D4P wants me to state my position on global climate change. I haven’t done so because normally I take positions only on subject about which I have a lot of expertise. t g rightly guesses that I focus on the political question rather than the scientific one.
But if I have to take a position, I would say I am still skeptical about climate change. I am skeptical about any policy position that depends so heavily on computer models. I’ve spent years analyzing computer models and I know they are most often used as black boxes to confuse and dismay the public. Climate is a complex if not a chaotic system that is not amenable to modeling.
I am skeptical about the interpretation of the last century’s climate data. The data show that the earth was warming from about 1900 to 1945, when the computer models say humans were not emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth cooling from 1945 to 1971, when the computer models say humans were emitting enough greenhouse gases to influence climate. Then the data show the earth warming from 1971 through the present day (although some say it peaked a few years ago). This sounds to me more like the temperatures are cyclical than that the earth is warming.
I am skeptical about any movement that people jump on because it supports their preconceived notions. “The suburbs cause traffic congestion. Oh, they are the remedy for congestion? Well, the suburbs reduce people’s sense of community. Oh, the suburbs have a higher sense of community than the cities? Well, the suburbs cause obesity. Oh, they don’t cause obesity? Well, the suburbs cause global warming. A ha! Gotcha now.”
I am skeptical of the anecdotal evidence used to support climate change. It goes from “there were some big hurricanes in 2006,” to “Big hurricanes are consistent with climate change,” to “Big hurricanes prove the climate is changing.” It sounds like the evangelicals who used to argue that every earthquake and tornado proved that Armageddon was about to take place.
A medical weight http://www.donssite.com/truckphoto/super_shockwave_jet_truck.htm viagra on line loss center can personalize a program that many people attended, and achieved goals. Transmits Dopamine in the body Dopamine is a neurotransmitter cost of prescription viagra that plays a role in sending nerve impulses (including those relating to ejaculation) in your body. Thus the blood flow to male reproductive system is being damages slightly, but as the time passes the need of human health pfizer viagra tablets enhanced, which again includes many improvement in lifestyle and relationships. cialis get viagra Causes The disordered neuroendocrine function. Likewise, I am skeptical of claims about glaciers. “Glaciers are receding in Glacier National Park. That proves the climate is changing.” The glaciers have been receding in Glacier National Park ever since the park was created in 1910.
I am skeptical of a “scientific consensus,” especially when most of the scientists in the consensus are not climatologists and when the state climatologists who don’t share the consensus are fired by politicians who do. Science doesn’t work by consensus and it certainly doesn’t work by having scientists who aren’t experts in a particular field drown out the voices of those who are. Over the past 35 years, I’ve watched science become increasingly political, and when it becomes political it is no longer science.
I am skeptical of any system that rewards people for taking one position and penalizes them for taking another. The United States alone spends $2 billion a year on climate change research. Researchers who believe in anthropogenic climate change get research money, who those who don’t get nothing. Back when acid rain was the big scare, I met a scientist who told me he had the perfect set up. “I tell the electric companies that I can’t prove their plants are causing acid rain and I tell the environmentalists that my data are consistent with the hypothesis that the plants are causing acid rain. They both help me get more research money.”
I am skeptical of any problem in which the high-cost solutions get all the attention while the low-cost solutions are ignored. When Obama says high-speed rail will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, everyone applauds. Meanwhile, for about 5 percent of the cost, we could install the most up-to-date coordinating systems at every signalized intersection and have a much bigger effect on emissions.
I am skeptical of any problem in which the solution Congress prefers — cap and trade — just happens to give Congress the opportunity to provide huge political favors to rich corporations.
I am skeptical of any problem where we are stampeded into taking action for the sake of action when the costs of not taking action are many decades into the future, which means, first, that discounted back to the present those costs are very low and, second, that we may find much less expensive solutions in the meantime.
Those are just my opinions. Since the fundamental question of whether anthropogenic climate change is really happening is beyond my area of expertise, I don’t have a definitive opinion. The hysteria I see over this question reminds me too much of other threats that proved to be false, which leaves me skeptical about this one. But if the political dynamic requires that we do something, we should at least do things that are cost effective and produce other benefits as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
As we all know, for a number of decades in the mid-late twentieth century, atmospheric scientists were concerned,… (â€ÂIce Agesâ€Â)…This was a commonly held idea and a focus of research until the late 1970s,
No.
This is why it is pointless to “debate†the 15% of the population on this topic.
And this is why society has passed them by.
Human societies are discussing how to adapt to and mitigate man-made climate change.
AS I said above: There is no scientific basis for the denialist position. There is a psychological basis, but not a scientific one.
DS
Even though I think the Earth is warming, I have to strongly object to people who try to silent the opposition. Science is all about trying to disprove a hypothesis. Climate change can never be something that science can’t challenge, because it can never be subject to repeatable scientific experiments.
This movement to shut down any opposition demonstrates that climate change theory is a political theory more than a scientific theory. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it does demonstrate it is not science. It is legitimate to ask all sorts of scientific questions about computer models (which are not science).
Science is extremely “conservative” in that it only adopts new theories after an overwhelming amount of evidence. It is possible that level of evidence has been reached in short-term warming in some areas, but there is no way that science has any confidence as to the cause. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it does make not science.
By the way, the oftly cited “IPCC” is governmentally selected scientists who “does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.” That doesn’t make them wrong, but it does disqualify them from saying it is “science.”
Hi Dan. My post above is not in support of a position against global warming. Notice in the quote I indicated imminent cooling was a commonly held idea. It was not as commonly held by atmospheric scientists as it was by the public who were exposed to the idea in the media, but this point is not important to the arguments presented on the topic (what people believed in the 1970s has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the Global Warming hypothesis). I indicated a position holding the Global Warming hypothesis to be certainly false cannot be logically justified (such a conclusion is as you say, a purely psychological desire). I offered the logical and theoretical underpinnings of why the Global Warming hypothesis cannot be ignored, even if we cannot be certain whether current or recent trends will continue into the future. I argued it is precisely because we cannot be certain of the trends or future states that we must strongly consider the level to which we choose to potentially exacerbate an unpredictable system through CO2 or other types of emissions. This position is justified by the empirical establishment of the unpredictability of complex systems, the nonlinearity of atmospheric system responses and the empirical example of the runaway CO2 greenhouse effect on Venus. Several of these points have implications beyond the current topic, because the atmosphere is not the only self organized critical system we are exacerbating. Ecosystems also express self organized critical behavior.
Dan, As normal, you have no meaning & backing for whatever kind of points trying to be made.
Dan says “this is why…”
What the hell is “this.” Your pronouns & other words have meaning in your mind, but you need to communicate that meaning, with support, to be understood.
What is “psychological basis”? Actually, science & facts show that AGW is false. CO2 is a GHG, but less powerful than claimed, as is shown by little temp increases in a 1/3 increase of CO2.
Once it was realized, that for the past 400,000 years, the CO2 increases followed temp increases, this AGW should have dropped.
Algore & many others want to make money of this craze.
The cultist alarmists have hope in destruction (avoidance) to follow a goal of helping Earth via preventing more increases of a naturally occurring substance, necessary for life (CO2).
I indicated a position holding the Global Warming hypothesis to be certainly false cannot be logically justified (such a conclusion is as you say, a purely psychological desire).
Ah. Paragraphs would be helpful.
BTW, it is not a ‘hypothesis’.
DS
Scott:“So CO2 might be responsible for about 5F.”
ws: 5 degrees F is huge! The difference between an ice age and interglacial period can be as low as 5C @ the poles, no less.
Scott:“Once it was realized, that for the past 400,000 years, the CO2 increases followed temp increases, this AGW should have dropped.”
ws: This just means we don’t know what caused the initial warming, because climate science is very complex (as rob stated) — CO2 isn’t the only factor. This does not discount the fact that CO2 can’t induce or exacerbate warming – which it does and has proven to. We do know that there is a correlation between high CO2 concentrations and high temperatures.
You’re just assuming that 100% of past climate models were induced from CO2 only. Regarding rob’s comparison of high temps and high CO2 concentrations in Venus – we know that these things coexist with one another. The question is what caused the initial warming and to what effect did CO2 play in exacerbating and amplifying that warming? Once again, we can reconstruct other models and see lower temperatures had lower CO2 concentrations.
Once again, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if it didn’t trap heat, it wouldn’t be called a GHG in the first place.
Hi Borealis. Climate change is not challengeable, it is fact the climate changes, if even only slightly, with each new set of measurements (climate change in this sense is not a particularly useful term). Climate is the measure of certain weather parameters averaged over some relatively long period, as contrasted with weather, which is typically a measure of the same or similar parameters but averaged or being currently experienced over a relatively short period (the boundaries between these are arbitrary, but it is not an important point for the topic). The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scientific hypothesis (it posits an in principle testable condition of the physical world stating a relationship between measurable variables), and being such is challengeable using the scientific method. We do not currently have the necessary understanding to determine its absolute truth or falsity, and as I described above, current understanding of physical systems may leave us without the possibility of such a luxury. The current simulations, data and various experiments are supportive of the hypothesis. This does not mean it is true in some absolute sense, but this condition, plus the inherent uncertainties coupled with unknown, unpredictable but potentially significant effects may or may not implicate some actionable change in behavior- but this is a political question of interpretation. As Dan mentions, the current policy is to attempt to reduce CO2 emissions, as the above points have been found to be sufficiently compelling by policy makers, rightly or wrongly (any reduction in emissions will preclude the possibility of us ultimately testing the original hypothesis!). Regarding the IPCC, it is a a panel of climate scientists, and while it is true the IPCC body itself does not conduct scientific research, it is composed of scientists who do individually and for their home institutions precisely those activities you mention, both conducting scientific research, and designing, building, deploying and monitoring instruments to measure climatic parameters. The IPCC as a body produces summary reports of the ongoing scientific efforts of data gathering, analysis and simulation. I am in total agreement with the point you made about not silencing the opposition, for as scientists or even as citizens, it is our responsibility to hold every hypothesis to critical scrutiny, which is of course always more difficult than it sounds.
We all know Al Gore is trying to make money, just like every one else.
Though even what he’s pushing is pretty much a tax on garbage.
The more garbage you make, the more you pay.
ws: You have misunderstood what I typed about CO2 & 5F. Pleases re-read.
I never typed a 5F increase.
Re-statement: Of the 50F that GHG increase Earth’s mean temp, CO2 is probably responsible for 5F.
That doesn’t mean if CO2 goes to about 800ppm (a doubling), that the mean temp would increase by 5F. It would increase by less, due to the nature of CO2 as a GHG. For example, logarithmic, diminishing returns, each additional unit returns less than the previous.
Based upon past patterns & temps, a 5F increase might need the CO2 to increase to 1,500 ppm, maybe, a rough estimate.
Why did you switch units? 5C = 9F.
It’s obvious that past warming was not started by CO2.
If CO2 has as much power as claimed, why was there not this runaway warming effect?
Answer: CO2 is not a temperature driver, nor is there a positive feedback.
Alarmists, please realize, CO2 is not as powerful of a GHG as thought.
H2O is, by far, the most predominant GHG, & keeps balance; it can cool too, ie more clouds reflect more light.
Dan, you realize that “paragraphs” would helpful, good, but still avoided them. You could elaborate & explain, if you really have a point.
Dan somebody referred to GW as a hypothesis; you claimed not. Please consider that they mean AGW, rather than just GW. Regardless, you have nothing to back your claim.
I could imagine you, Dan, as a lawyer.
You would always lose, saying to the judge & jury,
“I say this, therefore it is.”
You always lack evidence & usually have no point.
Scott“H2O is, by far, the most predominant GHG, & keeps balance; it can cool too, ie more clouds reflect more light.”
ws:Nobody has denied water vapor not being a “predominant” (I’ll use this loosely) GHG. What is the crux of this point? Water vapor is largely out of our control, and is in relative balance. Put a whole bunch of water vapor in the air it will condense, take it out and more will evaporate from the oceans.
While we know that higher temps mean more relative humidity, we do not know what that means to cloud coverage. In some scenarios, I have heard warmer temps = less clouds.
Scott:“Why did you switch units? 5C = 9F.”
ws:I didn’t want to do the conversion, and I was explicit in the units of measure. In a perfect world, there’s one logical unit of measure and it’s not the imperial system!
Scott:“It’s obvious that past warming was not started by CO2.”
ws: Not entirely true, but so what? We know that higher temps and higher ocean temps = more CO2. Do you realize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we are in control, to a reasonable degree, of its emission?
Scott:“CO2 is not a temperature driver, nor is there a positive feedback”
ws:So temperatures don’t get higher with increased CO2 levels?…somehow that is your definition of it not being a “positive feedback”? The lag period in ice cores just shows us that CO2 didn’t initiate the warming, it doesn’t say that it does not amplify the effects of increased temperatures. From what I know, if the temperature increases, that is a positive feedback, meaning CO2 is definitely a positive feedback.
ws: Not entirely true, but so what? We know that higher temps and higher ocean temps = more CO2. Do you realize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we are in control, to a reasonable degree, of its emission?
JK: No we aren’t. Man’s CO2 emission is only about 3.3% of the total CO2 emissions – the rest is natural (per NASA). See http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html
ws: So temperatures don’t get higher with increased CO2 levels?…somehow that is your definition of it not being a “positive feedback�
JK: You again miss the obvious: it is a matter of which is the cause and which is the effect.
ws: The lag period in ice cores just shows us that CO2 didn’t initiate the warming, it doesn’t say that it does not amplify the effects of increased temperatures.
JK: We note your attempt to salvage the last vestige of the CO2 is guilty postulate by saying “it doesn’t say that it does not amplify the effects of increased temperatures.’
Of course not. It could also say say that your ignorant rants don’t cause warming. So What?
ws: From what I know, if the temperature increases, that is a positive feedback, meaning CO2 is definitely a positive feedback.
JK: Again you prove your ignorance. You don’t have a clue what positive feedback is and how it is different from negative feedback. The mere existence of an increase says absolutely NOTHING about the feedback. If a increase is in response to a decrease in a stimulus, then the feedback is negative.
Please learn some basic science before inflicting your crap on us.
Thanks
JK
ws: You seem so intent on comments, but didn’t admit that you misunderstood the small portion of the GHG temp increase attributed to CO2, after I re-explained.
ws: H20 being the large majority of the the GHG warming is to illustrate that CO2 is not large. It’s a small point, but helps put CO2 in perspective.
ws: You didn’t give a valid reason for switching temp units. It sounds like you don’t know the conversion factor. Commentary on the merits of metric is irrelevant; sounds like a distraction attempt. When saying 5C, instead of 5F, you are inflating the value by about 90%, which is another proAGW technique–exaggeration.
ws: It is entirely true that past warmings (based upon ice core data) started before any CO2 increase, on average by 800 years.
ws: I didn’t give a definition of positive feedback like you said that I did. You are trying to make things up based upon not knowing, which is normal for alarmists. The positive feedback here mean, basically that “each” creates more of “each.” Meaning: warming creates more CO2 (it has to do w/ocean outgasing); then, if, more CO2 creates more warmth, it feedbacks on itself. It would be a runaway effect, +heat –> +CO2 –> +heat –> +CO2. Over half a billion years ago, CO2 levels were many times greater (toxic to mammals), without great heat as the AGWers would claim.
One might look at Venus & say “aha”. It’s actually a bad example, because, w/CO2 at such a high concentration & pressure, comparisons to CO2 being less than 1% of the air, cannot be made.
ws: you said there’s a correlation. That’s well known. Algore & others try to mix up the order of occurrence, thereby mixing up cause & effect.
According to AGW reasoning, umbrellas cause rain.
ws: You seem intent on believing this AGW alarmism, like a cultist, while you cannot provide any basis for CO2 allegedly causing temp increases in the past as claimed by the disasterism dogma. You seem to ignore that temps have hardly risen (& very inconsistently), while CO2 has increased by 1/3.
I think we can all agree ( Except for DS )
the debate is not over!
There’s an excellect article on wsj.com on ths topic:
online.wsj.com/article/SB124424567009790525.html
“Global warming alarmists are fond of invoking the authority of experts against the skepticism of supposedly amateur detractors — a.k.a. “deniers.” So when one of those experts says that a recent report on the effects of climate change is “worse than fiction, it is a lie,” the alarmists should, well, be alarmed.”
Scott:When saying 5C, instead of 5F, you are inflating the value by about 90%, which is another proAGW technique–exaggeration.
ws:I honestly don’t blame you for calling me out – I’d do the same thing. I will restate the fact that I had no intention (honestly) of misleading people>. I was lazy and didn’t want to convert. I understand where you’re coming from, but really, I cannot be explicit enough — I don’t like to mislead people with marginal facts.
5F is a substantial amount of warming, just 4F from an ice age.
JK:“You again miss the obvious: it is a matter of which is the cause and which is the effect.”
ws: So you’re saying a positive feedback is something that is the absolute initiator? Here is an explanation from Jeff Severinghaus:
“From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.”
http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/Profile/jseveringhaus
Scott:The positive feedback here mean, basically that “each†creates more of “each.†Meaning: warming creates more CO2 (it has to do w/ocean outgasing); then, if, more CO2 creates more warmth, it feedbacks on itself. It would be a runaway effect, +heat –> +CO2 –> +heat –> +CO2. Over half a billion years ago, CO2 levels were many times greater (toxic to mammals), without great heat as the AGWers would claim.
ws:Maybe in a vacuum. Why is it ice ages didn’t result in runaway cooling? Positive feedbacks are in nature too, but they don’t necessarily result in “runaway” results, there are also constant negative feedbacks going against it. There are also limitations:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/
“People often conclude that the existence of positive feedbacks must imply ‘runaway’ effects i.e. the system spiralling out of control. However, while positive feedbacks are obviously necessary for such an effect, they do not by any means force that to happen. Even in simple systems, small positive feedbacks can lead to stable situations as long as the ‘gain’ factor is less than one (i.e. for every initial change in the quantity, the feedback change is less than the original one). A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D…etc. ). This series converges if |r|<1, and diverges (‘runs away’) otherwise. You can think of the Earth’s climate (unlike Venus’) as having an ‘r’ less than one, i.e. no ‘runaway’ effects, but plenty of positive feedbacks.”
JK:“Again you prove your ignorance. You don’t have a clue what positive feedback is and how it is different from negative feedback. The mere existence of an increase says absolutely NOTHING about the feedback. If a increase is in response to a decrease in a stimulus, then the feedback is negative.”
ws:Is it possible that the definition is used differently for climate science? I have found positive feedback to be used synonymously with a forcing or amplification.
Don’t be angry, Jim. Did no one show up to your tea-“bagging” party?
This thread reminds me of that joke.
See, denialists have been recycling the same, long-ago refuted talking points for so long, the vast majority of society has numbered the denialist talking points so we don’t have to listen. The reality-based community has also taken to playing games* with denialist talking points and logical fallacies.
Denialists can’t even invoke scientific evidence. They have to link to an op-ed to prop up their ideology.
Surely they can’t wonder why they are marginalized, can they? They can’t wonder why society looks at their particular narrow demographic and has passed them by?
snork
DS
*http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/quantifying-skeptical-arguments/#more-293
Poor ol NO2, it gets no respect.
Dan said: Denialists can’t even invoke scientific evidence. They have to link to an op-ed to prop up their ideology.
JK: Try these papers:
a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview†George Reid Space Science Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays†N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?†Wibjorn Karlen Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations†D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677 Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link.
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999†Kunihiko Kodera Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?†Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208
g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?†N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13 (2003) p.4-10
h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record for the past 130 years†Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32 (2005) L16712
i. “Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere†P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p. 147-154
j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannual-centennial climate variability†Hengyi Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805
k. “Living with a variable sun†Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst. Of Physics USA
l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming†N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708
m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature record†N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718
n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds†R G Harrison & D B Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)
[/ignore]
Shorter gridlock:
It’s like the same narrow demographic that deludes themselves can’t identify self-parody either. Maybe it’s a new form of performance art or something.
DS
Dan said: [/ignore]
Shorter gridlock:
“Well, OK, 18! †[skepticalscience.com/argument.php]
JK: Thanks for your admission that you are totally ignorant and are just following the “progressive” party line.
Aside to intelligent readers: This guy thinks that he can dismiss a dozen peer reviewed papers based on a paragraph or two on a liberal web site.
FYI, that site also said:
2007’s dramatic cooling is driven by La Nina which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature and should recede in mid-2008.
Thanks
JK
It is a new form of performance art: make sh– up about empirical evidence and pawn it off as…as…uh…oh, yes: supporting your failed ideology.
That’s it – ther perfomance art is The Audacity of Dope: find a list, gavotte around it as if it is your salvation.
Denialists crack me up.
[ignore]
DS
Thanks for stating your position. I am also a skeptic, and have been since the early ’90s.
Learning about the sunspot cycle has increased my skepticism. Looking at a graph of the international sunspot number, it seems solar activity has increased over the 20th century, with relatively large peaks in the 1960s and 1990s.
We’re currently experiencing the deepest solar minimum in a century, and interestingly enough (yes, I know correlation does not imply causation) many parts of the globe have experienced record snowfalls this winter.
Something to chew on.
Shorter Frank:
Meanwhile, the non-duped 85% in the reality-based community is instead discussing societal adaptation and mitigation What does the scared white male conservative demographic have against progress?
Denialists: they crack up the reality-based community.
DS
Hi All. Good debate! I enjoy seeing people discussing this issue both seriously and critically. If I may, I would like to add a little general perspective because one thing I have noticed is a bit of unwarranted, perhaps a bit fundamentalist stance on the issue, both pro and con. There is even a bit of information floating around here which is technically beyond what I know has been generated by scientists researching the subject (who are many of my colleagues, and in this respect I must include a standard disclaimer that my views are purely my own and do not represent those of the National Center for Atmospheric Research or the National Science Foundation), as such detailed specifics on atmospheric dynamics have not been determined. In this regard, I want to emphasize being critical of the information you may find, here or elsewhere, even (or maybe especially!) from me. Again, let me emphasize the things we do know for (relatively) certain about atmospheric dynamics, 1. They are nonlinear (responses are not proportional to inputs), 2. They are unpredictable, although operating within a constricted range (we can be fairly certain it will not be 800F tomorrow) and demonstrate characteristics of self organized criticality, 3. The otherwise Earth like planet Venus experienced a positive feedback, runaway greenhouse effect driven by accumulation of CO2 in its atmosphere due to a slightly warmer proto-climate as a result of its orbital position (apologies to the author but someone mentioned Venus is not an applicable example because of the proportion of CO2 and atmospheric pressure which exists on Venus now, but please remember the theory states this is a result of a runaway greenhouse effect, Venus has not always been in the state it is now and began as an Earth like world) and 4. The concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is rising. What happened on Venus as a result of orbital position, can in principle happen on Earth due to industrial activity. This of course does not mean it is happening, or will happen, or will not happen. But it is a cause for concern. Data has shown that in certain areas, and on average, the Earth’s climate may be warming. But why, and will the trend continue, and what would be the result, when would it stop? We do not have the answers to these obviously very important questions. We have generated probability distributions based on our current level of understanding, and the results give reason to be concerned. But they are not hard answers. I know we would all like to have hard answers, we like to assume someone out there, somewhere can give us the specifics and let us know what we need to do. Many of us look to conservative or liberal politicians, think tanks, economists or scientists or astrologers for answers. Many people’s livelihoods may be challenged or changed in various ways by climactic changes as well as our responses based on an evolving pool of knowledge, especially regarding this particular issue. We often pursue information with regard to what we wish to be true, to support and steer ourselves into the answers we want, and the answers we want others, and they want us, to share. We live in a complex world, and regarding many important questions it does not give us the information we need or want, and more recent science is demonstrating we may have some hard boundaries on what we may be able to determine about the future. In the case of AGW, we do not have certainty but we have probability, and at this point we cannot even determine the stakes of the game. We are all playing poker together in this sense, so it may depend on our enculturated level of risk aversion on what hand we want to play. As a society, the points I gave above and in the previous post are what we know with a high level of certainty, and given this information we have to determine how to respond. As scientists we can inform what our instruments, data, analyses, simulations tell us. Policy makers have found those points sufficiently compelling to construct a behavioral response, to attempt to reallocate resources away from perturbing the system at the current rate. You may or may not agree with this conclusion, and may have your own knowledge and experience to share regarding how to respond, and this is why the debate is important. Our knowledge and our responses will necessarily evolve as we experiment and learn through trial and error. But please be critical of the information floating around here and elsewhere, perhaps especially so when the provider is offering statements of certainty about the future behavior of complex systems.
Rob, thanks for the well-informed posts! Some paragraphs would be nice to follow your writing a littler better.
Frank:“Learning about the sunspot cycle has increased my skepticism. Looking at a graph of the international sunspot number, it seems solar activity has increased over the 20th century, with relatively large peaks in the 1960s and 1990s.”
ws: Sunspot cycle is nothing new to climate scientists, and they do play a role in temperature swings, however, there is not that much variance in the 11 year sun spots to account for all of the warming that has occurred over the last 150 years.
Frank:“We’re currently experiencing the deepest solar minimum in a century, and interestingly enough (yes, I know correlation does not imply causation) many parts of the globe have experienced record snowfalls this winter.”
ws:Knowing that we are in a deep solar minimum (deepest of the entire century) and you believing that solar activity is responsible for most of the warming/cooling, wouldn’t you expect 2008 to have global surface temperatures that were lowest of the century?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
In fact, the solar activity was much higher in 2000, but the temperatures for 2008 were even higher than that year. Even so, 2008 surface temps were much higher than most of the years of the last century with such a “deep solar minimum”.
Frank, are you really convinced on solar activity being solely responsible for climate change?
Ignorant ws: Even so, 2008 surface temps were much higher than most of the years of the last century with such a “deep solar minimumâ€Â.
JK: That depends on whose data you cherry pick. The most accurate data DOES NOT SHOW THIS:
Satellite data DOES NOT SHOW THIS.
Ocean heat content DOES NOT SHOW THIS.
Why would anyone listen to ws anyway, he doesn’t even know the most basic physics. He merely parrots admitted liars like Al Gore and Jim Hansen.
Thanks
JK
Jim Karlock, could you post your “accurate” global surface temps for us all? I forgot, NASA can land a man on the moon but can’t take accurate temperature readings.
Hey ws:
Here is the ocean heat:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OceanHeatContentSPPI.JPG
Thanks
JK
The next cycle’s campaign slogan for the party of scared white males living in a world that has passed them by: The Audacity of Dope.
DS
That graph doesn’t go past 2003 and does not have a unit measurement on the graph. Is that 1 degree C or 1 hot dogs? Amateur at best.
It isn’t global surface temperature, which is the topic at hand and is what I asked for. Thanks for the “unbiased” link to a dubious at best URL of “icecap.us”. NASA temps, out the window! But icecap.us *must* be accurate. Reality is not one of your things, is it?
Here is a paper about ocean warming conducted by Willis, to which that graph of yours uses, showing ocean warming:
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/willis_jgr_04.pdf
It basically shows warming of the ocean temperatures. It also shows a cooling period in 1998, which had the highest surface temps of any year. Once again, I want surface temp numbers that actually go back a few years.
The labels are Joules x 10e22
see this version: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/_wp_generated/wp15cf572a.png
ws: Once again, I want surface temp numbers that actually go back a few years.
JK: Why? You wouldn’t understand them anyway.
Why don’t you try the most accurate surface record, maintained by alarmist Hansen. The USHCN. It shows cooling since the same Hansen delivered his first alarmist speech to congress in 1988.
OK this goes back 5000 years:
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/temphist.html
Thanks
JK
I can’t even read your graphs, it goes back too far to see a specific year. I don’t want 5,000 years, just something that goes back a century so we can view the solar cycles and surface air temperature.
But it’s fine, the GISS temps by NASA will suffice because they are accurate.
JK:“Why don’t you try the most accurate surface record, maintained by alarmist Hansen. The USHCN. It shows cooling since the same Hansen delivered his first alarmist speech to congress in 1988”
ws: I Don’t know what the UCHCN is, but these numbers do not indicated cooling since ’88. It shows global surface temp warming:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.txt
JK: “Why? You wouldn’t understand them anyway.”
ws: Oh no, you got me good! Thanks for the updated graph with a labeled unit of measure. If I had turned in a scientific graph without a labeled unit of measure in the 7th grade I’d be deducted 5 points. Somehow, an industry funded website (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D%27Aleo) is free from producing scientifically accurate graphs, all the while I get “zinged” by you for presenting accurate and informed posts.
That was the first thing I learned about graph making is LABEL EVERYTHING.
Thanks Jim, you brighten my day with the material you produce and the things you say. Honestly, you do.
ws: just something that goes back a century so we can view the solar cycles and surface air temperature.
JK: Why didn’t you say so:
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/thesun.html
ws: I Don’t know what the UCHCN is,
JK: I wrote USHCN, not UCHCN. It is the US Historical Climate Network. It is maintained by loud mouthed warmer Hansen and shows cooling since he delivered his alarmist speech to congress in 1988. It is considered the most accurate surface record we have, eventhough, without Hansen’s “correctionsâ€Â, it shows late 20th century COOLER than the 1930s
Thanks
JK
JK:Why didn’t you say so.
ws: Didn’t think I had to, it was the topic of discussion. You were too busy scrapping to get marginal evidence w/o labels.
If solar activity variances had such a great impact on surface temperatures, then 2008 would have been one of the coldest on record, but it was not. It was noticeable cooler than some of the last years in the decade, but even so was warmer than past years and follows the 30 year trend of upward warming. No climate scientist has ever denied that solar cycles have not played a role – the are acknowledged but “people like you” make it out to be a bigger impact than it really is.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.txt
2008 = .54 above average sample.
Few sunspot days 2008: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/centuryplot_gif2.gif
Solar variance is not the biggest driver of climate or surface temperatures, Jim. Plays a role, yes, but highly overstated, and in fact many warm years had few sun spots and even cooler years had many sun spots.
1957 had 190 (a lot) sun spot days but it’s global average temperature for that year was only .08 above the average base year sample. 1998, one of the hottest years, have fairly average sun spot activity.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/YEARLY.PLT
JK:“It is the US Historical Climate Network.”
ws:They take numbers for the contiguous US. They don’t do global numbers. What part of global warming do you not understand? Regarding the 1930s, 1934 was the hottest year in the US, but not the hottest year globally. 1998 was.
Jim “Smoke and Mirrors” Karlock is at it again!
The Audacity of Dopes. There is no need to show they are deluded, ws. Everyone knows. But some still enjoy the spectacle.
DS
I’m thinking of a new website: It’s called Debunking Karlock. Nice ring, hu?
Then there’s debunking O’Toole & Cox too.
I’ve thought of that one too, THWM.
Already been done.
How about “implementing energy efficiencies in the 2010s”? “Reducing carbon b y 2015”? “Green buildings by 2020”? “Implementing policies”?
Something new and useful, instead of something already done.
DS
WS, take a look at this, you’ll get a kick out of it.
http://progressive.uvault.com/pd1005/ADC081/18/player.HTM
The Algore movie is full of errors (35+). This explains simply:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/
ws,I just wanted to make sure that wasn’t an over-statement (as happens often w/AGW) in regards to 5F = 9C. And, for the 3rd time, I didn’t say warming of 5F. I said that currently, CO2 contributes about 5F to mean temp. In other words, without CO2, temps would be 5F less. And 9F less is not an ice age; conversion problems again & then some. For one, look at the southerly extent of the LGM; it was near Chicago, which has an annual mean of about 50F. Do the math to figure out how much less temperature will create permanent ice accumulation.
ws, You talk about “maybe in a vacuumâ€Â. Please stop w/nonsense. We’re talking about greenhouse gases, not about absence of gas.
ws, You asked me why there wasn’t runaway cooling. You really are showing ignorance & randomness. Firstly, I didn’t say there will be runaway heating. I explained that under the AGW scenario, that would exist, which obviously does not. Cooling was not even a point. Just going opposite doesn’t disprove something that I said does not exist anyway. _ ???
Dan, Good humor about telling jokes by #. Too bad your “goodness†stopped there. As usual, you have no relevance & make no point. There have been no comments here (except by you) which fit your description of “by-numberâ€Â, nor any ant-AGW with just a “label,†which your point could allude to. The proAGWers use labels, as well as attacking the person, rather than the substance. It was the bogus proAGW site, that you posted, which had #s. Typical AGW agenda: twist & accuse others of what one’s self is doing. I’ve read those proAGW sites before. Their propaganda &fallacies are easily counterable with common sense, logic, valid reasoning & some basic science.
Evidence?
Based upon ice cores (400,000 yrs), the low & high global mean temps varied by about 23F,
while the CO2 varied by about 100ppm.
Keep in mind, warming was first, followed by more CO2 (due to ocean outgassing).
The CO2 has already increased by about 100ppm, over the last century, while temps have increased about 1.2F. And temps increased by about 0.5F for the previous 50 years, before increases in CO2.
It doesn’t add up that there will all of sudden be higher temps. It didn’t happen in the past & it hasn’t happened recently.
Did anybody read, that at the end of last December, Canada was complete in ground snow- cover? Might not seem unusual, but that hasn’t occurred since the early 70s.
Please pay attention & learn those stats yourself, read. Please don’t blindly follow the general media & the doomsayers. The point is, that if CO2 was as powerful of a GHG as the alarmists claim, then it would be considerably warmer now. In fact, it’s been fairly stable for the last decade.
Many facts, by experts:
Global Warming Facts
Collection of articles, added to daily:
http://co2sceptics.com/
Here’s about the politics:
http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/discerningScience/GlobalWarming/PoliticsOfGlobalWarming/
rob, My point about Venus was that it cannot be compared to Earth. You added to that point, by stating the obvious point of Venus being closer to the sun. I don’t know why you apologized for that. Well, I do know. You misunderstand my point as being mainly about +feedback, rather than my saying that you cannot say that Earth behaves like Venus.
However, rob, you go on to contradict yourself & that point, by saying that the process on Venus, could happen here. Wrong! Not even close. People, please learn facts. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is about 90 times as much than on Earth (= to 1km deep in the ocean here). And the CO2 portion of the atmosphere on Venus is over 200 times greater than here.
Dan, Maybe AGW is true, since you can supposedly insult people, based upon items that aren’t even there. Hey, you cannot be trusted, since you have poor hygiene habits; see I can play juvenile too. It’s a common tactic: when people don’t understand, cannot offer anything solid or really have any substance, to just resort to name-calling, innuendo, avoidance, implications & such. You play that way in about every post you make. It’s hilarious how you, in your mind, think you make some point, but come across as a fool, full of ignorance. Except, there are a few other leftist who don’t “get†things & like to avoid facts & logic too. For example, highman idolizes you. Is it drugs that you guys take, which make you think that you type anything of substance?
Dan, you have not countered any of numerous examples & principles that disprove this exaggerated AGW. Nor have you offered any reason why temps will suddenly increase at a faster rate than they have over the last century or even during the last 400,000 years
Dan, How can you say that 85% of the populace believe in the AGW dogma? That’s way inflated, just as the temp projections are. You just like to make things up & avoid the realism.
Reality: After a 35% increase in CO2, temps are higher by just 1.2F more, and it’s a very inconsistent pattern.
You proAGWers have not offered anything tangible. You have hardly, if at all, looked at data, graphs, papers or such. You just blindly believe this cultism, like a religion, w/ the church telling you “what is.†Although, this religion of impending disaster does not have a supernatural being, nor is there a mian director. It has a natural being of greenism. Don’t get mixed up now, pollution & toxic chemicals are bad, but CO2 is not bad.
Here a few videos (by CoyoteBlog) which explains the science & data of GW:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DBAC269A02D1934F&search_query=Part+1%2C+Skeptic+side+of+RCRC+Climate+Debate
There was a conference in NYC, with many scientists, earlier in March. They explained the many reasons why AGW is not happening as whined about. There are over 50 (audio/video) presentations here & some poerpoints too.
The Heartland Institute – Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change
Is this is waste?
Do those of you who have faith in AGW, really want to learn & do proper analysis?
Two urls only showed as titles.
Let me try formatting.
(could come up garbled)
Also:
That didn’t quite work.
(I’m barely familiar with html & don’t fully understand the instructions, but am willing to learn.)
I’ll try once more (but it was too hard in looking at the source code)
Global Warming Facts
2009 International Conference on Climate Change
35 Inconvenient Truths
“Climate Change Science
Why is it anti-AGW websites fall under three categories?:
Funded by oil industry
Operated by a “think tank”
Website run by some crackpot who knows basic HTML (can’t match colors, either) and operates it from his house basement (i.e. JK)
PS: Jim, pastel colors are tacky, and I knew better HTML in 8th grade.
There are many more categories.
I have 100+ URLs, including proAGW.
And there are many scientists from which the results of analysis are taken. It should be same data that each side uses.
Pro-AGWers do cheat, like when you have Mann & Hansen making fabrications. Don’t forget the UHI (urban heat island).
Here’s a magazine .
You are using invalid reasoning, including ad hominems.
If you cannot counter the content, then attack the person.
The oil funding is way overstated. Please provide proof of that.
Regardless, the proAGW is a huge industry, with $2billion behind their campaign.
“I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train”
http://www.mises.org/story/2571
Hi Scott. Thanks for the comments, it is obvious you have done significant research on this topic. However, I must disagree with a point you made above on Venus not being comparable to Earth. Remember, the theory of the evolution of Venus is that it began as an Earth like world. Its current atmospheric pressure and temperature are a result of a dynamic process. The atmospheric temperature is posited to not always have been so extreme, the atmospheric pressure significantly less. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is posited to be so high because in a sense, its oceans evaporated and have become part of the atmosphere. Again, I must comment on the level of certainty, since you indicated the two worlds cannot be compared, without condition. The level of information and understanding one must have to make a conclusion of certainty on this subject is extraordinary. As a scientist, I am open to the possibility of one of you having some extraordinary talent and of having performed a spectacular effort on this subject and thereby generated some new information, beyond what my colleagues have achieved. Regarding Earth and Venus, one would have to have a complete geochemical model of the physics, chemistry and dynamics of the Venusian environment consistent with and explaining in detail the current state, along with a complete biogeochemical model with full physical dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and biology and of course anthropogenic effects, to a level of detail which would demonstrate precisely the dynamics of these systems were completely incommensurable at every point in their respective evolutionary spaces. Such a model would be an absolute revolution in our understanding of planetary and atmospheric dyamics, and almost certainly worthy of the Nobel Prize in physics and/or chemistry. So here is my challenge, if any of you who have determined with certainty that AGW can or cannot occur or is or is not occurring, whether you have constructed a complete analytical, computational, or cellular automata or some entirely new form of model, I would be more than willing to enter into a collaboration with you to publish your material. As I indicated, such a proof would almost certainly contend for the Nobel Prize and be an absolute revolution in our understanding of physical systems.