This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation.
Answer:
It's very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is by taking readings from space.
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
There has been work done on reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century before satellites were available. According to the Max Plank Institute where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is not enough to explain it all, but it is responsible for a large portion of that trend in temperature. See this chart of the observed temperature, the modelled temperature and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.
Real Climate has also done a couple of detailed discussions both about what the conclusions about solar forcing are, as well as exactly how they were arrived at. Read them here and here.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"It's the Sun, Stupid" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
I now can see why GM is the mess that it is, with arrogant uneducated baffoons like this running it....and he even said he wants to run the planet...god help us..he cant even run a car company
Please address two points, which there seems to be little solid info (as contrasted w/ conjecture & claim) about:
1] not whether Solar (or any other 'natural' causes) are THE cause of warming - but the overall EXTENT or importance of such cause(s).
2] climate (temperature) impacts not of (quantitative) changes in AMPLITUDE of Solar radiation (total or 'average') (which seem at times to be conflated w/ 'Solar Activity'), but of (qualitative) changes in the CHARACTER of Solar output (including magnetic, 'solar wind', and spectral variation (such as UV change) aspects).
thanks,
will wohler
Its easy to put up straw men and knock them over. The irradiance from the sun is invariable. Presumably therefore, climate change can not be due to the sun. This is too simplistic. Consider the argument here and at: http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/the-enso-driver/
In brief, we have a very good idea of the thermal structure of the atmosphere via measurement of temperature at different pressure levels using helium balloons called radiosondes and rockets, dating from 1948. A study of the thermal characteristics of the upper troposphere reveals two very important things.
Firstly, climate change has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. The down-welling radiation from greenhouse gases is overwhelmed by a superior force. That force is convection. What happens near the tropopause in mid year proves the point. The atmosphere loses cloud as it is warmed by the northern land masses. Ozone at the tropopause (10km) intercepts enhanced outgoing long wave radiation producing a strong temperature peak in mid year. South of the Equator where the mid year cloud loss from atmospheric warming is greatest, outgoing radiation inverts the temperature curve from a March (surface) to an August (tropopause) maximum. But, the downward transfer of energy from the warmed layer is overwhelmed by convection. There is no shift in the temperature curve below the tropopause. The March maximum persists.
The second thing to be learned is this: Climate change is due to the interception of short wave solar radiation (UVB) by ozone in the upper troposphere driving change in temperature, relative humidity, cloud cover, pressure gradients, surface wind and sea surface temperature. The Southern Oscillation depends upon the distribution of ozone in the upper troposphere (high in concentration in the downdraft areas because it is carried down from the stratosphere). The location of these downdraft areas is determined by surface temperature driven by ocean currents in return responding to the wind. But the wind direction in the tropics is in part determined by the sun because it changes the pressure gradients in the ozone rich high pressure cells. As these cells lose intensity the location of the main areas of convection, the distribution and density of cirrus cloud and the level of radiation received at the surface all change.
A regime of increased UV radiation involves a loss of cloud cover in the tropics.
The intensity of UV radiation at the tropopause and below depends upon solar activity.
Changing your story again,Erl?
There is a strong historical correlation between the suns activity and the temps here on Earth, whilst the correlation between C02 and temps is less than impressive.
Now we all know that correlation does not prove causation but it is a requirement.
There is a growing group of scientists or consensus that now believes the sun is heading into a at best Dalton type minimum and at worst a Maunder minimum. This of course means the planet is heading into a cold to very cold period.
I know all you "believers" out there will scoff at any suggestions the sun plays anymore than a minor role and C02 has the power to overide the sun, but keep in mind one consensus uses emperical data to arrive at this conclusion whilst the other uses computer models.
As I pointed out in a couple of other locations on these pages I really appreciate watching the two sides go at it. I definitely subscribe to the "precautionary principle" that we need to act on climate change decisively if not spastically, but I give you credit, Crakar14: at least you are putting your money where your mouth is. If the thing goes cold in the next two decades your drinks are free.
Skip
Hi Skip,
There was a guy by the name of Dr Theodore Landscheidt who was a leading expert on the suns effect on the Earth and climate. Unfortunately he died in a car accident a few years ago but his work lives on.
Here is a link to one of his papers in regards to GW versus GC:
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
and this http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/ click on the links and or publications to see his other work in this field.
Now this guy was not a kook or a "flat earther" he predicted El Ninos and La Ninas years in advance by studying the sun, this is something the latest GCM still cannot do. His predictions are not based on a small increase in C02.
So please have a read (it does get a bit heavy at times for me anyway)
Cheers
PS I have been silent for a couple of weeks (i know you all missed me) but my wife just had a little girl mum and baby are doing fine.
Congratulations, Crakar! My wife is due in less than four weeks : )
Here are a couple more links for your perusal;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-bet…
This link talks about the underestimation of TSI on Earths climate.
Here is another more detailed paper on the subject;
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_Climate_Change.html
Nahle, Nasif. 2007. Total Solar Irradiance and Climate Change. ©07 May 2008 by Biology Cabinet Organization®. Obtained from: http://www.biocab.org/SI_Anom_T_Anom.html. Last reading: (Day) (Month) (Year).
And this;
http://www.amath.washington.edu/%7Ecdcamp/Pub/Camp_Tung_GRL_2007b.pdf
These papers show a direct link between the sun and Earths climate, whilst the IPCC acknowledge this link it would appear they have under estimated the strength of this link and therefore overstated CO2's effect on climate.
Happy reading
Here is another bit of research that puts another nail in the AGW coffin.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/17/beryllium-10-and-climate/#more-62…
I am surprised at the lack of response to these very informative articles, does no one have an opinion?
The fact that the sun may play a much larger role in climate/temps than the IPCC considered would be worth discussing. If this research is proved correct then it is obvious the role of CO2 has been over stated.
I can understand why some of you would rather ignore it.
I can't speak for others but I have to choose what I respond to because I can not respond to everything. I will not usually follow a link unless it is provided with a quote so I know what it is suppose to show.
For example, if you had given some numbers and a quotation from the solar irradiance paper above, I might have had a look. It is very easy to dump work on people in these dialogues, I think the onus is on you to make your own specific point and then provide a citation to support it.
Fair enough Coby,
Let me try a different approach.
The links i referenced above all show a strong relationship between the sun and the Earths climate/weather, this is nothing new of course as the IPCC has always attributed some warming and or cooling of the Earth to the sun.
The scientific opinion differs as to how much effect the sun has. The above references would have you believe the sun plays a major role whereas the IPCC consider the sun to play a minor role. On face value i would have to agree with the IPCC on this as the energy from the sun (expressed in W/m2) has varied slightly from the maunder minimum to now whilst the Earths temp has varied significantly.
However what if the sun effected the Earth in other ways apart from W/m2 and IR? Below is a link that references a study which shows earthquake and Volcanic activity increases when the sun is in an extended or grand minima (the sun maybe entering an extended minima as we speak).
As they point out the combination of solar minimum and volcanic activity cannot explain the length of maunder/dalton minimums but remember this study was done before Svenmarks CR cloud formation study, and in light of recent findings related to the sun such as expanding and contracting atmoshpere, portals connecting sun to earth and holes in the earths magnetic field shows we have a lot to learn about the climate and the sun.
Could it be that we look at the suns relationship to earth in a too simplistic way, any thoughts?
Link: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066907_199006… (File is 685Kb)
Cheers
Crakar
Could it be that we look at the suns relationship to earth in a too simplistic way, any thoughts?
If you're saying that we don't fully understand the relationship between the sun and Earth, well, I'd probably agree with you.
If you're saying that we don't fully understand the relationship between the sun and Earth, and therefore we can attribute the recent global warming trends to solar activity, well, that's where you'd lose me. Yeah, this paper makes some reference to sun and climate, but the paper is about how temperature trends affect seismic activity, and the references to temperatures that they do make are really nothing new to anyone. Definitely an interesting paper, but it doesn't make the point you want it to make (to be fair, it doesn't refute it either; it just doesn't address it).
The purpose of the post(s) was to show we don't fully understand the relationship between the sun and Earth. Not to goad you into a dart throwing competition at 20 paces. However i feel the great global warming debate will come to an end soon.
If we leave GHG aside for a moment the Earth has warmed and cooled about every 30 years for example (rough dates so no need to contradict);
1880 to 1910 Large cooling with -pdo,La Ninas and quiet sun
1910 to 1940 warming +pdo El ninos and very active sun
1940 to 1970 mild cooling -pdo, La ninas and active sun
1970 to 2000 large warming +pdo , multiple strong El Ninos
2000 to 20?? Who knows
Of course GHG and vulcanism play thier part how much is what all the debate is about.
So from 70 to 00 the AGW theory finally gained some traction and a political movement was created and then came mother nature with all the timing of a Monty Python joke and the sun went quiet.
07 (seventh) and 08 (second)are in the top ten spotless years (if measured by standards a century ago they would be 1 & 2) so far 09 is shaping up as another spotless year. Cycle 23 is almost 13 years long and "all the models predict" cycles 24 and 25 will be complete duds. So of the two competing theories, one says we are headed for 20 to 30 years of cooling (AGW proved wrong) whilst the other says "As Co2 increases so will the temps".
The Earth is in a state that modern science has not seen before, so many of the rules of thumb developed over the last century are becoming invalid. Some of these 'rules' are the base assumptions in the way people understand weather and its behavior. For that reason, it is foolish to think that we can forecast what is going to happen over the next 20 years let alone a hundred.
I liken this to a night at the casino, last bets has been called and the roulette wheel has been spun and there can only be one winner.
We live in interesting times Adam.
Cheers
Crakar
It looks like we have found something else the sun causes, The holes in the ozone layer above poles is not caused by CFC's after all. I wonder what we will discover next about the sun.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-respo…
Crakar
Crakar, that is why I don't want to let you call yourself a skeptic, you are a denialist. A skeptic does not simply disbelieve everything that undermines their position and believe anything that supports it. You, and Anthony Watts, want mainstream atmospheric science to be wrong, therefore anything that contradicts it you believe without question.
Anyway, this study does not eliminate the role of CFC's in the process, it seems to be claiming an enhancement of the reactions over the poles due to cosmic rays.
What about their methods did you find so convincing?
The convincing bit was, as you say is an increase in cosmic rays plays a part in the ozone holes. Which is exactly the same thing that you found. Of course the reason why CR increase or decrease is dependent on the amount of solar winds coming from the sun.
Therefore a more active sun the higher the SW and the lower the CR and a less active sun will cause lower SW and higher CR.
So therefore the sun plays a major role in the size of the Ozone holes and not CFC's as first thought.
Now what is it about this post that has prompted you to call me a "denier" as opposed to a "skeptic" or perhaps a "non-believer"?
Or perhaps it is from a previous post? The only thing my previous posts have in common is that they all support an altenative to the AGW theory so maybe that is it. If so then i owe you an appology, i was under the assumption that "its the sun stupid" was there to allow the dissemination of information regardless of its findings. Obviously i was wrong in this assumption and it is only there to promote the "believer" line of thought.
In regards to Watts, i have never met the man so i cannot be sure of his motives as much as you. In regards to what i believe or not believe, that is up to me you do not have the right sit there in judgment.
If you were bothered to read up on Theodore Landscheidt's work you would have noted that by looking at the sun's cycles he made some accurate predictions, more accurate than the models.
The truth is, there is evidence that the planet has warmed but none of this evidence shows that CO2 is the primary cause, hence the term "believer".
In regards to keeping an open mind i think i have one, or as Lord Keynes once said "When the facts change i change my mind, what do you sir"
Crackar,
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. You like to THINK you have an open mind but in fact, like most deniers, you aren't even equipped to tell junk science or wishful thinking from real rational enquiry. It's the 'Galileo fallacy'.
âAlas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right.â (Robert Park)
The global warming consensus is a consensus exactly because it is the best conclusion on the available evidence - by a mile!
OK Mat, put your money where your mouth is and show me real world scientific evidence that Co2 causes global warming.
Real world evidence (not theory or computer models) that show the CO2 molecules reacting in the atmosphere in such a way to cause global warming.
I have asked this question before and it is repeatedly ignored, so why dont you give it a go.
Now when you come up with nothing will you be willing to look at alternatives? I dont think so. So put up or shut up.
..and thus my case is proved.
If you are so arrogant as to think that your OPINION carries more weight than reams of published peer-reviewed scientific literature showing in detail the mechanisms for warming due to increased CO2, you're worse than I thought Crackar. eluded.
Have you read David Archer's book that I recommended yet? (Probably not) It answers, over the first two or three chapters, all you could want to know about the physics behind it. It's not sound bite stuff - go read it - get informed - stop looking like a jerk.
That should, of course, read 'deluded'.
By the way, Crackar, are YOU willing to put your money where you mouth is? Want to lay an official internet bet in the thousands of dollars that the warming continues? I'm up for it.....
Not my opinion but many intelligent scientific points of view. Does this reams of published peer-reviewed scientific literature showing in detail the mechanisms for warming due to increased CO2 rely of theoretical results or from real world experiments...........I thought so.
Here is another real world experiment (you know the one were they actually measure things rather than peer into computer screens) that reduces the CO2 warming factor even more.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326141553.htm
Of course you will come back with "this site is a denial site" or "this is a crock of shit because the IPCC never approved it" etc etc.
By the way do you realise that what you say (read Archers book etc) makes you just as arrogant as i am? Ergo you look like a jerk.
Sure you want to bet, what would you like to bet on?
That the long term trend continues to be up, of course, just as it is right now. What is so arrogant about suggesting you read the answer to the question you ask? This is decades worth of people's detailed research you're denigrating here, which is fine if you're right but the peer-reviewed support for your position (ie CO2 does not cause warming) is nil.
Ok i will bet the long term trend will not be up but down.
two questions what shall we deem to be a long term trend and what change in temp constitutes up and down.
Oh and of course how much do you want to wager?
Show me peer reviewed support for your position that CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change, note explanation about how the climate works "in theory" will not be sufficient.
I read all this stuff because I'm just an interested dolt, but be nice to Crakar. He has shown more politeness and open-mindedness than any denier/skeptic I have ever encountered. That might not be saying much, but its true.
I guess my nonscientific question for Crakar is, what's wrong with acting on the precautionary principle? I have a suspicion about what answers I will receive, but if there is already a thread exploring this go ahead and point me to it.
Skip
One other thing:
Asking for peer reviewed support for proof that CO2 will cause cats-ass-trophy is a bit of a red herring, because of course we cannot predict the future. But the precautionary principle? Even so-called skeptics like Richard Lindzen don't dispute *some* anthropogenic forcing. (Read his latest article if you doubt me.) I guess the thing I never receive a straight answer to is, How do we *know* we're safe? What's wrong with hedging against risk and cutting back on carbon?
Again, I'm weak on the science but stronger when it gets in this realm of economic/political tradeoffs involved with action versus inaction.
Congrats on being a dad, Crak. Again if there is already a thread somewhere that hits these issues just point me to it.
Skip in Reno, NV
Great!
Hi there Skip,
Sorry for the delay in reply but i have been away from a computer for awhile and yes all is well with the baby thanks.
In regards to your questions, firstly "in theory" if you increase any greenhouse gas you will increase temps as Lindzen says, the reason why i consistantly ask for real world evidence of AGW is because i want to know how much does CO2 increase temps. The IPCC use models to predict things which are based on theory not real world evidence.
Which leads us to your next question on the precautionary principle.
Here are some claims made by believers on a regular basis as so called evidence that AGW is real
1, Sea Ice is melting..........WRONG
2, Sea levels are rising........WRONG
3, Sea are warming..............WRONG
4, Coral reefs are dying..........WRONG
5, Temps are rising...............WRONG
6, THere are more cyclones etc......WRONG
Etc, etc, etc Now any warmaholic worth his salt will come back with "a recent study says this or that" but this is all just semantics. The facts are facts and nothing else matters, right?
The IPCC has spent the last 20 years and 50 BILLION US DOLLARS trying to frame CO2 for all the warming (what warming) and have spent not one cent on anything else and all they have to show for thier efforts are unvalidated computer models and an unproven theory and of course a TAX plan that puts all others to shame.
So in regards to the precautionary principle what are we being precautionary about?
Cheers
Crakar
Here is an article about the current state of the Sun, just to keep you all up to date.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/21/solar-isn-mean-dips-below-100/#mo…
As a side note we have not seem a sun spot for a very long time but yesterday a tiny speck appeared but unfortunately it was a cycle 23 spot. Which means the solar minimum cannot happen until at least Jan 09. This means cycle 23 will/is be the longest cycle ever recorded.
Cheers
Here is another article which shows the suns effects on climate maybe greater than we think.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/01/australian-antarctic-division-can…
Just another update in regards to the ongoing solar minimum, we are starting to approach significant milestones. The sun is starting to look like it did at the beginning of the Dalton minimum, if the minimum continues it will not be long before we are at the maunder minimum stage.
For all the fence sitters out there it maybe time to place your bets.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/27/the-baby-grand-has-arrived/#more-8054
Just another update in regards to the ongoing solar minimum, we are starting to approach significant milestones. The sun is starting to look like it did at the beginning of the Dalton minimum, if the minimum continues it will not be long before we are at the maunder minimum stage.
For all the fence sitters out there it maybe time to place your bets.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/27/the-baby-grand-has-arrived/#more-8054
Uh oh, (but hey it's not the sun and it's just "weather").
May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.
"If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center.
"It turns out that none of our models were totally correct," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA's lead representative on the panel. "The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way."
Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.
"In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it," says Pesnell. "Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007."
Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earthâs atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract.
====================================================
The National Weather Service has issued a freeze watch for many parts of New York from Sunday through Monday morning, including Oneida County.
Widespread frost and freeze conditions are possible tonight and into early Monday morning.
The regionâs low temperature for today is expected to be about 36 degrees, which also is the record low temperature for May 31, according to WKTV meteorologists and weather archives.
Skip,
In regards to the cautionary principle:
What would you have the US and/or the world do?
At what cost?
What would be the result?
It is inevitable that the Earth will be hit by a massive asteroid/comet and that it will be an Extinction Level Event.Therefore we must immediately start constructing hundreds of thousands of huge bunkers worldwide to preserve humankind from destruction.The huge cost of taking these precautions is irrelevant considering the potential destructiveness of this event which WILL happen.
This is the "Precautionary Principle".
Just another update;
It would appear the sun has shattered a new record, this one being the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) it has sunk to a new low, experts believed it would never go below 4 nano teslas however it has dropped to just 1.8.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/03/the-interplanetary-magnetic-field-is-at-the-lowest-point-since-1913/#more-8136
This article goes a bit depeer in regards to the solar minimum and how it might effect the climate.
icecap.us/images/uploads/SUNSPOT_MINIMUM.pdf
Here is a good article
w.w.w.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
I would like to draw your attention to section 6, in this section Landscheidt correctly predicted a number of weather events one such being El Ninos. I do not beleive a computer model can predict El Ninos whereas Landscheidt did.
How did Landscheidt predict El Ninos? I here you ask. Well he did so by studying the cycles of the sun.
So if the sun causes El Ninos......
Crakar and all other elders of Krypton (aka Exxon employees),
The logical fallacy that is common to all denier speak is you take a tiny slice of evidence (high atmosphere temp readings, solar activity, etc.) and you blow it up to say "HA! Your theory is wrong!!" It is not my theory. It is the _conservative_ outcome of 166 nations via the IPCC. These folks are experts, and have spent their life as professional skeptics (this, at the core, is what it means to be a scientist).
No one is denying or doubting or ignoring that the sun is a driver of global temperatures. What the preponderance of evidence shows is that the marginal increase of CO2, caused by humans, is pushing the temperature higher.
If we get a break for the next 24 months or even 5 years because of a strong El Nino or sunspots or the current GLOBAL recession then let us do the prudent and wise thing and reduce our global warming gasses now, while we can have an even bigger impact.
Even if the scientists of the world (experts who have spent their lives doubting global warming and have come to these conclusions anyways) are wrong: Consider health caused problems from pollution, consider that we are funding both sides of the global war on terror by funding our enemies so you can have "cheap" oil.
Consider that peak oil is happening coincident with your solar minimum (causality!?) and that the economic chaos of peak oil, followed quickly (within the natual life of all these babies discussed in this thread) by peak nuke, peak gas and even peak coal.
And tell us, why, why in the world would we not act now, act decisively and act quickly?
As for your bet
1) I've taken the bet - I paid, with no incentives or tax credits, for solar heating of my house and I laugh at the propane truck as it drives by my house and - of course if I lose I still save $100,000s of thousands in fuel costs over my lifetime. That is my kind of bet!
2) How bizarre to want to make this a personal wager - the whole point is we need worldwide action now. It is not some parlor game where the smarter fellow takes home the winnings. It is the future of our race in a world that we recognize (note that the world will do just fine, it is the particular set of species, of which I am a humble member of one and would like to remain here and comfortable...)
Fervently hoping you are right, sadly acknowledging you are not,
Tom
PS - lest you come back and say (essentially) "all your logic is boring! _I_ have presented facts, what about you" - one of your bogus claims is
4, Coral reefs are dying..........WRONG
http://www.globalcoral.org/why_are_coral_reefs_dying.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs
Both independent sites make the point that coral reefs are dying and that greenhouse gasses are to blaim.
Obviously I could go through and refute each one of your claims, but as Coby stated - you are the denier of the facts and the science, so it is incumbent upon you to state a claim and then a qualified (not a denier site, please!) source for that claim. If you can't - well you can't and that says all that needs to be said.
Hi Tom thanks for the reply, although i did find it hard to follow your post.
I will try to respond to all your points if i omit any please let me know OK.
First of all i do not work for EXXON (wish i did as it would probably pay more than what i get now)
In regards to the sun, the question is have we underestimated its influence? Maybe we have maybe we haven't not enough of the IPCC money has been given to research it.
Is CO2 increases pushing the temps higher? In 30 years the temps have risen slightly which is well within the realms of natural variation. The oceans are cooling so where is all the heat? This question needs to be answered not through irrational responses but through scientific debate.
I think peak oil is a little ways off same as peak gas and peak coal. Peak Nuke is way off in the future, just up the road from me we have massive amounts of uranium so dont worry about that. In regards to pollution i do agree all the above to produce pollution (note CO2 is not a pollutant in this context) with nuke being the worst of all. So yes lets look for other cleaner ways to replace our base load power needs. Unfortunately the current crop of alternatives cannot do this (solar, wind, wave).
Not sure why you referenced Americas global war of terror unless you mean that if the Americans stopped roaming the world killing brown people then they would use less oil, is this what you meant?
You have misunderstood my line about taking bets, the Earth gets its heat from two sources, one from the sun and the other from GHG's (which is kind of the same i know) but if we reduce our GHG's then in theory the Earth will cool, if the sun reduces its intensity (UV,xray,solar wind etc etc) then in theory the Earth will cool.
The sun is reducing its intensity so will the Earth cool? As i said time to place your bets, sorry for the confusion there Tom.
In regards to coral reefs this is a good example as to why there is such a huge debate with AGW, for every link you provide i can provide one that states the opposite.
For example the first link you provide lists many problems caused by man and all very good ones, except the GW one as the oceans are cooling so how could this cause the bleaching?The second site offers more of the same.
By the way Coby has been calling me a denier for sometime now, at the time i was a little upset by the remark but i am over it now. I suggest you come up with a new one, i would much prefer........no i wont say it.
Cheers Tom
Crakar
Elder Craker,
(BTW - check out the beginning of the Superman series - the scientists are warning the elders of Krypton of impending doom, they laugh and question the science - and die. Fiction of course, but illuminating of the current "debate").
As I understand the science (I am a plumber by trade, and an economist by education, so I do not profess any special insight into the science, but I know a snowjob when I see it - thus I call you "denier") the sun IS the primary driver of climate. Taken to the extreme, we would be very, very cold should the sun stop shining on our planet.
But the claim is simply that the excess warming of the last century is traceable to excess (human industrial-activity caused) CO2. At various times, for a few years, it is has been obscured by short term dips (and the current period (since 2002??) may be one of those short term temperature dips or flats in a trend of rising temperature).
It is kind of like talking to the smoker who is 102 years old. The preponderance of evidence is that smoking kills you young. Here is a very old person with a life-long smoking habit. Your logic would have you start smoking right away. The science says don't smoke and it also says deal with excess CO2 - NOW.
And it is easy. Just as the hand wringing over reducing acid rain was corporate whining (and not substantiated by the results), now we have the haters and deniers screaming that this will "destroy the economy". Yet the most pessimistic legitimate claims are a 1% reduction in growth in GDP. Recent government financial action (or inaction) caused a what 3%? LOSS in GDP?
We would be smarter to get the government right on financial regulation and let the climatologists run wild with their policy. We could laugh all the way to the (functional) bank.
Now in fact, we will quickly adjust to higher fossil fuel costs and the business and residences will heat and cool their homes from renewable energy and save money and spend their savings and GROW the economy.
Contrary to your claims, solar thermal and wind and PV and the whole class of renewable energy does work, and the more we put into that field, the more we get out (contrast that to fossil fuel - the more you put in, the less you get out). So to suggest they are "not ready", "can't scale" or whatever your poison is on that issue is simply disingenuous.
The area of CO2 reduction that isn't clear is transportation. I think it is clear that Obama's 35MPG will not get anywhere close to what we need. So will we solve that issue with current cycle carbon (algae, biofuels, etc.) Electric cars with longer range? Hydrogen vehicles? Massive change in the suburb system? I don't know. I hope to live long enough to find out.
You claim ocean temperatures are rising. Do the data show this over multiple decades, or multiple years only? I am glad to cede the point that, within the context of global warming, there will be periods of cooling. If that lasts for decades, then you have actual, observational evidence that might be counter to the AGW theory (or maybe it is because all that ice sliding off of Greenland is cooling the oceans?) As I have said I am a plumber, not a climatologist, so please use peer reviewed sources so we don't have to deal with people of questionable integrity.
Peak oil - My sense is that $4/gallon gas actually marked peak oil. Maybe, instead, it will happen in the year 201X - We will know soon enough.
Peak nuke depends on the fuel you use. If it is uranium or thorium - 30 years max. Also, look at the REALITY of the political situation - the vast majority of nukes where built from 1965-85. They are decommissioned at 25 years (shorter life than expected?) to 40 years (MAXIMUM life time). So we would have to have started building nukes about 5 years ago to avoid even a drop in supply from nuke. But we are not building nukes and don't appear to be changing that. So peak nuke is mostly irrelevant.
Once we hit peak oil the other peaks will accelerate as everyone will try to trade into the next cheapest fuel (thus natural gas goes next). All within the lifetime of your children. Even coal, if we are putting the marginal growth of the economy on it, gets used up. Note that peak just means your production is dropping and the economics of it will go crazy. You could still have large amounts of it.
The basic argument underlying my peak XX arguments is that we have drained the large, easy finds first and as we hit diminishing returns on one large field, it takes 2 of the next smaller fields to equal what we were getting from the largest fields, then 4 or 5 of the next level down to match the 2, and so on. We are clearly at diminishing returns on the largest, easiest fields. Are we on the level 2 or level 3? And does it matter? Not much, I claim.
I note that my post is short on sources. You dismissed my last sources without even posting a counter source, lame as it might have been, so I see little incentive for me to go out and trace down all the sources of my information. Also, as a denier of science on a science blog, I am comfortable asking you to supply peer reviewed science to back your claims.
Based on your purported confusion over terrorism I can only assume you enjoy paying the terrorists and the army for the wars for oil and against extremism. Your choice, but a strange one.
Tom
PS - Exxon does not give you any money yet you carry out their work of sowing the seeds of doubt on established science and fact. Just like the tobacco execs in the 60s & 70s - but what is the payoff for you? Your bets? Strikes me as an exercise in trading deck chairs on the titanic. I fear Exxon et al is taking you for a ride.
PPS - I do appreciate your civility, it puts you in a very, very rare class of denier (which is why I am violating my rule of not debating deniers (I don't beat my head against the wall, nor believe in "clean coal" either)). But don't waste your electronic ink if you don't have peer reviewed counters for the climate science (I think a lower bar is reasonable on the peak discussion, as I don't have peer reviewed sources and my claims are far from the accepted view that fossil fuel is virtually unlimited).
Hydrogen will never be a viable energy source because it is always already in a bond with another chemical. So, it would need to be seperated which would take exponetialy more energy than would be gained when fused again in the engine of a vehicle.
Here is a rebuttal by svensmark and christensen to Lockwood and Frohlich assertion that their cosmic ray theory is false. In short L&F use surface temps to claim this but as S&C show the ocean and atmospheric temps show complete correlation with cosmic rays. s the sun is very very quiet at the moment cosmic rays have increased which means the temps will go down, interesting reading.
h.t.t.p://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.p…
To Person, you maybe right about the hydrogen thing in cars, i remember reading a story about pneumatic engines they were used back in the war and the car basically ran on air pressure, when you ran out of pressure in the bottle you simply refilled it. Now that would be the ultimate green car wouldn't? I will see if i can find a story on it.
Cheers
The solar minimum has been pushed back to at least December 2008 which will make SC23 the longest since the 1920's. There were a couple of good SC24 spots this month which gave people some hope that the minimum is now finally behind us prompting another batch of large SC24 predictions.
But the sun has other ideas, a SC23 spot has just formed at the equator whilst it did not last long enough to be given a number it does show that the sun is in no hurry to start the next cycle. Livingston and Penn's prediction of SC24 and the subsequent SC25 of being two of the weakest on record is coming to fruition.
What that means for the Earths climate is anyones guess.
Could be this be true? Has the sun skipped solar cycle 24 and we are now in solar cycle 25.
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
If so what are the ramifications to the Earths climate?
Arguments about scientiic data, all of which can and is being interpeted, each occording to her or his agenda, tend to go round and round. [...removed, please see the material at this link]
[Please do not put your blogposts on my blog. Links are fine. Thanks - coby]
What on earth are you on about, Corneilus? It's bad enough having to listen to dhogaza...
question for crakar:
What would have to happen for you to be convinced that Svenmark et al are wrong?
Skip in Reno
Hi Skip how are you,
Svensmark's cosmic ray theory is just that a theory and like all theories must be falsifiable.
Therefore if the observational data validates the theory then the theory can be strenghtened, conversely if the observational data does not validate the theory then the theory will be weakened or even dismissed.
Currently i do beleive there is a lack of observational data to show whether the theory is valid or not. The main problem is a lack of historical cloud cover measurements (high and low).
Does this answer your question?
Cheers
Crakar
Then I must have misunderstand an earlier post by you which I interpreted to mean that you thought this line of research was the "nail in the coffin" of AGW.
This position makes infinitely more sense.
Thanks for the clarification and happy denying.
Skip
Hello Skip,
Are you aware that our understanding of clouds is very primative? For example do clouds act as a -ve or +ve feedback? Are high clouds -ve or +ve, what about low clouds are they -ve or +ve?
The AGW modellers claim cloud feedback is positive. AGW advocates seem to divide clouds into two categories, low clouds and high clouds. Every report I have read acknowledges that low clouds cause cooling. With regard to high clouds there is some dispute but the AGW modellers claim they cause warming. Further they claim a warming planet results in a bias away from low clouds and towards high clouds thus exacerbating warming, hence contributing to positive feedback.
At the same time they claim constant relative humidity in their models. This means that as the temperature rises, more water must be evaporating. Now unless we want to predict that the amount of water in the atmosphere is going to continuously rise until the oceans are suspended over our heads, more evaporation must imply more precipitation ie: more rain. However, rain only comes from low clouds not high clouds, so more rain means more low cloud mass not less low cloud mass. This contradicts the previous position.
If the claim is that both increase, then that means significantly more cloud mass in total. Clouds are the biggest contributor to Earthâs albedo (the fraction of incoming solar energy reflected back out to space). Rising total cloudiness means increasing albedo and the albedo is very strongly cooling.
The albedo already causes 100 watts/sqM to be reflected away from Earth. To cancel out the entire impact claimed by IPCC for doubling CO2 only requires an increase in cloudiness from 60% to 62.4%. I will repeat that Skip if cloud cover increases by 2.4% it will cancel out the IPCC claimed effects of doubling CO2.
An increase in temperature, leading to more evaporation, in turn leading to more cloudiness which reduces the solar input to Earth thus reducing temperatures is a description of negative feedback not positive feedback.
Now lets take a look again at what svenmark says, increasing glactic cosmic rays will increase cloud formation particularly at lower levels. So Skip assuming for a moment he is correct, with an active sun you get less GCR and less cloud formation the planet gets hotter and when the sun goes quiet we get more GCR and therefore cloud cover which in turn cools the planet enough to all but render CO2 to a bit part player. And lets not forget the IPCC did look at his theory in the 2007 report but unfortunately it took them less than two sentences to discuss and reject.
So has his theory been validated? Not yet but it should not be long now, If his theory is proven correct will it be the final nail in the coffin for AGW?
One final note, i am skeptical of the AGW theory and i do not agree with your views, if that makes me a (happy) denier then so be it. So congratulations to you Skip you have now stooped to lows (along with all the other armageddon alarmists) of name calling, hows the view from down there?
What, no comments, nothing, nada, zip?
Dont tell me we have found another flaw in the IPCC theory, its beginning to look a bit like swiss cheese insnt it.
Certain examples of long-debunked idiocy and inaccuracy doesn't really deserve serious commentary, other than to point out the idiocy and inaccuracy.
There is no such thing as "IPCC theory", or for that matter, the magic "IPCC model" denialists are so fond of complaininga about.
Are you aware that our understanding of clouds is very primative? For example do clouds act as a -ve or +ve feedback? Are high clouds -ve or +ve, what about low clouds are they -ve or +ve? --crakar
The subject of the impact of cloud cover has always fascinated and baffled me, and I completely *agree* with this statement--which is why the rest of your post baffles me. You first assert that we don't understand it and then tell me with complete aplomb what "will" happen under certain potential conditions. "We" don't understand, Crakar--but you do?
You might well be right, Crakar! Jesus I hope you're right! The projected increases in low cloud cover might have exactly the impact you're saying. But how do you know? How can you be so confident?
Skip,
Let me say this as clearly as possible, my post showed the contradiction in the IPCC theory. But yet somehow like all true believers you apply a healthy coat of spin and now suddenly i am the one in contradiction. What a wonderful world of self fulfilling religious enlightenment you live in.
Just for the record lets go through it again, at a slower pace obviously.
[The AGW modellers claim cloud feedback is positive. AGW advocates seem to divide clouds into two categories, low clouds and high clouds. Every report I have read acknowledges that low clouds cause cooling. With regard to high clouds there is some dispute but the AGW modellers claim they cause warming. Further they claim a warming planet results in a bias away from low clouds and towards high clouds thus exacerbating warming, hence contributing to positive feedback.]
Ok lets read through the above statement, which by the way is a simple cut and paste from my previous post.
It is generally accepted that low cloud cover will cause cooling (anyone who has lived in Darwin will attest to this), but there is some dispute as to the effects of high cloud cover. The AGW modellers believe high cloud cover will cause warming so lets accept this as being correct.
So as the planet warms from increase in CO2 etc the AGW modellers believe there will be less low level cloud and more high level cloud which increases the +ve feedack thus more warming.
Are you Ok with this Skip? Good now for the next bit.
[At the same time they claim constant relative humidity in their models. This means that as the temperature rises, more water must be evaporating. Now unless we want to predict that the amount of water in the atmosphere is going to continuously rise until the oceans are suspended over our heads, more evaporation must imply more precipitation ie: more rain. However, rain only comes from low clouds not high clouds, so more rain means more low cloud mass not less low cloud mass. This contradicts the previous position.]
Ok this might get a bit trickey but as CO2 rises so does the temp (only slightly) but this slight temp rise causes a lot of water vapour to rise (the main cause of catastrophic climate change)however as mentioned above this water vapour does not stay up there for very long as they claim constant relative humidity. So therefore if the temps rise and their is more evaporation but the himidity stays constant then there must be more rain...yes?
So rain comes from low clouds not high clouds so therefore more rain = more low cloud, more low cloud = a - ve feed back ...yes? So therefore logically the models are flawed. Here is what is called a contradiction Skip, do you see it......do you?
Keeping the common sense approach in mind as shown above Skip lets look at GCR's. Svensmarks cloud theory in simple terms says increased galactic cosmic rays will increase cloud cover, in other words.
A quiet sun = less solar wind which = more GCR's which = more cloud formation (particularily low level cloud.) which = higher albedo which = cooling temps.
Now Skip just look at post 55 for a moment. Does the author of that post rebutt in anyway what i wrote? No of course not so why they post i have no idea i suspect they are one of the "good ol boys" from way down south in K'ntuckey or Al'bama
Now you dont seem like a simpleton Skip but only a simpleton could read my post and not only not understand it but come back with what can only be described as a pathetic attempt to slander me. Its not my fault Skip that you would not know a contradiction even if you were balls deep in it.
So in the future i suggest that instead of blindly following a simpletons lead you actually think for yourself before replying, and just to think i was in a good mood today. Thanks for nothing Skip.
Hi crakar14, you make some very valid points,I noticed you have an interest in Landscheidt's work. There is a lot of new research done in this area with some surprising results.
Check out this link "Beyond Landscheidt"
www.landscheidt.info
One thing we have to keep in mind is its not all about TSI. Solar variation is in the order of .1% over the 11 year cycle as measured over a very short time period. The TSI variance could vary more and an upcoming grand minimum may prove this. Also the amount of time we spend at minimum has an outcome on the total energy recieved.
But my main point is that outside of TSI variances there are greater variances in UV which is now seen to possibly regulate cloud cover, further regulating TSI received at the surface. Also the Svensmark theory on GCR regulation and cloud nuclei is also controlled by solar output which is not directly connected to TSI levels.
The argument of small TSI variances does not take in all the variables.
Crakar,
Modern computer models do not hold relative humidity constant. Rather, they model evaporation from soils/plants and bodies of water and model condensation/precipitation, and it so happens that they all predict that on average relative humidity stays about the same under warming. This is a thoroughly unsurprising result. They also show some local changes where some parts of the Earth get drier or wetter. What would be surprising is if models predicted desertification everywhere including over the oceans. I would be skeptical of that result, but if you can show a physically plausible model that predicts that I'd be interested to see it.
On clouds, whether clouds form is determined by relative humidity, not absolute humidity. If relative humidity is 70%, water will not condense into water droplets. If that air rises and cools as it rises, it will reach an altitude at which relative humidity hits 100%, and water droplets will condense to form a cloud. If those water droplets fall to drier air, they may evaporate again. However, if there is enough moisture condensing to form large water droplets and the clouds are close to the surface, they may fall to the surface.
When it rains, how much it rains is determined by absolute humidity. Over the long term, precipitation must equal evaporation as you suggest, but precipitation is not the same as cloudiness. A storm that drops two inches of rain does not necessarily block more sunlight or trap more heat than one that drops one inch of rain, and most clouds cause little if any precipitation at all. Seattle is about the cloudiest place in the U.S., but it gets less precipitation than sunnier places in the east.
The models show what they show, and they don't show water disappearing from the atmosphere without first forming clouds and then precipitating to the surface. They don't make identical predictions for cloud feedback, with some showing very little, but no one to my knowledge has developed a physical climate model that predicts negative cloud feedback.
It's not a theory, it's barely a hypothesis, and oddly the available data provides no support for it whatsoever.
While, on the other hand, CO2's function as a greenhouse gas it beyond dispute within the scientific community.
While, on the other hand, CO2's function as a greenhouse gas it beyond dispute within the scientific community.
So the science must be settled,the models are right, doubling CO2 will increase world temps by 6 deg? or was it .5 or somewhere in between. And of course there is negative feedback in the system to promote this warming, but hang on lots of papers coming out suggesting the opposite. Then there is the fact that CO2 has a max threshold as a greenhouse gas, has it been reached yet. Its such a weak greenhouse gas that makes up 380 parts in a million and we are adding around one part per year.
Some people are taken in easily.
Regarding CO2's functioning as a greenhouse gas, yes.
The models aren't "right" in an absolute sense, and climate scientists have never claimed they are. And, yes, climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is not exactly known. What's known is a range. "2.5 to 5C" is not zero, which presumably is what you want to believe.
Models incorporate negative as well as positive feedbacks.
No, physics tells us this.
Yeah, the parts per million argument, the same one that "proves" that LSD can't trip you out, or cyanide can't kill you.
Care to test your "proof" that small concentrations can't have a large effect?
The models aren't "right" in an absolute sense, and climate scientists have never claimed they are. And, yes, climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is not exactly known. What's known is a range. "2.5 to 5C" is not zero, which presumably is what you want to believe.
Glad to see you recognize the science is not known and still guessing. The world needs facts, not guesswork. I suspect we are responsible for less than 1%. Show me the science that says 5% is possible, it will be full of negative feedbacks.
Models incorporate negative as well as positive feedbacks.
Show me the data.
Then there is the fact that CO2 has a max threshold as a greenhouse gas, has it been reached yet
-------------
No, physics tells us this.
Physics tells us that CO2 isn't logarithmic, give me the physics that show where the point of cutoff is where CO2 no longer does its minute warming.
Yeah, the parts per million argument, the same one that "proves" that LSD can't trip you out, or cyanide can't kill you.
Care to test your "proof" that small concentrations can't have a large effect?
Silly analogy, and more like a sermon.CO2 is not a poison, its actually a good thing, the planet is CO2 poor.
Its up to your alarmist crowd to prove these facts you claim before you spend trillions of our money on pointless exercises, why not put it into feeding the poor and reducing deforestation etc.
Dogaza,
I have always wanted to ask this question and now you have presented the opportunity.
You said
"Yeah, the parts per million argument, the same one that "proves" that LSD can't trip you out, or cyanide can't kill you.
Care to test your "proof" that small concentrations can't have a large effect?"
If what you say is to be believed then we must accept two statements
1, If such small changes in one climate parameter can cause large effects in the climate then the Earths climate must be very, very unstable.
2, A small change in any climate parameter must therefore be able to have a large effect on the climate.
So my question to you is why do you consider the small changes in the solar TSI (among other things) to be too small to have any effect?
Not *completely* known. Much is known, in fact much more is known than is unknown, and more is being learned all the time, which is why the range of climate sensitivity to increased CO2 concentrations has narrowed over the last decade.
No, not guessing. That's a defamatory comment and not even close to the truth.
Which is why rational people go with the science rather than your guesswork.
Go look up NASA GISS Model E and tell me which negative feedbacks are missing, then.
Several parts per thousand will kill you.
Not "too small to have any effect". Too small to explain recent warming. These are two very very different statements.
As to why: Physics, backed up by observations.
Same reason science knows that small proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere can have a noticable warming effect. Physics, backed up by observations.
You know, there are lots of contradictory arguments floating around the denial community, but it's always great to see two popular and contradictory talking points coming from the same person, and especially exciting to see them in the same post.
Its such a weak greenhouse gas that makes up 380 parts in a million and we are adding around one part per year.
Then there is the fact that CO2 has a max threshold as a greenhouse gas, has it been reached yet.
Geoff, if you believe that 1) at a fraction of a percent of our atmosphere, CO2 couldn't possibly have much effect, and 2) the greenhouse effect is saturated, there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause pretty much all the warming it can cause ...
Then you are taken in too easily.
Eric L
I dont think you understood my comments. There are 2 distinct statements.
1. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very low and if we are responsible for the rise in that small percentage it is very small. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and if you do the real science you will see it cannot raise world temps by 6 deg on its own if the percentage was doubled. I challenge anyone on your side of the fence to prove that is possible without a negative feedback fudge factor thrown in.
2. CO2 as a green house gas doesnt continue to be productive at the same rate of that rise. It tails off, just like painting a white wall with black paint, after the first 2 coats it doesnt get any blacker. I would like to know where that threshold is.
dhogasa
I am not going to waste my time going from one religious statement to the next. If you want a discussion you need to deal with the challenges one at a time. I have asked you to produce the evidence...I am still waiting.
Geoff sharp said:
What a laugh, a denier actually looking for "evidence". Doesn't he know that deniers don't believe in "evidence" but only rely on their political, religious or economic fairy tales? Real facts and evidence is an anathema to them.
Ian that case, Ian, perhaps you would care to demonstrate why Geoff is wrong by producing the evidence he asks for. If you do not, we will draw our own conclusions.
Geoff,
What evidence, specifically, are you seeking? If you can't be more specific then there is not much else to tell you other than read the IPCC report.
BTW, your invocation of "religious" is vapid and transparent. And not a little ironic considering you can say things like: "The world needs facts, not guesswork. I suspect we are responsible for less than 1%."
That 1% wouldn't be a guess by any chance now, would it?
The requests are specific, its a put up or shutup situation.
Geoff, what specific data or evidence are you looking for?
It's a log relationship for many doublings. Go read some science.
You mean "positive" not "negative", and no "fudge factor is thrown in". Negative and positive feedbacks come from physics and observations, and the impact of said feedbacks are a model OUTPUT, not a fudge factor programmed in. The range of sensitivity you see stated is a result of our limited understanding of *some* feedbacks (clouds). Others are much better understood (water vapor, for example).
Go read the NASA GISS documentation that's available online, it's much more approachable than the code itself, and references the underlying papers which provide the physics and observational basis for different modules in the model (the convection-based cloud module, for instance).
If you're not willing to read but rather are just going to post repeated uninformed assertions my guess is you'll get hugs from "crack" and "snow" and the rest of the world will ignore you.
Oh, Lord, Coby, it's a waste of time. Chase Geoff Sharpe's site linked from his name.
He's a full-blown crank.
dhogaza
So no evidence to back up your claims, only Ad Hominem comments that seriously erode your position and that of the blog.
btw its Sharp, not Sharpe.
Show me a paper stating and providing evidence that a doubling of CO2 will add 5-6 deg to the global temperature based purely on CO2 without any feedback mechanisms included (fudge factors).
A link and page number is all that is needed.
Dhogaza,
In regards to CO2, i was of the understanding that the more CO2 you stick up there the less effect it has on trapping IR etc. The only graph that i have ever seen that demostrates this is from a sceptic orientated website which shows after about 100 ppm the effect of doubling CO2 on temp is virually unmeasurable. Do you have an alternative link to a graph that can show the log effects of CO2? I would be interested in seeing a second opinion on this.
Back to galactic cosmic rays, in post 61 you suggested the GCR theory was not supportable, you may be correct however this link does give us more detail about the observed effects of GCR.
http://solarcycle25.com/?id=98
Any thoughts on the physics backed up by observations?
Now back to post 67 for a moment, are you saying the changes in TSI, solar wind, X-ray, UVA and B, coronal mass ejections and many others from the sun are only small changes just like the small changes in CO2 but only small changes in CO2 can account for most of the recent (2 century) warming? If this is correctthen we must give a lot more weight to CO2 changes than changes in the sun.
You do realise that CO2 cannot produce all the warming predicted by the IPCC (2100), in fact CO2 only accounts for a very small portion of this. Water vapour/cloud are both considered a very +ve feedback and this is where a majority of the warming to come from, you might say that CO2 is merely a trigger (or forcing)for all the warming to come.
Apart from CO2 what else could produce changes in the heating or cooling of the planet?
XXX
OOO
Crack
dhogaza #77,
pity that you think that water vapor is well understood but IPCC 4th Report says we have a low understanding of water vapor and almost everything else except GHG's (excluding water vapor).
How about a cite to back up your claims.
Pointers to evidence ... I assume, given your website, that you believe yourself competent to overturn much of modern science.
Yet apparently you're not competent to read a small corner of it.
What does that tell us?
I said: "It's a log relationship for many doublings."
You don't understand what that means yet ...
You're overturning all of climate science.
Cool.
Yeah, the guy who says up is down is quoted as saying up is down, therefore up is down.
Sorry, you need more than that.
It's like cold fusion, you know. They're still convinced they nailed it, just like our hero is convinced he's nailed warming.
Of course, he's not been able to demonstrate that the laboratory experiments regarding CO2 absorption is wrong, like with his own experiments and all that.
I'm tired of fucking lies. They're not "considered", they're MODEL OUTPUTS based on physics, most of which is well-understood.
Other things we can measure and compute. Milankovich cycles. Volcano emissions. Changes in TSI.
Everything that climate science works with on a daily basis, in other words, despite your insinuating that climate science is predicated on the notion that only CO2 effects weather (don't pretend that's your implication, don't dig your lie-hole deeper).
Coby - why do you put up with this crap? There's a reason these guys no longer show up on Deltoid or RC etc. Good reasons.
Please do us all a favour Dhogaza and explain in detail (as i dont understand) "It's a log relationship for many doublings."
Oh by the way hows the search going for that graph that shows us the increase in temp for every doubling, surely there must be one seeing how this is all very well understand, physics and backed up by observation and all that crap.
You are just another typical fool, copy and pasting selected quotes out of context from peoples posts. Its time to go and take another pill and have a lie down.
You ranted
I'm tired of fucking lies. They're not "considered", they're MODEL OUTPUTS based on physics, most of which is well-understood.
Now using your twisted logic
Hows this, WV and cloud are considered very +ve feedbacks in regards to MODEL INPUTS and MODEL OUTPUTS are the results of the inputs.
According to known physics most inputs are well understood which implies that not all inputs are well understood which suggests that the inputs are not 100% correct, which of course means the outputs are not 100% correct.
Therefore if we do not understand every aspect of the input then we have no understanding of how accurate the output. And we know a small change in one can lead to a big effect in another eg CO2.
So what if there was a small change in the bit we dont understand? How do we know what will be the effect on the output?
The answer to this question is
Apart from CO2 what else could produce changes in the heating or cooling of the planet?
The sun.
Your answer
Other things we can measure and compute. Milankovich cycles. Volcano emissions. Changes in TSI.
Everything that climate science works with on a daily basis, in other words, despite your insinuating that climate science is predicated on the notion that only CO2 effects weather (don't pretend that's your implication, don't dig your lie-hole deeper).
Is incorrect, what does the M cycles and volcanic emissions do? they reduce the level of all outputs from the sun reaching the Earth, in other words if the level of all outputs from the sun reduce it will have the same effect wont it.
By the way how is your search going for a graph which shows the log repsonse to CO2, one which shows how much temp increase there is for each doubling?
The graph i have shows the following
0 ppm 0 temp
20 ppm Increase in temp of 1.5C
40ppm Increase in temp of 0.3C
80ppm Increase in temp of 0.1C
160ppm Increase in temp of less than 0.1C
320ppm Increase in temp of less than 0.1C
640ppm Increase in temp of less than 0.1C
So as i said CO2 and the sun are the only things that can increase or cool the planet, do you have access to a graph which shows something different?
We are indeed on shaky ground, and now the anger stage is setting in. The IPCC models are bogus but many have been sucked in by them. It stands to simple reason, the earth temp has risen .6C in 150 years (please dont insult us with Hansen's graphs)and is explainable without CO2. CO2 has continued to rise but the temp has remained stable for the last decade, there is no troposphere hot spot at the tropics, sea levels have not risen since 2005.
The science is weak, we do not need to race into a stupid decision that will wreck the worlds economy.
There is an interesting exercise happening over at WUWT that might interest you crakar, Leif Svalgaard has just lodged a new paper on the solar HMF strength and he is going to take us all through the review process as it happens. In his graph he shows the HMF values are quite different to the sunspot numbers, if his data is correct it will show the peak of HMF activity is at SC18,19,21&22. SC21 & 22 almost as high as 18&19 which is significant.
So what if there was a small change in the bit we dont understand? How do we know what will be the effect on the output?
You start by finding ways to measure those things. That way you'll notice if they change in a way that might be causing observed changes in climate. In the case of the sun, it isn't.
Therefore if we do not understand every aspect of the input then we have no understanding of how accurate the output. And we know a small change in one can lead to a big effect in another eg CO2.
There's really no reason to believe there are inputs we're unaware of that have a big effect on climate.
Please do us all a favour Dhogaza and explain in detail (as i dont understand) "It's a log relationship for many doublings."
We just had that discussion over on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics thread. Not only is this one predicted by relatively simple models, it can be measured in a laboratory. If you really think there is something fishy here, why don't you go out searching the internet for someone you consider to be a credible climate scientist explaining the relationship and what they think the rest of the scientific community has gotten wrong? That would at least give us something to debunk.
You start by finding ways to measure those things. That way you'll notice if they change in a way that might be causing observed changes in climate. In the case of the sun, it isn't.
If you go purely on TSI there is a slight variance, but the Sun is more than just TSI as previously explained.
Geoff,
It's pretty apparent to those of us who've bothered to read in depth about this stuff that you are way out of your depth. Go read the IPCC report thoroughly - it should clear up some of your ludicrous mis-understandings - and then get back to us. There's no conspiracy, there's no science that needs overturning, just careful observation over 150 years or more that continues to this day.
You've tied your colours to the mast pretty obviously with your comments re economics - where is the evidence that the mitigating actions proposed will "wreck the economy"? You gotta learn man, science is about the facts and you've ably highlighted your inability to sift through those and come up with a meaningful conclusion.
You got some reading to do.
Hello Matt. It surprises (and interests) me the way so many people in this forum declare 'Read the IPCC report' as if this somehow settles the question. Quite apart from what one thinks of this strange, highly politicized body, this is the appeal-to-authority fallacy, a line of argument that settles nothing.
It reminds me of the situation in the middle ages in Europe, when scientific enquiry was stifled for centuries because of the utter reliance upon classical authorities. If something appeared to conflict with Aristotle, that was the end of the matter: it must by definition be wrong.
"So as i said CO2 and the sun are the only things that can increase or cool the planet" - Crakar.
And of course, you'd be wrong........again.
I have read the IPCC reports Matt, that is why I am asking the questions that none on your team seem to be able to answer. The IPCC reports are full of fluff, for some people that is enough perhaps? Quite happy to hear what they want to hear, without doing the research. I suggest you might get some enlightenment by doing a little of your own.
I am disappointed in the reactions and lack of facts in this discussion, If its going to degenerate into a verbal slanging match I am not interested. If you want to engage in serious debate I am up for it.
Snow, Geoff
There's a REASON people keep gently directing you towards the IPCC report. It's not a political, one-sided publication based entirely on models - as you have been taught to parrot. It is actually the best condensation of the highest quality science across many intersecting fields of inquiry and, as people on here tirelessly point out to you, you slander an incredible number of the world's most unbiased, hardworking people with your utter tosh and replace their careful (and always overtly cautious) analysis with.... what? A whinge, a whine, a guess and hope... that... maybe it's not happening. Maybe?...
Really, go read into the multiple lines of (often predicted and later confirmed) evidence that are now available for AGW and stop cementing yourself into a silly place from which it will be utterly embarrassing to have to extricate yourself.
What exactly in the IPCC reports do you, in you ultimate wisdom, deem to be 'fluff'?
yeah yeah, still waiting for an answer to my very clear question?
Duuu-uuuuudeâ¦
This is the first time in probably 55 million years that the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases for a reason other than increasing temperature. You're not looking at enough data -- by several orders of magnitude.
Sharp (what irony he should have been called Blunt) said:
Is this the "very clear" question?
That is a sentence filled with so many errors, logical fallacies and just rubbish that it is impossible to answer.
If you want any respect, then spend several years learning some high school science.
Matt, I will repeat it for you.
Show me a paper stating and providing evidence that a doubling of CO2 will add 5-6 deg to the global temperature based purely on CO2 without any feedback mechanisms included (fudge factors).
A link and page number is all that is needed.
Failure to do so renders all AGW arguments as pointless.
Sharpie shows once again his complete lack of understanding of climate science. He asks:
Sharpie, no scientist has ever said this. The range you quote includes feed backs (which, of course, you deny as being real).
You show me the quote where a scientist has actually stated what I have quoted you as saying. You won't find it.
Why are all deniers so stupid and gullible?
My complete lack of understanding seems to be digging out some important admissions. The Al Gore/James Hansen's of the world are very happy to deceive the gullible with their model predictions but dont disclose the fudge factors built in.
The feedback arena is far from understood, using feedback in climate models is bad science. There is just as much chance that CO2 produces negative feedback as positive feedback. There are several papers stating negative is a more likely outcome because of the increased low level cloud that blocks available TSI. This is also observed since 1998, CO2 continues to rise but the temperature has stabilized (there is nothing like real world observations)
So lets remove the fudge factor and see what CO2 can do on its own. Its up to the alarmists to prove this point, lets see some scientific evidence as to what CO2 is capable of as a GHG in raising world temps if CO2 were doubled from now.
Geoff Sharp's an idiot.
He should be ignored.
Really, this site needs a reasonable moderation policy.
Not only that but he's a liar.
The so-called fudge factors for NASA GISS Model E can be found here:
Have at it, champ.
Really Geoff, you're just embarrassing yourself. As has been pointed out time and again, you show a clear misunderstanding of the science that says you need to go do some more reading. That means papers - not Plimers.
"There is just as much chance that CO2 produces negative feedback as positive feedback."
An utterly RIDICULOUS statement, instantly recognisable as such by anyone who's read up on this. This is the sort of thing which gets you labelled as such a twit. We have close to 700 thousand years of proof that temp and CO2 are tightly coupled. The warming induced by Milakovich cylces eventually prompts a positive feedback through ocean CO2 outgassing about 800-1000 years after the warming has begun. A POSITIVE feedback. That's without including all the others like albedo/ice/methane etc. This is really basic stuff.
Care to tell me a proven mechanism for your hypothetical negative feedbacks that has had such real-world confirmation?
It is one of life's sad ironies that the ignorant are the worsed placed to judge themselves as such.
Really Matt do you have to carry on like that...it does nothing for you.
You are living in a dreamland re the positive feedback. Just like your figurehead Al Gore. CO2 does not lead temp in the ice core records...its the other way around, the oceans release CO2 as they warm, this is school boy stuff.
But dont believe me have a look around you, look at the last 10 years of temperature records. CO2 continues to rise but there is no positive feedback observed, it isnt happening. So if its not happening why include it in a model?
But lets get back to my question...
So lets remove the fudge factor and see what CO2 can do on its own. Its up to the alarmists to prove this point, lets see some scientific evidence as to what CO2 is capable of as a GHG in raising world temps if CO2 were doubled from now.
Geoff, do you even READ people's responses?
"CO2 does not lead temp in the ice core records..."
Congratulations Einstein for repeating exactly what I said. Warming comes first. Read Milakovich's ingenious work. The mild differences in solar energy fulling on the northern hemisphere at different parts of the Earth's orbital cycles are amplified by the fact that (currently) most of the Earth's land lies in the northern hemisphere. (Land heats/cools quicker than water) CO2 rise due to outgassing doesn't generally begin until nearly a full millenium AFTER the warming starts. But once underway, it amplifies the warming still more due to the POSITIVE feedback. None of this is news to anyone studying this stuff.
I don't think you seem to understand (amongst many things) that temp & CO2 are locked in a sort of temporal dance whereby what happens to one acutely affects the other. While in the typical dance studio of our times, the male always leads, with our climatic ballet, either partner can and does lead depending on the circumstances. And at this time, CO2 is the driver. Get it?
Your question is meaningless by the way. There's no "fudge factors" involved and again your are slandering hardworking people that are far more intelligent than you. CO2 is only one of many climate drivers (both positive and negative) but at this particular time in history has been conclusively shown to be the dominant one. It doesn't mean temps don't go up and down a bit as the total interplay of all short term factors varies (SOI, insolation changes etc), but the long term trend direction is firmly up, with CO2 the culprit. The science, IS in.
Nobody knows (or claims to know) the exact extent of temp rise gained from a doubling of CO2 (under CURRENT global conditions that is - note, the answer could have been completely different at a different part of our history) but we can give likely ranges for these numbers and state the accuracy with which this can be done. The uncertainty is mainly on the high side of the range though - if any of the highlighted feedbacks kick in in a big way, it's anybody's guess where things will stabilise again but it's NOT at a lower temp.
The positive feedbacks have been ably named. I ask you again, cite the work which shows these negative feedbacks that will get us out of this mess in your fantasy-land.
Hate to burst your bubble Matt but your argument is fatally flawed, there is no evidence of a CO2 and temperature relationship (other than CO2 being released from warming oceans), indeed there is evidence for the reverse. Have a look at this graph, it very clearly shows a lack of dependency. Your statement is just wishful thinking without any scientific backup. You need to stop and think about what you are proposing. If CO2 acted like you say we would have had many situations in the past where a runaway atmosphere would have turned our atmosphere to something resembling Venus. This hasn't happened because the negative feedback has kept the planet in balance. That negative feedback is a result of extra heat in the oceans causing more cloud cover, not a reaction to a build up of the extremely weak GHG CO2
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological.jpg
There is a lag between temp and CO2 because the oceans take time to heat and release their heat...that's it, the Sun is the total driver in the Milankovitch (spelled correctly)cycles, its not rocket science, its simply about elliptical orbit changes, precession and obliquity that work together mainly on the NH that changes the solar insolation.
You are starting to agree there is a weakness in the model projections based on the wrongly proposed positive feedbacks. Dr. Roy Spencer has done a lot of work in the feedback area, have a read of this article to get yourself up to date with some of the recent findings.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-even…
You say nobody knows what CO2 is capable of as a GHG. That of course is why I was fishing for answer, knowing full well that there is no real science in this area. How the IPCC and others can make such false claims without any real science and demand planet changing actions is ludicrous.
The good news is we wont have to wait much longer to witness the biggest natural experiment in our history. If we do head into a solar grand minimum as I have predicted we will have the perfect scenario to test all theories and models. There is no rush, we can wait a few more years, if the temp rises during a grand minimum I will be the first to concede, but it is very unlikely and the global cooling that will eventually come will bury all future CO2 arguments.
Its a pity the tone of this blog has been so derogative, and as there doesn't look to be any new information forthcoming I will wish you all the best in searching for the correct answers.
OK, Let's look at the last 10 years (120 months) of the temperature records>.
Hmmm a rising trend ...
Have you found the fudge factor in Model E's source or documentation, yet?
Waiting ...
I would like to add a few comments
DW re post #96
Maybe i should dumb down what i said so you can respond in a more meaningful way. Does WV, CO2, Methane, Ozone or any other GHG produce heat?
Obviously the answer to that question is no, so where does all the heat come from? Thats right the sun, now let me rephrase what i said originally if the warming of the planet does not come from CO2 then it must come from the sun.
I also noticed that you and every other believer has conveniently not responded with another graph (second opinion) of how much each doubling of CO2 can increase the temp, if you dont have a second opinion just say so.
To Matt "aussie" Bennett re post #109, the embarrassment you are causing me grows by the minute. What you say makes absolutely no sense at all. It is typical believer gibberish on a grand scale.
Lets take a closer look. First you say the planet warms from increased TSI (the sun), and it takes 800 to a 1000 years to warm the oceans enough to make the CO2 content to rise. So Temp leads CO2 Ok? Right next.
You then say CO2 then becomes a forcing and forces the temp to rise even more Ok so as i am the only one that has actually produced data to show how much warming lets use that (post 90). So the CO2 can only drive the temps up by a couple of degrees at best, near on all of this increase in temp was accomplished BEFORE the IPCC baseline year of 1750.
Therefore CO2 as a +ve forcing or feedback cannot be the cause of any but a one decimal point increase in temp since then. Now we can argue the decimal point figure but i see no point.
The IPCC theory needs more than just CO2 to accomplish the massive rise in temps which are computer model predicted by 2100 so they say the small increase in temps from CO2 produce additional warming (+ve feedback)via water vapour because as we all know WV is the most powerful GHG.
Now back to your absurd post 109, where is the -VE feedback in your little theory? So the sun warms the planet thus heating the oceans thus producing more CO2 thus producing more WV which inturn produces more heating and the IPCC apocolyptic future goes on, until what Matt?
Does this process stop as if by magic? No of course not, where is the -VE feedback that has stopped this process from happening every time the Earth has emerged from a ice age in the past.
Ive got an idea, if the sun started this whole process then maybe it can stop it. We know that the TSI among other things is at an all time low, less TSI = a cooler Earth yes, whats that Matt? "No, no, no, no, no the TSI changes are too small to have any effect on the temp."
But didnt you just say
"The mild differences in solar energy falling on the northern hemisphere at different parts of the Earth's orbital cycles are amplified by the fact that (currently) most of the Earth's land lies in the northern hemisphere. (Land heats/cools quicker than water)"
By the way if CO2 and Temp do indeed lead a merry dance as you suggest then you should have no troubles in providing a link which can clearly show temp leading CO2 at one time in the past and another time when CO2 lead the temp.
I wait with baited breath for your response
I did comment a few days back with a couple of links but for some reason my comment is not moderated or lost.
Was along the same lines as crakar, There is no evidence of CO2 as a positive feedback mechanism and in fact the records show a distinct disconnect. Matt's thinking would have had our atmosphere like Venus millions of years ago.
If you want to read the up to date knowledge of negative feedback I suggest you look up Dr. Roy Spencer's website.
There are no studies that I am aware of showing the ramifications of a doubling of CO2 without feedback mechanisms, this is your Achilles heal but I suspect that will not matter to the faithful.
I will leave you guys to it, good luck in your search for the truth.
Geoff
Science does not suggest that CO2 is a feedback at all. It's a forcing.
Before you commence tearing down the work of thousands of highly-trained scientists, you might consider taking the time to learn a little bit about the subject ...
Is that the same cite where Roy tells us how he found God and now believes in Genesis as literal truth?
Skip
Crakar,
Maybe i should dumb down what i said so you can respond in a more meaningful way. Does WV, CO2, Methane, Ozone or any other GHG produce heat?
Obviously the answer to that question is no, so where does all the heat come from? Thats right the sun, now let me rephrase what i said originally if the warming of the planet does not come from CO2 then it must come from the sun.
Ah, so we now have a new definition of "it's the sun" whereby all climate changes, even those due to anthropogenic CO2, are "the sun" because that's where all the heat comes from. But then if "it's the sun" is no longer counter to "it's human caused", then what use is the expression? This is just a confused definition to cover confused thinking. Be clear on the mechanism you are proposing -- a change in solar activity is different from a change in the Earth's orbit, which is different from a change in greenhouse gases.
Ok so as i am the only one that has actually produced data to show how much warming lets use that (post 90). So the CO2 can only drive the temps up by a couple of degrees at best, near on all of this increase in temp was accomplished BEFORE the IPCC baseline year of 1750.
You just made up those numbers. Also, they do not show a log relationship. I made this challenge over on the hockey stick thread, and I'll repeat it here: if you believe the log relationship assumed by the climate community is wrong, give an example of someone you consider a credible scientist explaining that it is wrong, how exactly it is wrong, and explaining that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it has done basically all the warming it can do and even if it were 50% of our atmosphere it wouldn't warm things much more. Alternately, explicitly state that you believe you've discovered an important error in every climate scientist's understanding and loudly trumpet Crakar's law as the important scientific advancement it is.
The IPCC theory needs more than just CO2 to accomplish the massive rise in temps which are computer model predicted by 2100 so they say the small increase in temps from CO2 produce additional warming (+ve feedback)via water vapour because as we all know WV is the most powerful GHG.
I responded to this over on the modelling thread, and you may not have read it, but ... go read it, I won't repeat it all here. Yes, we know water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. You know that too, right? So are you predicting widespread desertification over the land and ocean? Because that would be silly. This is not a fudge, it is the easiest feedback to get right. Just writing it out of existence because that would give higher temperature rises would be a fudge.
So the sun warms the planet thus heating the oceans thus producing more CO2 thus producing more WV which inturn produces more heating and the IPCC apocolyptic future goes on, until what Matt?
Does this process stop as if by magic? No of course not, where is the -VE feedback that has stopped this process from happening every time the Earth has emerged from a ice age in the past.
No negative feedback is necessary to stop such a process, so long as positive feedback is not strong enough to create a runaway feedback. So let's make a simple climate, where there is only CO2 and H20 vapor, and we control the CO2. Let's also say that any time temperatures go up by 1 degree, enough H20 evaporates to raise the temperature an additional 2/3 degree. So we raise CO2 enough to raise temps 1 degree. Then H20 raises temps another 2/3 degree. But, due to that rise, more water evaporates and temps rise another 4/9 degree. Then another 8/27. Does this lead to a runaway effect? No, in fact in total temps will raise by 3 degrees, 1 due to CO2 and 2 due to H20. So here we have positive feedback, but that doesn't mean negative feedback is necessary to stop it. Now here's where you might get confused -- typically when climate scientists report this data they will not make their readers do an infinite-power-series computation, but rather say that H20 caused a 200% feedback, which sounds like it should cause a runaway effect, but it doesn't.
Ive got an idea, if the sun started this whole process then maybe it can stop it. We know that the TSI among other things is at an all time low, less TSI = a cooler Earth yes, whats that Matt?
In this paragraph you explain that the sun changes its brightness in response to Earth's climate, gradually dimming whenever Earth is hot and brightening when it is cool. That would be a negative feedback process. It is also wildly implausible and you probably weren't thinking that climate changes here cause changes in solar activity, but then that would mean that this has nothing to do with the argument you were making.
By the way if CO2 and Temp do indeed lead a merry dance as you suggest then you should have no troubles in providing a link which can clearly show temp leading CO2 at one time in the past and another time when CO2 lead the temp.
So one thing thing we should clear about Milankovitch cycles is that the 2 main ones at work in recent ice ages (axial tilt and wobble) do not change the total amount of radiation received from the sun at all -- rather they change its distribution. So if you look at the end of the last ice age, the Earth's axis changes to increase summer temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, which causes glaciers to retreat a little, but this does not affect the Southern hemisphere temp. Rather, the record shows that in the Southern hemisphere, temps lagged CO2. Indeed, without CO2 there is no reason for SH temps to have risen at all.
TSI changes very little, by the way. But thanks to positive feedback, it can affect the climate, and it is believed to have played a major role in the Little Ice Age and is responsible for a lot of the warming in the first half of the 20th century. But how much warming is that? The LIA was less than a degree cooler than today, and it's warmed about half a degree since the 70s with no rise in solar activity over that time. So if solar activity were to drop back to LIA levels, we're talking about less than a .5 degree drop. I wouldn't make plans around that scenario, but if you want to, subtract .5 from all the IPCC projections and see how much that changes things.
Eric, thanks for the reply i will try to respond in kind, but before i start let me guess you are American? I say this because you like Americans do not understand sarcasm when you see it.
Point 2,
I am offended by your comment that i made up those numbers, i also notice that you provided no alternative numbers yourself. What no appeal to higher authority, where is the "go read the IPCC report". Dont tell me the IPCC did not tell you what the "real" numbers are. Maybe the IPCC did not publish those numbers because they know what those numbers really mean. So as someone else here put so eloquently, put up or shut up Eric. Produce an alternative log response or shut the fuck up.
Point 3
If you cant be arsed to respond then i wont bother going elsewhere to read you garbage.
Point 4
Lets make a simple climate, no lets not, lets refrain from delving into your fantasy world of how climate works and just stick to real world facts shall we?
What you are saying is that mans contribution of 3% of the worlds CO2 output per year (go read the IPCC reports) is going to cause a +ve feedback thus driving up the temps, you cant say with any accuracy exactly how strong this feedback is but you do know that it is not very strong (well at least not strong enough to cause runaway) although Hansen et al salivate whenever tipping points are mentioned (but you know better of course) and all this is going to happen some time in the future because your computer model which is based on 16 climate forcings.
2 of which are rated as Medium level of scientific understanding (LOSU)
2 are medium/low LOSU
6 are low LOSU
5 are very low LOSU
and of course GHG's are high apparently.
What about ocean-atmospheric interactions known as oscillations and substantial aspects of the sun?
Point 5 is sarcasm Eric, small changes in CO2 lead to large climate changes but small changes in TSI lead to well nothing apparently, then Matt went on to say a small change in TSI can bring about inter glacials. Sarcasm Eric sarcasm.
Point 6
All i required was Matt to show CO2 and temp entwined in a dance through the ages as he claims, something which you have both failed to do. However you seem quite confident in your own theory on how this all works so i suppose it would be simple for to produce a reference which backs up what you say.
I think if you actually looked you will find much of the time there appears to be no correlation at all.
To Geoff, dont be too disheartened by this lot. Not long ago they tried to tell me that if there was no CO2 at all the earth would be buried in kilometers of ice with a climate akin to Pluto's.
Craker:
Who are you? (I have my own wild theory.)
Skip
Crakar14,
I just have better things to do, not exactly an intellectual debate in here from the AGW crowd. They seem quite happy to attack the person instead of a decent discussion, which shows the weakness of their arguments. When asked to produce facts all we get is their interpretation of how things should work in their tiny minds.
It might be interesting to come back here in 2 years if this site still exists.
Have fun.
Ciao
Geoff Blunt: "I must leave you now my darling Crakar. Chin up and all that. Remember what we talked about. FUD, FUD, FUD".
Geoff Blunt, cracker, snowman, PiM etc, it is impossible to have a rational discussion on science (of any sort) with anyone who is as irrational as you lot.
Go and learn some real science, then come back in two years (might be quite a bit longer if you are slow learners) and discuss the science. As long as you keep spouting anti-science and junk science nonsense you will be treated with all the disrespect you deserve.
Hi Craker.
You're welcome back at Hockey Stick Open Thread anytime.
Cheers mate.
Skip
I am offended by your comment that i made up those numbers, i also notice that you provided no alternative numbers yourself.
My apologies, I was not aware you got them from a credible scientific source. Please post the link!
If you cant be arsed to respond then i wont bother going elsewhere to read you garbage.
I did respond, and I responded in even more detail on another thread. But who knows what thread you'll next talk about how the IPCC can't get all that warming without water vapor feedback, and this is somehow this big "fudge" they're using to inflate the numbers and they should assume that evaporation doesn't increase when temps go up because that would somehow be more scientific.
Lets make a simple climate, no lets not, lets refrain from delving into your fantasy world of how climate works and just stick to real world facts shall we?
You said a negative feedback was necessary to prevent a runaway effect in a system with positive feedback. So I gave you a simple demonstration that it is not. Making the climate model more complicated and realistic would not change the fact that the climate can have net positive feedback and not have a runaway effect. So your whole proof that there has to be some sort of negative feedback or things would have gotten out of control is invalid. That was my only point there.
Point 5 is sarcasm Eric, small changes in CO2 lead to large climate changes but small changes in TSI lead to well nothing apparently, then Matt went on to say a small change in TSI can bring about inter glacials.
Once again, treating fluctuations in solar activity as the same thing as orbital changes confuses more than it clears up. To pick on one orbital cycle as an example, the Earth tilts between 22 and 24 degrees, so how does that affect solar irradiance at the north pole? Assuming the sun is a constant 1366W/m^2, 1366*sin(22) is 511.71W/m^2, whereas at 24 it is 555.60W/m^2. 44W/m^2 is a huge change in solar irradiance, but it is a regional change, the Earth as a whole gets the same amount of sunlight. Nonetheless, the ice age cycles show global climate changes larger than those of any other natural process over the last, oh, millions of years at least. Fluctuations in solar activity have been on the order of 1 W/m^2, though they are global, but the temperature swings from solar fluctuations are quite small.
Climate scientists often measure forcings in W/m^2, as this is both a straightforward way to measure them and also allows forcings to be compared to eachother. So if IR radiation re-emitted by greenhouse gases at the surface increases by 4 times as much as TSI over the last century, you should expect it to have a bigger effect.
You might find this post by Tamino interesting, as he runs through the data just using a statistical model, and estimates the climate sensitivity that way.
A good place to start looking through the literature on the questions you've asked is here. For the information you insist the IPCC is hiding, let's see what we can get from the IPCC.
From chapter 2 page 140, we get CO2's forcing is 3.4W/m^2 per doubling, so going from 150 to 300 ppm is 3.4 W/m^2 and 300 to 600 ppm is another 3.4W/m^2.
You can find long-term sensitivity estimates in chapter 9 (as well as comparisons of solar and anthropogenic forcings). For the long-range sensitivity, one study did not rule out runaway feedback, but the rest did. I did not find a feedback-free number in the IPCC report, but you can get the math from here, which gives .2 degrees per W/m^2, .68 degrees for a CO2 doubling. The climate would hardly ever change without feedback. As it does does change, I don't find the idea of net negative feedback particularly plausible.
I have not forgotten you Skip on the other thread, been busy so please be patient
Regards
Crakar
PS Geoff Blunt? You guys crack me up.
When I saw the title of this post I had to read it. Learned a bit too. I had thought that in recent years we actually had seen an increase in solar activity. I suppose I shouldn't pay so much attention to hearsay :) Thanks for the good info.
I couldnt find the term Sun Spots anywhere is all these "arguments" against sceptics although the correlation between number of sun spots ( radiation ) and temperature change is historically proven ( apparently the only proven correlation). The Vostok Ice Core analysis proved that CO2 was lagging temerature change, but those UN sponsored "scientists" wouldnt have a job if their "models" had not created the AGW hoax.
------------------------------------
PS - lest you come back and say (essentially) "all your logic is boring! _I_ have presented facts, what about you" - one of your bogus claims is
4, Coral reefs are dying..........WRONG
http://www.globalcoral.org/why_are_coral_reefs_dying.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs
Both independent sites make the point that coral reefs are dying and that greenhouse gasses are to blaim.
Obviously I could go through and refute each one of your claims, but as Coby stated - you are the denier of the facts and the science, so it is incumbent upon you to state a claim and then a qualified (not a denier site, please!) source for that claim. If you can't - well you can't and that says all that needs to be said.
Tom | June 9, 2009 1:10 PM
------------------------------------
Hi.
I'd like to give my 2c on some argument that appeared months ago (understand, several comments above), one which stems from contextual clarification and acknowledgment.
Namely, when one talks about reefs dying on this website, which is dedicated to a particular topic, I would have thought that it rather obvious it would relate to CO2.
Ergo, CO2 kills coral reefs.
Well, guess what? It doesn't take much efforts to click on the two links you put in your comments, and it takes a couple minutes doing something very simple, that is, looking for key words such as "carbon" and "CO2" for example.
http://www.globalcoral.org/why_are_coral_reefs_dying.htm
Your first link contains no reference to carbon dyoxide.
The only fact it presents is all but a fact, and just a chain on unsubstantiated claims. Try "warming", and see what you get:
Signs: Corals turning white, "bleaching"
Causes: Excessively high temperatures
Solutions: Global agreements to halt global warming and greenhouse gas buildup in atmosphere
Talk about a compelling argument! At no point there's an ounce of explanation or proposed causality between pseudo "excessively high temperatures" and GW that should be halted.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs
"Coral Reefs Are Dying Around the World"
As for the second source, comedy writes itself, really. It features a link to a PDF file, which citations are taken from.
The document in question cites "carbon" and "CO2" scantly, and points to *consequences*, such as "increased concentrations of CO2 in seawater".
The document does two things: presenting causation, from climate change, and totally espousing AGW ("anthropomorphic CO2" for example, from the "Okinawa Declaration on Conservation...").
There is a total leap of logic, as the study should have simply concentrated on establishing a link between the increase of atmospheric CO2 and the effect on coral, not shoehorning, notably as a conclusion, that the increase of CO2 is necessarily man made. The document is totally biased here.
If this was not enough, any cursory look at said document will reveal that the data has been collected around 1998, which uh-oh, happens to be a year that surfaces quite a lot from doubters, as some say that there are signs that climate started cooling since then, up to 2000, and that without considering possible lag and momentum.
So what the web page does is link to a document that is, in essence, 8 to 10 years late. Globally, the webpage uses the same type of shortcuts.
As for the financial support, you'll surely appreciate the lack of conflict of interests:
* Bay Foundation
* Henry Foundation
* David & Lucile Packard Foundation
* Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
* United Nations Environment Programme
* United States Environmental Protection Agency
If you're moderately gifted in Google-fu, then I suppose you will already know where to look for to obtain more information about the David & Lucile Packard Foundation.
If I might ask, what about Piers Corbyn?
I don't want to sound rude, but doesn't he make long range weather forecasts using something called "Solar Weather Technique" that has been peer-reviewed by someone called Dr Dennis Wheeler.
Now as I understand this technique makes the predictions only out of the Sun's particle and magnetic effects. Now as I did deeper research on hi's "Weatheraction" company, I discovered that hi's forecasts have been much more accurate then the stanard methods of weather forecasting even more then the British MET office's predictions.
My question is simple, wouldn't the very fact that hi's forecasts have been accurate prove that the Sun has more impact on our climate? Or have I made somesort of a miss-conclusion?
Been a long time since i posted here, anyway here is an interesting article about the sun. Now some of you wont accept this and fair enough but i did find his ideas thought provoking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar-cycle-24-update/#more-15974
Ok I need something explained to me.
Watts is making this prediction:
. . . applying Friis-Christenson and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover, New Hampshire results in a two degree centigrade decline in the annual average temperature at this location over the expected twelve years of Solar Cycle 24, from December 2009 to late 2021. Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.
Is he actually basing it on the Northeast US (Hanover, New Hampshire)--*one* region--based on current recent *weather*?
Not only that, but using Big Words.
Oh, no wonder, it's David Archibald, not Watts himself ...
As usual i try to stimulate a discussion about the sun and within three posts Watts who did not write the article is lambasted and i am told Archibald who wrote the article needs to be added to the (people we dont talk about because they are stupid)list.
Looks like its back to bashing the romance novelist before he is sacked.
Looks like its back to bashing the romance novelist before he is sacked.
Come on, man. I'm honestly interested. Although if you want to get into trash novel critiquing then why not render your opinion of P's fiction? Is it realistic, compelling . . . maybe even steamy? Inquiring minds want to know, Crakar.
I dont know about P's fiction can you give me more details, in regards to Archibald let me just say that we dont have a good understanding of the sun and its inner workings. There are many theories that have yet to be confirmed. But what we do know is that the sun like most other things in nature works in cycles.
What Archibald is doing is comparing cycles from the dalton minimum (thats the little ice age which does not exist in manns hockey so this might be a problem) to the cycles we are seeing now.
And yes he did give only one example Skip but i am sure there are more, anyway if the cycles follow as they did then then maybe the earth will see some cooling as it did then. He suggests this cooling is being seen now.
crakar said:
Just where does he claim to be seeing this cooling? Recent temperature data for the month of January 2010 shows a large T anomaly of 0.72 degrees C, the second largest monthly anomaly since 1998.
Yes crakar, the sun does go through cycles and it is well known by climate scientists. However, the range of temperatures during these cycles is very small (aprox 0.1 to 0.2 C for the 11 year cycle).
Also, if cosmic rays do change cloud cover, the temperature does not follow changes in cosmic ray flux. This again is something which climate scientists are studying. Thus solar cycles are not the driver for the large temperature increase observed over the past 100 years.
The temperature data I quoted is not from the "fraudulent" CRU data or from the "tampered with" GISS data but is from one of your own, Roy Spencer (this probably means that the real anomaly is even higher):-). It is from satellite data so it is not due to UHI effects.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature…
Wow, that plot of some random town in New Hampshire is beyond parody. So based on solar cycle lengths (does the author have any clue that the correlation he's basing this on has fallen completely apart?), he's expecting serious cooling, and thinks this winter's Arctic winds are the start of that?
Wow.
You raise some valid points Ian, i was not suggesting the sun's TSI is the driver of all the changes we see as i think you may be alluding to.
However i think we must consider the sun's effects as a whole whether it be TSI solar/cosmic rays, magnetic fields, CME's, UV rays and Xrays etc.
Could it be that changes in the sun either too small for us to consider or changes we have not yet considered are driving things at least in part.
I look at this way, the temps have been rising for 300 years (no i am not discounting CO2's role), sea levels have been rising for a longer period as well as the sea temps.
Now we see the temp rise albeit for 12 years has remained stagnant, sea levels are slowing down and sea temps are doing the same. You could throw in the declining Arctic sea ice has or looks to be flattening as well (last two years at least). So we have a situation where all these measurements are heading up if you like and now the rate has slowed or in some cases stalled.
Do we treat these in isolation? or do we look for an as yet unknown force driving them.
For example, anyone who has the ability to read a graph can see the switching of the PDO is loosely timed with temp rise and fall so lets assume for a moment that the PDO/AMO etc have an effect on temp. We could then throw ENSO into the mix to have an effect. The sun surely must have some effect and then of course we our GHG's.
Now could it be that we have a myriad of processes doing their own thing and if they all line up a certain way the temps will rise and then the other way will cause the temps to drop or as it seems the case now they work against each other and these things remain static?
Or could it be that there is something that triggers/controls these events? Could this be the sun? We can see through history that colder events do align with a quiet sun, cycle 23 was very long with few sunspots towards the end and now the temps are not rising, is this a coincedence? I do not know, i am merely asking the question.
Thanks for your input.
crakar, do enlighten us how the "PDO/AMO etc have an effect on temp". The PDO index is a mathematical construct, and is not nearly as periodic as advertised; can you clearly lay out what physical mechanism it describes? And how that mechanism could change the global radiative balance, and what observations you'd take to test that hypothesis? How do you know the causation isn't the other way around?
As for solar: if you're going to go hunting for another solar mechanism, you'll need one that doesn't correlate with TSI. TSI doesn't have the trend you need, so neither will anything else that's in phase with TSI.
ah, and crakar - I realise you were speculating out loud in that post. I'm just sick of people invoking the PDO as some sort of magical thing that does whatever they need it to do. I'd like for once for somebody to actually define a causative mechanism, or even some proper physical process of some sort.
Yeah, Crak.
I have to go with CE on this one. (Surprise!) I mean I have no problem with someone saying there might be other, poorly understood mechanisms affecting overall temps/climate. Where I get irate is where this devolves into the Anything-But-CO2 dogma.
I mean, thanks for the link. Its interesting, etc. But this is a far cry from compelling evidence that we need not worry about the long term effects of Co2.
And who posted that civil, polite statement under Ian's moniker? What'd you do with our guy?
" i am told Archibald who wrote the article needs to be added to the (people we dont talk about because they are stupid)list."
Well, Archibald is claiming to predict future global average temps based on short-term weather at one weather station in New Hampshire.
He presents his analysis not as speculation, but as proof of that.
Yes, you can safely added him to the stupid list. And you shouldn't need our help making this decision, you should've figured it out on your own.
142: To be fair, I don't think the prediction was based on short-term weather; but he did think the short term weather at some random place was confirming his solar correlation.
I didn't read his post in great detail. To be fair, if you're right, it's not clear it's any less stupid :)
To Skip and carrots,
I was actually asking the same questions you are, i know history may make you assume otherwise at times when reading my posts.
I would like to ask another question which may force us to have a rethink whether the PDO/AMO/AO is purely a mathematical construct as alluded to by carrots and that is i see in the news that parts of the US are having record snow storms labelled "snowaggedon" by Barry O, we have cold ocean temps in Florida which is killing the corals and yet Vancouver which is hosting the winter olympics next week having to truck in snow of all things.
So is all this "strange" weather caused by excessive amounts of CO2 or is it due to cycles that we do not understand? Once again i am not trying to devalue CO2's contribution but am trying to understand what causes these cycles and what effects they have.
And yes Dhogaza in anticipation he was already added to the list.
Craker,
I came to this site to be educated in why AGW is happening and found you!
Your posts are educational and have been presented in a very respectful way which only adds to the entertainment value regardless of which list you are on.
To some degree I wondered why are you arguing with people who say the science is settled, when obviously to them it is, or said differently it is obvious that it is not about science but rather modeled policy?
Is there a list I can get on for militant disbeliever skeptics or is there room for me?
Thanks
BD
wheresdarwin
Well said!! The best satire I have heard for a long time!! crakar: 'educational' and 'respectful' - hilarious!
Militant disbeliever skeptics' - classic!
Ask the guy who runs this blog. I imagine he'll think it's a *great* idea, maybe he'll set one up!
BD,
I am glad i have had the chance to influence your thinking in such a way, but many thanks must go to Coby who allows us all to prattle on so much with such freedoms.
In regards to militant disbeliever skeptics lists, there a few and there is always room for one more. As they say the more the merrier.
By the way if you are looking to be educated as to why AGW is happening then i suggest you go elsewhere as this is a religious site not a science site.
Crakar (to some degree the other respondents).
Coby - thanks! Up side is you are talking so there is a small chance in global warming we can convert you!?
I appreciate your feed back and I picked up on the real intent of this site. I understand the political side of this issue and it is good to know your enemy :-). I am interested in the science. Obvious it is helpful understand it in order to translate to regular people who are actually, to busy working, do have basic common-sense, and would prefer that, pun intended, Darwin sort this out and not person's with government funding on the line.
I know from my background in linear regression and econometrics that certainty is an illusion. Explaining the AGW illusion is my weakness. Really, I was getting very tired of people telling me the polar ice cap is melting, even as the AGW / UN crowd started lawyer-ing up because they see jail / RICO in their future.
How far along would we be on alternate energy sources had the Govt. spent that money on R&D rather than funding the jobs program for the social science and human services field?
Do GW people support War? Seriously, wouldn't that solve many of the issues that are raised?
repectfully,
BD ps: really good satire has grains of truth
Do you know what two-sigma means?
What countries have invested 4 trillion euros into green initiatives dependent on GW?
Speaking of CO2, my grass is green, very healthy and people bust my batteries because it is golf course like. The reason I bring this up is I thought that CO2 is good for the environment e.g.: plants absorb, photo whatever, bi products include oxygen and suger (over simplified yes) Why did the GW people hitch onto CO2? Isn't this not the antithesis of what has been taught in school, until recently, for over 50 years? Wouldn't this lend itself to more food production? convection? Low clouds to cool?
If the world is warming - how can the oceans rise? If the ocean is warming than this should contribute to more convection or another way to say it evaporation?
Why would GW folks propose a government body derivative to manage the fixing of this alleged problem, when history shows that government don't fix or produce anything, they spend treasure? From a marketing angle one would think you lost have the brand right there? Lastly, if GW is really a problem, why would you go to these people for the answers
I am trying to get my arms around the thinking here on theses issues. It seems kind of backward in that policy is first? If GW is real, what is it that someone knows to prove its bad? If it is bad and IF man is the cause - how much should we pay (taxes) to fix what? Is the cure worse? Can you fix it? What will you use to measure success?
This reminds me of a story of the Polish astronaut said at the 1989 space convention, we'll soon be ahead of the USSR (aka GW) and US in the space race, we're putting man on the sun. Response: they laughed and mocked the fools because they would vaporize. Don't worry they replied, we will go at night!
Respectfully
BD
Because of land ice melting and thermal expansion of water. Note that the thermal expansion coefficient of water is not constant - it increases with temperature.
It's easy to show that temperature drives sea level.
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/sea-level-rise-part-1.html
Gee willickers, wheresdarwin, so many great questions. I am amazed no one has ever thought about it all before! (I refer to the initial science questions.)
As to the others, you clearly have no clue what the IPCC even is. The only question is do you want to learn anything, or are you happy with with knowing it all already?
"If the world is warming - how can the oceans rise? If the ocean is warming than this should contribute to more convection or another way to say it evaporation?" - Wheresdarwin
How warm do you think the worlds oceans are?. Like the hot water in your electric kettle?.
I don't think any further than the ninos as representing fluctuations of water temperatures. I am trying to get my arms around the basic premises of GW that really don't jib.
There's a science book called "The Dynamic Earth" - give it a read. It used to be part of advanced level geology classes. This is the basis of my understanding of the topic. Take a glance if you don't follow me and then perhaps I could ask my question differently if you still don't.
If your continue to talk over everyone, how do you expect them to accept GW? Answer: magic or a gun?
Such as?
"If your continue to talk over everyone, how do you expect them to accept GW? Answer: magic or a gun?" - wheresdarwin
Who expects everyone to understand science or even try to?. It's entirely possible that action on AGW will be taken out of the hands of the politicians, who are realistically just sock puppets of vested interests, so yeah you could be right about the gun thing.
"I am trying to get my arms around the basic premises of GW that really don't jib." & " If the world is warming - how can the oceans rise? If the ocean is warming than this should contribute to more convection or another way to say it evaporation?"- Wheresdarwin.
Well, that doesn't jib because it's nonsense. As far as I'm aware you are the only person to claim that evaporation could outpace the contributions to sea level rise, of ice melt and thermal expansion. Don't blame your misconceptions on "The Dynamic Earth".
You must know many people in this world. What I am saying is that convection would accelerate proportionately to the magical warming. Much like today, the Earth disperses this fluid somewhere else (I'd tell you where but scientists couldn't figure this out in the '50s so they stopped funding the project). In a student union circle-jerk it is fair to assume that everyone agrees on topics.
âCarbon dioxide emissions have increased by 35%. If we continue at the rate we are going, in a little over 150 years, those emissions will increase by 400%,â he said. A majority of climate scientists attribute changes in our climate to these emissions and an overall warming of the climate has occurred as a result, Spivack said. Prof of Oceanography, University of RI He's brilliant. I am now direct depositing my paycheck into the GW avengers fund because the grant money he scammed wasn't enough.
He is not reading the current talking points at the IPPC evidently.
This is as good a place as any
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Exam…
One question he asks is:
"Examiner.com: Many AGW scientists state with confidence that there is a very high probability that the earth is warming. Therefore, something must be done now to cut CO2 emissions. How accurate are their statistics?"
"Dr. Soon: Their probabilities are absolute crap. They are pulling these statistics out of thin air. It is completely anti-science. They talk about 90 percent probability. It sounds high, but would anyone fly in an airplane if it would crash once out of every 10 flights?"
I prefer to use the words of the great Sol Tye in his response to a ships engineer on the chances (90%) of the Battle Star Galactica being able to jump one more time without breaking apart. "90% sure, only 90% get back to me when you are fracken 100% sure"
Crakar
Interesting study by Scafetta showing the correlation between planets/sun/moon and temps. This is only for those with an open mind of course as i am not interested in hearing about his religious views or other personal traits.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/empiric…
Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum
Mike Lockwood
Proc. R. Soc. A 8 February 2010 vol. 466 no. 2114 303-329
"The history of science reveals a series of âcontroversiesâ. These often develop into a state where there is little debate within the relevant academic community (and what there is tends to be on peripheral issues), yet widespread popular debate remains. This usually occurs because the research has challenged the beliefs of a significant fraction of the population at large. The nature of the controversies, however, has changed. Where, for example, the advances made by Galileo and Darwin faced opposition because they challenged the established teachings of organized religion, climate scientists in the developed world have faced opposition from their more secular societies because they challenge beliefs that justify lifestyles and/or political allegiances (Malka et al. 2009; Nisbet 2009). But there is a crucial difference about the climate change debate compared with many of its predecessors: humankind could often afford to wait for previous controversies to abate and the main damage done was an unnecessary delay to the implementation of some of the benefits of the research. There is evidence that public opinion on climate change has changed rapidly in many countries and among many demographic groups (e.g. Staudt 2008; Sampei & Aoyagi-Usui 2009), but there is also evidence that time for effective action is extremely short (Kriegler et al. 2009; Vaughan et al. 2009).
There is a third new dimension to the public debate about anthropogenic climate changeâthe Internet. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742â1799) was the first professor of experimental physics in Germany. He was, himself, no stranger to controversy and often satirized the misuse of science. His notebooks from the second half of the eighteenth century are full of comments of remarkable relevance to the role that the Internet has played in the climate science debate. For example, he wrote âthe most dangerous untruths are truths slightly distortedâ and âblind unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in anotherâ (Katritzky & Lichtenberg 1984). The Internet has played a useful role in conveying some of the understanding, images and data that lead climate scientists to their conclusions. However, it has also become a haven for un-refereed pseudo-science with dangerously incorrect inference. It has served to give the false impression that there is a serious, widespread academic debate on the basic nature of climate change. The most popular argument runs like this: âThe Sun drives Earthâs climate system. Therefore changes in the Sun must drive changes in Earthâs climate systemâ. The first sentence is, of course, absolutely correct; but understanding why the second sentence does not follow from the first requires scientific training and study. The urgency of the need to resolve this distinction between academic and popular understanding places scientists in a dilemma. By trying to find easy-to-understand yet irrefutable ways to demonstrate the fallacy of the above argument (and others that are more intricately constructed but no less misleading), one risks appearing to give scientific credibility and exposure to ideas of no scientific merit.
...
Scafetta & West (2007) and Scafetta (2009) have proposed that the use of a single response time is not adequate and the climate system has a relative rapid response of approximately 1 year and second of about a decade. Using a combination of the two, they then deduce from a multivariate fit that 65 per cent of the GMAST rise can be attributed to TSI change. Section 10 considers the energetic implications of this. Neither Lockwood (2008) nor Scafetta (2009) quotes the statistical significance of their best multivariate fits, but Lockwood (2008) did compare the 2Ï deviations from the best fit for GHG and solar forcings. There are a number of complications with this kind of fit; for example, unknown inter-correlations between the inputs can influence the results. In evaluating the significance of any correlation derived one must allow for the degrees of freedom in the fit. Lockwood (2008) used seven fit parameters (a weighting factor for each of four inputs plus a lag for each except for the GHG forcing as it was taken to vary linearly with time). The formulation of Scafetta (2009) would, to be completely general, require 16 fit parameters (two lags for each of four inputs, which should all be treated in the same way, with a weighting function for each input/lag pairing). The significance of any such multivariate fit is dramatically reduced (especially when the effect of the autocorrelation of each sequence in reducing the effective number of independent samples is also considered). Further comments have been made by Benestad & Schmidt (2009). One key factor to note is the importance to the analysis of Scafetta (2009) of using the ACRIM TSI composite, on the grounds of the analysis of Scafetta & Willson (2009), but as discussed in §5, the justification for this is based on the application of an entirely inappropriate TSI reconstruction. The reason that this matters is that the PMOD composite shows that the mean TSI has fallen since 1985 (Lockwood & Fröhlich 2007), so that even the decadal scale lag proposed by Scafetta (2009) cannot explain the fact that temperatures rose until 1998 unless the ACRIM composite is used. The ACRIM TSI composite is the only one that shows a long-term peak in 1992 (see figure 4 and Lockwood & Fröhlich 2008), which would allow the long time-scale response proposed to match the apparent plateau in the HadCRUT3v GMAST data.
...
Just how poor and ill-informed some of the debate appearing on the Internet can become is illustrated by recurrent reports that global temperature rise is associated with changes in the corpuscular emissions of the Sun. The total energy input from the thermal solar wind plus suprathermal solar particles into the atmosphere and inner magnetosphere (some of the latter may be deposited in the upper atmosphere at a later time) is of the order of 1013âW or, per unit surface area of the Earth, 0.02âWâmâ2. Even if we take the extreme case that this input was entirely absent during the MM (known not to be the case), we would require an amplification by a factor exceeding 250. Furthermore, this very little energy is deposited in the upper atmosphere (the thermosphere) and there is no known viable mechanism in the published literature that will allow it to influence the global troposphere, let alone with this huge amplification factor. It is true that the history of solarâterrestrial physics shows that one cannot use the absence of a known mechanism as more than an indication: Lord Kelvin famously dismissed the growing evidence for solar influence on the geomagnetic field as âmere coincidenceâ, using an argument based on magnitudes (Kelvin 1893). The argument turned out to be wrong because it did not allow for the existence of the solar wind (which was not suggested until 1901 by George Fitzgerald). However, that situation is not at all analogous to the present situation concerning climate change. Lord Kelvin was not proposing an alternative explanation and he was quite right to point out that chance agreements do occur in datasets of limited duration (but wrong to dismiss the possibility that it was real). In the case of climate change, there is no doubt that global mean temperatures have risen, so that the effect is known to be real. Furthermore, there is a viable explanation of that effect, given that the amplification of radiative forcing by trace GHG increases by a factor of about 2 is reproduced by global coupled oceanâatmosphere models. What is alarming is that in the face of this strong scientific evidence, some Internet sources with otherwise good reputations for accurate reporting can still give credence to ideas that are of no scientific merit. These are then readily relayed by other irresponsible parts of the media, and the public gain a fully incorrect impression of the status of the scientific debate.
...
It is important not to make the mistake made by Lord Kelvin and argue that there can be no influence of solar variability on climate: indeed, its study is of scientific interest and may well further our understanding of climate behaviour. However, the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists."
Abstract here: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303
Or visit your local library for the full text.
uh-oh
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/20th-Century-NH-Tsfc-mod…
Crakar:
I cannot download it. It freezes.
Paul: Please explain to me what the six-day creationist's source for his "natural model" was. All I got was a graph when I opened your link. It might have been drawn by one of Spencer's grandchildren, for all I know. Any fool can claim to have a model.
Btw: Done any checking on availability of uranium deposits and implications for long term viability of nuclear power? I did. I dug up an MIT report:
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf
[Damn, Coby if I didn't go back in my inbox and dig up your instructions on how to link! Woo hoo it seems to work and I've woken up in the 21st century!]
Key findings: Interestingly, the authors see nuclear as a viable means to address climate change, and excitedly report that there are finite but still extensive reserves that could justify the building of up to a 1000 new plants that could be sustained for up to a century. No surprises.
But I guess I see the glass as half empty, because--not that you and I will live to worry about it--then what? Besides, the authors point out (I admit I didn't know this but it makes sense when you think about it) that the up front investment costs of nuclear are way more expensive than expanding coal or natural gas.
So my question would be, if you're going to do that, then why not promote/develop/research renewables, which also suffer from the same cost-benefit analysis *at this point*. Again, Paul, one day, somebody is going to have to live *without* fossils/nuclear/[insert finite resource of interest here]. It makes no ethical or practical sense not to get the ball rolling on alternatives because of the "cost" to us, and just slide the "cost" down to our descendants.
I should hasten to add that we should always keep one technical foot in the fusion bucket. I read in this month's Scientific American that its still decades off but they are looking at a hybrid fission/fusion process that one expert says we might have up and running in 20 years.
There might be counterarguments of which I am not aware but I have always regarded fusion as the climate/energy-security/economic Messiah.
1] ad hom attack
2] http://www.drroyspencer.com/
3] yes, we discussed already. It's worse than you thought. 100 years at current consumption. And this http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3, on running out of things.
Except that you have to use force, and the "sustainable" crowd uses present trajectories to predict doom, when sustainable is, in fact, what we have been doing for all time. It's called ingenuity.
But hey, if you want to build windmills, go ahead.
"Any fool can claim to have a model."
btw - I think that is his point.
Except that you have to use force
What do you call our current consumption of future generations fossil fuel supply--benevolence? Is it no less "forceful" because they aren't here to squawk but you are?
and the "sustainable" crowd uses present trajectories to predict doom
Who are these people? Why are they relevant?
when sustainable is, in fact, what we have been doing for all time.It's called ingenuity.
This makes no sense.
So we can assume future generations will muster "ingenuity", but we can't rely on our own? I've asked you many different permutations of this question and you never answer.
And as for pointing out Roy Spencer's creationism; you're right, it would be an ad hominem attack *if* I were saying it proves him wrong. It does not; I realize that. But it says much of his credibility.
So let me put the ball back in your court, Paul. Before I waste my time on Spencer's link, you tell me in your own words what *you* think it proves. "Uh Oh" is vague and evasive. Looks to me like you're trying for plausible deniability if Spencer is shown, yet again, to be full completely of shit.
1] What do you call our current consumption of future generations fossil fuel supply--benevolence? Is it no less "forceful" because they aren't here to squawk but you are?
A] yes, we must use it as fast as possible. (btw - how do you assign property rights to those not born?), Irrelevant (or false premise, I'll have to think about which.)
2] Who are these people? Why are they relevant?
A] you, they're not
3] This makes no sense.
A] We have always evolved from one method to another to survive or improve, that is sustainability. Perhaps you remember the role the horse played in transportation?, the train? Perhaps you remember the role the sword played in warfare?
4] So we can assume future generations will muster "ingenuity", but we can't rely on our own? I've asked you many different permutations of this question and you never answer.
A] Yes and we can rely on our own. But you have to understand what drives it.
5] . . . you tell me in your own words what *you* think it proves.
A] It proves nothing.
But surmises that warming could have been due to natural causes. Such as a minor change in cloud cover.
And that the climate system could be much less sensitive to the CO2 content of the atmosphere than the IPCC claims.
[Note, this does not disprove the current IPCC position, but questions it.][yes, he could be shown to be completely full of it]
I just had a good hard look at both Roy Spencer and Anthony Watt's websites, and my brain hurts!!!!
If you have a look at their posts etc, you will discover that the climate isn't changing, that it is warming but it is due to changes in solar irradiance, that it is cooling, that it is warming due to changes in low clouds, that it is variable due to random cloud changes, that it is warming due to natural cycles such as the PDO, that it is cooling because of aerosols, warming due to cosmic rays, etc, etc, etc.
It is so hard to debate these guys, because its like nailing jelly to a wall. They don't have any real views on the issue - and are just casting around for something - anything - which diverts attention from the real facts. I guess its just the typical denialist strategy - create confusion in the minds of the scientifically illiterate - which is the sort of person who reads them avidly and provides us with links as if they were tablets of stone with the truth inscribed in letters of fire. It grows tiresome after a while guys.
Hey, if you're not curious, don't read it.
[And when you're backing a group satisfied with 90% confidence intervals, well, I am not sure that gives you a lot of room to sneer.]
Paul, you are certainly at liberty to declare me irrelevant, but I challenge you to document a single thing I have said at *any* point in this forum that was âalarmistâ. Really, that is a direct challenge, so if you ignore it me it will be another example of your blatant evasions. And in any event, if "alarmists", whether I'm one or not, are "irrelevant" then why are *you bringing them up* in the discussion?
Please consider that a direct question.
We have always evolved from one method to another to survive or improve . . . that is sustainability.
Youâre twisting the meaning of âsustainableâ to âadaptableâ. Adaptation by definition is *not* sustaining whatever the previous course of action is--but whatever. If you think humans can adapt, then, once again, Paul, why canât *you* live with less fossil fuel?
Perhaps you remember the role the horse played in transportation?, the train? Perhaps you remember the role the sword played in warfare?
Paul, the weakness of these analogies is matched only by the weakness of your sources, especially since transportation and military technology go hand in hand.
Letâs take the Polish army during world war II. Just as you are willing to rely on current technology and energy sources and defer the environmental question without proactive adaptation, the Poles relied very *literally* on swords and horses. No doubt there were voices of reason within the officer corps arguing that they needed to proactively adapt to armor, aircraft, and modern tactics, but apparently there were too many Paulâs in high command who felt the question is one that future generations could resolve using their âingenuityââto the extent they considered the matter at all.
As the Nazi blitz slaughtered their soldiers and sacked their cities, I wonder how many took consolation in the thought that after all, the âproperty rightsâ of future generations of Poles was an ambiguous concept in any event.
Not saying that? Ah but:
A] Yes [we can assume future generations will muster "ingenuity"] and we can rely on our own. But you have to understand what drives it.
I see what drives your ingenuity, Paulâfaith (maybe) in the six-day creationist Spencer as a potential intellectual counterpoise to the IPCC. See you on the battlefield. Donât forget your feed grain.
You admit Spencer âproves nothing . . . does not disprove the current IPCC position . . . but surmises that warming could have been due to natural causes . . . [but] he could be shown to be completely full of it.â
So why the âuh ohâ before, Paul? Really, itâs not just a rhetorical question.
You linked it before with the ominous âuh ohâ, but now are backtracking and saying it might very well be utter tripe. Its obvious you didnât vet this source yourself and (to your credit) youâre not going to Crakar your way into looking blatantly silly.
But then it just amounts to ham-handed dogma-propping awkwardly juxtaposed with cringing bet-hedging:
âHereâs a source that challenges the IPCC. Therefore we donât have to act on climate change. Oh, by the way, just in case my source is total bullshit Iâm not claiming it actually proves anything.â
You did say one thing was a head-on embracing of inaction that struck me as interesting: using up all fossils as fast as possible. This could mean a lot of things and be based on many different rationale. Please explain.
tangentally related to the above adaptation/sustainability discussion, a new book from CABI:
Climate Change and Crop Production
CABI Climate Change Series, Vol 1
Edited by M P Reynolds, CIMMYT, Mexico
Current trends in population growth suggest that global food production is unlikely to satisfy future demand under predicted climate change scenarios unless rates of crop improvement are accelerated. In order to maintain food security in the face of these challenges, a holistic approach that includes stress-tolerant germplasm, sustainable crop and natural resource management, and sound policy interventions will be needed. The first volume in the CABI Climate Change Series, this book will provide an overview of the essential disciplines required for sustainable crop production in unpredictable environments. Chapters include discussions of adapting to biotic and abiotic stresses, sustainable and resource-conserving technologies and new tools for enhancing crop adaptation. Examples of successful applications as well as future prospects of how each discipline can be expected to evolve over the next 30 years are also presented. Laying out the basic concepts needed to adapt to and mitigate changes in crop environments, this will be an essential resource for researchers and students in crop and environmental science as well as policy makers.
http://bookshop.cabi.org/?page=2633&pid=2261&site=191
The first chapter - "Adapting crops to climate change: A summary" is available as a pdf & makes interesting reading.
Skip,
First, can we cease with the "another example of blatant evasions" comments/technique? I have no issue answering a question for discussion purposes. This is to test ideas and learn, to strengthen our common understanding. Being proven right or wrong does not bother me. (And if you wish to comment back, can we limit the topics to one or two at a time?)
1]Paul, you are certainly at liberty to declare me irrelevant, but I challenge you to document a single thing I have said at *any* point in this forum that was âalarmistâ. Really, that is a direct challenge, so if you ignore it me it will be another example of your blatant evasions. And in any event, if "alarmists", whether I'm one or not, are "irrelevant" then why are *you bringing them up* in the discussion?
A] (yes, I see how it could be interpreted that I called you alarmist, regarding doom predictions. Not intended, withdrawn, apology) not alarmist, sustainability. that's you. derived from your comments on the need to have a perpetual solution, for example, in wind power. "Irrelevant" is not meant to be condescending or mean, but to recognize reality of the situation, that regardless of one's philosophy on "sustainable" the world will do what's necessary and possible to stumble along.
2] Youâre twisting the meaning of âsustainableâ to âadaptableâ.
A] recognizing reality. (I admit, I have trouble with sustainable. For example, the wife brings home this "green enviro friendly" bread wrapped in all kinds of "we care about the earth" advertising and sustainable farming claims. Peering inside, I find a "plastic" tray to hold the bread. Not cardboard made from corn husks by indigenous peoples, but plastic?)
3] Paul, why canât *you* live with less fossil fuel?
A] We all can, but economics determines usage. If we live with less, some will die. (Really, what do you think brought us to the life expentancy we currently enjoy?)
4] Paul, the weakness of these analogies is matched only by the weakness of your sources . . .
A] you misunderstand me, these only point out that things change or evolve
5] I see what drives your ingenuity, Paulâfaith (maybe) in the six-day creationist Spencer as a potential intellectual counterpoise to the IPCC. See you on the battlefield. Donât forget your feed grain.
A] well sorry this makes no sense to me in the context of what ingenuity is, the ability to solve problems.
6] You admit Spencer âproves nothing . . .
A] how can he, this is a proposal. Same for the IPCC, doesn't prove anything, but is a proposal of the situation.
(the uh-oh was certainly sarcastic effect) I have no way to prove one or the other, only to listen and learn and see what reality brings. I mean, here we are looking at two different ideas for what climate sensitivity to CO2 is, right? And as far as I know, that's up for debate. I think the CO2 warming issue is settled, is that what you ask?
7] using up all fossils as fast as possible. This could mean a lot of things and be based on many different rationale. Please explain.
A] two I was considering -
- as the general idea here is that we need to get off our "fossil addiction", using them up will hasten that, no?
- as we need wealth to transform to a "sustainable" energy platform, using fossil fuels creates wealth.
Does CO2 or the sun control the formation of hurricanes?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Warming_Due_To_Ultraviolet_Effects_Thro…
A link to show just how ineffective wind farms are.
http://windfarmperformance.info/
I have tried to become more of a casual observer in recent times and only contribute with a link or two if the chance arises. However a recent statement by Skip has forced my hand just this once.
"And as for pointing out Roy Spencer's creationism; you're right, it would be an ad hominem attack *if* I were saying it proves him wrong. It does not; I realize that. But it says much of his credibility."
To be honest i have never heard such gibberish in all my life.
Firstly, if it does not prove him wrong then why mention it?
Secondly, The fact that it does not prove him wrong makes it an Ad Hom.....
Thirdly, It says nothing about his credibility Skip but it does destroy any you may of had.
I would not be in too much hurry to respond to this as i cannot be bothered to respond.
PS Hope all we talked about is going well for you.
Cheers
Crakar
".....to get off our "fossil addiction", using them up will hasten that, no?..." Paul.
In exactly the same way that a heroin addict's problem will no longer exist if he injects his entire year's stash tomorrow.... Sheeesh!
Come on Paul, act like at least some of what Mandas is trying to show you is actually sinking in and admit that maybe, just maybe, you're not exactly "all over" this global warming thing and that you might have come to a hasty but incorrect conclusion based (probably) on your politics. You could take Michael's admirable lead and step back for a bit of re-evaluation...
Sorry, make that "what Mandas, Skip AND Chris are trying to show you....."
Matt,
Frankly "addiction" is not my term. For me, it's a purchased commodity that does useful things.
But, really, to create the kind of wealth required to transform the world while plodding ahead trying to keep everyone alive, do you have a better idea?
I value input by all mentioned. What hasty conclusion are referring to?
"[Spencer's creationism] says nothing about his credibility . . ." --Crakar
The statement requires no response.
And as for respective credibility, I only need to remind you (and the forum) that between the two of us there is only one who has (1) plagiarized incorrect information; (2) switched his story as to what his unread citations mean; (3) believes attacking Al Gore's balance sheet has any relevance to to the climate debate.
"[Spencer's model] is a proposal. Same for the IPCC, doesn't prove anything, but is a proposal of the situation."--Paul
If, Paul, it is true that "this [forum] is to test ideas and learn," then you need to learn the simple difference between how the IPCC arrived at its main conclusions--from a consensus of first rate scholarship, and how Spencer arrives at his. You need to *learn* that difference. This whole, "Gee. Spencer says one thing; the IPCC says another! Wow. Who do you believe? Its so confusing!," implies some equivalency between the two sources that exists only the minds of people who are ideologically opposed to the best available facts of climate science.
"we need to get off our "fossil addiction", using them up will hasten that, no?"
This is an incredible statement, and one I'll never let you forget you made--sort of like Crakar's CO2 residence time and logarithmic-function-of CO2-radiation-retention blunders.
Science: "Greenhouse gases, especially CO2 released by fossil fuels are warming the climate--possibly very dangerously."
Paul: "Then we better burn up the fossil fuels ASAP! Problem solved!"
As much as I like Chris's analogy, I'll provide another, Paul. Its like saying, "Shit. We're out of oil and we're burning the rods. We better speed up and get to the service station."
But the craziness doesn't end! Behold:
"If we live with less [fossil fuel], some will die."
What about the people who come *after* we're done doing them the favor of burning up all the fossil fuel, Paul?! Look, man, I don't need you to have a perfectly correct position (we're all amateurs here), but at least indulge me with a *coherent* one.
Besides, by this tortured logic I kill someone or contribute to someone's death when I ride my bike to work. Paul, you are just parroting something you read at Cato (or wherever) that AGW is an ecological pretext by misanthropes to hurt humankind. Please read the other side before repeating such silliness.
Its precisely because we *care* about humanity and its future that we fight this battle, Paul.
Skip,
thanks for your response.
1] The IPCC doesn't prove their case, they simply state it. It may carry more weight than Spencer, but so what? Like I said, the debate now is about the "sensitivity" and feedbacks and I don't think the IPCC has a lock on that yet.
2] You still didn't address what would happen if we cut back on fossil fuel use and how it would alter our ability to invest in renewables.
And let's assume we save some for future generations, there is still a time it runs out. You see basic economics determines when it runs out. There is nothing you or I can do about it. And, helpful to you, if and when it gets scarce, the price goes up and alternatives come on line. Simply beautiful that it will happen that way and you nor I need to worry about it!
Remember, as hard as you try, you can't conserve your way out of a (perceived) problem. Maybe you would like to suggest why?
3] As much as I like Chris's analogy, I'll provide another, Paul. Its like saying, "Shit. We're out of oil and we're burning the rods. We better speed up and get to the service station."-
No it's not. That's alarmism right there.
As for your bike, great. But for my work, it can't happen and in aggregate with others, people would die or live fewer years. What do you think progress, wealth and standard of living are anyway?
And, remember, there is a difference in cutting cost of operations vs cutting an activity. The former is done all the time continuously. (Maybe think about what drives that?)
Interesting article which i think Skip may enjoy
http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
Its a decent read but well worth it.
Paul:
With regard to your original "uh-oh" link I think the following communication at tamino's blog may be illuminating:
doskonaleszare // June 7, 2010 at 6:47 pm | Reply
MapleLeaf,
Spencerâs new model reminds me this funny attempt:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1828
But they used cumulative SOI and temperature (or cumulative temperature differences ;) ), and Spencer regresses temperature on SOI, PDO and AMO indexes.
Spencerâs model looks fine when you compare temperatures:
http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/resource/Spencer_temp_crutem.png
But this is what his model **actually** predicts vs real temperature differences:
http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/resource/Spencer_diff_crutem.png
One can also wonder why he used CRUTEM3NH instead of global dataset, e.g. HadCRUT3:
http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/resource/Spencer_temp_hadcrut.png
MapleLeaf // June 9, 2010 at 3:45 am
Doskonale,
Thanks for thisâ Iâm impressed.
However, not being very proficient in stats, I do not quite understand your figure âSpencer_diff_crutem.pngâ.
This figure seems to highlight the problem with his technique, but I donât see the connection. Could you please elaborate? Thanks.
Roger Romney-Hughes // June 9, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Aha! We conclude that Roy is very cleverly taking the mickey by doing a half-McLean-et-al. followed by a reverse-McLean-et-al. and waiting to see if anybody notices!
He differentiates just the T series, thereby removing any trend, and finds a (surprise!) good correlation between the T-difference values and the absolute values of the climate indices. Then he puts the trend back in again by âadd[ing] up the temperature change rates over timeâ and pretends to be amazed that âmodelâ follows data â brilliant!
In response, we hope to see Foster et al. publish half of their original comment on McLean et al., backwards.
doskonaleszare // June 10, 2010 at 2:50 pm
MapleLeaf,
Spencerâs model doesnât âpredictâ a long-term temperature change, only annual differences based on three climatic indices, and as Iâve shown above, it predicts them poorly (red line is Spencerâs model, black line is for CRUTEM3NH) â AFAIR the R2 coefficient for his data was about 0.07.
In fact, you could try to fit gaussian noise to the data from training period and in ~25% cases get better correlations than for Spencerâs data. So the similarity between summed temperature differences, as predicted by model, and CRUTEM3NH time-series, doesnât mean much. I suspect that Spencer had tried several different temperature data and training periods before he discovered that for this particular set he got the most convincing results.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/open-thread-19/#comment-42401
The IPCC doesn't prove their case, they simply state it. It may carry more weight than Spencer, but so what?
Paul, you seem like a good egg. I do appreciate it. But do you really mean this? Do you really think that, in the making of public policy, the relative credibility of different sources is irrelevant?
The inability to discern credible from risible information is what got us into Iraq, Paul. It was precisely because someone at CIA looked at an out-of-date and fraudulent masterâs thesis by an Iraqi dissident and said, âmaybe the overwhelming body of intelligence *carries more weight* than this quackery . . . but f--- it. Letâs go to war.â
If you and I were sitting in a room with what we have been told is a bomb attached to a timer that might go off anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 hours from now, how would our conversation go?
Skip: Paul, can we get the hell out of here?
Paul: Oh, I donât know. We canât be *sure* itâs really a bomb. Neither of us is an expert. The fire department says itâs a bomb, yes. I know you think theyâre professionals, but what makes their opinion any more valid than my Uncle Pervusâs? After all he saw a bomb once (at least he says so) and has a website devoted to debunking the âalarmistsâ who think that we need to play it safe move whenever we see dynamite sticks attached to what looks like a timer. Besides, there is legitimate dispute as to whether it will go off in 30 seconds or 30 hours. . . canât we at least watch American idol--better still, if we just wait till it blows up the bomb problem is permanently solved, no?
the debate now is about the "sensitivity" and feedbacks and I don't think the IPCC has a lock on that yet.
And no one doesânot exactly. But this is the classicâthe classicâdenier confusion. Youâre mixing up âuncertaintyâ about the *exact* magnitude with âuncertaintyâ about whether the evidence suggests that the likely *range* of magnitudes is menacing or not.
There is no âdisputeâ in the sense of *equivalency* between Spencer and the IPCC. Its not a situation where mainstream science is saying, âWell, maybe Spencer is rightâclimate is not very sensitive to GHS at all! Who knows?â No, Paul. The uncertainty is within a *range* of magnitudes and *likely* temperature increases over the next 100 years based on estimates by *professionals* using the *best* available data. If you are genuinely here to âlearnâ then you need to *learn* that crucial distinction.
This is of course, not to say that it is impossible that Spencer might (against all the odds) be vindicated by future scientific inquiry. As skeptics and researchers we need to be open minded to any possibility. Blind squirrels do sometimes find nuts.
However, at this moment the overwhelming scientific consensus is against Spencer and his ilk. You can either go with that consensus or with a guy that gets his geology from Genesis, and I cannot take that chance, Paul. Unfortunately, unlike the bomb analogy, I canât just leave you and the bomb to it while you catch up on Sports Center. I need to you on board with me. Hence I post on A Few Things Ill Considered.
You still didn't address what would happen if we cut back on fossil fuel use and how it would alter our ability to invest in renewables.
It would, as you like to say, affect the âbasic economicsâ. It simply tweaks the incentives of individual use and incentivizes investment in renewables. A gradual tax on fossil fuels is very *much* something we can do about it. It has been awhile since Iâve harped on this point, yes, but I have made it before. And it kills no one, Paul. I hope weâre past the idea that conservation is murderous.
you can't conserve your way out of a (perceived) problem.
Iâm grateful that grandma didnât say that when looking at her gas and food ration tickets during the war. Conservation by itself probably wonât solve much long term but its *part* of the overall set of policy solutions.
"As much as I like Chris's analogy, I'll provide another, Paul. Its like saying, "Shit. We're out of oil and we're burning the rods. We better speed up and get to the service station."-
No it's not. That's alarmism right there.
Its extremely difficult to have a debate with someone who just doesnât *get it*. Paul, *youâre* the guy saying we should hurry up and use fossil fuels as quick as possible!
And dammit, man. The whole bike-to-work thing was a *metaphor*. Your goofy argument is that conserving fossil fuels kills people. My point is that it only kills *luxurious* levels of consumption. Paul, we have five percent of the worldâs population and but consume a quarter of its energy. Our lives are not at stake if we reduce our use.
Crakar:
I am willing to believe itâs a âdecent readâ but first I need to you tell me (1) what you believe it proves; (2) whether you stand by this sourceâi.e. attach *your* endorsement and credibility (such as it is) to it.
Chris:
I have to confess my regression skills have deteriorated to the point where I really cannot comment on these critiques of Spencer. We need a Quantitative Methods Viagra for middle-aged academics. Based on what I *do* know, however, I think its pretty obvious which way I lean on this.
Skip,
I appreciate all of your comments, trying to get me on the side of good and light and all.
But we have to clear one point here, if you would indulge me.
Would you allow that somewhere in this world, this continent, this country, your state perhaps or even your city, that someone is in danger of death or even shortened life because of a lack of some resource or service?
PaulinMI
If I might interject in your discussion with Skip, I don't think anyone would argue with the point you make at post #184, but I don't think that is the issue here.
The issue of taxing carbon or changing our fossil fuel habits is a very political one, with those in favour of fossil fuels making the same sort of points that you are - that if we try to move away from a fossil fuel economy there will be economic catastrophe, poverty, death, etc etc. It reminds me very much about a political issue which is occuring in Australia right now regarding a proposed tax on resources.
Without boring you with all the ins and outs of Australian politics, all the large mining companies are predicting dire consequences because the government plans to levee a tax on their profits (yeah I know - shock horror!!). The sorts of claims that are being made are that the companies will not invest in Australia, jobs will go overseas, workers will suffer, the economy will fall apart, blah, blah, blah. It is fairly laughable to see multi-millionaires conducting street protests chanting slogans through megaphones to 'Axe the Tax'. They are exactly the same sort of predictions made by mining companies that were made when indigenous people were granted land rights, and when a petroleum profits tax was introduced. In essence, it is the mining companies trying to protect their profits by threatening dire consequences if we dare try and interfere with their business. And I am going to suggest to you that there is no difference in the case of a carbon tax or a switch to low emitting technologies.
The fossil fuel industry is extremely wealthy and will do anything to protect their profits, and we should be wary of anything they say in this context. Virtually every economic analysis of a cap and trade type legislation and/or switch to renewables does not support the dire predictions - indeed there are likely to be huge long term benefits in regard to jobs etc in the new industries.
And don't forget, while we in the west derive great benefit from fossil fuels, a lot of people in developing nations suffer because of them and our greed in extracting resources without thought to the consequences because they don't affect us directly. Far from causing third world suffering if we switch away from fossil fuels, there are far more likely to be significant benefits.
As a follow-on from mandas' point about third world benefits versus industry profits, but again coming from an agricultural perspective:
There has been a lot of research into non- or low- pesticide cropping in Africa (e.g. http://www.springerlink.com/content/c420085g7783v606/ (press release here: http://www.rothamsted.bbsrc.ac.uk/Research/Centres/PressReleases.php?PR…)) that have proved to be rather successful. However the uptake of such systems is compromised by the agro-chemical companies who accompany their sales pitch with provision of freebies (from caps to samplers to, for large farms, farm vehicles). Even though the complimentary methods are both cheaper and result in higher crop value by area the agro-chemicals are often the preferred option.
Problem with agro-chemicals? Well, there's ecological (e.g. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2402441) and health effects (e.g. http://www.erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/09031936.00005509v1) for starters...
mandas,
thanks for the thoughtful comments, stay tuned. I'll need to go one step at a time.
Would you . . . that someone is in danger of death or even shortened life because of a lack of some resource or service?
Ok, I suppose so.
But who dies if I buy a Prius instead of a Hummer? Who suffers from this deprivation? See my point?
You can't use the poor of the world as human body shields to protect the interests of the rich, who just don't want to give up *anything*.
I can't speak for you, Paul. But the narrative that I at least *think* I see in this whole, larger debate is that we in the privileged West like the idea of retaining what we have--the lifestyle options, wealth, etc. And environmental protection and conservation is, simply put, a threat. So we are eager to believe any argument that comes along saying, "The environment is not that threatened," and/or, "Future generations will figure out how to manage without fossil fuel, so lets just hog it all for ourselves."
Paul:
Here's a peace offering that's right up your alley--an
*Atlantic* article on Economist/Entrepreneur Paul Romer's radical idea of creating free trade zones as economic footholds ("charter cities") in underdeveloped countries under the auspices of developed powers (everyone politely agrees not to call it "colonialism") in the mold of Hong Kong, which was an accident of history.
I guess my take is yeah, free markets have their place, but they are strong horses that need to disciplined or they will run your buggy over the cliff (see our recent econonimic woes.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/the-politically-inc…
Skip, thank-you.
I'll take that as a yes. Retract if you wish.
And I will allow, if you choose a Prius, at the margin it will be undetectable. And people make choices all the time in their self interest to reduce cost or provide the most value for themselves, so possibly beneficial. But that's not what is needed now is it?
So describe, in your view, what reduction in CO2 is needed in what time frame, for discussion purposes.
Would you agree to continue?
I retract *nothing*, Paul.
Get this straight: You switched the subject from the question of conserving fossil fuels and its impact on human life to the impact of conservation in *general*. It wasn't even subtle and don't think I missed it. Conserving gas is *not* like conserving insulin.
Apparently we are *not* over your insistence that energy conservation kills people, but the promised land is right around the corner, Paul.
if you choose a Prius, at the margin it will be undetectable.
If *everyone* drove a Prius (for example) instead of a vehicle with a lower MPG, how many people does it kill, Paul? No really; I want to see your response to this.
And before I answer the question of timing (again), does this mean that you accept that reduction in fossil fuel usage is justified in principle--whatever the specifics? There is *no point* in further discussion otherwise.
Skip, thank-you.
I'll take that as a yes. Retract if you wish.
And I will allow, if you choose a Prius, at the margin it will be undetectable. And people make choices all the time in their self interest to reduce cost or provide the most value for themselves, so possibly beneficial. But that's not what is needed now is it?
So describe, in your view, what reduction in CO2 is needed in what time frame, for discussion purposes.
Would you agree to continue?
sorry for the double post, not intended
Skip,
Would you like to keep on the subject of reducing use of fossil fuels or other things, I am confused here? I would like to discuss the fossil fuel issue only and did not intend to slip into something else.
But be clear we are talking about it being freely available to use as one sees fit, if individuals wish to conserve instead of use more that is fine, but forcing conservation across the board will be the issue I am saying will cause distress. (Note I also said, people conserve all the time to lower cost, but not value)
And as I stated I have no trouble answering an honestly asked question.
Give me a more concrete example of what you mean by "justified in principle".
thanks,
red,
what are profits?
If there is one thing interaction on this forum has taught me its greater patience. Whether your disputant is consciously being an evasive, dishonest jerk out of pure malice (anyone remember MB of âclimategateâ fame a few months back?) or is just honestly confused, either way you have to just respond with reason and civility. This is especially true in the latter case; sincere error is not sin, I suppose.
Paul, I am for now putting you in the âhonestly confusedâ category. To wit:
Paul, why canât *you* live with less fossil fuel?
A] We all can, but economics determines usage. If we live with less, some will die. -- Paul 174
And in response to Matt:
For me, [fossil fuels are] a purchased commodity that does useful things . . . But, really, to create the kind of wealth required to transform the world while plodding ahead trying to keep everyone alive, do you have a better idea?-- Paul 178
It could not have been more clearâyou were talking about fossil fuels and the deadly implications of reducing their use. Both of us were. Paul, it was *you* who switched the subject thus:
Would you allow that somewhere in this world, this continent, this country, your state perhaps or even your city, that someone is in danger of death or even shortened life because of a lack of some resource or service? --Paul, #184
You knew you had no sound support for the idea that conserving fossil fuels kills people, so you switched the subject to the general concerns regarding âa lack of some resource or service.â It was, yet again, an evasion.
Now, youâre trying to tell me:
Would you like to keep on the subject of reducing use of fossil fuels or other things . . . I would like to discuss the fossil fuel issue only and did not intend to slip into something else. -- Paul 194
I am confused here . . .
Yes, Paul. Iâm afraid you really are. The shift in your own thinkingâdepending on context and what you thought you needed to say to have a comebackâcan be documented in these past few emails. Do you see it? Can you?
And I have to say it: This is what I see all the time when debating deniers. Its a thoughtless throwing out of distractions that are ill conceived and chosen only because they sound like potent points to the ill-informed.
And, Paul, if you are really interested in the subject of âfossil fuel onlyâ then allow me to repeat my question:
If *everyone* drove a Prius (for example) instead of a vehicle with a lower MPG, how many people does it kill, Paul? No really; I want to see your response to this.--Skip 191
And I still do, Paul.
Hey,
Let science do science.
These skeptics are Angry Right Wing Christian base. You will never convince them. They require little proof from their talking heads, but requires mountain of proof to no end.
They are just angry and against anything the other side represents. Read "Stealing Jesus" and "Conservative without a Conscience".
You will never win, until you know who these people are.
BTW, these are the same people that are against science and theory of evolution.... Your energy is wasted trying to convince them.... it is better to root religion out of politics.
I've never been convinced that climate change is what some say it is. Climate change has always been cyclical over thousands of years...not a hundred years from oil pollution..
The pollution which caused the recently observed rapid change did not exist in the previous thousands of years of long term climate change.
Is there a reason you chose this thread?
Here's the new study in *Nature* with the surpising finding that even in recent down solar cycle years, when UV radiation decreases, visible light into the atmosphere actually increases. It could be responsible for moderate warming and introduce a new modeling complexity in understanding climate.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/07/solar.study.climate.change/i…
For simple country quote miners like myself this, I guess, is the zinger:
"They [the solar cycles] are contributing nothing to long-term global warming," she [lead authorJoanna Haigh] said, "and it has no bearing on what we understand about greenhouse gases and their influence on climate."
I have institutional access to *Nature*, which is "paywalled", as Chris might say, but (a) I couldn't follow the methods anyway, and (b) it would be unethical (obviously) for me to cut and paste it, but here's the abstract:
Nature 467, 696-699 (7 October 2010)
An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate
Joanna D. Haigh1, Ann R. Winning1, Ralf Toumi1 & Jerald W. Harder2
Abstract
The thermal structure and composition of the atmosphere is determined fundamentally by the incoming solar irradiance. Radiation at ultraviolet wavelengths dissociates atmospheric molecules, initiating chains of chemical reactionsâspecifically those producing stratospheric ozoneâand providing the major source of heating for the middle atmosphere, while radiation at visible and near-infrared wavelengths mainly reaches and warms the lower atmosphere and the Earthâs surface1. Thus the spectral composition of solar radiation is crucial in determining atmospheric structure, as well as surface temperature, and it follows that the response of the atmosphere to variations in solar irradiance depends on the spectrum2. Daily measurements of the solar spectrum between 0.2âµm and 2.4âµm, made by the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) instrument on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite3 since April 2004, have revealed4 that over this declining phase of the solar cycle there was a four to six times larger decline in ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of our previous understanding. This reduction was partially compensated in the total solar output by an increase in radiation at visible wavelengths. Here we show that these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45âkm, with an increase above this altitude. Our results, simulated with a radiative-photochemical model, are consistent with contemporaneous measurements of ozone from the Aura-MLS satellite, although the short time period makes precise attribution to solar effects difficult. We also show, using the SIM data, that solar radiative forcing of surface climate is out of phase with solar activity. Currently there is insufficient observational evidence to validate the spectral variations observed by SIM, or to fully characterize other solar cycles, but our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.
It might be too early to expect any widespread reaction, but I've already done a preliminary scan of the denialsphere to see how the article would be received and only found this so far--a rant from a nobody at the lead author. The guy is likely insane, and certainly has no clue what the article is or is not saying.
If one goes back in history no matter what time period without exception when the sun displays low solar activity the temperatures of earth always goes down, but time lags are on the order of several years .
. . . Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don't mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Some interesting studies for those who wish to do some reading (with thanks to skepticalscience):
â¢Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
â¢Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
â¢Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
â¢Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
â¢Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
â¢Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
â¢Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
â¢Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
â¢Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
â¢Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
â¢Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
â¢Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
â¢Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
â¢Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
â¢Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sunâclimate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
â¢Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
â¢Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."
As Ray Pierrehumbert - Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago - said in response to a quote in Nature which said that this was the âlast nail in the coffinâ for solar enthusiasts about solar warming:
âThatâs a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.â
This thread is now closed, please put all relevant (solar forcing related) comments here.