is absolutely required to explain the magnitude of the temperature swings. Part two is that the evidence gleaned from the polar ice core records, specifically that orbital forcings come first, is categorically not proof that CO2 does not cause any warming or even not much warming. This is the biggest and most obvious mistake that denialists make, assuming that because orbital forcing happens first therefore GHG forcing does not exist.
Otherwise, I think the article is fine. This thread is where any further discussion should take place.
Comments
Nitpick alert - and this may be a UK/US English thing, but should not 'dominate' be 'dominant'? Never heard 'dominate' used as an adjective before...
Posted by: Peter E | June 11, 2009 8:59 AM
No, that's just a typo, I will correct it, thanks!
Posted by: coby | June 11, 2009 9:11 AM
How many of you liberals are terrorists and call us conservatives terrorists? How many of you want to execute or imprion a "global warming denier"?
Website says “execute global warming deniers”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers%E2%80%94Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
Posted by: Global warming denier | June 11, 2009 5:03 PM
How do you tell if someone has found a great satire site and wants to share it while in character or they're a nut and found a satire site and aren't aware it's satire?
Posted by: pough | June 11, 2009 8:20 PM
Coby,
You go to all this trouble in an attempt to get the debate back on topic and it only took 3 posts to go off the rails again, maybe you should delete the post.
I will attempt to get it back on track Ok.
Shall we set some ground rules?
I beleive we should only go as far back as the last ice age as beyond this our ability to replicate the past is not so good, also geological differences of the ancient past may/will affect climate slightly different to the recent (100,000 years)past. Does this sound fair?
Now what do we agree on?
Well we know that as the Earth emerged out of the last IA the CO2 levels lagged temp by at least 800 years, agreed?
Therefore basically as the temps rose so would WV and possibly methane and maybe trace GHG's which would have contributed to the warming, then 800 years later CO2 began to rise in response to said warming, this CO2 rise would then add to the warming. Initially it would have a big impact but as the CO2 levels increased its effects on the temps would diminish. Agreed?
Your position is that around this time CO2 then began to drive the temps so to speak. This is where we differ since the ice core data clearly shows (feel free to object on this point) that the CO2 levels lag the temp leading up to, during and following the IA.
Am i incorrect to say this? I have not seen anything to the contrary. Therefore if CO2 lags temp as above then how do you know with any certainty that CO2 drove the temps after the 800 year lag?
I encourage everyone to provide evidence to prove my thoughts wrong, all off topic posts addresed to me will be ignored.
Cheers
Crakar
Posted by: crakar14 | June 11, 2009 8:30 PM
I think that's a fair amendment.
A viable candidate for first place in the forcing stakes would be ice sheet change, contributing about 30% according to some studies. Far as I've gleaned, you'd be on fairly solid ground if you said greenhouse gases are the dominant forcing during interglacial warming.
Which is actually what you said in your original post, Coby.
Posted by: barry | June 12, 2009 8:18 AM
Pough -
This has long been a defining problem of the internet.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Posted by: Adam | June 12, 2009 7:32 PM
I always wonder at the 'CO2 lags, not leads, in the record' argument denialists make. If CO2 is leading this time, whereas it normally builds up with a 'lag' during a natural warming cycle, doesn't that--without any further reasoning or evidence--set of alarm bells that what we're seeing now is NOT part of a natural cycle?
But, of course, they never follow that thought to its conclusion. They just want to fuzzy up the discussion.
Posted by: Nils Ross | June 12, 2009 11:00 PM
Nils,
Why not try facts. Prior to 1958 there were lots of CO2 measurements, but those have to be thrown out because they do not support the theory. So lets look at the "approved" data collected at MLO. Where is the evidence that current CO2 build up is not lag from warming? We know that globally the climate warmed up about 1-1.5C from the LIA. We know that CO2 lags by 250-2400 years depending on which study you look at. Where is the evidence that the current CO2 levels are not due to warming?
The rate of CO2 increase is steady, while the amount of CO2 produced by man has been accellerating.
Posted by: Vernon | June 13, 2009 3:35 AM
Vernon -
The rate of CO2 increase is steady, while the amount of CO2 produced by man has been accellerating.
We've been over this poppycock before, so we'll revisit it for the slow.
1960 -> 1970: CO2 increased ~8.75 ppm in 10 years
1970 -> 1980: CO2 increased ~13.00 ppm in 10 years
1980 -> 1990: CO2 increased ~15.48 ppm in 10 years
1990 -> 2000: CO2 increased ~15.24 ppm in 10 years
2000 -> 2008: CO2 increased ~16.17 ppm in 8 years
data from here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
These are just back of the envelope calculations, and I'm just 'cherry-picking' the first year of each decade, for no reason other than consistency (and using 2008 because its the last year data is available). Looking at the graph of the data, I don't see anything weird at those years that would make me uncomfortable using the data for this quick-and-dirty stuff.
Now, you'll see that the rate of increase is, well, increasing. I don't think even you can deny that an increasing rate shows and increasing rate.
That being said, I eagerly await your convoluted, tortured explanation of how those numbers show the rate of CO2 concentrations is actually steady.
Posted by: Adam | June 13, 2009 7:46 AM
But you've been taught that about 42^42 times in the past, and ignored the lesson, as you will this one and the 42^42 times it will be repeated to you in the future.
That's because you're a denialist who has no interest in the science.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 13, 2009 11:02 AM
Where is the evidence that current CO2 build up is not lag from warming? (Vernon, #9)
If your concern were the science, your question would be "What evidence establishes the cause of CO2 increase?" or something in that vein. i.e., it would be asking for information.
Instead, you presume a cause and present no evidence that what you presume is even a plausible cause. Given your presumption, my question is: what evidence would it take for you to believe that the CO2 increase is not from your pet explanation?
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | June 13, 2009 12:37 PM
Vernon wrote: "Where is the evidence that current CO2 build up is not lag from warming?"
Well, let's see. Besides the acceleration in the accumulation of CO2 that Adam pointed out, there is:
1) the correlation of the annual increase in the atmosphere with the annual amount of fossil carbon fuels burned;
2) the correlated fall in atmospheric oxygen from producing that CO2 by burning fossil carbon fuels;
4) the fall in atmospheric CO2 containing 13C, consistent with depressed levels of 13C in fossil carbon fuels;
5) the fall in 14C, consistent with the near total lack of 14C in fossil fuels;
6) the fact that the "little ice age" was not an actual ice age and therefore did not depress **global** temperature any where near enough.
Now, what evidence do you have, Vernon, that suggests that the increase in CO2 could be due to emerging form the LIA?
Posted by: Jim Eager | June 13, 2009 3:00 PM
Please provide a reference that shows that CO2 has accelerated since MLO started taking measurements. Is that not part of the problem for your side, that the use of fossil fuels has accelerated but the increase of CO2 has increased but at a steady rate, not an accellerating one.
Posted by: Vernon | June 13, 2009 4:32 PM
14: One question at a time. Again: What evidence would it take for you to believe that the CO2 increase of the last 150 years is not from your pet explanation?
Given that in 14 you make no reference to the evidence (supported by a scientific source) presented regarding the acceleration in CO2 increase presented in 10, I won't be holding my breath that you'll answer my question either. If you are an honest discussant, such responses are needed.
See also A Code of Conduct for Effective Discussion, and my own Discussion vs. debate.
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | June 13, 2009 4:52 PM
Vernon shows is stupidity and lack of reading skills once again.
Vernon, look at Adam's post #10. He gives the data which show that the rate of CO2 accumulation is accelerating. He also provides a cite to where he found the data.
Why are you so stupid Vernon? Are you just playing games? Or are you really that stupid and clueless?
By the way you still have not responded to my two reports showing that there is Arctic amplification.
Posted by: Ian Forrester | June 13, 2009 6:07 PM
The task before anyone claiming the CO2 rise is natural is daunting. They have to explain why anthro CO2 has been completely absorbed before explaining why naturally formed CO2 has been increasing. Then they have to argue away observed changes in isotopic ratios consistent with fossil fuel CO2 increase.
One argument is that the current CO2 rise is the lag effects of the MWP, which occured about 800 - 1000 years ago. However, this does not explain the rate of increase or the amplitude. An increase of about 100ppm accompanied global temperature changes of about 5C in transitions to interglacials, and this happened over a few thousand years. For the MWP, the temperature rose by about a degree (or lets say 1.5C to keep skeptics happy). 800 years later, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has already shot up by the same amount as during deglaciations, but it has happened nearly 50 times faster. It don't add up.
Having read yet more on the matter, I withdraw my comments above, except the first - that Coby's amendment is fair.
Posted by: barry | June 13, 2009 7:50 PM
Of course, the proposition that the CO2 rise is an effect of the recovery from the LIA has even less persuasion than than the MWP proposition, for the same reasons.
Posted by: barry | June 13, 2009 7:52 PM
Vernon is shooting blanks. It's the only reason he still has all his toes.
Posted by: Jim Eager | June 14, 2009 9:51 AM
No, actually that was a bad argument that Adam put forward, but I do not have access on the weekends to the machine I stored the calculations on. Redid the caculations for the dt of atmospheric CO2 and man made CO2. I got the man made CO2 figures from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html and use Adam's source for atmospheric CO2.
Do a regression test on the two rates of change shows the following:
Multiple R 0.213
R Square 0.045
I could give the rest of the stats but if the R Square is that bad, then the rest is meaningless. Which means that the rate of change in Man made CO2 and the rate of change in Atmospheric CO2 have almost no relationship.
If man was the source of the increases atmospheric CO2, then the rate of increased atmospheric CO2 would correlate with the rate of increased man made CO2. They don't, so while correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation can disprove causation.
Posted by: Vernon | June 14, 2009 11:46 AM
I made a social science prediction above:
And it came true!
Robert Grumbine: Vernon's an old hand at this. He's been around all the usual blogs. He's not interested in the science.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 14, 2009 1:13 PM
dhogaza: You're not really providing me news. 'old hand' in blogs means only a few years. I've been around these discussions online for 20 years now. (Also means that I should maybe have learned better than to hang around, but ...)
That's part of the reason for the difference in our responses. Evidence did not lead the Vernons of the net to their conclusions. Evidence will not drag them away. Sometimes it's a good idea to provide the evidence anyhow ('think of the lurkers'). And sometimes it helps to illustrate (to those same lurkers) that evidence is irrelevant to some people.
I do also seriously recommend the two articles I linked to earlier. Too much of online ... verbiage ... is not aimed at the intellectually honest discussion that either article is talking about. Makes it too easy to forget that there is such a thing as intellectually honest discussion rather than 'debate' where nobody will ever change their minds, and probably not learn anything.
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | June 14, 2009 5:57 PM
Vernon -
No, actually that was a bad argument that Adam put forward, but ... snip ... and use Adam's source for atmospheric CO2.
I countered your specific claim that the rate of CO2 increase is steady (comment #9). Regardless of what mankind is or is not putting into the atmosphere, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and the rate of increasing is increasing as well, as I posted in comment #10.
I could give the rest of the stats but if the R Square is that bad, then the rest is meaningless. Which means that the rate of change in Man made CO2 and the rate of change in Atmospheric CO2 have almost no relationship.
If man was the source of the increases atmospheric CO2, then the rate of increased atmospheric CO2 would correlate with the rate of increased man made CO2.
What you did here, is you changed your argument. You're committing a fallacy of the moving goalposts (yet another denialist trademark for those keeping score). I showed that your argument regarding CO2 concentration increase being steady to be fallacious, so you changed your argument to there being poor correlation between atmospheric concentrations and anthropogenic emissions rate.
I don't know enough about the carbon cycle to counter this, but the fact that your argument shifts to whatever is convenient for you is enough to convince me that YOU don't know enough about the carbon cycle either to comment intelligently about it.
Posted by: Adam | June 14, 2009 7:14 PM
I dont Vern, i think you maybe flogging a dead horse here. I would say that if we dig up CO2, burn it and pump it out to the atmosphere then we must be adding to the total CO2 levels. Of course plants and cooling oceans will reduce CO2 levels and warming oceans and maybe volcanos will incease it (i probably missed a few). Also the lag of 800 years or whatever it is today will have an effect one way or the other.
Anyway the point is it is not so easy to establish what CO2 came from where but common sense says we must be adding CO2 that was once looked up deep under ground.
The point up for debate is of course is will this cause AGW.
Crakar
Posted by: crakar14 | June 14, 2009 11:18 PM
crakar, the empirical basis for CO2 increases to cause warming is well-established in countless laboratory experiments, as well as the theoretical underpinnings, and as observed by satellite spectroscopy. There's not much doubt there.
Where you might have wiggle room is whether or not this empirical observation plays out regarding temperature in the actual atmos. What's your case?
Posted by: barry | June 15, 2009 3:36 AM
Small amendment - satellites have observed increased impedance of infrared radiation over time, in the spectra associated with CO2. Why this should not mean more warming of the atmosphere is crakar's task to explain.
I consider the cooling of the stratosphere to be the starkest piece of evidence that more heat is being retained in the atmos. That needs to be explained, too.
Apologies for enabling the digression.
Posted by: barry | June 15, 2009 4:11 AM
I sort of answered your question in the Little ice age thread, we can discuss further if you wish
Crakar
Posted by: crakar14 | June 16, 2009 12:08 AM
So let's see, no response to crakar14's very legitimate questions?
Posted by: Eric Anderson | June 18, 2009 10:09 AM
Which ones?
Posted by: pough | June 18, 2009 10:31 AM
So such a lag does not prove the basic physics of CO2 warming to be false.
The difference today is, of course, the source of the CO2 increase - we're burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. It's coming from us, not from warming, therefore can quite logically lead warming.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 18, 2009 10:49 AM
Dhogaza,
What you say sounds good in theory, however the geological record shows temperature changes then after a lag of X years CO2 changes. Therefore logically the temperature level controls the CO2 level.
If CO2 changes then X years later the temperature changes then one could say that CO2 controls the temps, as this is not the case then logically CO2 does not control temps.
The increase of CO2 does not change this logic, here is what Spencer has to say
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3602
Posted by: crakar14 | June 18, 2009 10:34 PM
As much as I enjoy reading the comments of someone whose confidence is based entirely upon his confidence, I find the writings of people who actually know what they're talking about even more interesting. (And no, I'm not talking about Spencer.)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
A few key things I took away from that page (apart from what I quoted above). One is that CO2 was never thought to be the primary driver of the ice age changes, but only a part of it. I think it mentions one third or so.
So once again you strangely expect one of many climate-affecting things to be in lock-step with all temperature changes and then declare them completely irrelevant when they're only found to be pretty much exactly what the folks who actually study climate expected them to be. Scientists are somehow wrong by not matching the expectations of people who misunderstand.
Another thing I enjoyed was how in correcting what they claim was Gore's mistake, they end up showing how "global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2-3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius's calculations more than 100 years ago)."
Finally, they mention times when CO2 was much higher than now, and how when denialists mention this point they neglect to mention that it was also much warmer then.
I enjoyed reading that post. Thanks for inspiring me to read more real science, Crakar!
Posted by: pough | June 18, 2009 11:32 PM
Simple physics tells us that if the atmosphere and ocean are NOT in equilibrium, i.e. if the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than that point, then increasing the temperature, while keeping it below that point, will NOT increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather, the ocean will continue to absorb more CO2 than it outgasses until equilibrium is reached.
So your statement is not true. Physics tells us that it is only true under certain circumstances, and is utterly false under another set of circumstances.
Observation of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and ocean, combined with the observed temps of both, tell us that we're in the second set of circumstances, and that the ocean is currently a sink, not source, for CO2.
Observed acidification (lowering of PH) supports what basic physics tells us to be true.
Physics tells us that CO2 will warm the atmosphere, It's that simple.If it didn't the ocean would be solid ice in the first place.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 20, 2009 5:47 PM
And one of the very first lessons of science is that many things that seem intuitively true are false. Hell, you don't need science to tell you this, probability theory (and the existence of casinos) is sufficient.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 20, 2009 5:57 PM
In a very simple sense, your belief can be stated this way:
A hot pan is observed to heat water that's at a lower temperature than the pan.
Therefore, putting hot water into a cold pan can not heat the pan.
That's the argument. It's trivially wrong.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 20, 2009 5:59 PM
Re post #32,
Glad to be of help Pough and after all its all about discussion and learning, i am glad my posts have inspired you to obtain a greater understanding.
Post #33,
Yes thats right, the oceans are cooling (-ve PDO, quiet sun etc)which is why the temps are dropping. So they are absorbing more CO2. Dont forget there are many things that effect CO2 levels, the temps X number of years ago (lag), vegetation, man etc etc, all this variance is in the geological record.
What where the other set of circumstances which defies the geological record? I did not quite understand that bit.
CO2 does not stave off ocean freezing (but it does sound good even if not true).
Your pan analogy is ridiculous.
Posted by: crakar14 | June 21, 2009 8:07 PM
Methinks there'd be a hell of a lot more frozen ocean if that came to pass.
Say it as much as you want, no one cares.Posted by: dhogaza | June 22, 2009 10:25 AM
So by your reasoning, the oceans should be outgassing rather than absorbing CO2 (net, obviously it always does both, it's the net figure we speak of).
However, it's not.
We know why, it's because our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels has put the system out of equilibrium.
I thought Roy Spencer gave up on this crackpot idea when it was so widely shown to be laughable?
Posted by: dhogaza | June 22, 2009 10:31 AM
dhogaza,
I suggest you retract or re word this statement;
"The earth's average temperature would be about 33C less (60F) than it is today if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere".
The oceans have a much higher impact on climate than the atmosphere. The ocean temps are controlled mainly by the sun which in turn drives/controls the climate. Part of this is the control of CO2, yes CO2 comes from many sources but mainly via the oceans. The oceans also play a large role in controlling the atmospheric temps. Which is probably why there is a lag between CO2 and temps.
There was a big Kerfuffle awhile ago with ocean temps, Willis using the ARGO bouys found in 2003 the oceans were cooling rapidly (models predicted an increase) it was then found that the previous means of measuring were measuring to high a temp and the ARGO were accurate. Once the old data was "corrected" there was no cooling anymore and the models integrity was reestablished. However since then the ARGO bouys are saying the ocean temps are still dropping.
Here is the link;
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
This quote is from page 5
"the problems that Josh Willis found as well as other problems we have identified—haven’t been totally solved. For the most recent years [2003-2007], the sea level budget once again does not close. Our team is still working on that problem."
What are the implications of this? Well one of the crutches that Hansen, Gore et al lean on is ocean temps rising, this will cause sea level rises and store (pipe line) all the AGW heat and if left unchecked will cause catastrophic climate change.
Currently the atmosphere is cooling, surface temps are cooling and ocean temps are cooling whilst CO2 is rising, so where is all the AGW heat? That is the question.
Posted by: crakar14 | June 22, 2009 6:52 PM
Now you've got me wanting to read up on more things. I'd appreciate a source for this (as long as the source isn't your ass).
Posted by: pough | June 23, 2009 9:12 AM
Crakar, you can repeat your misunderstandings or lies or ignorance or whatever the hell it is that drives you as often as you want.
It's not going to change the mind of those who understand the science one little bit.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 23, 2009 9:19 AM
pough,
I believe his source is indeed what you fear it may be.
crakar, dhogza's statement is quite correct, without CO2 the earth would be -18oC on average, oceans notwithstanding.
Posted by: coby | June 23, 2009 9:53 AM
For those interested, here's a source that shows calculations for what the Earth's temperature should be ignoring the effects of the atmosphere. Take-away (and it's a real shocker): Crakar is wrong, and dhogaza/Coby are right.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
Next, Crakar will say "Well, math is fine and such, but prove it indisputably" and I will die a little bit more inside.
Posted by: Adam | June 23, 2009 10:37 AM
So we are back to insults are we? Thats OK i do not mind the important thing is that you get your point across.
I read your link Adam, the author did say that if you remove the atmosphere the Earths temps would be -18C, fortunately we have one so the temp is about +15C. So the atmosphere adds about +33C.
According to dhogaza without CO2 the temp would drop by 33C
and i quote
"The earth's average temperature would be about 33C less (60F) than it is today if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere"
Applying logical reasoning and common sense, according to dhogaza the atmosphere of the Earth is 100% CO2.
This is obviously incorrect, unfortunately both Adam, Pough and Coby responded to the rattling of sabres without much thought and have clearly shown their lack of knowledge on this subject and more importantly have shown that the science is secondry to the faith.
I hope you are listening the next time i use the toilet.
Posted by: crakar14 | June 23, 2009 8:00 PM
crakar, from the supplied link:
"this would be the temperature at the surface of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet....The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is in the effect of the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is known as the greenhouse effect"
CO2 does not have to be 100% of the atmosphere.
The next thing to understand is that water on planet earth can exist as both vapor and liquid and the amount of vapour in the air is a function of the temperature. If you removed the CO2, the temperature would drop, H2O concentrations would drop as vapor turned into liquid and fell to the oceans. This feedback would continue until there was no H2O i the atmosphere at all and the earth would be a frozen ball and -18oC.
Posted by: coby | June 23, 2009 9:34 PM
Well, that answers my question.
Posted by: pough | June 23, 2009 10:34 PM
Ah the magic of life giving CO2 is there anything it cannot do?, best we not label it a pollutant then hey.
I like the way you quote from the article and then branch out into postulation. Did you come up with this theory all by yourself?
Just so i am clear on this, currently CO2 accounts for how much? 3, 4, 5C of the 33C. Whatever the amount it does not matter because what you say is if you take CO2 away the temp will drop by that amount, but then we go into runaway cooling and the Earth will be just like Pluto.
I have never ever heard anything more stupid in my entire life.
[coby here: This is what's known as argument by ridicule. I explained what goes on and why and you have nothing intelligent to say]
On the other hand with AGW you say if CO2 goes up the WV goes up increasing the temps which causes the oceans to warm which causes more CO2 which causes more WV which causes the temps to go up and before you know it (tipping point)we have runaway warming.
Unfortunately for you the geological record proves you wrong on both accounts unless of course it was aw gee shucks its only weather that proved you wrong then in that case i guess you are right.
[coby: Not all feedbacks are runaway. The GHE per ppm of both CO2 and H2O decreases as concentration goes up, so the effect is self limiting (at least in the current configuration of factors). RC has an informative article on this, comparing Earth to Venus]
Whilst you are hammering away at the keyboard in response why dont you take the time to explain the missing hot spot or maybe why as CO2 is rising atmospheric and ocean temps are not. Thinking ahead if this is because its only weather please feel free to expand on its only weather.
Here are some pointers
What constitutes weather?
[short term changes in temperature and percipitation on the scale of days to months and variations in climatic expectations on the scale of months to years]
How long does weather cooling trends last?
[cooling and warming can last up to 15 to 20 years before you can call it a change in climate]
If weather can stop GW in its tracks then is weather a bigger driver of climate?
[Weather is the biggest driver of weather. Climate is averaged weather]
Why did the models fail to predict this weather?
[If you are referring to GCM's, then they did not predict it because they are not designed to]
When do the models predict this weather to go away?
[They do not predict weather. They do however predict that the climate is and will continue to warm. These effects will swamp any weather driven short term trends within the next ten years, though I think we will have a new record high in less than a handful more years.]
Posted by: crakar14 | June 24, 2009 12:27 AM
Ah, so you don't proofread. That answers another of my questions.
You mention the missing hot spot. In your mind does it invalidate AGW? Do you think of it as the fingerprint for warming caused by increased CO2?
Posted by: pough | June 24, 2009 9:20 AM
Crakar -
Ah the magic of life giving CO2 is there anything it cannot do?, best we not label it a pollutant then hey.
Just like many things in this world, a good thing can become a bad thing very quickly, like, oh, oxygen!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
Just so i am clear on this, currently CO2 accounts for how much? 3, 4, 5C of the 33C. Whatever the amount it does not matter because what you say is if you take CO2 away the temp will drop by that amount, but then we go into runaway cooling and the Earth will be just like Pluto.
Considering the surface temperature of Pluto is about -230 degrees C, that is not a correct assertion. As stated earlier, the Earth would be about 30 degrees C cooler. I'm probably just being pedantic, but accuracy is important.
I have never ever heard anything more stupid in my entire life.
Serious question here, Crakar. Do you reject all science, or only earth science?
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius-Clapeyron_relation
This is why it rains when its humid and a cold front comes in. As temperatures decrease, the saturation point for water vapor decreases, resulting in less water vapor in the atmosphere.
Posted by: Adam | June 24, 2009 10:43 AM
Crakar, re comment 47, please see replies inline, I hope that helps.
Posted by: coby | June 24, 2009 1:09 PM
The incorrectness of this statement is mind-boggling coming from someone who fantasizes that they're proving the work of thousands of scientists to be incorrect.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 24, 2009 3:28 PM
Thanks to all the comments, insults and naming calling included. Unfortunately as always you all have sucessfully avoided debating the essential issues.
Here is a little history lesson, the first ice core data appeared around 1985 and in this old ice core data the time resolution was very low, or about 2000 years between data points. So this old data did not show what changed first CO2 or Temp, the alarmists expected it was CO2 because this fitted in nicely with thier theory.
From 1998 we had a better time resolution of only hundreds of years between data points. By 2003 it had been firmly established that changes in CO2, both up and down LAGGED the corresponding temp changes by an average of 800 years.
But here we are with people like yourselves still clinging to the notion that CO2 drives the temps, in light of the history lesson above please explain how your theory of no CO2 will cause the temp to drop to -18C.
By the way you lot are not the first persons to perpetuate this lie, Al Gore's movie was made in 2005, 2 years after the CO2 800 year lag was established and in the ONLY evidence he presents he uses the old ice core data so he lied aswell, either that or he is an incompetent fool, you decide.
I will ignore your mumbo jumbo about weather not being climate unless the weather lasts 15 to 20 years (so far the weather has lasted near on 8 years).
I will ignore your futile attempts at keeping the models integrity intact except to say all the models predicted the temps to continue to rise after 2000 and yet the temps have not risen so the models are wrong. No verbal gymnastics can change that fact, get over it and move on.
I will now press on with the second issue that you constantly fail to address and that is the missing hotspot. An increase in CO2 warming can be calculated using a hand held calculator this warming is called the "no feedback warming"
IPCC climate theory assumes that any no feedback warming will heat the oceans, which causes more water vapour to be put in the air. This causes extra warming, there being no data to the contrary in 1980 this seemed like a good assumption at the time.
This means that extra water vapour (WV) is added to the top of the lower troposphere (the part of the asphere under the WV greenhouse blanket), thus pushing the top of the lower troposhpere higher particularly in the tropics.
This heats the volume of air therefore if the IPCC theory is correct this will show up as a very prominent hotspot. So if WV is a +ve feedback warming due to increased CO2, this should cause a hotspot about 10 Kilometers (16 miles) up over the tropics.
However radio sonde data from 1979 to 1999 which covers the bulk of the last GW period show no hotspot whatsoever. Not even a small one. This show pretty conclusively that the WV +ve feedback assumed in the IPCC climate models does not exist.
Now it would be nice if these issues were addressed without the name calling and insults, but i wont hold my breath. Not that it matters this post was written for other people to read.
Posted by: crakar14 | June 24, 2009 7:37 PM
I asked you about it. Now you're answering, sort of, but still ignoring my question. Oh well.
Only CO2?
Or that the tools used to measure it are suspect, since it's well known that there has been warming and pretty much any warming should cause that hot spot. Are you saying there has been no warming since 1980?
BTW, what do you think about the cooling stratosphere? From what I've been led to believe, it actually is a fingerprint of warming due to CO2 (or is it any GHG?) and it's been happening. Do you have an explanation for that?
Oh, I found some interesting info on the hot spot:
Chris Colose talks about misunderstanding the significance of the hot spot:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/
Arthur Smith analyzes the data:
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/hot_spot_redux_analysis_of_tropical_tropospheric_amplification
"Anyway, anyone claiming that the satellite data shows "no tropical troposphere amplification" has just not looked at the data closely enough - it seems very clearly to be there, according to the amplification metric presented here."
I'm not sure how to do links properly on ScienceBlogs. Are there any instructions anywhere?
Posted by: pough | June 24, 2009 11:20 PM
Pough,
In response to this
"Or that the tools used to measure it are suspect, since it's well known that there has been warming and pretty much any warming should cause that hot spot. Are you saying there has been no warming since 1980?"
The tools to measure it are highly accurate thermometers so yes we have the tools.
That hot spot of which you speak is a warming signiture of increased WV so without that hotspot WV has not increased. A warming induced by another molecule say CO2 will produce a warming signiture of a different kind, do you understand that?
There is NO atmospheric warming caused by WV.
You do realise that the IPCC predicted this hot spot to appear based on the AGW theory. So therefore no hotspot no theory.
There is no explanation for this apart from the fact that the models are wrong. If for example the IPCC reduced the +ve feedback via WV in their computer models down to about zero then the models would be a lot closer to reality, of course this would mean that their projected/predicted temp rises would reduce significantly as well.
Posted by: crakar14 | June 25, 2009 12:13 AM
Before i go, here is something to think about over the weekend.
Karl Popper was a philosopher, below is a link to his Bio.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
This link below describes his views on falsifiability
experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html
Now if we apply this to the AGW theory, and ask ourselves the question "is the AGW theory falsifiable?"
Or in other words what test can we apply to the theory to test whether CO2 can/will cause catastrophic climate change?
For example the planet has warmed, in fact it has been warming for more than a century so does the fact that temps have increased provide evidence that AGW is causing it? No of course not.
Other examples of this are Arctic sea ice melt shows the Earth has warmed but does not prove AGW.
Some glaciers are increasing and some are decreasing does the decreasing of glaciers prove AGW, no of course not.
The examples above suggest the Earth has warmed over an extended period of time but they do not suggest AGW is to blame. Do you understand what i am saying?
I provided a testable way (hot spot)of proving or disproving AGW, observational data suggests the AGW theory incorrect, the same as the ice core data which shows quite clearly co2 lagging temps.
Both these test can prove falsifiability of the theory but alas both these tests are brushed aside and explained away by a web bloggers personnal opinion (poughs post and others).
So i invite anyone to produce another test which can falsify the AGW theory.
Posted by: crakar14 | June 25, 2009 12:56 AM
Just flat out wrong.
As I said on the open thread, your attempts to "disprove" climate science are all based on strawman techniques, you lie about what climate science says, then disprove the lie.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 25, 2009 6:55 AM
Yes. You're saying very confused things. You bring up falsifiability even though you clearly don't unserstand it. You talk about moist adiabatic lapse rate as though it's a lynchpin of AGW theory even though it's been explained to you that it's not.You harp on about the lag between temperature and CO2 during natural warming events as though they're unexpected after being told that it's expected. Then when presented with an actual falsifiable aspect of warming due to increased CO2 you brush it aside.
And you have the gall to say we brush things aside?
Know I know why your posts are so poorly constructed. Hard to type with a plank in your eye?
You know, you have an incredibly arrogant and demeaning tone in all your posts, yet you whine about being treated poorly. I don't mind being insulted, and I've told you so. So keep it up. But just remember that I won't ever take you seriously until you say something smart. You have yet to do that, in all your many posts.
Here's a clue: for falsifiability of actual AGW theory, figure out what we should expect to see if CO2 were doing some warming. First, we'd see an increase of CO2. Check. Second, we'd see some warming at a certain rate, averaged over time to remove noise. Check. Third, we'd see the stratosphere cooling. Check.
Now go ahead: say something smart. I dare you.
Posted by: pough | June 25, 2009 9:13 AM
Posted by: dhogaza | June 25, 2009 10:31 AM
I just noticed a typo in my last comment. Where I wrote "Know I know" it should read "Now I know".
Posted by: pough | June 25, 2009 2:14 PM
Dhogaza,
Reading through your post i notice you did not have any rebuttle in regards to the ice core data. I am sure this is just an oversight on your behalf and you will respond with an explanation about this in due course.
In regards to what you did post the hot spot i talk about is from the IPCC AR4 chap 9, i suggest you read that before you go calling me a liar.
By the way the RS thermometers have an accuracy of 0.1C so if there was any warming up there i am sure we would see it by now.
To Pough,
Good to see you read my post and responded to it unlike dhogaza, in regards to the ice core data as far back as we can look there is not one moment in time that shows CO2 controlling/driving the temperature.
Of course for the theory to work this needs to be the other way around, and yes i/we have been told that this is the case and as CO2 goes up it will cause the temps to go up.
Having said that i dont recall an explanation of how this has occurred, for example;
Why did CO2 suddenly control the temps?
What caused this to happen?
And when did CO2 start to drive the temps (year XXXX)
How/when did the IPCC discover this? In a computer model?
You see the beauty of a theory is you can say whatever you want but to prove the theory you need to use real world observational data. Do you know of any real world observational data that shows CO2 now drives the temps?
IPCC say CO2 lagged temp for millions of years and up until year XXXX CO2 took control. This needs to be explained, not through computer models our opinions.
This is what falsifiability is Pough, to simply dismiss this aspect of the theory by saying "You harp on about the lag between temperature and CO2 during natural warming events as though they're unexpected after being told that it's expected."
This makes the AGW unfalsifiable.
Is it any wonder i have an arrogant and demeaning tone, is it? Have a look at the quality of the posts that you see here. Most posts here are simply verbal attacks, it is amazing how poeple talk under the veil of anonymity.
Posted by: crakar14 | June 29, 2009 10:12 PM
Crakar -
If you wait for a rational (not to say courteous) response to your posts about the CO2 lag you will wait in vain, because no adequate explanation exists.
It is completely astounding that such a fundamental flaw in the warming lobby's argument is so casually brushed aside. You might think that this discrepancy holes the AGW argument below the water line, yet they wave it away as if it were a mere pedantic detail.
Posted by: Snowman | June 29, 2009 10:51 PM
This one's been answered innumerable times. There's no point in answering again. You and crakar are uneducatable, scientific illiterates who take pride in your ignorance.
Posted by: dhogaza | June 30, 2009 6:55 AM
Answered to your satisfaction perhaps, Dhogaza, but not to those who believe that some arguments carry more weight than others. On the one hand we have clear, historical evidence; on the other we have mere sophistry and obfuscation.
No hypothesis so fatally undermined by hard fact would survive for a moment in any other field. But in the case of AGW, so mired in political correctness and charged with emotion, the normal standards of evidence are simply abandoned. The emperor has no clothes, as time will conclusively demonstrate.
Posted by: Snowman | June 30, 2009 9:51 AM
Here's a clue: for falsifiability of actual AGW theory, figure out what we should expect to see if CO2 were doing some warming. First, we'd see an increase of CO2. Check. Second, we'd see some warming at a certain rate, averaged over time to remove noise. Check. Third, we'd see the stratosphere cooling. Check.
Now go ahead: say something smart. I dare you. Again.
Posted by: pough | June 30, 2009 10:09 AM
Pough -
Let me relate a joke that is told in Thailand. I'm afraid it loses something in translation, but I believe the point is still clear:
Two men are arguing over the result of a horse race. The photo finish clearly shows that one horse crossed the line first, but which horse? One man claims it is the horse he bet on, pointing to the particular shape of the animal's ears, the length of its nose, the angle of its forelegs, and so on, and so on. The other insists that it is his horse, mentioning the bulk of its shoulder muscles, the reach of its neck, and so on, and so on.
The argument rages and it seems no resolution is possible, until they remember something that clinches it: one horse is white and one is black.
Well, as I implied, it's pretty unfunny in English; but I think the moral is evident. It is very easy to become embroiled in detail, while ignoring the obvious.
Posted by: Snowman | June 30, 2009 11:55 AM
Okay, I'll confess right off that I haven't read the whole thread. Maybe I should have, but a peek tells me there's a whole lotta verbage in there that doesn't add much to the discussion. So I'd like to paraphrase it, and perhaps a kind soul will tell me if I got it or not.
Many say that the ice cores show warming first, and then an increase in CO2. The lag may be as much as a few hundred years.
Some say that since we're experiencing both warming and increased CO2 levels, then obviously CO2 is not what's causing the increased temperature now. They say instead that it's now getting warmer and that is what causes the rise in CO2, not man.
Most people agree that once the CO2 levels increase it will get warmer still, whether the CO2 caused the original increase or not.
In summary, the AGW deniers say 'a few hundreds of thousands of years ago, the earth got warmer because of (insert your favorite theory here) and later the CO2 levels went up, too. Since we're experiencing increases of both temperature and CO2, CO2 can't be the cause of the warming.' Did I get it about right? Oh, yeah--they add that since CO2 didn't start the trend, there's nothing we could or should do about it.
But doesn't that idea ignore something really, really big? Namely that man has in fact dug deep, and artifically added huge quantities of CO2 into the mix? CO2 that wouldn't even be a part of our atmosphere if we hadn't put it there? Carbon that took eons to lay down as coal and oil, reintroduced in a few decades?
To my simple mind, it matters not a whit whether CO2 led temperatures or temperatures led CO2 during the last ice age, because we changed the rules by adding too much CO2 this time around.
Let the bashing begin...
Posted by: Steve | June 30, 2009 8:13 PM
It doesn't matter, Steve, as long as you believe there is no difference between cause and effect.
Posted by: Snowman | June 30, 2009 10:25 PM
Steve
"Did I get it about right?" No I'm afraid you haven't got it about right. Lets go over it point by point.
"Many say that the ice cores show warming first, and then an increase in CO2. The lag may be as much as a few hundred years." The "many" include the AGW proponents. See Coby's article "CO2 Lags, not leads". This is not a matter of dispute.
The opposite is also true. Temperatures fell while the CO2 levels continued to rise. Rising CO2 levels failed to stop the repeated fall of temperatures and descent into an "ice-age" or glaciation period if you insist, which occured regularly every 100,000 years.
This alone would show that CO2 is not a driver of the climate.
(In the last 800,000 years we have had 8 ice ages with brief periods of "inter-glacials" in between. Our Earth has been gradually cooling for about 40 million years and the CO2 levels have also been falling as the oceans and the land absorb more and more of it as time goes on. The defining climatic feature of the Earth for the last 3 million years have been the ice ages. The inter-glacials have been brief periods in between of about 10,000 years. We are currently in an inter-glacial period which has lasted 10,000 years. Bear this in mind when we focus on the climate of the past 30 years.)
"Some say that since we're experiencing both warming and increased CO2 levels, then obviously CO2 is not what's causing the increased temperature now." Some may say that but that's not "obvious". And that's not what serious scientists say who are sceptical of the AGW Hypothesis. CO2 could very well be enhancing the natural warming that's been taking place since the little ice-age. However if we examine the temperature records of the last 130 years if there is any unusual warming taking place it does not show itself in the records. (See my post in "What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?"). So we cannot say just by looking at this that CO2 is causing any warming.
"They say instead that it's now getting warmer and that is what causes the rise in CO2, not man." No "they" do not say that. CO2 rise has been caused by man - not in dispute. Just no evidence it has caused any warming.
"Most people agree that once the CO2 levels increase it will get warmer still, whether the CO2 caused the original increase or not." maybe most people agree, but how much warmer is the crucial question. AGW - if CO2 doubles from 280 to 560 ppm then 3 C. Sceptics - by a very small amount, probably at most a few tenths of a degree, PROVIDED all else remains the same.
AGW hypothesis - all else will remain the same. Sceptics - probably not. If natural cooling takes place in the meantime temperatures will fall as they always have in history and not go up.
AGW hypothesis - warming is bad. Sceptics - warming is good. Cooling is bad.
"In summary.. Since we're experiencing increases of both temperature and CO2, CO2 can't be the cause of the warming."
Stop paraphrasing and getting it wrong. CO2 cant be the cause of the warming not because "we're experiencing increases of both temperature and CO2" but because the warming started after the little ice age long before CO2 rose. The CO2 maybe contributing to the natural warming but it is so small that we cannot see it in the records.
Have you got it right now?
Posted by: Richard | June 30, 2009 10:57 PM
Hi Steve,
As i have posted a heap about this i feel i should reply.
I have asked the following questions (post #60) and as yet have not had a reply, maybe you could answer them for me.
Why did CO2 suddenly control the temps?
What caused this to happen?
And when did CO2 start to drive the temps (year XXXX)
How/when did the IPCC discover this? In a computer model?
Let me break the questions down
Why did CO2 suddenly control the temps?
In other words CO2 has lagged temps by 800 years as far back as we can look (ice core data) so what has changed? You say an increase in CO2 levels, however the ice core data shows CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past and even then they did not control the temps, so what has changed?
What caused this to happen?
If CO2 now suddenly leads/controls the temps, what has happened to reverse what the geological record shows us?
When did CO2 start to drive the temps (year XXXX) This is self explanitary.
How/when did the IPCC discover this? In a computer model?
In other words how does the IPCC explain this sudden reversal from CO2 lags temp to temp lags CO2? I have not seen an explanation from the IPCC in any of thier reports, but surely they have one as this is fundemental to the theory.
I have one more question i would like to add, CO2 used to lag temps by 800 years now that this relationship has reversed can you tell me the new lag time between CO2 changes and temp changes (months, years etc)?
Before anyone answers this post remember we are trying to test a theory so any response that requires the reader to believe is not credible and cannot be considered as evidence and as such leaves us with only one conclusion and that is the IPCC AGW theory is false. So we need to be able to show via observational data (as opposed to models) that this change has happened.
Posted by: crakar14 | June 30, 2009 11:25 PM
Snowman, Richard and Crakar, you obviously don't understand the difference between a "forcing" and a "feedback". You have all shown in a number of different threads on this blog that you either don't understand this difference or are unwilling to do so. Depending on conditions and what factors are changing CO2 behaves in two different ways.
Please read up on this and you will see how stupid and wrong your posts are.
Coby, I like it when Tamino tells posters that they have "crossed the stupid threshold" and warns them if they continue in such stupid posts they will be deleted. The posts from these three deniers are going on for ever and ever even when they are told every time that they are wrong and are shown where they can find the facts. Please think about Tamino's remedy.
Posted by: Ian Forrester | July 1, 2009 7:36 AM
crakar:
"Why did CO2 suddenly control the temps?
What caused this to happen?
And when did CO2 start to drive the temps (year XXXX)
How/when did the IPCC discover this? In a computer model?"
These questions have been answered repeatedly over the many threads you have been posting on, but for you reference and future readers, here we go again:
1. If you mean why does CO2 initiate the temperature changes now whereas earlier it was a feedback of orbital initiated warming, this is because humans have created a large CO2 pulse through industrialization, something that has never happened before. If you mean why do GHG's warm the climate now when they did not before, you are simply incorrect that they did not before.
2. The cause is fossil fuel burning, agricultural practices, other land use changes and other pollution.
3. CO2 starts to drive warming as soon as it increases. Small amounts have small effects. The best estimates are all converging on around 3oC per doubling of CO2, a figure which includes "fast" feedback effects such as H2O and sea ice but does not include "long term" effects such as carbon cycle feedbacks and ice sheet changes.
4. Global warming from anthropogenic CO2 has been predicted for over 100 years. Please see Spencer Weart`s excellent History of Global Warming web site:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
HTH.
Posted by: coby | July 1, 2009 7:55 AM
Coby,
I can see you and the rest must be delighted with Craker. Why should you ever ban him, you can pounce on him and make yourselves feel good. So let me point out the fundamental flaw in your statement above and the AGW hypothesis.
"CO2 starts to drive warming as soon as it increases." This can only be true in the case of a positive feedback to the CO2 greenhouse forcing. If there is a negative feedback, and there is plenty of evidence for this, then CO2 would never be a driver and only a minor contributor, whose effect would be totally lost the natural fluctuations of Global Temperatures. If CO2 were to be the main driver of warming as soon as it increased then temperatures would continue rising with rising CO2, (as predicted by the IPCC). However in the ice records temperatures have invariably fallen time and again while CO2 continued rising.
Posted by: Richard | July 1, 2009 11:10 PM
This is one of the reasons we have high confidence in positive net feedbacks - no one's been able to model the end of ice ages without them.
You're free to build your own model incorporating negative net feedbacks for increasing CO2 and submitting it for scientific scrutiny if you truly have faith in your beliefs.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 2, 2009 6:51 AM
Actually, your subtle strawman is quite well built, but still built of straw.
No one argues that CO2 is the only driver of climate or even the main driver at all time scales. The claim is simply that it's the main driver over the last 50 years, based on measurements that show that solar output has not varied sufficiently OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS to be the dominant source of climate change.
The same scientists know full well that changes in CO2 are not the "main driver" behind the starting and ending of ice ages.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 2, 2009 6:55 AM
dhogza is correct above except that Richard can fairly claim it was no strawman, he was in fact correctly criticizing my poorly worded one liner to crakar.
More precisely, all I meant to say was that CO2 will contribute a warming influence as soon as it rises. As climate is complicated and controlled by a myriad of factors the actual direction the temperature will move is a balance of these factors.
CO2 has been contributing an increasing warming influence on the climate since it began rising in the late 19th century. Its influence has been dominate since the 1970's. This influence is observable on decadal timescales as the roughly .2oC/decade it is causing (together with water vapour feedbacks) is easily overwhelmed by short term variability which can be more than .1oC up or down in a single year.
Richard, where is your evidence of negative feedbacks to CO2? And I forget, are we going to allow modeling as evidence or not?
Posted by: coby | July 2, 2009 9:39 AM
Coby, thanks for the clarification ...
Posted by: dhogaza | July 2, 2009 10:13 AM
Coby re post #71,
You are right the questions have been answered, based purely on peoples personal opinions not by physical observational data, your post is an example of this.
In fact i knew no one could answer these questions using observational data and the reason is as follows;
Two events took place in the 1980's, one was our first look at ice core data with a poor time resolution of 2000 years between data points. This poor resolution meant it appeared as though CO2 and temps marched in lock step with each other, some even postulated that CO2 lead the temps.
The second event was the announcement of the IPCC's latest version of the AGW theory, this theory required CO2 levels to control or lead the temps, the ice core data confirmed what the theory claimed and the PR campaign begun in earnest.
However in the late 1990's our ability to resolve ice core time improved, so much so that we could now resolve time down to 100 years between data points. This then showed that the temps led CO2 by 800 years. By 2002 this was universally accepted as fact (re Coby's preamble).
In 2005 Al Gore (who is not a scientist and relies heavily on the IPCC for guidance) made a movie called "An inconvenient truth". In this movie the one and only piece of evidence he offers is the old ice core data (1980's)and remarkably keeps a straight face when explaining how CO2 and temps are in lock step with each other. The only inconvenient truth here was the one about the new ice core data (2002) that was not mentioned (maybe that’s where the movie title came from).
So in summary i never truly expected anyone here to be able to answer my questions because as you can see Al Gore and the IPCC cannot answer them, so instead they lied.
To Snowman re post #61, Yes you are right the HMS AGW has been breached below the water line but like its sister ship the HMS Titanic its occupants believe her to be unsinkable.
Posted by: crakar14 | July 2, 2009 5:20 PM
Crakar, you can lie and lie until God strikes you dead, and it won't change the facts.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 2, 2009 6:15 PM
Where is the lie dhogaza, please be more specific with your accusations.
Posted by: crakar14 | July 2, 2009 7:38 PM
You might think, Crakar, that Dhogaza would tire of calling you a liar and realize that, sooner or later, he must offer some evidence. It is ironic that on the one occasion he attempts to be more specific, he is promptly shot down by Coby (of all people). After all, Coby cannot be called, when one looks at it from every angle, an enthusiastic denier.
[coby here: I hardly "shot him down", in fact I said he is correct. I only charitably defended Richard's argument as being merely wrong, rather than a strawman attack. You have a terribly dishonest habit of turning things 180o around even though the original text is in the immediate vicinity.]
Posted by: Snowman | July 2, 2009 10:21 PM
Craker - "be more specific"? You must be joking. Coby in one of his replies to me directed me to Hadley and their 21-point binomial filter. Their temperature smoothed time series graph takes a decided downward trend from 2003, but they say this is "misleading". I had a look at their "Key Facts" on Global Warming here www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/keyfacts/google.html and found they instead were quite misleading.
I wrote to them about all their 5 Key Facts and their 1 (now 2) "Myths". Here is what I wrote:
In Fact 1 of your climate change toolkit you have stated "Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it." Perhaps so but then you go on to say "Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years." Where is the evidence of this? Looking at the temperature curve using your own data there seem to be two sustained rises one from 1911 to 1944 and the other from 1976 to 2008. The warming trend from 1911 to 1944 comes to 0.161 per decade and that from 1976 to 2008 comes to 0.168 per decade, almost the same. How then can you categorical state that the second trend is anthropogenic? How is it materially different from the earlier trend due to natural causes? Should not this trend be much greater considering the amount of CO2 that has increased in the atmosphere and the fact that the oceans should have warmed up by now?
Climate change - Fact 3 - You state "The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle" - see above. You further state "The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked." That is NOT the "BOTTOM LINE"! The bottom line is what you have stated earlier - "Over this period, (the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record - the only definitive record we have), changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2)"! So of course they are linked - temperature makes the CO2 go up and down! Never in these records have CO2 levels either caused temperatures to go up or have rising CO2 levels ever stopped temperatures from falling! Why don’t you present this fact? You say "Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming." Where is your proof of this statement in the global temperature records since 1880 or for that matter in the GISP2 ice core data previously?
Climate change - Fact 2 - You say "A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade." Using your own data the trend for 1998-2007 comes to 0.063 C per decade. But this is not all. Why have you not used the 1998-2008 data? That after all is the "latest decade". The trend from 1998 to 2008 now becomes -0.01 per decade, a slight cooling, or at best no change, for the last decade. Why dont you present this as your "FACT"? It’s from your latest data for your "latest decade" after all.
Posted by: Richard | July 2, 2009 11:01 PM
Posted by: dhogaza | July 3, 2009 11:03 AM
Coby - "Richard, where is your evidence of negative feedbacks to CO2? And I forget, are we going to allow modeling as evidence or not?"
Well I could quote something like D(τ ) =∝ τ 2H, or D(τ ) = 1T/τTX− i$i-1(Xi+ − Xi)^2, (the symbols didnt quite come right here), but I do confess I do not understand the intricate workings of the IPCC climate models. However I do understand a bit of maths, statistics, science and logic, thanks to my brilliant teacher in secondary school and subsequent degree in engineering.
That the climate system is fundamentally homeostatic can be seen from our climatic records. (long range ofcourse not over the last 50 years that the IPCC focuses upon). The temperatures go up but then they come down. They go down but then they come up. This could only happen if there are negative feedbacks to various forcings, for example CO2. If there were only a positive feedback to CO2 then when CO2 increased everytime in the past due to increasing temperatures then they would continue going up. The solar variation due to the Milankovitch forcing of every 100,000 years is far too weak to explain the regular descent into the ice ages on its own. Far less in fact than the variation of the 11 year solar spot cycle. The IPCC uses the arguement that total solar irradiance varies very little to argue that the major forcing for temperatures must be CO2. Well this arguement would be double true for the 100,000 year drop in temperatures. But the climate of the Earth is not very mindful of the opinions of the IPCC working committee, which is a political body and goes about its own merry way.
This remains true today as the temperatures are not following those of the models. They are not increasing and seeing to accelerate as claimed by the IPCC. Quite the opposite in fact. There is growing evidence that the Earth is starting to cool.
Posted by: Richard | July 3, 2009 6:35 PM
Coby - "Richard, where is your evidence of negative feedbacks to CO2? And I forget, are we going to allow modeling as evidence or not?"
Well I could quote something like D(τ ) =∝ τ 2H, or D(τ ) = 1T/τTX− i$i-1(Xi+ − Xi)^2, (the symbols didnt quite come right here), but I do confess I do not understand the intricate workings of the IPCC climate models. However I do understand a bit of maths, statistics, science and logic, thanks to my brilliant teacher in secondary school and subsequent degree in engineering.
That the climate system is fundamentally homeostatic can be seen from our climatic records. (long range ofcourse not over the last 50 years that the IPCC focuses upon). The temperatures go up but then they come down. They go down but then they come up. This could only happen if there are negative feedbacks to various forcings, for example CO2. If there were only a positive feedback to CO2 then when CO2 increased everytime in the past due to increasing temperatures then they would continue going up. The solar variation due to the Milankovitch forcing of every 100,000 years is far too weak to explain the regular descent into the ice ages on its own. Far less in fact than the variation of the 11 year solar spot cycle. The IPCC uses the arguement that total solar irradiance varies very little to argue that the major forcing for temperatures must be CO2. Well this arguement would be double true for the 100,000 year drop in temperatures. But the climate of the Earth is not very mindful of the opinions of the IPCC working committee, which is a political body and goes about its own merry way.
This remains true today as the temperatures are not following those of the models. They are not increasing and seeing to accelerate as claimed by the IPCC. Quite the opposite in fact. There is growing evidence that the Earth is starting to cool.
Posted by: Richard | July 3, 2009 6:50 PM
Richard - I wondered if you ever got a reply to your letter to the UK Met Office. (My guess is no, either that or they just sent you some standard guff that ignored your specific points.)
Posted by: Snowman | July 3, 2009 10:20 PM
This was the reply I received:
Dear Mr ... Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding climate change, CO2 and global temperature increases. None of the information in our climate change pages is false and misleading, it has been carefully checked and is based on the latest peer reviewed scientific research. The issues you raise and many others have been comprehensively addressed in the scientific literature and so I do not propose to respond to all of them when the information is already available in the public domain. Instead , I would refer you to the web site of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who have produced a detailed list of FAQs at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html and the Met Office Hadley Centre publication "Climate Change and the greenhouse effect: a briefing from the Hadley Centre" which is available to download free of charge at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/brochures/. Yours sincerely Martin Kidds Customer Feedback Manager Met Office
PS I never said it was false or misleading in my email to them.
Posted by: Richard | July 3, 2009 10:33 PM
PS I did reply to that:
Dear Mr Kidds,
Let us go one step at a time.
You have stated on your page that "A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 C per decade."
Using your temperature data the trend for 1998-2007 comes to 0.063 C per decade. You could be forgiven for rounding this to one decimal place, but why have you not used the 1998-2008 data? The IPCC has nothing to do with this. 1998 to 2008 is the latest decade.
This is a simple question and does not involve the IPCC.
Can you please get your people to do this "simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2008)" and put the latest figures there, whatever they may be. 2007 is long past. The last complete year for which you have the data is 2008.
Sincerely
(I do not expect a reply)
Posted by: Richard | July 3, 2009 10:39 PM
Here's a special post to dhogaza (post #78)
Below is a link to a story about a company that produces children books. They produced a book to educate or should i say indoctrinate children about AGW. The main premise of the book is to show that CO2 does indeed drive the temps (AGW), the cornerstone of which this claim is built is the ice core data. In this book they show a graph of the new ice core data (unlike Al Gore) but for reasons known only to them they have mislabled it, ie CO2 is labled as temps and vice versa. This "error" gives the young mind the impression that CO2 leads not lags.
The authors even go to the trouble of providing a link to a scientific study to support thier claims even though the study says the complete opposite.
So my question is, dhogaza who will God strike down first, myself, Al Gore or the authors of this childrens book?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/david_book_SPPI_paper2_9-11-07.pdf
Posted by: crakar14 | July 5, 2009 8:27 PM
Richard, a decade is ten years, not eleven. Using 1998 to 2008 as a decade would be, um, misleading. ;-)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2008/trend
Posted by: pough | July 6, 2009 8:53 AM
I asked some questions (post #60 and 69) in regards to the AGW theory's claim that CO2 drives the temps.
In summary to my questions posed, i have so far recieved accusations of "liar, liar pants on fire", there was a personnal opinion and a lecture about forcings and feedbacks.
Unfortunately none of this amounts to observational data that can be used to support the AGW theory, therefore it would appear the AGW theory has a major if not terminal flaw. Until this issue is resolved i would consider this debate to be over.
Of course belief knows no bounds and this will be ignored by the faithful.
Posted by: crakar14 | July 6, 2009 3:30 PM
Crakar -
Coby answered you in post #71.
Typical denialist troll, completely ignoring the answers to your question. And then you wonder why people consider you dishonest and uninterested in the actual science.
Posted by: Adam | July 6, 2009 3:48 PM
Adam,
Whilst i enjoy reading Coby's personnal opinions on the geoligical record it does not constitute empirical observational data much like your sarcasm.
Would you like to have another try?
Posted by: crakar14 | July 6, 2009 5:53 PM
Crakar -
Considering your questions were based on faulty assumptions (e.g. that CO2 suddenly started controlling temperatures), Coby's responses were perfectly adequate. What specifically do you not like about the answers to your questions?
Posted by: Adam | July 6, 2009 8:36 PM
Adam,
For IPCC theory to be correct CO2 must control the temps (+ve feed back) therefore it is not my assumption, this is the IPCC's and ergo anyone else that believes in the theory. I for one do not believe in the theory hence why i asked the questions so as to get clarification.
Coby's response was based purely on his personnal opinion and therefore do not adequately answer my questions, can you answer these questions more adequately? And by that i mean back up your answers by virtue of scientific findings?
Posted by: crakar14 | July 6, 2009 9:23 PM
Crakar, what makes you think "this is the IPCC's (theory)"? The science behind AGW was established long before the IPCC was set up. The Theory (and it is an accepted scientific theory) is based on well understood physical and chemical principles which were experimentally proven about 100 years ago.
If you really want to understand AGW theory and practice then check out Spencer Weart's web site "The Discovery of Global Warming" at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Posted by: Ian Forrester | July 6, 2009 10:03 PM
We just keep going around in circles with you Ian.
Is this a distractionary tactic by you? Or do you not understand what is posted by others?
Lets start again shall we?
The IPCC theory states that as CO2 increases this will lead to an increase in evaporation primarily from the oceans, which leads to an increase in water vapor. This increase in water vapor will lead to what we all know to be global warming.
Hence the IPCC theory dictates that an increase in CO2 will cause the temps to rise, or to put it another way CO2 increases or decreases cause Temp increases or decreases, or to put it another way CO2 leads temp. This was explained eloquently by Al Gore in his movie "An inconvinient truth".
I have raised several points supported by observed data that suggest the relationship between CO2 and temps as purported by the IPCC to be wrong.
The more attempts you and others make to drag the debate away from the questions i pose the more ridiculous you look.
Just answer the questions i pose, thats all i ask, am i asking too much?
And no personnal opinions, theories or spiritual recitals from some AGW demigod DO NOT count as observational data.
Posted by: crakar14 | July 7, 2009 12:33 AM
Crakar, I think it is time you stopped posting. You refuse to accept anything anyone says that shows you are blowing smoke out of your rear-end.
I give you a very good site where you can read up on the science and you just respond with more rubbish.
You are as much of a denier troll as Richard and snowman. You accept lies and misinformation from denier sites without question but refuse to accept what honest scientists are telling you.
Get a life.
Posted by: Ian Forrester | July 7, 2009 7:35 AM
I disagree. The more we let you pose ridiculous questions and make ridiculous statements of apparent fact, the more ridiculous you look. For example:
Wha? Where did you get that from? And why do you keep referring to it as the "IPCC Theory"? (We just keep going around in circles with you, crakar.) Does CO2 evaporate water? Is it only water vapour that warms the atmosphere? If you have as little clue as you seem to do, why all the confidence?
It's not terribly hard to erect simple strawmen and knock them down, but you do it with a certain flair. I must admit a certain bemused admiration.
Posted by: pough | July 7, 2009 7:48 AM
Crakar -
I have raised several points supported by observed data that suggest the relationship between CO2 and temps as purported by the IPCC to be wrong.
The questions you asked were based on faulty assumptions, or (intentional?) misreadings of the data. What specifically do you object to about Coby's answers?
Posted by: Adam | July 7, 2009 9:51 AM
crakar:
"Hence the IPCC theory dictates that an increase in CO2 will cause the temps to rise, or to put it another way CO2 increases or decreases cause Temp increases or decreases, or to put it another way CO2 leads temp."
Subtle, but another falsehood. I won`t repeat the same explanation you have been given over and over again. Rather I will try asking a simple question: why do you think it is impossible that a temperature change can lead to a CO2 change and at the same time a CO2 change can lead to a temperature change? What makes those things mutually exclusive?
Posted by: coby | July 7, 2009 10:15 AM
As i have 4 posts to respond to i will keep each reply brief,
To Ian,
I asked questions for you to answer your reply is to give me a dodgy link.
I think Richard's summation of you was excellent (what is the evidence post 101) lets leave it there shall we.
To Pough,
The AGW theory is very old we all know that, i call it the IPCC theory due to the fact that it has been refined somewhat, through GCM's etc. So yes it is the IPCC theory.
Do you not believe the IPCC predictions (GCM's) is based around a strong +ve feedback from water vapour? I suggest you re read the many IPCC reports again just as a refresher.
Here is a good start
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
To Adam,
Read my response to Coby
To Coby,
A subtle falsehood?
What makes those things mutually exclusive? The geological record shows that they are not mutually exclusive Coby.
Can you imagine a world where they were? Lets give it a go, temp goes up, then CO2 goes up, now that CO2 has gone up the temp now goes up, now the temp has gone up then so must CO2, CO2 has gone up so now the temp goes up and the planet boils dry.
Hang on a second......we dont need to imagine do we, the geological record shows us that CO2 temps rose up above 2000 ppm in the past but the temps went down!!!! Hmmm maybe they are not mutually exclusive after all.
So i have answered your question how about you answer mine. And here is another one if CO2 drives the temps and CO2 is still increasing then why have the temps continued to shall we say not rise and dont start that rubbish about "its only weather" we have had 10 years of "its only weather" why dont we start calling it what it really is which is a -ve feedback. Of course you will struggle to comprehend this and therefore respond as the IPCC's version of the AGW theory (is that better Pough)does not allow for such things.
Posted by: crakar14 | July 7, 2009 8:40 PM
I don't know about mutual exclusion, but there is a danger of mutual incomprehension breaking out here.
Coby is challenging the notion that temperature rise followed by CO2 increase must excude the possibility of the reverse also being true, namely that temperature increase can be followed by CO2 rise.
Crakar seems to be agreeing that a linear sequence and its reciprocal can both be true.
Where they seem to part company, however, is in their analysis of the consequence of such a thing.
Crakar argues that if both patterns are true, a rise in CO2 must inevitably lead to uncontrolled temperature increase as CO2 and temperature form a cycle of mutual reinforcement.
As it is clear that temperatures have not in the past soared out of control, then it follows that the mutual reinforcement pattern must be wrong, he argues.
Does that help, or have I added a further layer of incomprehensibility?
Posted by: Snowman | July 8, 2009 1:49 AM
Crakar -
And here is another one if CO2 drives the temps and CO2 is still increasing then why have the temps continued to shall we say not rise and dont start that rubbish about "its only weather" we have had 10 years of "its only weather" why dont we start calling it what it really is which is a -ve feedback.
To paraphrase Crakar: "Tell me why A is happening, but don't give me the actual explanation for A."
Crakar, you're hopeless. It's been explained to you over and over again why this line of thinking is erroneous.
Snowman -
We understand what Crakar is trying to say. The problem arises in that he is completely incorrect.
As it is clear that temperatures have not in the past soared out of control, then it follows that the mutual reinforcement pattern must be wrong, he argues.
Temperatures can be influenced by more than one source. There can be a positive feedback effect between CO2 and temperature and there can STILL be other effects that will, overall, cause temperatures to decrease.
Posted by: Adam | July 8, 2009 4:55 AM
Not all feedbacks are runaway. Many are self-limiting because the strength of one or more of the interacting factors diminishes as the feedback progresses. It is the case with CO2 as each additional ppm has a smaller effect than the last. That is why climate sensitivity to CO2 is discussed in terms of doubling, not in terms of x ppm.
As well, resevoirs of CO2 available on the short term can run out and thus stop rising, or at least slow. As near as we know, in the glacial cycles CO2 and CH4 came out of warming deep oceans and melting permafrost. Once the amount of permafrost available for melting is reduced, so is the CO2 rise, reducing the feedback.
The above is mostly speculation but we are addressing the abstract question of whether the existence of a positive feedback necessarily requires a runaway effect, and this is simply untrue, full stop.
Snowman, I don`t think crakar is agreeing that both effects (CO2->temp and temp->CO2) can be true, he has misunderstood the term "mutually exclusive" which means if one exists then the other can not. This is his (incorrect) position.
Crakar, the answer to your question of how the evidence of the ice cores fits with AGW is here.
Posted by: coby | July 8, 2009 6:35 AM
Crakar here, Yeah what snowman is saying is what i was trying to say.
So while you lot try to rewrite the AGW theory (and history)once again i simply point to the geological record which shows conclusively that CO2 DOES NOT drive the temps, it never has so please explain how it suddenly can now.
So now that this distraction has been completed how about answering my questions, lets start with (what should be the easiest) the year in which CO2 defied the geological record and began driving the temps? Was it 1970?, or maybe 1980 or how about 1990? Take your pick and then provide a scientific study to support your claim.
Good luck with that.
PS i did notice that you conviniently avoided the question of why CO2 is failing to continue to drive the temps over the last 10 years.
Posted by: crakar14 | July 8, 2009 3:56 PM
Actually, Coby, though it pains me to admit it, I do believe you are right about crakar's interpretation of the phrase 'mutually exclusive'.
However, to address your other point about the diminishing impact of incremental CO2 concentrations, it is not immediately clear to me why this matters. A diminishing impact may indeed slow the consequence of increased concentrations, but I do not see why it should place a limit upon it - unless, of course, you are invoking something like the classical paradox showing why an arrow can never reach its target.
As they say (or used to say) in Scotland 'many a mickle makes a muckle'. (Translation for non Caledonians - given enough little bits you end up with something big.)
Posted by: snowman | July 8, 2009 4:10 PM
You have a bizarre, Highlander-esque* view of the physics of climate that doesn't exist in the real world. Until you escape your little fantasyland where you are correct and thousands of actually smart people who actually study climate are wrong, nobody can properly address the physics of the Bizarroverse to you.
So why not simply prance about in your own little world, certainty based on certainty, smug in your knowing that the hottest decade on record is a sure sign of cooling.
* There can only be one.
Posted by: pough | July 9, 2009 8:55 AM
Another high quality post from pough, thanks for your contribution to the debate.
Once again you have shown your reluctance in answering what i would assume to be simple questions. Given that there are thousands of smart people out there, I can only assume that you are not one of them, perhaps i am wasting my time entertaining you by responding.
To Adam, if i were to paraphrase myself "tell me why CO2 leads temps in defiance of the geological record".
You are correct in that you have told me CO2 does drive the temps many times, however the difference is i have supplied scientific evidence that shows you to be wrong and you simply supply your personnal opinions as a rebuttle.
I dont mean to sound rude but your personnal opinions do not amount to very much on this subject. The fact that not one of you can supply scientific evidence to the contrary stongly suggests that there is none. Getting you to admit that is the hard part.
I now sit here patiently awaiting your next course of distraction.
Posted by: crakar14 | July 9, 2009 6:31 PM
Crakar -
You are correct in that you have told me CO2 does drive the temps many times, however the difference is i have supplied scientific evidence that shows you to be wrong and you simply supply your personnal opinions as a rebuttle.
The only evidence you have supplied is that CO2 lags temperature in the geological record. This is well known, and understood. What you have also supplied, though, is a heavy dose of misunderstanding (intentional?) and a particular dogmatism regarding this Highlander-esque view of climate science*.
Besides, they aren't my personal opinions. It is the opinion/judgment of climate scientists in their actual research of this (unlike certain unnamed commentors here who base their opinion on whatever supports their preconception).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
*thanks pough, I'm going to steal that from you :)
Posted by: Adam | July 9, 2009 8:15 PM
No prizes for second Adam, suggest you come up with a witty saying of your own.
The real climate link you provided simply tries to dispute the geological record not suggest ways in which CO2 suddenly took control of the temp. I suggest you try again.
Here is an interesting thought, the CO2 levels have increased from 300 to 370ppm from 1900 to 2000, a very small rise from 1900 to 1950 (say 20 ppm) and a 50 ppm rise from 1950 to 2000.
Whilst the temp rose about 0.5C over the same period, strangely most of this temp rise occurred between 1900 and 1950. You would have thought it would be the other way around wouldn't you?
Posted by: crakar14 | July 9, 2009 11:48 PM
I am a trainable skeptic, because I was trained as a scientist and am more interested in understanding what is going on. So show me the errors in my ways! I have been following this discussion for a while. I buy into CO2 lags and therefore can not be the cause.... Because (God bless and keep Steven Gould)I believe that by definition showing a lag brings us according to scientific method I was taught to a QED. Then with the same breath as the concession.... I hear the BUT that is supposed to trump scientific method. Somehow CO2 for which man's contribution does exist is on its own ride and accelerating the normal climate change process. I am willing to be firm but open minded because it allows me to be shown and improve my understanding.
I absolutely agree that CO2 is a gas that absorbs infra red frequencies, however there are enough arguments on the effect of our contribution both positive and negative to climate change that I with hold immediate judgment and would not be inclined to self mutilation at this time.
No one has been discussing what I think is the practical physics, the three extremely small and discrete frequencies from which CO2 actually absorbs infra red. The discussions are on some macro hand waving level that are pretty much unquantifiable.. So I am unmoved on the last bit either way. I have been searching for another way at a resolution of this discussion. It seems to me that I have heard that CO2 at 100 PPM fully absorbs the three infra red frequencies at something like 10 meters. It is possible that because the concept involves radiation there is an inverse square relationship on additional absorption as the concentration of C02 increases. I would appreciate moving this thought a bit farther because it suggests to me that there is a quantifiable analysis that might be sufficient proof that anthropogenicly derived CO2 may choke us but does or does not not significantly contribute to global warming.
I wonder if this helps.
Posted by: Phineas Sprague | October 18, 2009 11:30 PM
"Somehow CO2 for which man's contribution does exist is on its own ride and accelerating the normal climate change process. I am willing to be firm but open minded because it allows me to be shown and improve my understanding." - Phineas
Okie dokie, something to pour into that open mind of yours..........
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Posted by: Dappledwater | October 19, 2009 2:14 AM
Then a sensor placed on a building 11 meters above the ground would show this, right?
Do it! A nobel prize awaits you ...
(do people, especially those claiming to be "scientifically trained", really think all of science is so blepeing stupid that no one would think of taking observations to see if the real physics behind global warming rather than this "I've heard" crap is true or false?)
Posted by: dhogaza | October 19, 2009 8:24 AM
Careful dhogz - in this and other recent posts you are in danger of revealing a sense of humour. It won't do your reputation as the scourge of the deniers any good at all.
Posted by: Snowman | October 19, 2009 10:17 AM
Hi Eric,
Came across this document in which the author describes CO2 in equilibrium with Temp not as a forcing. Have a read if you like and let me know what you think.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/feedback_or_equilibrium.pdf
Regards
Crakar
Posted by: crakar14 | October 20, 2009 9:52 PM
Marco, i meant to address post 115 to you, sorry for getting your name wrong.
Where is Eric by the way, i know i said either produce alternative log numbers or F&*^K off but i he did not have to take me literally
Posted by: crakar14 | October 20, 2009 9:56 PM
Crakar, I think you are not addressing that paper to me, since it is in a thread where I have not posted a single message.
But I can give you my opinion: Nonsense. It makes a mockery out of climate science by essentially claiming that 'we' use CO2 as the only forcing.
Posted by: Marco | October 20, 2009 11:00 PM