December 18th, 2009, 11:02 AM
I understand global warming, how it is caused and the effect pollution has on our environment. But what I don't understand is why people would want to make it look worse that it is (or make it up at all) or deny it.
Is the denying it completely industry driven? Or has it spurted from a few individuals that do not believe a theory as the correlation in C02 emissions and increasing global temperatures cannot be linked without a little faith.
I'd love your opinion and input ^_^
Thanks very much!
IMO, there are a few parts to it. It's common for denialists to have a solid background in engineering. They are really good at math, but in the case of climate, often over-simplify the system and come up with invalid conclusions... yet like most engineers they are solidly convinced they are right despite the obvious flaws in their approach.
Others simply don't think humans are capable of impacting their environment so profoundly, and just sort of ignore the evidence that we are... It's based on little more than a "gut feeling" and it's strange. Lots of things go against our "gut feelings," like relativity and quantum mechanics... but "gut feeling" doesn't make them any less true.
To your point, though, there has been a very active global warming conspiracy, and it has come from those who wish to keep people confused and uncertain about the truth. It's a lot like what was done by the tobacco industry when they were trying to claim that cigarettes did not lead to a higher incidence of cancer. These people are making a tremendous amount of money based on the way things are, and they don't want that to change. They are so focused on short-term profit that they forget about long-term well-being.
If you have time, I really found this video to be illuminating. It's a solid argument, and helps to put things in perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF...layer_embedded
Naomi Oreskes' talk on "The American Denial of Global Warming"
The first part ("TRUTH") outlines the history of climate science research, and the unpoliticized acceptance thereof that lasted until the early 1990s. The second part "DENIAL" describes the George C. Marshall Instiute's role in creating confusion and politicizing the issue, using tactics from the cigarette wars.
Naomi knows her topic well, and is a lively speaker - I heard an earlier version of this about a year ago, and this talk is well worth watching.
Either way, people who deny that humans are the primary cause of the current warming trend in global annual average temperatures are very similar to people who deny that evolution is a valid description of reality. These people often form their opinions despite logic and evidence, so use of logic and evidence to change their minds tends to fail.
I found it very helpful. We obviously have substantiated evidence to support the theory of global warming.
I went straight from that to a documentary by Jesse Ventura called "Conspiracy Theory Global Warming" and all the scientists on the program were claiming that global warming is a massive conspiracy that forces you to buy green products, therefore making a select few very rich. How crazy !
Samuel; In addressing "deny it", most people that oppose the hype, the need for major change society or ALL the things we are being told must be done, in the name of Man Caused GW, do in fact desire the issue be studied for long term potential, desire clean air, clean water, less toxic rain fall, independence of certain natural resources and much that could be achieved and HAS BEEN, has come about through social acceptance/changes, with in the society.I understand global warming, how it is caused and the effect pollution has on our environment. But what I don't understand is why people would want to make it look worse that it is (or make it up at all) or deny it.
CO2, logically and for several reasons, cannot correlate into temperature change, ALONE. Briefly; Since the last major Ice Age, when CO2 in the Atmosphere is thought to have been 4 to 6,000 parts per million and on through the 'Dyno' period and up to today the CO2 has slowly increased/decreased, trending lower to where it is today. In 1946, for instance it topped 400 pmm and peaked a couple times in the 19th century at near 400. An analogy I like to use in the human population, which was about 1B in 1800, 2B in 1900 and 6.7B today. That's a rather steep incline of people and related items said to cause the increased CO2 levels (cars/factories/planes etc.), while no increase comparable is offered.Is the denying it completely industry driven? Or has it spurted from a few individuals that do not believe a theory as the correlation in C02 emissions and increasing global temperatures cannot be linked without a little faith.
To follow up a little: Mankind today, eat a great deal of agricultural food products, has dressed in agriculture produced clothing (cotton) and is dependent on this 'plantlife'. Is it possible that since plants require CO2, to produce 1 unit of sugar (food) per 6 units of CO2 consumed, and most our food today for all those 6.7B people, that Nature and us are naturally part of the natures balancing act.
Specifically on England, grapes were commonly grown, think until the early 20th Century, wine produce and came to a standstill for 60-80 years, because it was too cool. I understand grapes are again being grown and on the increase, yet not near the level of before the major 'Industrial Revolution'...
So yes, there must be a great deal of faith IMO (as in religion) to accept the word of what ever the actual breakdown of pro/con AGW advocates are, even if the majority, which I don't think is the case. At least pro religious leaders are a known majority and people live their lives, practice rituals and all the rest on faith.
We do not deny that warming has occurred. We deny the common misconception that so much warming is due to the rise in CO2 levels. Please read the other threads.
I take umbrage at your remarks.Originally Posted by inow
(Not really)
But good engineers are highly analytical and are not prone to being deceived by spurious arguments. The engineers I work with mostly (I would say almost exclusively but can't claim to have done an exhaustive survey) understand that AGW is real. Like me, none of them claims to understand all the minutiae of the science, but we get it enough to see which arguments hold water and which are phony.
We have had cases of exceptionally bright young engineers quitting because they couldn't reconcile working for the same oil companies that were bribing congress and spreading dishonest propaganda about AGW. I work for oil companies all the time and I know oil company engineers also understand about AGW. Like me they have to earn a living. Working in the industry doesn't mean they believe the lies their corporate PR people propagate.To your point, though, there has been a very active global warming conspiracy, and it has come from those who wish to keep people confused and uncertain about the truth. It's a lot like what was done by the tobacco industry when they were trying to claim that cigarettes did not lead to a higher incidence of cancer. These people are making a tremendous amount of money based on the way things are, and they don't want that to change. They are so focused on short-term profit that they forget about long-term well-being.
We make gasoline, and diesel, and we also take the sulfur out of it and the carcinogenic benzene, and we install heat recovery equipment to reduce the energy consumption in production so we can still sleep at night. If you think I'm rationalizing, damn right I am. 8)
December 18th, 2009, 06:16 PM
It's become a front line diverse belligerents bring various causes to. I mean both sides. We use it to polarize beliefs, wordviews, classes of people, and rate them good or bad by association. The opposing camps are unbalanced, and this actually draws more into the battle because while the strong popular banner justifies most any mischief provided it receives a nod of support, the weak unpopular fringe sees a mob of opportunists allied for so many ulterior motives.
For example above one participant on side uses the battle line to vilify engineers who are "really good at math". He exposes them as enemy agents:
So it's not just conservative vs. liberal proxy war. Or religious vs. atheist. Or man vs. nature. There are as many "parts to it" as there are personal motives. I guess everybody has a "sense" of who the bad guys are. That aforementioned American engineer blames Chinese factories. I would side against him only to exonerate the Chinese. And I'd side with the engineer Bunbury only to vilify big (American :wink: ) oil companies. I too rally the debate to support my motives.IMO there are a few parts to it. It's common for denialists to have a solid background in engineering. They are really good at math, but in the case of climate, often over-simplify the system and come up with invalid conclusions... yet like most engineers they are solidly convinced they are right despite the obvious flaws in their approach.
Copernicus once wrote that "the sort of people" who believe geocentricity were the sort of people who believe the Earth is flat. At the time almost nobody believed the Earth flat, but the myth of Flat Earthers became a popular weapon to beat opposing groups with. The Church was associated with Flat Earth. It became common knowledge that if clergy didn't then admit to this absurd belief, they did sometime in the past and probably harboured a secret will to resurrect it. Some people even took up the Flat Earth cause.
Notice there are precious few who'd call themselves Denialists.
I didn't say engineers are denialists. I didn't say all denialists are engineers. I said that it is common for denialists to have an engineering background. That's a rather important distinction.
And yes... I vilify denialists... Just like a vilify creationists. They are idiots who are refusing to live in reality, and I'm tired of being patient with them. I was patient with them when these arguments began more than five years ago, and I've simply run out of said patience.
PRATT.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/PRATT
December 18th, 2009, 08:42 PM
those who want to make it seem worse or better generally have an ulterior motive. Some are political, some are financial some are based on their world view or values or principles.
Those who deny it do so either because they have a prior commitment as described above or they see issues with the evidence or the inferences researchers and politicians are making about the evidence.
I doubt, or as you say deny AGW because the theory does not correspond with available evidence very well and I happen to understand the physics of climate chemistry very well. I can read and understand the research and it simply does not add up. I find that the research is generally correct for what it says, but it often fails to address important additional factors and therefore reaches wrong conclusions.. I also find a smaller percentage of research that is simply wrong or obviously manipulated. When the research is oversold by the community doing the research, I look for evidence of bias by the body of researchers. If I find bias, that provides the motive for the poor research. I find that climate research on global warming suffers from these issues.
those who fund the sceptics are motivated by money, politics, and individual values just as those on the other side are. AGW is not about doing good science, though there are some on both sides that hold that ideal.Is the denying it completely industry driven? Or has it spurted from a few individuals that do not believe a theory as the correlation in C02 emissions and increasing global temperatures cannot be linked without a little faith.
I'd love your opinion and input ^_^
Thanks very much!
[quote="inow"]I didn't say engineers are denialists. I didn't say all denialists are engineers. I said that it is common for denialists to have an engineering background. That's a rather important distinction.
[quote]And I wouldn't want Samuel P to get the impression that somehow the engineering profession and denialism are connected. I didn't realize that it's common for denialists to have an engineering background and wouldn't have guessed that. Can you help me out with some examples?
Yes they are idiots. I just ignore them for the most part. They become more irrelevant as policy makers understand what's happening.And yes... I vilify denialists... Just like a vilify creationists. They are idiots who are refusing to live in reality, and I'm tired of being patient with them. I was patient with them when these arguments began more than five years ago, and I've simply run out of said patience.
PRATT.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/PRATT
That's a good point. I can see how my post might give that impression, and that was certainly not my intention. To be fair, it's based on personal and somewhat anecdotal experience. I work mostly with engineers, and the guys with whom I tend to engage in these arguments all have backgrounds in manufacturing. Then, my anecdotal experience is reinforced often online by folks like Wild Cobra who strikes me as an engineer (perhaps he can correct me if I'm wrong).
Again, though... I was making a bit of a generalization based on my own limited interactions, and I should have made that more clear above.
The second half of your sentence is proven false by the first.
You are an ignorant fool.
And you are a liar who makes baseless assertions completely void of evidence or merit, too.
Here is some of the data. Notice how CO2 levels generally lag temperature trends while sun activity leads temperature trends. This is much more consistent with the physical reality that as as sun activity directly and indirectly heats and cools the earth, the Ocean temperature ebbs and flows and it releases and absorbs CO2 and other trace atmospheric gasses. I say reality because this simply can't be denied and it is not denied by credible climate researchers. What is in dispute is the additional overprint of the human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere and the concentration imbalance between CO2 concentration in sea water. Most of the other recent threads deal with this dispute.
The second half of your sentence is proven false by the first.
However, returning to the data, it should be clear to anyone who is able to set aside their biases to see that sun activity correlates with global temperature and drives it which then drives airborne CO2 concentration.
The available evidence demonstrates this simple model much better than the convoluted arguments made by AGW proponents. Here is some data.
CO2 PROXY
(note the 100-200 year lag)
TEMPERATURE PROXY
SUN ACTIVITY PROXY
(note that C14 lags sun irradiance by about 30 years)
SUN IRRADIANCE RECONSTRUCTION
(note that sun activity leads temperature by 10-20 years)
Personal attacks do nothing to help your case.You are an ignorant fool.
See above and the other threads. There is an abundance of evidence provided by several posters. As far as merit goes, it is interesting that when I ask you to discuss and support the abstracts you link you go silent.And you are a liar who makes baseless assertions completely void of evidence or merit, too.
Samuel, if you remain interested in a skeptical viewpoint and why, let me know if you have more questions.
No problem. I was doing the same, which goes to show that generalizations are never right. :P
To the original points, I would answer Samuel P. that the people who might want to make it look worse than it is are the media people who need to sell newspapers and TV advertising. Of course the usual target of the deniers is Al Gore, and they've almost succeeded in making the label of exaggerator or alarmist stick, but a rational look at the science in his movie and book only shows that he got a couple of details wrong, and by far the majority of it right.
On whether the deniosphere is completely industry driven, one can only look at the correlations and draw one's own conclusions. For example, regarding Senator Inhofe, and without making any judgments about cause and effect:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ames_M._InhofeOil
James M. Inhofe has voted in favor of big oil companies on 100% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007, according to Oil Change International. These bills include Iraq war funding, climate change studies, clean energy, and emissions.[1] See below for oil money in politics.
Oil and Coal Money in Politics
James M. Inhofe has accepted $311,800 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $160,800 of those dollars were from industry PACS. In total, Inhofe received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS. See above for oil and energy voting record.[2]
It wasn't a personal attack. It was a descriptive statement of fact.Personal attacks do nothing to help your case.You are an ignorant fool.
Step back Bunbury and consider what you're doing. Your response to inow's associating engineers with Denial is softened by his pledge to be "on side". If cypress had claimed the same you'd have fought hard, no?
More "them". They are the problem not us. I admit I use the issue in the same way. It's convenient. Participants tacitly agree to the game rules.
Now when I step outside the battle, what I see is worse. I see that I entrench my own beliefs and others'. I also see my zeal sidesteps the fact that I'm much to blame for observed climate changes, and worse yet my favoured pro-AGW arguments mask deeper problems in the climate, problems I'm to blame for and will aggravate to the bitter end.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
Again, obtuse. Are you saying that others make the issue seem worse than it is? If so, who? Me? inow? Al Gore? Gavin Schmidt? Jim Hansen? Sorry, call me dense, but you have to write it plainly.the people who might want to make it look worse than it is are the media people...
More "them". They are the problem not us. I admit I use the issue in the same way. It's convenient. Participants tacitly agree to the game rules.
?Now when I step outside the battle, what I see is worse. I see that I entrench my own beliefs and others'. I also see my zeal sidesteps the fact that I'm much to blame for observed climate changes, and worse yet my favoured pro-AGW arguments mask deeper problems in the climate, problems I'm to blame for and will aggravate to the bitter end.
You can't make out whose side I'm on. My point is that the issue of climate change is an epic war in which neutrality is practically impossible. And i can almost hear the cogs of your mind turning that over to decide which way to take that.
Better fleshed out in another thread. I suspect the CO2 issue, though real, distracts from a larger problem we're unwilling to contemplate. I admitted that I'll fight climate beyond the point of ecological collapse rather than address this other problem. Fortunately I'll be dead before then, so future generations with more sense may correct my mistakes.?
Very good point pong. Both inow and bunbury tend to shape the tone and usefulness of their response on their prejudice about the person rather than the substance of the post. He remains civil to you as long as he is unsure what side you argue.You can't make out whose side I'm on. My point is that the issue of climate change is an epic war in which neutrality is practically impossible. And i can almost hear the cogs of your mind turning that over to decide which way to take that.
Interesting.
Gotta respect the honesty.Better fleshed out in another thread. I suspect the CO2 issue, though real, distracts from a larger problem we're unwilling to contemplate. I admitted that I'll fight climate beyond the point of ecological collapse rather than address this other problem. Fortunately I'll be dead before then, so future generations with more sense may correct my mistakes.
Science is not decided by wars, which is the point.
Massive parallel processing if you don't mind. No cogs involved.And i can almost hear the cogs of your mind turning that over to decide which way to take that.
Why be coy? If you mean self-interest then say so.Better fleshed out in another thread. I suspect the CO2 issue, though real, distracts from a larger problem we're unwilling to contemplate.
Correction:Right, science isn't decided by war, but the issue of climate change is irresistibly partisan.
I suspect that green literally is part of the problem. The anthropic greening of dry lands, and suppression of forest fires. I suspect that we've upset the aerosol feedback between ecology and climate. For over a century we progressively masked that expanding problem with air pollution; we removed the mask in the 70's.
We can't back out of this one. None of the solutions are acceptable to humanity. So I fear we'll go down fighting climate-correcting dustbowls, in the name of green.
That's my direst speculation, off topic.
I suspect that the vagueness of that "suspicion" is its only protection from immediate dismissal.
It's impossible to tell what you are actually claiming to suspect. If you are hypothesizing that greater areas of plant growth caused the CO2 boost, you need to make a very complicated argument against the obvious direct effect of plants absorbing CO2 and sequestering some of it in the ground. If you are claiming that worldwide air pollution levels have dropped since the 70s, again you need some kind of evidence to counter the increasing fire frequency and air pollution levels common to most of the inhabited planet. And so forth.
I too think the manipulated corporate media's focus on the media's presentation of the "scientific controversy" around the effects of the anthro CO2 boost conceals larger and darker agenda (we notice that Exxon is funding a lot of political opposition to political recognition of the likely warming from the CO2 boost, while simultaneously investing hundreds of millions of dollars in Arctic projects that will only become profitable if the polar ice melts significantly more).
Funny thing is that most of us with engineering and/or technical troubleshooting experience know how to look for root problems from symptoms, rather than sticking with the first correlation that can be played for politics of investments in carbon trading.
Follow the politics for control.
Follow the money... Who has millions or more invested in the carbon trading industry.
Myself, I don't know about prominent ones, but I'd say 75% of the technicians and engineers I have worked would be classed as "deniers."
How many engineers become a public figure of sorts?
Those who have studied the engineering disciplines can correlate data better than many people.
One funny thing is, we are suppose to listen to the "climatologists." Isn't it also funny how in many universities, a climatologists BS degree is only one more class than what it takes to get a meteorologist degree.
We're suppose to listen to them?
How many times do we laugh at how wrong the weathermen are?
[quote="inow"]I'm not a college trained engineer, but have been an engineering technician for several years. I have worked with engineers, making their mechanical/electrical conceptions come to life and solve problems. I have also re-engineer things along the way. I seldom make a wrong assessment on my first try. When I do, I usually derive the correct solution soon after. I only had one problem that plagued me for about 2 years before solving it, but then... not a single college trained engineer could. I did! the fix involved three things. One bad thing would have been simple. Two, an intriguing challenge. The third was a software change in the machine control macro. I changed that too.
Saved the company several million!
Yes, I am multi-talented. I am an autodidact. I get a call from a head hunter every now and then.
My ability to see and explore possible causes to problems is rare. The climate issues are a greater challenge in that I have to rely on other people's data, and it is difficult to know who to believe. There are times I have explained things as other possible reasons without that direct distinction. I get sloppy sometimes in my explanations when I am in a hurry, and I spend far more time here than I should. I should just save my draft and post later rather than hurrying up.
I trust J. Lean's data. J. Hansen's data is only trustworthy when there is an et. al. with his name, because then, he has others looking over his shoulder. It is his research that showed temperature data, still used, that has been proven wrong since. I rarely trust anything by G. Schmidt. These three all work for NASA/GISS. I point this out because I have noted I have been accused of flip-flopping with NASA/GISS material.
Both Hansen and Schmidt are vocal alarmists. RealClimate is primarily editorialized by Gavin Schmidt. I'm all but certain it is his site. I haven't seen any bias in Lean's work. I haven't seen her vocal for either side. I believe she simple interprets the data the beats she can. Anyone see otherwise with her?
It's not that I pick what I agree with, but I pick by what I can and cannot trust. If someone can show me at error with facts I can absorb, rather than someone elses conclusion, then I'm all ears. I have noted a complete lack of any tangible evidence contrary to what I have said as fact and possibility.
This kind of stupid mistake is a good illustration of why biologists and climatologists and the the like end up holding engineers in bemused contempt.
The weatherman deals in probabilities, therefore the climatologist is a quack? Only an engineer could fail to learn from the embarrassment of being called out on the first few times they dealt in such reasoning.
You have been treated to several posts containing facts a person of ordinary intelligence and scientific education should be able to absorb.
For example: You have been linked to data showing that the ocean's acidity is increasing in the surface waters, and the extra acid is from CO2 originating in fossil fuel combustion and then dissolved from the air. That means your assertion that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere came from the outgassing of a solar-warmed ocean has been contradicted by physical measurement. This has failed to register with you. Why do you suppose that is?
Interested laymen even.You have been treated to several posts containing facts a person of ordinary intelligence and scientific education should be able to absorb.
Shifting the goalposts - technicians are not engineers. How many engineers do you know?Myself, I don't know about prominent ones, but I'd say 75% of the technicians and engineers I have worked would be classed as "deniers."
Relevance?How many engineers become a public figure of sorts?
Yes, I'm better at it than the mailman.Those who have studied the engineering disciplines can correlate data better than many people.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.One funny thing is, we are suppose to listen to the "climatologists." Isn't it also funny how in many universities, a climatologists BS degree is only one more class than what it takes to get a meteorologist degree.
We're suppose to listen to them?
How many times do we laugh at how wrong the weathermen are?
[quote="Wild Cobra"]No, I didn't write that.
I am an engineer and I know hundreds. Engineers are good at recognizing and understanding patterns and anomalies. Our practical experience allows us to see issues in analyses and explanations. Through trial and error, we are more often correct too. Most engineered systems eventually end up working.Shifting the goalposts - technicians are not engineers. How many engineers do you know?Myself, I don't know about prominent ones, but I'd say 75% of the technicians and engineers I have worked would be classed as "deniers."
When a number of engineers are skeptical of claims, more often than not, there is a real issue behind it.
A better question, though is why should we distrust engineers over other scientific occupations? Chemical engineers and environmental engineers have as much or more relevant training as climatologists. Why should we accept one voice over another?
As a chemical engineer with several decades of experience I would have to disagree with you.
I have respect for the fields, especially the likes of biology.This kind of stupid mistake is a good illustration of why biologists and climatologists and the the like end up holding engineers in bemused contempt.
Quack? No. But to assign probabilities in such predictions they aren't qualified to?
I agree. They deal with probabilities. Probabilities based on what they know and are taught. The weather is difficult enough to predict a week out. When you are dealing with long term analysis and predictions, a climatologist predicting such things are just a joke.
There are several fields in the geosciences that affect the long term climatic changes. Climatology is just one of many. To take the same classes to be a meteorologist, then one more class to be a climatologist... Give me a break. That in no way prepares them to come to proper conclusions that deal with more than just short term atmospheric conditions.
LOL...
Engineers make mistakes all the time. They are seldom right the first time, and the final result usually takes several rounds of prototyping and testing. But then, that depends on the field also.
Not true.You have been treated to several posts containing facts a person of ordinary intelligence and scientific education should be able to absorb.
I specifically said those articles are someone elses conclusions. Without giving me the proper data to independently test, how do I know who to trust?
How do we know the extra acid is from CO2? Are you saying there are no other possibilities?
What fails to register is with you. You flat out dismiss other viable possibilities, and hold on to what others tell you.
Why? Because I added technicians?Shifting the goalposts - technicians are not engineers. How many engineers do you know?Myself, I don't know about prominent ones, but I'd say 75% of the technicians and engineers I have worked would be classed as "deniers."
I have worked very close with eight engineers. I know rather well an excess of 20.
That the alarmists don't have a background that demands accuracy of findings, but rather, probabilities.
And so am I and my engineering and technician co-workers.
Nobody here has "dismissed viable possibilities." What they have done is to show why those proposals are not viable. They have used evidence in support of their position, and you blanketly dismiss that evidence as "propaganda" or somehow not good enough because they didn't perform the calculations in front of you.
The point, however, is that the dismissal pertains to the lack of viability, not to the fact that it contradicts their existing understandings.
I am told that at a very young age I had this carpet-level argument with a playmate:
"It brown."
"It's a truck."
"It brown!"
"No! No! It's a TRUCK!"
That is the way of theories. We extend our theories to claim more than they should. It is simpler to annihilate other theories in the way, and so starken the importance of whatever theories we find ourselves championing. That's normal human thinking. Only genius synthesizes, or reconciles, the apparently exclusive.
I can't reconcile Wild Cobra's theories with the theory now popularly inflating (anthro-CO2-drives-all theory). I can see that no one here, including WC, has made an honest effort to.
What if it's a brown truck?
Why can you not explain then why my theories are wrong? Linking other peoples opinions is not proof that my opinion is wrong.
In my case, I agree it's a brown truck. I am not saying there is no anthropogenic warming. I am only saying CO2 is given more credit for our warming than it deserves, and have shown solid reasons why the sun changes it more.
How can you dismiss what a 0.18%, or 0.24% increase in solar irradiation does?
Then why are you unable to voice in your own words why they are not viable?
If you cannot explain it, how can I even believe you are onto any truth?
Especially considering we are currently basing global warming on a 0.01% increase in levels of Co2 in the atmosphear
Sorry, but your math is wrong.Especially considering we are currently basing global warming on a 0.01% increase in levels of Co2 in the atmosphear
387/280 = 1.38, or a 38% increase.
It wasn't what I meant, sorry. I meant that current levels of co2 are at 0.04% of the atmosphere, they have risen by 0.01% of total gas in the last 250 years.
Why not be more worried about methane? CO2 has increased by a factor of 1.37 or 37%, but methane has increased by a factor of 2.66 or 166% (1865-700). According to the IPCC methane is also 25 times a more effective greenhouse gas.
This effectively means that for every ton of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, methane has had 48.54 times the effect on global warming
feel free to correct me if I am wrong
source of figures: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
As a Chemical engineer also with 25 years experience and working with many environmental engineers we will have to agree to disagree.As a chemical engineer with several decades of experience I would have to disagree with you.
When one has a prior commitment it is not necessary to explain it. Inow does not deal in truth. He has admitted it on several occasions.Then why are you unable to voice in your own words why they are not viable?
If you cannot explain it, how can I even believe you are onto any truth?
To him there is what he believes to be correct, which he calls "valid" and there is everything else, which he calls invalid.
Whatever, cypress.
I think you are misreading Wild Cobra. As I understand his explanations he is saying it is a brown truck. He is saying that climate fluctuations have a multitude of causes, some are more significant than others. He puts sun activity as the primary driver, along with several tag along influencers to the sun. He has changes in aerosols as an important influencer, changes in CO2 and other GHG concentrations as a real but minor player and a host of other participants.I am told that at a very young age I had this carpet-level argument with a playmate:
"It brown."
"It's a truck."
"It brown!"
"No! No! It's a TRUCK!"
That is the way of theories. We extend our theories to claim more than they should. It is simpler to annihilate other theories in the way, and so starken the importance of whatever theories we find ourselves championing. That's normal human thinking. Only genius synthesizes, or reconciles, the apparently exclusive.
I can't reconcile Wild Cobra's theories with the theory now popularly inflating (anthro-CO2-drives-all theory). I can see that no one here, including WC, has made an honest effort to.
What if it's a brown truck?
Taken as a whole, his story holds together very well. It certainly fits the data well, is consistent with physical chemistry and thermodynamics and it meets the smell test. If he is correct, then humans are once again relegated to a minor role in climate change. Anything we attempt to do to alter the climate under this scenario likely have less impact than intended. Our best bet is perhaps to simply become better stewards of our planet than we have been in the past.
Assuming their effects are linear and independent (which are big assumptions) you'd need to multiply by the trace amounts of CH4 (0.00017%) devided by trace amounts of CO2(0.036%)
This effectively means that for every ton of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, methane has had 48.54 times the effect on global warming
feel free to correct me if I am wrong
source of figures: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
In other words, your equation times x 0.00017%/0.0360%
The result is the change of methane is 22% of the effect of changed co2 on global warming.
I think you are reading opposition where I voiced none. :wink:I think you are misreading Wild Cobra.I am told that at a very young age I had this carpet-level argument with a playmate...
Fair enough, but I disagree with the way you frame it. It has risen an additional 0.01% of the atmospheric content. Not buy 0.1%.
Well, in my opinion, it depends on how you look at it. I forget how much stronger the alarmists claim methane is than CO2, but it is a flat out lie. From it's current level of under 2 ppm, it is far from developing it's full greenhouse gas potential. It can still have an effect of magnitudes of what it already does. CO2 however is near blocking 100% of the spectra that it absorbs already. It cannot want the atmosphere by much more than it already does. If methane were to ever approach the levels of CO2, it could warm us significantly, but in reality, it is a weaker greenhouse gas than CO2.
Here is a chart I extrapolated using IPCC numbers:
CH4 is clearly a weaker greenhouse gas than CO2. What I believe the IPCC does is pick two points for a slope. If I take their 1750 to 2005 estimates and linearized for a slope, I get a slope of 0.48 watts per ppm for CH4 and 0.0168 watts per ppm for CO2. This makes it erroneously appear the methane is 28 times stronger than carbon dioxide.
This is misleading. Consider carefully the three graphs I posted. I used slightly different numbers, the ones found in the AR4 WG1 Technical Summary. I used a change for CO2 from 280 ppm to 379 ppm. 730 ppb to 1774 ppb for CH4.This effectively means that for every ton of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, methane has had 48.54 times the effect on global warming
feel free to correct me if I am wrong
source of figures: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Thank-You.
I think it's great and accurate the way you framed that. Wish I was as good of a communicator as you are.
And engineers are the people who make that flagrant (I called it stupid, above) mistake in reasoning with the most confidence.
Difficulty in predicting the weather next week has no bearing - none whatsoever - on predictions of the climate next century; especially general properties of the climate, and even more obviously if specific predictions are not at real issue, but simply a prediction of serious change in the current patterns over all.
Note that calling that line of argument a mistake is giving it all the benefit of the doubt. Depending on source, one would be tempted often to label it a deliberate deception, a rhetorical technique of propaganda that is basically a lie.
You were wrong. They were data - physical measurements.
There is always the possibility that all those oceanographers and physical chemists and isotope analyzers and so forth, who published their methods and their evidence in dozens of papers in peer reviewed journals, were wrong. Sure. Error is always possible, in science.
But as I pointed out, that is what you are assuming. Your assertions require that all those hundreds of researchers be physically wrong, physically in error. That picture I posted above has to be false, in its entirety, for example.
At some point, possibilities that are contradicted by repeated physical measurement and repeated data collection and repeatedly observed event cease to be "viable" possibilities. That is always a judgment call.
No one dismisses that. The IPCC includes it as a major factor, everyone agrees that it counts for a lot, and so forth.
Your hypothesized "lag" of twenty or ten or fifteen or thirty or thirty two years, depending on context, I do dismiss - no mechanism, no data, no support in any event, no reasoning even, and repeated contradiction by observation (warmer nights and winters, for starters), mean dismissal seems appropriate to me. You seem to have pulled it out of your ass to explain why the temperature data doesn't match the solar irradiance data, and we have much better explanations for that ready to hand.
It fits no data I have seen, it is consistent with only carefully limited and unrealistic circumstances of application of thermodynamics etc, and I don't apply "smell tests" to physical questions.
Hey, enough with the engineers. WC is a technician. He is not an engineer. Please do not generalize about engineers based on anything WC writes. In fact please don't generalize in general. Your arguments are fine without resorting to misdirected ad homs.And engineers are the people who make that flagrant (I called it stupid, above) mistake in reasoning with the most confidence.
I'll take the hit on that one. Sorry for giving that particular meme new life here, Bunbury. I appreciate you being a clear counter example to the idea I put forth, and along those lines, mea culpa.
No prob. I just wondered why it kept coming up. We engineers are sensitive ya know. 8)
As far as I can tell those who have written about changing ocean acidity levels didn't consider other alternatives. I have read dozens of articles and none of them even mention and dismiss other possibilities. Most of the articles estimate and project continued drop in pH based solely on simple CO2 <-> H2CO3 <-> CaCO3 equilibrium. However, all of the articles treated Carbonate (CO3) as being just saturated in surface sea water with no excess carbonate available leading to a worst case decline in pH. This article describes a twofold overabundance of carbonate in the overall ocean budget that these other articles did not consider. Iceaura can you find me an article that does properly treat the availability of carbonate compounds in the ocean?There is always the possibility that all those oceanographers and physical chemists and isotope analyzers and so forth, who published their methods and their evidence in dozens of papers in peer reviewed journals, were wrong. Sure. Error is always possible, in science.
But as I pointed out, that is what you are assuming. Your assertions require that all those hundreds of researchers be physically wrong, physically in error. That picture I posted above has to be false, in its entirety, for example.
When I do the math at 700 ppm C02 I get a new equilibrium pH of 8.0 and no further drop given the apparent surplus of CaCO3 and other carbonate minerals entering the sea surface waters.
Sorry, Iceaura it is a physical reality of all systems of input, output and a storage sink. The air the ocean and the earth are all energy storage systems, the sun is an energy delivery system and the night sky is an energy sink. The mechanism is well known. It is the basis of your home thermostat which are programmed to shut off the heat or air conditioning before the thermostat reaches setpoint because of this physical reality. You continue to harp on warmer nights and winters so I think I'll start a new thread in a day or so to address that one. In the mean time see if you can find something on this carbonate abundance and how that impacts ocean pH stability.Your hypothesized "lag" of twenty or ten or fifteen or thirty or thirty two years, depending on context, I do dismiss - no mechanism, no data, no support in any event, no reasoning even, and repeated contradiction by observation (warmer nights and winters, for starters), mean dismissal seems appropriate to me. You seem to have pulled it out of your ass to explain why the temperature data doesn't match the solar irradiance data, and we have much better explanations for that ready to hand.
Iceaura, I have come to learn that you shut your eyes to reason and evidence so I am not surprised by your response.It fits no data I have seen, it is consistent with only carefully limited and unrealistic circumstances of application of thermodynamics etc, and I don't apply "smell tests" to physical questions.
No, what data is being collected is ignoring other possibilities. Data and correlation, without excluding other factors.You were wrong. They were data - physical measurements.
That is not science.
I think people are prone to jump to the most likely solution they see, and when something is said often enough, they don't think to look for other possibilities. Just correlating cause and effect, to what appears obvious.There is always the possibility that all those oceanographers and physical chemists and isotope analyzers and so forth, who published their methods and their evidence in dozens of papers in peer reviewed journals, were wrong. Sure. Error is always possible, in science.
But as I pointed out, that is what you are assuming. Your assertions require that all those hundreds of researchers be physically wrong, physically in error. That picture I posted above has to be false, in its entirety, for example.
And sometimes poor judgment. especially is other possibilities are ignored.At some point, possibilities that are contradicted by repeated physical measurement and repeated data collection and repeatedly observed event cease to be "viable" possibilities. That is always a judgment call.
But the do dismiss it, and without lying!No one dismisses that. The IPCC includes it as a major factor, everyone agrees that it counts for a lot, and so forth.
They assign solar a 0.12 watt forcing, but they intentionally call it "direct" forcing. What about the indirect forcing? Afterall, we now have an additional 0.18% to 0.24% driving the greenhouse effect!
They conveniently ignore that.
Denial by chance?
Why does our temperature lag by 2-4 months with out seasons. You know, the points between the solstices?
There is lag. Just because I cannot quantify it should not be reason to dismiss it.
LOL.... Can be, especially at losing in poker. At least the ones I used to hang out with.No prob. I just wondered why it kept coming up. We engineers are sensitive ya know. 8)
You are simply wrong about that. Mechanisms are proposed and predictions from them checked, not just correlations. Other explanations are explicitly considered, not overlooked - including everything you have mentioned here, and considerably more. These are actual researchers, and they are not the blithering idiots you presume them to be.
I just want to make explicit that presumption: for you to be anything but flagrantly in error, all of this research - essentially the entire body of climate research to date, with minor and outlying exceptions - has to have been done by incompetents merely recording correlations that matched their own presumptions and ignoring correlations that didn’t; presumptions without solid foundation in theory or fact, derived from unsupported assertions by some authority figure in their lives.
They don’t ignore it - they assign it to its proper category: greenhouse effect.
What is this “driving the greenhouse effect” handwaving, anyway?
In the first place, it doesn’t exactly do that - in my area (midcontinent 45 lat) the increase in temps begins almost immediately with the beginning of the significant increase in actual solar irradiance, in late January, for example (historically, the coldest week of the year is around January 21, just before the acceleration of the increase in irradiance). In the second, what lag there is in this pattern occurs for reasons people can point to, mechanisms well known - among them, the greenhouse effect of water vapor figures prominently.
You can’t present a mechanism for “it”, either. Or point to definite instances of “it” occuring. You (wrongly) criticize others for relying on empty correlation, and you don’t even have that.
You are simply wrong about that. Mechanisms are proposed and predictions from them checked, not just correlations. Other explanations are explicitly considered, not overlooked - including everything you have mentioned here, and considerably more. These are actual researchers, and they are not the blithering idiots you presume them to be.
I just want to make explicit that presumption: for you to be anything but flagrantly in error, all of this research - essentially the entire body of climate research to date, with minor and outlying exceptions - has to have been done by incompetents merely recording correlations that matched their own presumptions and ignoring correlations that didn’t; presumptions without solid foundation in theory or fact, derived from unsupported assertions by some authority figure in their lives.
They don’t ignore it - they assign it to its proper category: greenhouse effect.
What is this “driving the greenhouse effect” handwaving, anyway?
In the first place, it doesn’t exactly do that - in my area (midcontinent 45 lat) the increase in temps begins almost immediately with the beginning of the significant increase in actual solar irradiance, in late January, for example (historically, the coldest week of the year is around January 21, just before the acceleration of the increase in irradiance. Lately, the coldest temps have been matching the solstice almost exactly, and December has become the coldest month of most years). In the second, what lag there is in this pattern occurs for reasons people can and often do point to, mechanisms well known - among them, the greenhouse effect of water vapor figures prominently.
You can’t present a mechanism for “it”, either. Or point to definite instances of “it” occurring. You (wrongly) criticize others for relying on empty correlation, and you don’t even have that.
Why not start with Wikipedia, and when you have become familiar with the material therein we can move on to basic introductory texts, and from there to front line research reports? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification- - Ω is the product of the concentrations (or activities) of the reacting ions that form the mineral (Ca+2 and CO2−3), divided by the product of the concentrations of those ions when the mineral is at equilibrium (Ksp), that is, when the mineral is neither forming nor dissolving.[14] In seawater, a natural horizontal boundary is formed as a result of temperature, pressure, and depth, and is known as the saturation horizon, or lysocline.[9] Above this saturation horizon, Ω has a value greater than 1, and CaCO3 does not readily dissolve. Most calcifying organisms live in such waters.[9] Below this depth, Ω has a value less than 1, and CaCO3 will dissolve. However, if its production rate is high enough to offset dissolution, CaCO3 can still occur where Ω is less than 1. The carbonate compensation depth occurs at the depth in the ocean where production is exceeded by dissolution.[15]
Calcium carbonate occurs in 2 common polymorphs: aragonite and calcite. Aragonite is much more soluble than calcite, with the result that the aragonite saturation horizon is always nearer to the surface than the calcite saturation horizon.[9] This also means that those organisms that produce aragonite may possibly be more vulnerable to changes in ocean acidity than those which produce calcite.[2] Increasing CO2 levels and the resulting lower pH of seawater decreases the saturation state of CaCO3 and raises the saturation horizons of both forms closer to the surface.[16] This decrease in saturation state is believed to be one of the main factors leading to decreased calcification in marine organisms, as it has been found that the inorganic precipitation of CaCO3 is directly proportional to its saturation state.[17]
Iceaura you are stuck on stupid. Anybody with basic understanding of mass, heat and energy balance knows and understands the mechanism of lag time. Do yourself a favor and let this one go you are making a fool of yourself. Another poster provided the mechanism, and the values and a reference in another thread. Really you should drop this argument, you lost it already.You can’t present a mechanism for “it”, either. Or point to definite instances of “it” occurring. You (wrongly) criticize others for relying on empty correlation, and you don’t even have that.
Quite predictably you skipped right past the reference and proceeded to change the context. ice, really I am embarrassed for you. YOu should try reading what I said again.Why not start with Wikipedia, and when you have become familiar with the material therein we can move on to basic introductory texts, and from there to front line research reports? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification- - Ω is the product of the concentrations (or activities) of the reacting ions that form the mineral (Ca+2 and CO2−3), divided by the product of the concentrations of those ions when the mineral is at equilibrium (Ksp), that is, when the mineral is neither forming nor dissolving.[14] In seawater, a natural horizontal boundary is formed as a result of temperature, pressure, and depth, and is known as the saturation horizon, or lysocline.[9] Above this saturation horizon, Ω has a value greater than 1, and CaCO3 does not readily dissolve. Most calcifying organisms live in such waters.[9] Below this depth, Ω has a value less than 1, and CaCO3 will dissolve. However, if its production rate is high enough to offset dissolution, CaCO3 can still occur where Ω is less than 1. The carbonate compensation depth occurs at the depth in the ocean where production is exceeded by dissolution.[15]
Calcium carbonate occurs in 2 common polymorphs: aragonite and calcite. Aragonite is much more soluble than calcite, with the result that the aragonite saturation horizon is always nearer to the surface than the calcite saturation horizon.[9] This also means that those organisms that produce aragonite may possibly be more vulnerable to changes in ocean acidity than those which produce calcite.[2] Increasing CO2 levels and the resulting lower pH of seawater decreases the saturation state of CaCO3 and raises the saturation horizons of both forms closer to the surface.[16] This decrease in saturation state is believed to be one of the main factors leading to decreased calcification in marine organisms, as it has been found that the inorganic precipitation of CaCO3 is directly proportional to its saturation state.[17]
Keep it classy, cypress.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Danth%27s_Law
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.
<...>
Declaring victory is just spin; a last desperate attempt to trick people into believing you came out on top (providing that they don't actually go and read the discussion, of course).
Then why can't anyone understand it enough to explain it to me in their words?You are simply wrong about that. Mechanisms are proposed and predictions from them checked, not just correlations. Other explanations are explicitly considered, not overlooked - including everything you have mentioned here, and considerably more. These are actual researchers, and they are not the blithering idiots you presume them to be.
I wouldn't say that.
I myself get stuck on an idea from time to time. At work, I have a modification I engineered running on a couple pieces of equipment. I want, with all my heart, to believe that my modification is better than the original. I can see a small statistical improvement, but there are so many variable, and running in a real environment, it cannot be properly quantified. None of our equipment can operate in just an engineering test more. Only in real processes, which is not exactly the same between two pieces of equipment. Needless to say, I could be wrong, and I know it.
Thing about this global warming stuff, nobody yet has been able to show me wrong in the ways that are quantifiable. Care to be the first?
Oh...They don’t ignore it - they assign it to its proper category: greenhouse effect.
So you admit that the extra solar effect is being reclassified as a increase of CO2 radiative forcing?
I live just above 45N myself, in Portland, OR. The winter solstice was I believe the 21st, but our coldest months are usually late January to late February. The summer solstice in early July, but it is hottest in late October, early September.In the first place, it doesn’t exactly do that - in my area (midcontinent 45 lat) the increase in temps begins almost immediately with the beginning of the significant increase in actual solar irradiance, in late January, for example (historically, the coldest week of the year is around January 21, just before the acceleration of the increase in irradiance). In the second, what lag there is in this pattern occurs for reasons people can point to, mechanisms well known - among them, the greenhouse effect of water vapor figures prominently.
OK, my 2-4 was a little off, but still there is a lag.
Now the oceans are how much more massive than the atmosphere?
How much more lag could there be?
Well, at least I don't try give an absolute to it, like, it doesn't exist.You can’t present a mechanism for “it”, either. Or point to definite instances of “it” occuring. You (wrongly) criticize others for relying on empty correlation, and you don’t even have that.
Then show me the math.You are simply wrong about that. Mechanisms are proposed and predictions from them checked, not just correlations. Other explanations are explicitly considered, not overlooked - including everything you have mentioned here, and considerably more. These are actual researchers, and they are not the blithering idiots you presume them to be.
I just want to see evidence I can absorb rather than someone elses interpretation.
Call it a character flaw if you must. I don't trust others very well, unless I understand them.
Why is it asking too much to show me acceptable evidence? If what you say is true, the evidence should readily be available, right?
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black!!! you are a quite the example. Perhaps you should help ice aura with some basic heat transfer principles.Keep it classy, cypress.
Do you claim I am wrong?http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Danth%27s_Law
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.
<...>
Tell you what inow. I'm going make you a bet. $1000 to any amount over 100 you are willing to put up to the charity of the others choosing . I will easily show you about the principles of lag in closed and open loop energy transfer systems. You in?Declaring victory is just spin; a last desperate attempt to trick people into believing you came out on top (providing that they don't actually go and read the discussion, of course).
WC, I'm not understanding one of your graphs. Where do you get a radiative forcing of 26 Watts (isn't that the wrong units?) for a CO2 concentration of 100 ppm from?
When CH4 is said to be a more potent (25X on a 100 yr timeframe) greenhouse gas than CO2, what is being described is it's "Greenhouse Warming Potential" (GWP) - I'm sure you've seen the formula for that?
I'm putting things into perspective. My excel sheet shows that at 25.38 watts.
WC, I'm not understanding one of your graphs. Where do you get a radiative forcing of 26 Watts (isn't that the wrong units?) for a CO2 concentration of 100 ppm from?
The radiative forcing of a gas is a logarithmic curve. To get these curves, I took two points and created the logarithmic curve to fit the data. Have a better curve? Here's what Al Gore uses:
Please notice he has a chart for CO2 starting at 230 watts. I believe he is baselines it off other greenhouse gasses effects. His chart shows about 253 at 100 ppm, or adding 23 watts.
When the IPCC and others talk of radiative forcing, they give a value that is added to what was already there. The 1.66 watts CO2 forcing for example, is the is the change from 1750 to 2005. The total forcing of CO2 is about 33 watts. I forget the estimated figures by various sources, but if you believe those numbers of the IPCC and like agencies, then CO2 warming since 1750 is about 5% of the total CO2 warming.
Yes, I have seen the formulas, but Why does that calculation of Warming Potential even matter?
Thank-you for being the first to point that out however. I figured someone would actually have the ability to read and parse information correctly. Seems most people don't. People like to debate me, but refuse to show how I am wrong, except when I make a simple stupid one. You have my congratulations. You are the first to point out something that I left to be found. Makes me think you understand the topic more than most others who come here.
I was sidestepping the way they make their claims, because when they say it is a stronger greenhouse gas without including persistence in every statement, then it causes a greater fear than necessary. Especially when a system closer to being in balance changes slower than a system out of balance. I even question that method.
I say they inaccurately calculate persistence even. Due to the equilibrium nature of partial pressure reactions, a persistence curve is more live a half-life curve. When we measure it under one condition, that doesn't mean the persistence remains under a different condition. This is all so dynamic.
I intentional did this to show people that CH4 is not a very strong greenhouse gas, and showed the slope of the relative areas being changed. I haven't seen anyone else show CH4 from this viewpoint. It responds very similar to CO2 in life, at least I believe so. Changes in temperature and Henry's Law. The systems of each half-life are infinity when in balance, and nothing changes otherwise.
Now personally, I don't believe the curves have the values as shown, but I plotted them as if the IPCC conclusions were correct.
Please note the similarity of the gas curves over time. From wiki: Vostok Station:
Here is my chart annotated for the 1.66 watt increase:
Those of you who have read the various Global Warming threads know I believe the sun is the primary driver of out temperature changes. Just today, I was looking at a TSI vs. year graph, and it struck me how similar it looked to the sum of harmonics. I plotted harmonics using a frequency, and its double and quadruple:
Notice how it follows normal harmonic correlations. A doubled frequency gets half value, a quadrupled gets 1/4.
When we add these values together, we get this:
Now if I scale the graph, it is very close to the last few hundred years of the sun as we know it:
Thoughts anyone?
Here's another graph. This one provides the data source references. I don't see a lot of congruence between yours and this one.
http://chartsgraphs.files.wordpress....09_11yr_ma.png
The fact that any curve - any piecewise continuous curve whatsoever - can be fitted with arbitrary accuracy by a sum of trig functions is the basis of Fourier Transforms and other useful mathematical tools. It is not otherwise necessarily informative.
You have been saying exactly that for weeks now, repeatedly, on this forum.
Almost all of the heat energy trapped by CO2 is from the sun originally, "extra" or not. Events directly produced through heat trapping by CO2 that would not occur without heat trapping by CO2 are often classified as "effects" of heat trapping by CO2; that is standard and correct.
Your summer solstice is around June 21 just like mine, September comes before October in my area, and the hottest temps in my area are traditionally in mid July. I doubt any real differences between our areas are due to variations in the mass of the atmosphere.
You are overlooking the issue. In the first place, look at the shape of the irradiance curve - the solar irradiance does not begin to rebound significantly (either direction) until a week or more after the solstice. In the second, reasons for the short and irregular lag are well known, - and the greenhouse effect is a significant influence. In the third, the lag you speak of has vanished recently in my area - has the mass of the atmosphere changed that much? Have you checked the trends in your area - especially the day/night and humidity differentials, and the air mass source of the lows and highs (mountain?)?
No one is adjusting and mining some data until an unexplained "lag" pattern falls out of it, and then claiming that the other factors and patterns, measured and known, no longer apply significantly.
The lag after the solstice is not caused by the mass of the atmosphere. Rhetorical questions followed by you pulling some number out of your ass are not arguments.
Then there is a possibility that in some issues you will forever mistrust specifically those who understand them best, and put your faith in those willing to stroke your bafflements.
Because of horticulture. "You can lead a horticulture, but - - - " (Dorothy Parker).
The general shape. The years don't match up real well, but I find the general shape of the cycle rather close to what we have historically. It appears that we are enetering another "minima." At least I believe so. Like anything else in nature, I don't expect the shape to match completely. Other variables likely influence the outcome.
Bottom line, it's just a thought. The pattern is probably too simple to be real.
I agree. I only point out its a possibility.The fact that any curve - any piecewise continuous curve whatsoever - can be fitted with arbitrary accuracy by a sum of trig functions is the basis of Fourier Transforms and other useful mathematical tools. It is not otherwise necessarily informative.
No, I can explain my reasons. I don't recall very much from you that cannot easily be countered by both strong evidence and other reasonable possibilities. I have never seen any clear evidence that CO2 heats the earth by as much as you guys say. I'm still waiting for that evidence.You have been saying exactly that for weeks now, repeatedly, on this forum.
True, but that does not address moy point.Almost all of the heat energy trapped by CO2 is from the sun originally, "extra" or not. Events directly produced through heat trapping by CO2 that would not occur without heat trapping by CO2 are often classified as "effects" of heat trapping by CO2; that is standard and correct.
The greenhouse gas warming effect is a feedback of solar radiation. When you increase the solar radiation, you increase the heat that drives the amplification of the greenhouse effect. Unless you have evidence otherwise, I see it as a near linear correlation. Add 0.2% solar heat, the temperature increase by 0.2%. How can this not be true?
I meant late August. Sorry for the confusion. Still, if your hottest time is in late July, and then do you disagree there is a 1 month lag?Your summer solstice is around June 21 just like mine, September comes before October in my area, and the hottest temps in my area are traditionally in mid July. I doubt any real differences between our areas are due to variations in the mass of the atmosphere.
OK, you admit there is lag.
Why was that so hard?
Now simple physics dictates that more massive systems will have longer lags. Do you disagree?
My point is that there is an unqantified lag that is dismissed rather than investigated.
Then show me how I am wrong. explain the science to me.The lag after the solstice is not caused by the mass of the atmosphere. Rhetorical questions followed by you pulling some number out of your ass are not arguments.
Maybe I could trust the movement better if it hadn't become so political and financially motivated.Then there is a possibility that in some issues you will forever mistrust specifically those who understand them best, and put your faith in those willing to stroke your bafflements.
Ha Ha.Because of horticulture. "You can lead a horticulture, but - - - " (Dorothy Parker).
People not explaining how I am wrong leads me to suspect they don't understand why they believe what they do. At least I know why I have my beliefs. They are based in simple scientific facts that I don't see applied to the Global warming Scare.
The lag between significant acceleration of the irradiance curve and the beginning of the acceleration of the temperature curve seems to be less than two weeks, in general. And the mechanisms involved are familiar.
Around the winter solstice it has vanished altogether, in my area, in recent years. I haven't checked the summer one - as with most other recent warming/cooling patterns, the changes are noticed in the winter and at night.
There is no such thing as a driving of greenhouse amplification by heat.
No. That's not what I wrote there. Reread more carefully, think a bit about the argument you are attempting to make.Yes, I disagree. Your "simple physics" depends on the mechanism, and you have proposed none. You seem to be agreeing that seasonal solar irradiance changes will affect air temperatures very quickly, while asserting other alleged solar irradiance changes will have no effect - none - until thirty years later.
No, greenhouse effects do not influence the sun, as far as we know.
For starters, in your oversimplified situation that would conflict with the predictions of Newton's Law of Cooling. Moving along, we see a conflict with the data, a conflict which you have recognized and attempted to handle via various "lags" etc.
The extra warming is mostly at night, and during the winter. The critical variable is therefore the cooling rate. Add .2% to the initial energy input in the daytime only, run Newton's Law Of Cooling on your uninsulated black body over night, and calculate the difference in the achieved low temperature, the difference in the total range, and the difference in the average. If you get "linear", you are screwing up.
Try ignoring the "movement": look at the research findings and the data analysis.
Fine.The lag between significant acceleration of the irradiance curve and the beginning of the acceleration of the temperature curve seems to be less than two weeks, in general. And the mechanisms involved are familiar.
What ever the time is, there is lag, right?
Well, I still see the coldest periods in January or February.
The amplification is changed by the percentage that the gasses block the escape of IR to space. I am talking about the source if the energy. The radiative forcing of the greenhouse effect increases if the source energy does.There is no such thing as a driving of greenhouse amplification by heat.
from wiki: feedback:
Why can't you admit there is a lag?No. That's not what I wrote there. Reread more carefully, think a bit about the argument you are attempting to make.
Sorry you disagree.Yes, I disagree. Your "simple physics" depends on the mechanism, and you have proposed none. You seem to be agreeing that seasonal solar irradiance changes will affect air temperatures very quickly, while asserting other alleged solar irradiance changes will have no effect - none - until thirty years later.
My difference with solar irradiance is the same thing I have now said at least three times. Land is only 29% of the earth's surface. Solar energy penetrates the ocean for several meters in depth. Not only is this energy placed deep, rather than just the surface, but the ocean is far more deense and massive than the atmosphere. You mention acceleration. Think of what happens as you try to accelerate a greater mass. it is slower at responding. Energy in the surface areas are close to immediate. There is still a small acceleration to heat the atmosphere. I don't like the term accelerate, but since you used it...
The small lag to peak heating or cooling is because the mass is relatively small compared to the ocean. It takes solar energy far longer to change the temperature of the waters as it does the atmosphere, because of sheer mass. Then there is transfer of heat between the two.
That is not what I mean, and I think you know it. I wonder if you are trying to spin my words, or if you truly don't understand what I mean. Refer back to the feedback figure please.No, greenhouse effects do not influence the sun, as far as we know.
In what way?For starters, in your oversimplified situation that would conflict with the predictions of Newton's Law of Cooling. Moving along, we see a conflict with the data, a conflict which you have recognized and attempted to handle via various "lags" etc.
If you mean that black body radiation to heat is not linear, you forget the reverse is happening too, and the non-linear effect becomes linear again. Watts of solar input are pretty much proportional to watts of radiative forcing. If I am wrong, please show me the math that shows such.
That doesn't apply very well. The arctic is insulated for starters. looks like simple half-life style calculations to me. It does not address what I speak of. The cooling is fast with no solar radiation. However, there are other factors. It cannot be simplified that much. Aerosols generally block sunlight. With all the soot in the norther hemisphere, how much of your claim could be from that? Soot is a type of aerosol that actually warms more than it cools, especially from the IR.
How many of those places did research with grant money to show there was warming? Why do politicians want to exercise more control? Why do rich alarmists have stocks in companies that trade in carbon credits?Try ignoring the "movement": look at the research findings and the data analysis.
Can you say none of this is possible?
I am not part of a "movement". I have my own voice and I make my own decisions. More and more, as time goes by, research keeps lowering the numbers. Here is a 1997 paper that reduces the IPCC claims for CO2 by 15%:
New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases
Wasn't it a year or two ago that NASA/GISS said their data corrections were wrong about temperatures, and 1930somthing was the hottest, not 1998?
One by one, the scientific community keeps revising their old numbers, to lower ones.
You have yet to even attempt to persuade anyone that the mass of the air is an important influence on any "lags" we see, btw. So no argument yet. And you haven't dealt with the frequent absence of seasonal "lag" in many well-irradiated places fully covered by atmosphere.
But we aren't talking about a lag in the rate of response, we are talking about a lag in the direction - even the existence - of a response.
The data does not contradict merely your assertions about rate.
And most solar energy does not penetrate "deep" into the ocean - most of it is absorbed in the upper layers, well mixed and in gas exchange with the air. You have to explain why there is a thirty year lag before we see any influence of this absorbed energy on that air, why we don't see the immediate effects we see above every body of water affected by daily and seasonal variations in irradiance.
I'm requiring you to write more clearly, so you cannot hide your confused and contradicted assertions behind interpretive guesswork. You didn't mean feedback: if you were clear about what you did mean, it could be contradicted immediately.
We aren't discussing reality, we're discussing your graphs and "calculations", as repeatedly posted.
We are talking about cooling. In the dark, in the winter. In the situation as modeled by you, in those little graphs you find fascinating.
I can say, and have said, that you asking rhetorical questions and then pulling numbers out of your ass is not argument. When they are political questions their relevance is even less, if possible.
The current year is 2009, about to be 2010. That will make your illustration of "more and more, as time goes by, new numbers" more than 13 years old.
Anyone with an understanding of mass and heat transfer, and energy balance where there is mass and/or energy flux in and out and a energy storage system where energy and mass must diffuse through it (sun irradiance is energy in, radiant cooling is energy out, the atmosphere stores internal energy expressed as absolute temperature), will need no convincing of time lag, of this basic system derived from physical laws.You have yet to even attempt to persuade anyone that the mass of the air is an important influence on any "lags" we see, btw. So no argument yet. And you haven't dealt with the frequent absence of seasonal "lag" in many well-irradiated places fully covered by atmosphere.
There is no way around this behavior, should we walk through a simple example?
There is no point proceeding into a more complex explanation if you reject the basics.But we aren't talking about a lag in the rate of response, we are talking about a lag in the direction - even the existence - of a response.
The data does not contradict merely your assertions about rate.
And most solar energy does not penetrate "deep" into the ocean - most of it is absorbed in the upper layers, well mixed and in gas exchange with the air. You have to explain why there is a thirty year lag before we see any influence of this absorbed energy on that air, why we don't see the immediate effects we see above every body of water affected by daily and seasonal variations in irradiance.
WC made no error in his words, the error is yours, iceaura. A feedback system of multiple inputs will only influence the dependent inputs. Solar radiation is an independent input. You improperly treated solar radiation as dependent and then attacked the straw man you built around that false treatment.I'm requiring you to write more clearly, so you cannot hide your confused and contradicted assertions behind interpretive guesswork. You didn't mean feedback: if you were clear about what you did mean, it could be contradicted immediately.
And yet again there is little point of it if you reject basic physical chemistry laws and principles.We aren't discussing reality, we're discussing your graphs and "calculations", as repeatedly posted.
The existence of a time lag of some unspecified type and duration in whatever system you guys decide to be talking about is not at issue.
What is at issue is the contention that the failure of the atmospheric temperature data to support the contention of solar irradiance increase causing the measured warming is due to a hidden "lag" of some kind.
You can assert the probable existence of some kind of long term response from the ocean, to an increase in solar irradiance, and no one will argue (especially when you have not bothered to specify the term or the mechanism or the response expected). What you need to explain is the absence of short term response where such would be expected, from that strong an influence on current trends, by known and measured and specified mechanisms - the surface waters and atmosphere of the ocean do not show hidden long term responses only, to any other variations in solar irradiance.
It's a far better explaination than the correlation of CO2 levels to temperature.
CO2: matches the patterns within the data as well as the trends, is sufficient in magnitude, is equipped with mechanism befitting the data, has produced successful predictions of various kinds, etc.
Solar flux variations: Contradicted by the patterns of the data, contradicted in its predictions, insufficient in magnitude, without a mechanism for most data, it doesn't even correlate.
How is that "better"?
Finally a step in the right direction. So at what point in history do you say solar activity and the associated drivers plus all other natural drivers (fires, volcanos, ocean oscillations, etc) no longer were adequate to explain lower and mid troposphere mean temperature fluctuations?The existence of a time lag of some unspecified type and duration in whatever system you guys decide to be talking about is not at issue.
What is at issue is the contention that the failure of the atmospheric temperature data to support the contention of solar irradiance increase causing the measured warming is due to a hidden "lag" of some kind.
In the mid-1970s the correlation between the sun and the climate ended.
What mathematical formula when added to lets say lower or upper troposphere mean temperature would restore that long term correlation?In the mid-1970s the correlation between the sun and the climate ended.
As much as you may desire otherwise, Cypress, mathematical formulas don't change physical systems. The correlation between the sun and the climate ended in the mid-1970s.
If you'd like to learn more, there are countless references available at the following:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
Also, here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm
Just because correlation that is obvious has changed, it doesn't man other factors aren't at play, like both lag and the Clean Air Act, which you refuse to consider. So many factors, and solar changes fit temperature better than any other.As much as you may desire otherwise, Cypress, mathematical formulas don't change physical systems. The correlation between the sun and the climate ended in the mid-1970s.
How did you calculate that a 0.25% increase in TSI causes an increase in average global temperatures of 0.25%?
In terms of global warming the oceans are still, "living in the seventies".
It's simple, but we should stick to the 0.2% average rather than the 0.25 (0.24%). the 0.24% includes the 11 year solar peak. The 0.2% doesn't, when you use an 11 year average.How did you calculate that a 0.25% increase in TSI causes an increase in average global temperatures of 0.25%?
Solar energy to black body heat is not linear. However, radiative forcing is affecting an atmosphere, and heat and energy is linear.
How do you figure?
The oceans warm real slow because of their mass, but small changes do two serious things. Raise the sea level by thermal expansion, and reduce the CO2 sinking ability as stated by Henry's law and similar known sciences.
I didn't go back, so I'm not sure what statement of mine you are referring to, but if you use a global average of 288 K, then an added 0.2% is another 0.56 degrees. 2/3rds of the maximum warming that alarmists claim we have of 0.85 degrees.
Come on, Inow, I am trying to treat your claim fairly and get to the root of the differences we have. I can't do it if we can't quantify our differences. We need to agree on the contribution that cannot be accounted for by natural events. (by definition, release of pollutants and CO2, plus other artificial alterations to our environment by humans are intended and therefore not natural.)As much as you may desire otherwise, Cypress, mathematical formulas don't change physical systems. The correlation between the sun and the climate ended in the mid-1970s.
If you'd like to learn more, there are countless references available at the following:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
Also, here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm
If you are content to remain divided on this then you will stand out as one who wishes to obfuscate rather than validate. Neither of the articles linked provide an adequate answer to the question.
So make your choice.
So the only problem you have is that the disconnection of the temp rise from the solar variation is not explained by oceans suddenly deciding to absorb sunlight in 1970, and the CO2 "sinking ability" has not been decreasing as you project.
In other words, what was an interesting hypothesis about thirty years ago has been contradicted by research findings, and discarded.
If you are going to continue to mischaractorize what I say, I will start ignoring you.
I have never implied about them "suddenly" doing anything. I am saying since before the 70's we started being more efficient in burning fuels, which dramatically slowed down our pollution rate and anthropogenic albedo. In the 70, the EPA, Clean Air Act, etc. over the years really cleared the skies, so more solar radiation cold touch the surface and sea. New we have the associated warming that we should have had before pollution was blocking the sunlight.So the only problem you have is that the disconnection of the temp rise from the solar variation is not explained by oceans suddenly deciding to absorb sunlight in 1970, and the CO2 "sinking ability" has not been decreasing as you project.
What hypothesis? Global Cooling of almost 40 years ago?
Remember the Global Cooling scare of the 70's?
That was not based on science, but on an article in Newsweek and another in Times magazine. These are media sources, not scientific. The scientific papers from the 1970s projected the earth would warm in response to CO2, quite the contrary of your (parroted denialist) suggestion above.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...l-cooling.html
Actually it was based on forecasts by climatologists at the time:That was not based on science, but on an article in Newsweek and another in Times magazine. These are media sources, not scientific. The scientific papers from the 1970s projected the earth would warm in response to CO2, quite the contrary of your (parroted denialist) suggestion above.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...l-cooling.html
Although they may seem convincing at the time, expert forecasts can make for humorous reading in retrospect. Cerf and Navasky’s (1998) book contains 310 pages of examples, such as Fermi Award-winning scientist John von Neumann’s 1956 prediction that “A few decades hence, energy may be free”. Examples of expert climate forecasts that turned out to be completely wrong are easy to find, such as UC Davis ecologist Kenneth Watt’s prediction in a speech at Swarthmore College on Earth Day, April 22, 1970: If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.
I take it you have decided against providing a qualitative number to support your claim that in the 1970's global temperature no longer trended with natural causes. Unsupported claims don't count for much.
Climatologists you say? Why do you support this notion with a quote by one professor in another discipline?
As it happens the quote is factually correct. There was a cooling trend in the 70s which if rashly extrapolated would produce the result stated. Of course serious climate scientists knew better than to make such an extrapolation from a short-term trend.
It was one of the more clear examples from the text. I urge you to have a look at book mentioned for a complete analysis. We can debate endlessly about how serious some scientists were verses others. The fact remains that many climate scientists at the time were making predictions of continued cooling and it was those predictions by climate scientists that generated interest of the news media.Climatologists you say? Why do you support this notion with a quote by one professor in another discipline?
As it happens the quote is factually correct. There was a cooling trend in the 70s which if rashly extrapolated would produce the result stated. Of course serious climate scientists knew better than to make such an extrapolation from a short-term trend.
They were wrong then, and I say they are wrong now.
A simple model would be to take the difference between the ten year period ending in 1975 vs. the last ten years. That gives us a difference of 0.37C by some measures. Does anyone have a problem with this number?What mathematical formula when added to lets say lower or upper troposphere mean temperature would restore that long term correlation?In the mid-1970s the correlation between the sun and the climate ended.
Please provide some valid quotes or peer reviewed papers or even newspaper articles by climate scientists that support your contention if you want to be taken seriously here.
Cerf, C. and Navasky, V. (1998). The Experts Speak. New York: Pantheon. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Please provide some valid quotes or peer reviewed papers or even newspaper articles by climate scientists that support your contention if you want to be taken seriously here.
As soon as you can demonstrate why this book and its references aren't serious, I'll look for other sources.
In the mean time would anybody like to improve on my proposal to use a constant 0.37C as the non-natural contribution to global mean temperature? I'm sure someone could propose an improved formulation.
You apparently have access to that book. I don't. Therefore could you please open it up and give us some references where climate scientists predicted an ice age, or global cooling or whatever it was they are supposed to have predicted. Just the names, titles of papers or direct quotes is all I'm asking for. Thanks in advance.Cerf, C. and Navasky, V. (1998). The Experts Speak. New York: Pantheon. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Please provide some valid quotes or peer reviewed papers or even newspaper articles by climate scientists that support your contention if you want to be taken seriously here.
As soon as you can demonstrate why this book and its references aren't serious, I'll look for other sources.
I'm really happy to see I have stimulated a rather large debate with masses of evidence to support various arguments.
I hadn't even noticed ^_^. Not spam, just recognition!
Please.
Anthropogenic albedo, whatever that actually refers to, is not something you can "slow down".
Neither did "we" greatly reduce our pollution output in the 70s. Consider China. Africa. India. South America.
China and probably most of Asia didn't start polluting to our past levels until the late 90's. Even at that, they are using better technologey than we did then. Just not as good as we use today.Please.
Anthropogenic albedo, whatever that actually refers to, is not something you can "slow down".
Neither did "we" greatly reduce our pollution output in the 70s. Consider China. Africa. India. South America.
Similarities, but not equal. There are different contents that make up smog. Besides. Ever see pictures of China lately, before they shut down some powerplants to let the air clear for the Olympics, or after the Olyimpics? Really nasty air.
Did you know it was 2006 when China's output of CO2 exceeded ours?
It seems that AGW advocates are not interested in pursuing this avenue of discussion any further. I am getting no response whatsoever. Do we have consensus then that prior to 1970 the warming trend from 1600 to 1970 is assigned to natural causes? That CO2 gets no warming assigned to it? If you disagree, please explain why and be prepared to discuss assignment percentages.A simple model would be to take the difference between the ten year period ending in 1975 vs. the last ten years. That gives us a difference of 0.37C by some measures. Does anyone have a problem with this number?What mathematical formula when added to lets say lower or upper troposphere mean temperature would restore that long term correlation?In the mid-1970s the correlation between the sun and the climate ended.
Why do you always to parse this into time periods less than the definition of climate, which is measured in 30 year averages? You do understand the significant interannual variability compared the the size of the signal for climate change?
This is a false Dichotomy. Man has probably been effecting climate for the past 8000 years--it's not a matter of YES or NO--it's a matter of degree compared to all the other climate forcings.Do we have consensus then that prior to 1970 the warming trend from 1600 to 1970 is assigned to natural causes? That CO2 gets no warming assigned to it? If you disagree, please explain why and be prepared to discuss assignment percentages.
Take 30 years from '75 vs. now and you get even a smaller number ~ .25C. Should we use that instead?Why do you always to parse this into time periods less than the definition of climate, which is measured in 30 year averages? You do understand the significant interannual variability compared the the size of the signal for climate change?
I absolutely understand annual variability vs. signal. When we look at it from that criteria we have no significant effect from CO2. Should we go with that?
You didn't answer the question. I've noticed that the entire group of AGW advocates here have a pattern of failing to answer questions and failing to stay on topic. Furthermore I note that the IPCC suggests that impacts should be limited to 2C. I'm not sure it is even worth talking about impacts less than half the limit the IPCC indicates we should stay below.This is a false Dichotomy. Man has probably been effecting climate for the past 8000 years--it's not a matter of YES or NO--it's a matter of degree compared to all the other climate forcings.Do we have consensus then that prior to 1970 the warming trend from 1600 to 1970 is assigned to natural causes? That CO2 gets no warming assigned to it? If you disagree, please explain why and be prepared to discuss assignment percentages.
| « The Copenhagen Diagnosis | How to make new land from water in a short time. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
