Notices
Results 1 to 88 of 88

Thread: AGW~ Ice Core Study that contradicts CO2 as a driver

  1. #1 AGW~ Ice Core Study that contradicts CO2 as a driver 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4
    Most Ice core studies show that there is a lag of a few hundred years with temperature leading CO2 in the atmosphere. But most of these papers maintain that feedbacks create much of the increase in temperature seen in the record.

    I ran across one paper that seems to defy the correlation between temps and CO2 somewhat. From 1999 "Ice Core records of CO2 around the Last Three Glacial Terminations," Fisher et al.

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...azGNol2g<br />

    Why is there the discrepancy between this paper and other papers that show that CO2 and temperature are close companions EXCEPT at the beginning of a warm period brought on by orbital cycles. Fisher et al maintains that CO2 levels can be high for very long periods AFTER a decrease in temperatures, suggesting a weaker correlation than otherwise maintained in the community.

    I have seen other papers that suggest that CO2 is always low at the lower temperature points in the record.

    Can someone help me with this?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I'm not sure, but I think this discussion on RealClimate might address this issue:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    27 November 2005 at 8:26 PM
    There is one exception in the whole Vostok trend: after the onset of the last glaciation (some 120,000 years ago), the CO2 levels remained high, until the temperature was near its minimum, before CO2 levels started to decline (see trend and data at NOAA. There is no measurable influence from a change of 50 ppmv CO2 on temperature, while, according to climate models, halve of the 6 K cooling (and thus also for a 10-12 K warming during deglaciations) should be attributed to the change in GHGs (and their feedbacks).

    [Response:This analysis is out of date. First, while the CO2 data are very precise measurements of exactly what is of interest (CO2 concentrations), the stable isotopes provide only a fuzzy estimate of temperature. This has been looked at very carefully, and the best evidence (Cuffey and Vimeux, Nature, 2001) shows that the supposed lag at 120,000 is an artifact of the changing relationship between isotopes and temperature. Their calculations pretty much kill of this much-loved example of the climate change skeptics -- eric.]
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...oncentrations/


     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    I find the explanation provided by Cuffey and Veumex a bit far fetched. Can you explain to me how they managed to accurately distinguish the source of the evaporated water isotope data? Next tell me how cooling of middle latitude water, even if correct, is not an indication of global temperature decline and should be disregarded from the results as this study has attempted to do.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I find the explanation provided by Cuffey and Veumex a bit far fetched. Can you explain to me how they managed to accurately distinguish the source of the evaporated water isotope data? Next tell me how cooling of middle latitude water, even if correct, is not an indication of global temperature decline and should be disregarded from the results as this study has attempted to do.
    I suggest you do your own research.
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    I note that it has been several years since that report by Cuffey and the temperature proxies have not been adjusted by any of those who hold the data sources so the argument could not have been too compelling. I note that even RealClimate's graphics have not been adjusted. So what we seem to have is CO2 often remaining high for long years after temperature has declined just as the article states, suggesting that CO2's is indeed a follow on effect that is weaker than many would have us believe.
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Well, there are a few interesting things about ice core samples. Here is part of an article titled GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2
    SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW
    . Dr. Glassman says why Real Climate is wrong. Please go to the link. I'm not going to quote much of it:

    GAVIN SCHMIDT ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF VOSTOK

    Schmidt says of the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide, "nor [does the author understand] the implications of the Vostok record … ."

    The Acquittal says that the shape of the Vostok relationship between CO2 concentration and the temperature traces is fully represented by the solubility of CO2 in water, with no constant offset (no "forcing" component), and is confirmed by the CO2 lag, which the article quantifies, and which is consistent with the transport lag caused by the oceanic thermohaline circulation. Has anything written by or for Schmidt contradicted these new findings in the Acquittal?

    In support of his accusations, Schmidt refers us to three papers he authored, all on his website. None of these citations says that the Vostok record demonstrates the essential fact that atmospheric CO2 and any temperature are correlated!

    Schmidt's first citation is "What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?", 12/3/04, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/. With regard to the Vostok record, this paper says only what is NOT significant. That insignificant fact, Schmidt asserts, is the lag of the CO2 concentration trace behind temperature trace. If that fact were insignificant, it would weaken the discoveries in the Acquittal, depriving its thesis of the lag that tends to confirm the model of the ocean controlling the atmospheric CO2 content.

    In reality, the lag is an inconvenient fact to AGW. Enthusiasts must discredit this lag because their AGW conjecture rests on manmade CO2 causing global warming. That causal conjecture is severely damaged by the reversed timing: temperature changes precede CO2 concentration changes!

    The AGW advocates postulate a rehabilitating theory: CO2 amplifies global warming. But this residual amplification conjecture is equally bizarre. This model states that the amplified warming somehow releases more CO2, and hence the amplification is a positive feedback.

    First, to the extent that this amplification could be so, the instability should soon cause the CO2 record to lead temperature. It never has. Schmidt has no data to confirm his amplification suggestion. Also see Schmidt's reliance on feedback, below.

    Schmidt's second citation, How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/, 12/22/04, includes only the following with respect to Vostok:

    "In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere -- which took many thousand years -- was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years."

    plus

    "CO2 levels are currently higher than for any time when we have direct measurements (directly, from 1950; before that, from air trapped in ice cores), which amounts to the last 780,000 years (see, e.g., a picture here for the last 400 kyr). Various considerations suggest that in the far past CO2 levels were considerably higher. From memory, the last time CO2 levels exceeded present was about 40 million years ago/" Response to Comment #4.

    This modern increase in CO2 is often found supported by a graph showing the Vostok CO2 concentration in time, with rapidly rising modern data linked added to the end of the Vostok record. Nowhere do the climatologists justify the method linking data taken by different methods, in different locations, and with grossly different granularity.

    Data show that carbon dioxide levels are rising, they are now 30% higher than at any time during at least the past 650,000 years, and likely even the past several million years. 31 Mar 2006, Bush on "The Fundamental Debate", by the group, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...on-the-debate/
    Here is an answer he gives to a question about 2/3rds down the article/blog:
    [The IPCC claims,

    [The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the past 20 million years. TAR, p. 185.

    [Keeling's Mauna Loa record now covers 50 years, and during that entire time it exceeded 300 ppm, the top of the grey bar range. What are the chances of detecting such a 50 year span during the last 420,000 years by one of the 363 ice core samples? It is 50 divided by the mean sample interval, 1140 years, which is 4.4%. If the claim is extended to cover the 650,000 year period covered by the extended Vostok record comprising 685 samples, the chances are 5.3%. Thus the IPCC claim is true with a confidence level of about 5%. Usually scientific claims are expressed in confidence levels better to much better than, and not much worse than, a coin toss, such as 80%, 90%, 95%, or better. The IPCC could be 95% confident that an interval such as the present was undetectable among the Vostok ice core reductions.
    I also fing it interesting what Dr. Glassman says near the end of his article:
    EPILOG

    6/29/09.
    Today is the end of June, 2009, and no climatologist of any sort who supports the AGW conjecture has countered this answer to Gavin Schmidt's off-handed dismissal, nor refuted any of the other advances made here in climate science. These include, but are not limited to, the following. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is imprinted with the pattern of Henry's Law for the solubility of CO2 in water, showing that it needs to be modeled not just as an anthropogenic forcing but also as a natural feedback. The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, shown by multiple types of evidence. See On Why CO2 Is Known Not To Have Accumulated in the Atmosphere & What Is Happening With CO2 in the Modern Era, updated and augmented this month. The solar wind is more strongly correlated with climate than is El Nino, which IPCC says has catastrophic effects, while ignoring the solar wind and its effects on clouds for lack of evidence. Solar Wind, El Niño/Southern Oscillation, & Global Temperature: Events & Correlations. And IPCC's GCMs violate prerequisites of modeling and are inconsistent with climate physics, including omitting the most powerful and stabilizing feedback in Earth's climate. Fatal Errors in IPCC's Global Climate Models.
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Here is part of an article titled GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2
    SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW.
    A quick scan of the quoted bits immediately turns up one logically false assertion, one irrelevant assertion, and one assertion contradicted by well-studied and accepted physical data

    Quote Originally Posted by logic false
    First, to the extent that this amplification could be so, the instability should soon cause the CO2 record to lead temperature.
    Quote Originally Posted by irrelevant
    [Keeling's Mauna Loa record now covers 50 years, and during that entire time it exceeded 300 ppm, the top of the grey bar range. What are the chances of detecting such a 50 year span during the last 420,000 years by one of the 363 ice core samples?
    Quote Originally Posted by data refuted
    CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, shown by multiple types of evidence.
    I'll skip the link, thanks.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Here is part of an article titled GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2
    SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW.
    A quick scan of the quoted bits immediately turns up one logically false assertion, one irrelevant assertion, and one assertion contradicted by well-studied and accepted physical data

    Quote Originally Posted by logic false
    First, to the extent that this amplification could be so, the instability should soon cause the CO2 record to lead temperature.
    I noticed you skipped the context part of this. Glassman isn't saying this is what happens, he is saying this would be the results if Schmidt's assesments had merit.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by irrelevant
    [Keeling's Mauna Loa record now covers 50 years, and during that entire time it exceeded 300 ppm, the top of the grey bar range. What are the chances of detecting such a 50 year span during the last 420,000 years by one of the 363 ice core samples?
    Not really. Consider how averages out older ice core samples are. They are effectively a "low pass filter" Consider how many years 420,000 is with only 363 samples over that timeframe.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by data refuted
    CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, shown by multiple types of evidence.
    You have to read his article on that topic to see what he means.
    I'll skip the link, thanks.
    Your loss. What about his opening statement of that last part:
    "Today is the end of June, 2009, and no climatologist of any sort who supports the AGW conjecture has countered this answer to Gavin Schmidt's off-handed dismissal, nor refuted any of the other advances made here in climate science. "
    I suggest you write back to him and challenge him on the since you say he's wrong.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Something that nobody has ever been able to explain to satisfaction is this:



    The Vostok data ends at year 2000. Therefore, 6000 years ago would be 4000 BC.

    If CO2 has such a profound effect on temperature, then why since the end of the last ice age, has it been about 260 ppm and temperature changing so radically. Then when it increased to the last CO2 core sample on record, at 284.7 ppm, why has the temperature stayed within it's same erratic pattern. We aren't even at as high of temperatures as the four past peaks.
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    If CO2 has such a profound effect on temperature, then why since the end of the last ice age, has it been about 260 ppm and temperature changing so radically. Then when it increased to the last CO2 core sample on record, at 284.7 ppm, why has the temperature stayed within it's same erratic pattern
    Your graph shows CO2 and temperature both increasing rapidly at the end of the last ice age, and then both holding more or less steady for a while, and then the planetary CO2 rising a bit while the temperature in this local corner of Antarctica remains cold.

    I don't see any mystery.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    If CO2 has such a profound effect on temperature, then why since the end of the last ice age, has it been about 260 ppm and temperature changing so radically. Then when it increased to the last CO2 core sample on record, at 284.7 ppm, why has the temperature stayed within it's same erratic pattern
    Your graph shows CO2 and temperature both increasing rapidly at the end of the last ice age, and then both holding more or less steady for a while, and then the planetary CO2 rising a bit while the temperature in this local corner of Antarctica remains cold.

    I don't see any mystery.
    1) The CO2 lags the temperature.

    2) Heavy water (deuterium temperature proxy) is dependent on the evaporation rate of heavy water into the atmosphere. Not the arctic cold.
     

  13. #12  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    CO2 lagged temperature in pre-industrial epochs because CO2 increase was caused by temperature increase, where permafrost melted and oceans released stores and plants died in arid climates thus reducing CO2 intake from biotic life.

    CO2 leads temperature now because we are digging metric tons of it from the ground... metric tons which have been buried/sequestered for millions and millions of years... and burning it... taking it from the ground and putting it into the air where it interacts with radiation.


    (profanity removed by mod....keep it civil) When natural mechanisms are all that is being considered, CO2 is a feedback. When humans are actively pumping tons and tons and tons of it into the atmosphere, CO2 is a forcing.

    For the love of Thor, man.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    CO2 lagged temperature in pre-industrial epochs because CO2 increase was caused by temperature increase, where permafrost melted and oceans released stores and plants died in arid climates thus reducing CO2 intake from biotic life.
    Not sure about the plant's dying, but yes otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    CO2 leads temperature now because we are digging metric tons of it from the ground... metric tons which have been buried/sequestered for millions and millions of years... and burning it... taking it from the ground and putting it into the air where it interacts with radiation.
    Then show me the math.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Why is this so f%$#ing hard for you people to wrap your heads around?
    Wow...

    Don't you know how to be calm about such things?
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    When natural mechanisms are all that is being considered, CO2 is a feedback. When humans are actively pumping tons and tons and tons of it into the atmosphere, CO2 is a forcing.
    OK, so you say that there is some magical switch the God's flip, right? When man learned to make fire?

    Come on. Get real.

    CO2 is a feedback of temperature, and the ocean is the primary accumulator of carbon. There is no proven theory anywhere that fits what you say. Consensus is not proof of theory. CO2 does have an additional positive feedback to temperature, but small. CO2 does not drive temperature.

    That graph shows four times in the past where the earth exceeded today's temperatures. The first spike, about 11,000 years ago approximately matches today's temperature. Why can't this be a red flag that maybe... Just maybe... we are being lied to about the actual forcing that CO2 has?

    Again, show me the math, proof, whatever. Not consensus. Not a thread without solid evidence like you always do. Your word is meaningless to me, and the more you link pointless threads the more I will regards you.

    I want solid evidence. Is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    For the love of Thor, man.
    I tell you. I wish the Asgards were here to straiten you out.
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I want solid evidence. Is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?
    You've been presented with a shitload of evidence by others, and you have presented none yourself.

    You have presented no evidence, for example, that high concentrations of CO2 can exist without creating greenhouse warming. You have presented no evidence that you understand the arguments you are objecting to. You say stupid things like this:
    OK, so you say that there is some magical switch the God's flip, right? When man learned to make fire?
    that betray the fact that you haven't been following the argument you claim to need more evidence for.

    Your default position, the one you adopt unless other people run around finding something that will satisfy you for evidence, is that almost the entire scientific establishment is cooperating in massive attempt to lie to us all, and most of the researchers in several major geophysical fields are either deliberate frauds or blatantly incompetent.

    Evidence? Here: it has rained in January in central Minnesota for more than 12 years consecutively. In the two centuries prior, it rained in Minnesota in January an average of once every seven years. The temperatures involved are warm nights, only -daytime highs are almost unchanged. It has always been common to have a thaw in January in Minnesota, but things refroze at night. Lately, they sometimes don't. A warming concentrated in high latitudes, at night, and in the winter, is a long predicted effect of greenhouse gas warming by CO2 buildup. That pattern is predicted with confidence by no other warming mechanism I know of.

    And if you start talking about "natural cycles" I want to see a mechanism, a correlation in timing and scale, and some math connecting them.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I want solid evidence. Is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?
    You've been presented with a shitload of evidence by others, and you have presented none yourself.
    What evidence? Nobody has ever shown me evidence. Just other people's conjecture. Where is the data, the math, the tested theory?

    Show me something scientifically meaningful!
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    You have presented no evidence, for example, that high concentrations of CO2 can exist without creating greenhouse warming.
    I never said CO2 does not create a greenhouse effect. I only disagree on the degree of warming.

    Why can't you get simple facts right? Do you think you win the debate by changing the argument, attempting to convince others I incorrectly believe things I acknowledge?

    Do you really believe what you just said, or are you badgering me?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    You have presented no evidence that you understand the arguments you are objecting to.
    That's because you keep changing the argument. I cannot keep up with a changing argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    You say stupid things like this:
    OK, so you say that there is some magical switch the God's flip, right? When man learned to make fire?
    that betray the fact that you haven't been following the argument you claim to need more evidence for.
    Stupid? Just responding in kind. Tell me. To what degree does the natural influence become meaningless? natural influences have driven climate before man. There is no way man influenced the climate of the past, so at what point did the same temperature changes become man's fault? That's why I used such a statement. I don't see a scientific explaination for the change in cause, so you must be thinking it was when Prometheus gave man Fire.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Your default position, the one you adopt unless other people run around finding something that will satisfy you for evidence, is that almost the entire scientific establishment is cooperating in massive attempt to lie to us all, and most of the researchers in several major geophysical fields are either deliberate frauds or blatantly incompetent.
    Not quite to that extreme, but yes. I will say some are committing scientific fraud.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Evidence? Here: it has rained in January in central Minnesota for more than 12 years consecutively. In the two centuries prior, it rained in Minnesota in January an average of once every seven years. The temperatures involved are warm nights, only -daytime highs are almost unchanged. It has always been common to have a thaw in January in Minnesota, but things refroze at night. Lately, they sometimes don't. A warming concentrated in high latitudes, at night, and in the winter, is a long predicted effect of greenhouse gas warming by CO2 buildup. That pattern is predicted with confidence by no other warming mechanism I know of.
    So it can only be CO2? Why can't it be smog changing the climate? What can't it be a combination of things? Why do you blame CO2? What evidence do you have that can be scientifically tested that CO2 is to blame?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    And if you start talking about "natural cycles" I want to see a mechanism, a correlation in timing and scale, and some math connecting them.
    When we have a paleoclimate history of climates four times in the last 8,000 years that are warmer than today, why do I have to prove it. The side you agree with says that man is causing what we have today without scientific or historical basis. They take an assumption, model their assumption, and say "here is the proof." I have never said I can quantify CO2. However, I can quantify solar changes that have a greater effect than your side acknowledges. Since we see a limited increase in temperature, and solar can be quantified, what remains for possible CO2 forcing is less than you will acknowledge. Even less yet that even the IPCC acknowledges soot has a greater effect than thought since the AR4.

    As for the "magic switch." If man is the cause of the warming we have today, then what caused the greater warming 400, 2300, 4500, and 8100 years ago? Did they have fossil fuel burning power and transportation? What am I missing? That's why the opinion that we are causing this to the earth is "like magic." It simply does not compute.
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    If CO2 has such a profound effect on temperature, then why since the end of the last ice age, has it been about 260 ppm and temperature changing so radically. Then when it increased to the last CO2 core sample on record, at 284.7 ppm, why has the temperature stayed within it's same erratic pattern
    Your graph shows CO2 and temperature both increasing rapidly at the end of the last ice age, and then both holding more or less steady for a while, and then the planetary CO2 rising a bit while the temperature in this local corner of Antarctica remains cold.

    I don't see any mystery.
    I don't either. Also some of the above material in flat incorrect. But to explain the questions of why it appears it's been warmer there before--most of it is because the methods to compare temperature don't work in recent times. The Vostok ice record can't determine change to temp any more recent than 129 years ago because there is insufficient compressed ice to do so. The deuterium level is flat and constant during that period and not used to derive a temperature. (even the chart shows the flat part..though it would be better represented if it wasn't shown at all.

    The Vostok record, as well as ice core records that use deuterium as a proxy for temperature, miss most of the recent warming that's occurred during the past century. The four warmer periods are being compared to the station's yearly average temperature of the late 18th century--not the current yearly average temps.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    CO2 lagged temperature in pre-industrial epochs because CO2 increase was caused by temperature increase, where permafrost melted and oceans released stores and plants died in arid climates thus reducing CO2 intake from biotic life.

    CO2 leads temperature now because we are digging metric tons of it from the ground... metric tons which have been buried/sequestered for millions and millions of years... and burning it... taking it from the ground and putting it into the air where it interacts with radiation.


    (profanity removed by mod....keep it civil) When natural mechanisms are all that is being considered, CO2 is a feedback. When humans are actively pumping tons and tons and tons of it into the atmosphere, CO2 is a forcing.

    For the love of Thor, man.
    You have the talking points down pat. However the story is not evidence and the data does not correlate with the story very well. The data indicates any effect CO2 might have is less than 30% of what has been predicted by the IPCC. This is the problem. The evidence is shaky at best.
     

  19. #18  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Little more than obfuscation, as per usual, Cypress. What I said previously is accurate, despite my obvious lack of patience and exasperation.

    CO2 acts both as a feedback and as a forcing. The evidence supports this point. In the historical past, it was a rise in temperatures which led to a rise in CO2 levels. This still occurs, nor did I ever suggest otherwise contrary to Wild_Cobra's myopic interpretive response above.

    To repeat, rising temperatures lead to rising CO2 levels when things like permafrost melt, for example. This still occurs today.

    My point, however, was that the feedback effects are FAR eclipsed by the forcing effects. We are digging tons and tons and tons of CO2 which has been stored and sequestered below the ground for millions and millions and millions of years... and we are burning it. We are expelling it into the atmosphere. We are littering the sky with CO2 which has been buried in the ground for millenia.

    This results in climate forcing. This results in rising temperatures. The CO2 causes a climb in temps. The climb in temps leads to natural releases of CO2 (the aforementioned feedback effect).

    There is both feedback AND forcing occurring, but the forcing is occurring at a much greater rate since we humans continue to dig up and burn more CO2 and in greater numbers with each passing day.


    No amount of debate skills or obfuscation from you will change the above very simple truth. Human activity is the primary driver of the current global annual warming trend, and... while you may think otherwise... repeating a falsehood over and over again... such as you have... does not suddenly make it valid or accurate.

    Now... The good thing about the fact that humans are the primary driver of the current global annual warming trend is that it means we can actually do something about it and we're not powerless nor mere spectators... We can change... That is, of course, if people like you would stop with the endless propagation of lies, deceit, and misdirection. I probably have a better chance of getting hit by lightning or winning the lottery, though.
     

  20. #19  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    We are digging tons and tons and tons of CO2 which has been stored and sequestered below the ground for millions and millions and millions of years... and we are burning it.
    Read billions!! of tons... of Carbon.

    It's nice to have a source of buried sunlight. We go through 420 years worth of ancient sunlight every year.

    Dukes, J.S. 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption of Ancient Solar Energy. Climate Change 61, pp. 31-34.
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Little more than obfuscation, as per usual, Cypress. What I said previously is accurate, despite my obvious lack of patience and exasperation.

    CO2 acts both as a feedback and as a forcing. The evidence supports this point.
    Unless you take an unusual definition of "forcing", I disagree there is any good evidence to support CO2 as "forcing" any other input in a positive direction. The evidence indicates an impact from CO2 that is less than 0.4 degrees centigrade or just 60% of the theoretical impact which strongly indicates it is NOT forcing and NOT a driver and strongly implies that there may be negative feedbacks involved.

    In the historical past, it was a rise in temperatures which led to a rise in CO2 levels. This still occurs, nor did I ever suggest otherwise contrary to Wild_Cobra's myopic interpretive response above.
    No I did not take exception to this statement.

    To repeat, rising temperatures lead to rising CO2 levels when things like permafrost melt, for example. This still occurs today.
    Right, got it.

    My point, however, was that the feedback effects are FAR eclipsed by the forcing effects.
    I understand the point you are trying to make. It is a description that not only lacks clear and convincing evidence and is in contradiction to the temperature trends.


    We are digging tons and tons and tons of CO2 which has been stored and sequestered below the ground for millions and millions and millions of years... and we are burning it. We are expelling it into the atmosphere. We are littering the sky with CO2 which has been buried in the ground for millenia.
    True enough. But plants love the stuff. They grow much better with more CO2.

    This results in climate forcing.

    This results in rising temperatures. The CO2 causes a climb in temps. The climb in temps leads to natural releases of CO2 (the aforementioned feedback effect).
    It may raise mean temperature, but if feedback is negative, it may not. Evidence suggests it has a minor impact that is less than 60% of theoretical indicating there may be counteracting impacts and is thus not a forcing agent. The consensus range is actually 15-60% of theoretical. Some experts have the net impact at negative 10%.

    There is both feedback AND forcing occurring, but the forcing is occurring at a much greater rate since we humans continue to dig up and burn more CO2 and in greater numbers with each passing day.
    Like I say, it's a fabulous story with little in the way of evidence.

    No amount of debate skills or obfuscation from you will change the above very simple truth.
    No, but the data does not lie and it stubbornly refuses to cooperate with your tale. Only the GCM's fit your narrative and they tell the story that the designer intends.

    Human activity is the primary driver of the current global annual warming trend, and... while you may think otherwise... repeating a falsehood over and over again... such as you have... does not suddenly make it valid or accurate.
    But the data is on my side of this debate. Forgive me, but given the choice between you and the data, I choose the data. Surly you are not claiming the data is lying to us.

    Now... The good thing about the fact that humans are the primary driver of the current global annual warming trend is that it means we can actually do something about it and we're not powerless nor mere spectators... We can change... That is, of course, if people like you would stop with the endless propagation of lies, deceit, and misdirection. I probably have a better chance of getting hit by lightning or winning the lottery, though.
    I sincerely hope that even you will thank us skeptics one day. If your motive is pure, you likely will. If you have a political bias driving your prior commitment then I doubt you ever will. If, on the other hand more evidence is presented and CO2 is actually the problem you fear it is, I have no doubt that our ability to find creative solutions to difficult issues will present a solution to this one without overturning our entire political and economic system.
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I struggle to understand how you live with yourself... how you can sleep at night... I frankly don't really care, though.
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I struggle to understand how you live with yourself... how you can sleep at night... I frankly don't really care, though.
    INow, the problem you seem to be having is that you are so certain you are correct you won't even look at the evidence objectively. It is as if you don't want to hear what the data is trying to tell you. You accept the story and that's all that seems to matter to you.

    You do however seem to care a great deal about how I live with myself.
     

  24. #23  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    So, if we Humans are releasing 400 years worth of buried sunlight per year, this isn't doing anything to the energy balance of the Carbon Cycle?
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So it can only be CO2? Why can't it be smog changing the climate? What can't it be a combination of things? Why do you blame CO2? What evidence do you have that can be scientifically tested that CO2 is to blame?
    Who said it was "only" CO2? Why do you keep asking these stupid questions? Read the fucking IPCC report, and the thousands of papers and reports linked to it, for starters. Then come back and I will send you out to read hundreds more ecological studies and suchlike. Then come back and I will repeat one more time the rain in Minnesota anecdote, and you can ignore it again, or pretend that you don't understand it, or something. Are you getting paid for this shit?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    There is no way man influenced the climate of the past, so at what point did the same temperature changes become man's fault? - I don't see a scientific explaination for the change in cause,
    How about an unprecedented, huge, and sudden boosting of the CO2 concentration by fossil fuel combustion, since about 1880? Did that escape your attention?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Not quite to that extreme, but yes. I will say some are committing scientific fraud.
    No. They all have to be. Your default, assumed position, when you haven't to my knowledge (you haven't dealt with here) looked at a single one of their actual research papers or calculations, is that they are all in on it except for the blatantly incompetent. All the isotope analyzing chemists, temperature measurers, ice core analyzers, tree ring counters, oceanographers, climatologists, geophysicists, glacialogists, solar astronomers, ice age specialists, paleontologists, the whole kit and kaboodle of 'em.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    As for the "magic switch." If man is the cause of the warming we have today, then what caused the greater warming 400, 2300, 4500, and 8100 years ago?
    Something else. Your point?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    When we have a paleoclimate history of climates four times in the last 8,000 years that are warmer than today, why do I have to prove it.
    Try attending to the example you avoided there - the pattern of the recent warming: night, winter, and high latitude. You task, should you decide for once to address the matter presented, is to explain that without invoking greenhouse gas effects.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So it can only be CO2? Why can't it be smog changing the climate? What can't it be a combination of things? Why do you blame CO2? What evidence do you have that can be scientifically tested that CO2 is to blame?
    Who said it was "only" CO2? Why do you keep asking these stupid questions? Read the fracking IPCC report, and the thousands of papers and reports linked to it, for starters. Then come back and I will send you out to read hundreds more ecological studies and suchlike. Then come back and I will repeat one more time the rain in Minnesota anecdote, and you can ignore it again, or pretend that you don't understand it, or something. Are you getting paid for this shit?
    Tisk tisk...

    You anger so easily.

    OK, my working was poor saying "only" when I should have said "primarily" perhaps.

    Point is, the mat does not work. CO2 does not track as well. Solar can be accurately accounted for. The IPCC claims a 1.66 watt forcing increase from 1750 to 2007 for CO2, and a total warming of 1.72 with solar as 0.12 of it. I can clearly show solar forcing to be 0.56 C increase, which would be somewhere around a forcing of 1 watt. Even the IPCC has updated the forcing by black carbon since the 2007 report from 0.1 watts to 0.3 watt. When we consider the gross forcing of 1.72 watts does change, when we remove 1.3 watts of solar and soot, that leaves only 0.42 watts of forcing for CO2 and everything else.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    There is no way man influenced the climate of the past, so at what point did the same temperature changes become man's fault? - I don't see a scientific explaination for the change in cause,
    How about an unprecedented, huge, and sudden boosting of the CO2 concentration by fossil fuel combustion, since about 1880? Did that escape your attention?
    Why is the boost unprecedented? Can you eliminate every other possibility? If so, please explain. Why are you bent on saying it has all accumulated because of man? Now I agree it may have partially been because of man, but the ocean should have absorbed more than it has. Just because we have warmed and have more CO2, it does not mean CO2 was the cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Not quite to that extreme, but yes. I will say some are committing scientific fraud.
    No. They all have to be.
    Not true. Most I believe simply have been indoctrinated over time by learning false assumptions in college. Being wrong is not the same as intentional fraud.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Your default, assumed position, when you haven't to my knowledge (you haven't dealt with here) looked at a single one of their actual research papers or calculations, is that they are all in on it except for the blatantly incompetent.
    Calculations...

    How many times have I asked for such material. Please, by all means, show me.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    All the isotope analyzing chemists, temperature measurers, ice core analyzers, tree ring counters, oceanographers, climatologists, geophysicists, glacialogists, solar astronomers, ice age specialists, paleontologists, the whole kit and kaboodle of 'em.
    Yet when any of the research disagree with the perception of solar driven warming, it gets discredited.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    As for the "magic switch." If man is the cause of the warming we have today, then what caused the greater warming 400, 2300, 4500, and 8100 years ago?
    Something else. Your point?
    My point is that before man, we have warmed 5 times as much as or greater than we have today. These past 5 times were before the industrialization revolution, and with a smaller population. We know statistically, that 5 out of 6 warming periods, are not anthropogenic in nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    When we have a paleoclimate history of climates four times in the last 8,000 years that are warmer than today, why do I have to prove it.
    Try attending to the example you avoided there - the pattern of the recent warming: night, winter, and high latitude. You task, should you decide for once to address the matter presented, is to explain that without invoking greenhouse gas effects.
    Can you demonstrate that todays patterns are different than the five natural warming periods before our current warming period?
     

  27. #26  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Claiming it's natural is one thing. Putting forth what natural mechanisms are leading to the current trend is quite another. Thus far, all proposed natural mechanisms which have been suggested by you and by others fail to account for both the speed and the amount of warming we are experiencing.

    Do you know what DOES account for the speed and amount of warming? Human activity and release of CO2 into the atmosphere.


    These climate change denials are truly no different than denials of evolution. It's sad how ignorant humanity still so actively seeks to remain.
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Claiming it's natural is one thing. Putting forth what natural mechanisms are leading to the current trend is quite another. Thus far, all proposed natural mechanisms which have been suggested by you and by others fail to account for both the speed and the amount of warming we are experiencing.

    Do you know what DOES account for the speed and amount of warming? Human activity and release of CO2 into the atmosphere.


    These climate change denials are truly no different than denials of evolution. It's sad how ignorant humanity still so actively seeks to remain.
    The modern temperature trends through 1975 correlates well with known and repeatable natural patterns that have occurred throughout history. This leaves us with about 0.2 to 0.4 degrees centigrade of warming post 1975 that is more speculative. There are numerous plausible explanations, all of which have been discussed in the threads here to one degree or another. The range is due to the very active debate about the accuracy of mean temperature calculations.

    The GISS and Hadley are both under severe pressure to better explain their process and rationale for the numbers they calculate. This week we learn that indeed they have broken laws in refusing to release information and raw data. It is appropriate to downgrade the credibility of law breakers.

    Hiding data

    There have been several reasonable explanations for this modest difference in global temperatures. One is sun activity and its direct and indirect impacts on cloud cover. Another is revisions to our understanding of the relationship between solar activity and ocean oscillations. Still others involve the changing nature of aerosols in recent times. Finally we have strong evidence that global temperatures peaked in 2002 and are now in the process of declining, likely making this decade the maximum recorded in modern history as one would expect at a peak. These explanations are well researched and the peer-reviewed papers previously linked completely explain the speed and the amount of increase in global mean temperatures. I am well aware that you chose not to read the papers, but ignorance of the conclusions is no excuse.

    But even if we dismiss all of these alternatives for argument sake, we still have the comfortable reality that the unexplained warming is only 15 to 60% of the theoretical effect of AGW making it minor, of secondary influence with negative feedback effects and thus inherently stable. Even more comforting is that the effect to date is nearly 70% of the total possible.
     

  29. #28  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Are you quoting a TABLOID? What a surprise.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Are you quoting a TABLOID? What a surprise.
    Do you have information that it is incorrect? If so let's here it. If not, then by what basis have you declared the claims wrong? KALSTER, really do you often jump to conclusions?
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    If not, then by what basis have you declared the claims wrong?
    Where have I said they were wrong? What was that you said about jumping to conclusions?

    I am simply incensed that you would even consider providing a tabloid as a source on anything, never mind the truth of the basis for their story. I am appalled, but not surprised by your use of a tabloid. You have a bad history of relying on the say-so of unqualified sceptics as the basis of your assertions and that you see no fault with this is what appals me. Further, it irritates me deeply that you have been having near free reign of this forum. Your repeated denial of following an agenda on this forum is dishonest, as is your refusal to show your true sources. You also have the gall to accuse others of having preconceived notions that they are blindly defending, while you have been quite clearly actively promoting your own. Am I making myself clear?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If not, then by what basis have you declared the claims wrong?
    Where have I said they were wrong? What was that you said about jumping to conclusions?

    I am simply incensed that you would even consider providing a tabloid as a source on anything, never mind the truth of the basis for their story. I am appalled, but not surprised by your use of a tabloid.
    And yet if the story is accurate, what reason would you be incensed? Forgive me for assuming the nature of your complaint against a source had to do with accuracy.

    You have a bad history of relying on the say-so of unqualified sceptics as the basis of your assertions and that you see no fault with this is what appals me.
    Forgive me also that I don't use your judgement of who or what qualifies as valid information source. I suggest you focus on disposing of the nature of the argument rather than ad hominems against me and my sources. If you find that the source or my claim is inaccurate, by all means let us know.

    Further, it irritates me deeply that you have been having near free reign of this forum.
    Please participate so I won't dominate. I have attempted several times to have a conversation but you seem far more interested in attacking me rather than the substance of the discussion. You seem to be offended that one would debate on a forum that has Debate in its title.

    Your repeated denial of following an agenda on this forum is dishonest, as is your refusal to show your true sources.
    I have been clear from the beginning that I am skeptical of AGW claims and I have been upfront about why I am skeptical. I have no agenda or personal investment in this topic. I work for a corporation that takes the opposite position as mine.

    You also have the gall to accuse others of having preconceived notions that they are blindly defending, while you have been quite clearly actively promoting your own. Am I making myself clear?
    You are quite clear. I do accuse others of blindly defending a position when they fail to provide, in their own words, a sound evidence based argument to support their point of view. I do indeed promote my point of view but with both evidence and an explanation generally of my own words.

    Though you may find this appalling, I prefer this approach to yours.
     

  33. #32  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4
    Point is, the mat does not work. CO2 does not track as well. Solar can be accurately accounted for.
    Is this not a moot point, since we know the sun activity does not explain the magnitude and rate of change of recent warming events?

    The IPCC claims a 1.66 watt forcing increase from 1750 to 2007 for CO2, and a total warming of 1.72 with solar as 0.12 of it. I can clearly show solar forcing to be 0.56 C increase
    How did you get .56 C increase? 1.66 Watts? You're not going to have very successful calculations if you don't use the proper units.


    Why is the boost unprecedented? Can you eliminate every other possibility? If so, please explain. Why are you bent on saying it has all accumulated because of man? Now I agree it may have partially been because of man, but the ocean should have absorbed more than it has. Just because we have warmed and have more CO2, it does not mean CO2 was the cause.
    So, you think CO2 doesn't cause warming? The GHE is extremely well established. And there is much more evidence than the obvious duh factor correlation. We know that the CO2 is mostly from us. We know that radiative forcing occurs in the atmosphere from CO2, and this can be calculated accurately (too bad other negative forces are going on). We know that the troposphere is warming while higher layers are cooling. You have suggested that there has been warming of the rate and magnitude that we see now. We actually don't have anything that I am aware of that shows this.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Not quite to that extreme, but yes. I will say some are committing scientific fraud.
    No. They all have to be.
    Not true. Most I believe simply have been indoctrinated over time by learning false assumptions in college. Being wrong is not the same as intentional fraud.
    the poster is essentially correct. You are talking about a massive conspiracy, if you think the science is a lie. Is that what you think?
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Do you know what DOES account for the speed and amount of warming? Human activity and release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
    Why can't you understand...

    All I want is proof of your faith. Your saying it is so, and others saying the same thing, does not make it so.

    If it is so undeniable, then show me the proof.
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Point is, the mat does not work. CO2 does not track as well. Solar can be accurately accounted for.
    Is this not a moot point, since we know the sun activity does not explain the magnitude and rate of change of recent warming events?
    By this logic AGW argument is moot since it too does not correlate well with the magnitude and rate of change of recent temperature trends including the peaks and troughs. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


    So, you think CO2 doesn't cause warming? The GHE is extremely well established. And there is much more evidence than the obvious duh factor correlation.
    No actually the debate is about the extent/magnitude. We all seem to accept the basic concept.

    We know that the CO2 is mostly from us.
    I don't believe this is correct. Mostly implies greater than 50%. Humans do not generate 50% of the global CO2

    We know that radiative forcing occurs in the atmosphere from CO2, and this can be calculated accurately (too bad other negative forces are going on).
    I am not aware that it can be accurately calculated.

    We know that the troposphere is warming while higher layers are cooling.
    Latest data indicates the troposphere warming has been flat and downward since 2002.

    You have suggested that there has been warming of the rate and magnitude that we see now. We actually don't have anything that I am aware of that shows this.
    Historical proxy data indicates similar increases in the past. This data has been presented.

    the poster is essentially correct. You are talking about a massive conspiracy, if you think the science is a lie. Is that what you think?
    That is not what I read from WC's words. I don't see science as a lie. I do know however that many of the conclusions of scientific research do turn out to be incorrect. I also see that some in climate research have been less than honest and less than honorable.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Point is, the math does not work. CO2 does not track as well. Solar can be accurately accounted for.
    Is this not a moot point, since we know the sun activity does not explain the magnitude and rate of change of recent warming events?
    It is far from moot. I have covered this in other threads.

    How do you know the sun doesn't account for more recent warming? There are several variable that make up the climate. Can you eliminate thermal lag of the heat absorbed in the ocean when the ocean circulation is so long? Can you say with certainty that the world starting to clean up smog in the 70's didn't allow more of the sun to shine in when it was slowly being blocked as it slowly increased for the first half of the last century?

    Point is, there is no real evidence that CO2 causes the degree of warming attributed to it. It is observation, not scientifically testable fact. CO2 is the cornerstone of anthropogenic warming.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    The IPCC claims a 1.66 watt forcing increase from 1750 to 2007 for CO2, and a total warming of 1.72 with solar as 0.12 of it. I can clearly show solar forcing to be 0.56 C increase
    How did you get .56 C increase? 1.66 Watts? You're not going to have very successful calculations if you don't use the proper units.
    The sun supplies more than 99.9% of the earths heat. Once we have a greenhouse effect, radiative forcing is close to linear to heat. Any small changes in the sun is seen in the feedback of greenhouse gasses, clouded, etc. will be near linear also. Since the Maunder Minimum, to 2004, the sun has increased intensity by 0.20% on the 11 year average. Take 14C or 15C as a global temperature. Add 273.15 difference between Kelvin and Celsius. If I use 14 C, and 273 difference, I get 287 kelvin. Multiply by 1.002 and you get 287.574, or a 0.57 C increase in global temperature. Now subtract that from what ever you believe the temperature rise is since the industrial revolution is.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Why is the boost unprecedented? Can you eliminate every other possibility? If so, please explain. Why are you bent on saying it has all accumulated because of man? Now I agree it may have partially been because of man, but the ocean should have absorbed more than it has. Just because we have warmed and have more CO2, it does not mean CO2 was the cause.
    So, you think CO2 doesn't cause warming?
    I never said any such thing, and if you folled my posting you know that.

    I and getting real angry that people keep implying I believe that when I have so many times said otherwise. I simply say it is far weaker a greenhouse gas that it is thought of.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    The GHE is extremely well established.
    Duh...

    Just not proper quantification.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    And there is much more evidence than the obvious duh factor correlation.
    Then why cannot anyone show me the data and math to prove the hypothesis?
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    We know that the CO2 is mostly from us.
    That is an incorrect statement. We can say that most of the increased levels are from us, but that would sill be wrong. The ocean contain more than 50 times as much as the atmosphere. I forget how much more, but plants contain so much more also. Small changes in these balances can affect the atmosphere more than man. 98% of our output should be absorbed by the ocean, but since it has been warming, it doesn't absorb as much as it should, and that small disturbance changes the equilibrium.

    You cannot say with certainty that man is the cause of the 100+ ppm increase since the 1700's.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    We know that radiative forcing occurs in the atmosphere from CO2, and this can be calculated accurately (too bad other negative forces are going on).
    Then show me the calculations.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    We know that the troposphere is warming while higher layers are cooling.
    Yes, we can measure it.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    You have suggested that there has been warming of the rate and magnitude that we see now. We actually don't have anything that I am aware of that shows this.
    Ice core data and other paleoclimate data.

    You know, as the glaciers have receded in Greenland, farms and mines have been found. The Romans kept good tax records. They show records for taxing wine grape crops in England It's too cold for grapes there now. So may other things, but that's a different thread perhaps.
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    All I want is proof of your faith. Your saying it is so, and others saying the same thing, does not make it so.

    If it is so undeniable, then show me the proof.
    Facepalm.

    Science does not deal in proof. Proofs are for math. Science is about evidence and internally consistent theory which describes nature accurately.

    It has nothing to do with faith you ridiculous asshat.


    The theory was conceived over a hundred years ago based on the laws of physics and chemistry:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M018


    The theory is supported by mountains upon mountains upon mountains of evidence.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm
    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6238&page=1
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6238&page=63



    Your position? It's supported by little more than inaccurate equations, oversimplified attempts to represent the system, and the over-riding assumption that EVERYBODY else but you is wrong and involved in a giant conspiracy.

    I'm going with the science, not you... the random guy on an internet forum who dismisses all counter evidence presented him as "propaganda."
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    All I want is proof of your faith. Your saying it is so, and others saying the same thing, does not make it so.

    If it is so undeniable, then show me the proof.
    Facepalm.

    Science does not deal in proof. Proofs are for math. Science is about evidence and internally consistent theory which describes nature accurately.
    OK, technically speaking, we have what? I forget? 7 known proofs?

    You know what I want. Stop sidetracking the issue.

    I want testable evidence that can be measures, quantified, and calculated. If the science is settled, why isn't all the data and mathematical formulas out there?
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    inow has posted that and that's just the tip of data and underlying physics. Your looking for a simple formula. The reality is that something as simple as average temperature change is the culmination of hundreds of equations (themselves just mathematical representations of empirical measurements of systems) in complex non-linear interaction with each other that can only be studied and analyzed by simulations.

    The reality is people look for something simple, when no such thing exist for most natural systems. Just because you don't have the years of experience and study and quite honestly don't understand most of the science, doesn't mean there's not a very credible and hard science behind the science of climate change.

    There is no viable hypothesis that explains the current warming other than increased in man-made emitted—not one. Most of the ones brought forth in public discussions and largely pushed by the fossil fuel industry were long dismissed by the science because they didn't test out or no one could make that fit observations of the current and past climate observations—most also have the hallmark of being overly simple which makes them as easy to sell as snake oil to the uneducated masses. Almost non get the meat grinder of peer-review in climate journals because of fundamental problems of analysis—the few that do so far haven't been able to be confirmed. They are also perpetuated and set up logic fallacies such as the false dichotomy that Co2 is the ONLY driver or not a driver at all---as if its that simple. The entire charade is ridiculous.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  40. #39  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I want testable evidence that can be measures, quantified, and calculated. If the science is settled, why isn't all the data and mathematical formulas out there?
    Is it really possible that you're simply not clicking the links people offer with their posts prior to asking such asinine questions?

    I mean, really... FFS, man. This has been understood for over 40 years, and you act as if it doesn't even exist.


    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...use-effect.htm
    The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

    <...>

    There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.

    That link alone, complete with it's references and descriptions, is enough to convince any reasonable person to stop with the nonsense.

    Let me ask you... Are you a reasonable person, Wild_Cobra?

    I'm really rather uncertain about that at this point. Regardless, here is a link which directly addresses your request to me:

    http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    There is no viable hypothesis that explains the current warming other than increased in man-made emitted—not one.
    The current warming trend began in the early 1600's and thus far is estimated at about 0.8-0.9 degrees centigrade. Of that trend 0.5-0.7 is accounted for by natural influences that are understood. CO2 has a theoretical influence on air temperature and this theoretical influence for an increase between 280 and 400 ppmv is about 0.8 C. Thus even if we assign all the remaining warming to CO2 we get half the warming expected by theory or a factor of 0.6 to o 1 at most. In contrast to this, the IPCC puts the CO2 forcing factor at 2.6 to 1.

    Most of the ones brought forth in public discussions and largely pushed by the fossil fuel industry were long dismissed by the science because they didn't test out or no one could make that fit observations of the current and past climate observations—most also have the hallmark of being overly simple which makes them as easy to sell as snake oil to the uneducated masses. Almost non get the meat grinder of peer-review in climate journals because of fundamental problems of analysis—the few that do so far haven't been able to be confirmed.
    Clearly there are other impacts to global temperature that have not been included in the overall estimates. Recent peer reviewed and published studies that have been linked here indicate aerosols interacting with solar and cosmic radiation have a much greater influence on global temperature and can account for 100% of that which might otherwise be attributed to increases in CO2. Long term ocean oscillations also have a strong additional influence on global surface temperatures and are also left out but can account for up to 70% of the warming effect otherwise attributable to CO2. CO2 is distributed unevenly around the globe due to ocean source out-gassing in the warm latitudes and strong sinks at the poles. The uneven distribution would dramatically reduce the influence of CO2 but it has been treated as uniform. Global cloud cover has been studied more carefully and is known to be far more variable and influenced by both aerosols and alterations in sun activity. This too has not been factored into the influencers. There is published research on all of these issues.

    When one returns to the theoretical number for CO2 influence, recalling that the amount of warming attributable to CO2 is about half the theoretical number and knowing that these other influences have not be addressed in the total, it is easy to see that those who attempt to put all or the majority of the current warming on CO2 are overselling it.

    Finally, we are learning that the primary centers for compiling and publishing global temperature estimates have been illegally refusing to release their data and process details so it can be independently validated, and through selective inclusion and exclusion of reporting stations, have been imposing a modest warming bias on results for years after 1989 that is particularly strong near the poles.

    They are also perpetuated and set up logic fallacies such as the false dichotomy that Co2 is the ONLY driver or not a driver at all---as if its that simple. The entire charade is ridiculous.
    Those here who are skeptical of AWG have always acknowledged that there are many factors that go into temperature trends. we even accept that CO2 should have an effect but we question the magnitude. The IPCC has it at 2.6 times the theoretical effect of 0.8 degrees C. Current data puts it at 0.6 times theoretical and the range based on empirical data and inclusion of these influences that have not been considered has it between -0.1 and +0.8. The IPCC's 2.6 number seems to be complete nonsense.
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    more broad brush statements Cypress.
    "The current warming trend began in the early 1600's and thus far is estimated at about 0.8-0.9 degrees centigrade."

    The recovery of the little ice age of about 0.2C was fully made by 1800. The rest of that warming comes after and is not only compiriously at a similar rate to increases Co2 from the industrial revolution, but can only be explained in simulations by those same increases and their associated forcing.

    "Recent peer reviewed and published studies that have been linked here indicate aerosols interacting with solar and cosmic radiation have a much greater influence on global temperature and can account for 100% of that which might otherwise be attributed to increases in CO2."

    Bogus. The proposed physical mechanisms for the changes to albedo are not well descibed, varified, or even applicable to most of the atmosphere which already has sufficient cloud condensation nucli to form clouds. Most of this work as been done by Svensmark based in the lab creation of aerosols which aren't even large enough to act as cloud nuclei unless their concentration get impossibly high (and ever observed in the real atmosphere). Furthermore cosmic ray trend have been nearly flat during most of the recent warming. Perhaps more importantly when you look at studies such as that by Kristjansson which try to find a change in cloudiness related to well known cosmic ray peaks, there's absolutely no correllation which pretty must dismantles the entire argument.
    --
    But we are well past the arguments of Co2 as a driver.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    inow has posted that and that's just the tip of data and underlying physics.
    You lost me unless you mean he has posted undeniable proof. I say he hasn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Your looking for a simple formula. The reality is that something as simple as average temperature change is the culmination of hundreds of equations (themselves just mathematical representations of empirical measurements of systems) in complex non-linear interaction with each other that can only be studied and analyzed by simulations.
    I'm not necessarily looking for a simple formula. I just want something comprehensive to evaluate. Just because some study that I can readily poke holes in says something doesn't mean squat.

    I am aware that there are many factors. That is one basis I make the claim that CO2 is not as "forceful" as it's given credit for. Apparently those who like to say the 17970 to present trend not matching solar don't realize how complicate things get. The sun however, is simple. You apply more intensity, you get more heat. Lower the intensity, you get less heat. Yes, it is simple, and can you dispute that? I know CO2 isn't as simple.

    Why is it nobody can disagree with my arguments about the irradiance effect and soot? Isn't it obvious that when these are accounted for, CO2 can not create as much heat as it's given credit to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The reality is people look for something simple, when no such thing exist for most natural systems. Just because you don't have the years of experience and study and quite honestly don't understand most of the science, doesn't mean there's not a very credible and hard science behind the science of climate change.
    Yet the explanations do not make sense when known values are applied. Yes, I would like something simple, but look at the facts. There are other possible explanations that fit. The IPCC continues to downgrade CO2 with every report. The science isn't settled, and consensus isn't science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    There is no viable hypothesis that explains the current warming other than increased in man-made emitted—not one.
    Absolutely not true. Latent heats isn't viable? Look at how slow the ocean circulates. The clearing of the atmosphere isn't viable? Isn't it possible that the extra sunlight that strikes the surface is responsible for more heat? Heat we would have seen by 1960 if it wasn't blocked? What about the lessening of the earths magnetic field? Isn't viable as a minor factor? What about the "hundreds" of other factors (equations)? Errors can easily be compounded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Most of the ones brought forth in public discussions and largely pushed by the fossil fuel industry were long dismissed by the science because they didn't test out or no one could make that fit observations of the current and past climate observations—most also have the hallmark of being overly simple which makes them as easy to sell as snake oil to the uneducated masses.
    So they summarily get dismissed with bias because they are suspect of bias?

    Since when is that science?

    Besides, that argument isn't always true either. When someone learns the geosciences, they often worked for or contracted for at one time an oil company. That's all it takes for someone to cry foul and bias on this topic. People can not even be honest about those who they disagree with. My perception is those who actually put their schooling to practice have been involved in such ventures. The other have stayed in academia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Almost non get the meat grinder of peer-review in climate journals because of fundamental problems of analysis—the few that do so far haven't been able to be confirmed.
    I see the peer review process on this topic erroneous anyway. I see too much evidence the science has been incorrectly taught for years, therefore the same people taught the same things agree, and conclude the same things.

    Just consider that possibility please. Keep an open mind and analyze this from more than one perspective please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    They are also perpetuated and set up logic fallacies such as the false dichotomy that Co2 is the ONLY driver or not a driver at all---as if its that simple. The entire charade is ridiculous.
    Have you seen me use that argument? I agree such arguments should be dismissed as readily as those who fail to consider solar, soot, latent heat, the carbon cycle, etc.

    You want to talk false dichotomy... Think the AGW crowd doesn't use them too?
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I want testable evidence that can be measures, quantified, and calculated. If the science is settled, why isn't all the data and mathematical formulas out there?
    Is it really possible that you're simply not clicking the links people offer with their posts prior to asking such asinine questions?

    I mean, really... FFS, man. This has been understood for over 40 years, and you act as if it doesn't even exist.
    No, WC has accepted existence of the concept which is what the links you have provided offer. You and I both know what WC is asking for and we both know that to date you and others have not provided it. Your links simply acknowledge that CO2 is among several compounds in air that adsorb and re-emit infrared radiation and under certain circumstances can reduce heat energy transfer away from the earth. WC has accepted this from the beginning. WC is asking for clear and convincing evidence that changes in emissions of CO2 by human activity does and will have a significant impact on global temperatures. Let's define significant as greater than 2.0 degrees centigrade the limit proposed by the IPCC. So far the evidence can at most allow us to attribute 0.1-0.4 degrees centigrade to human activity and when played out over the next 100 years, the total impact could be raised to between 0.2 and 1.0 degrees centigrade based on current data.

    WC is asking for clear and convincing evidence that we should assign more than one degree of warming to human activity. Each time he asks, you and lynx and others regurgitate the same general and vague information WC has already read and accepted regarding the concept but not the actual impact.


    That link alone, complete with it's references and descriptions, is enough to convince any reasonable person to stop with the nonsense.
    Obviously you seem content to continue this nonsense of changing the question to one that is easily answered and agreed long ago.

    Let me ask you... Are you a reasonable person, Wild_Cobra?
    Clearly he is reasonable enough to see what you are doing and to continue to ask the relevant questions.

    I'm really rather uncertain about that at this point. Regardless, here is a link which directly addresses your request to me:

    http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf
    Perhaps you should read the entire paper inow. It dovetails well with the points raised by WC. It acknowledges the uncertainty in effects from aerosols, fluorocarbons, variations in cloud cover, ocean oscillations, etc., though it does not discuss variation in CO2 distribution and the relationship between CO2 and ocean at differing latitudes to a sufficient degree. In the end though, it too does not answer the question WC persistently asks. I suspect it is because as WC implies and other times directly states, the clear and convincing evidence that human activity has and will add a 2K+ imprint to global average surface temperature simply does not exist.
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    more broad brush statements Cypress.
    "The current warming trend began in the early 1600's and thus far is estimated at about 0.8-0.9 degrees centigrade."

    The recovery of the little ice age of about 0.2C was fully made by 1800.

    The rest of that warming comes after and is not only compiriously at a similar rate to increases Co2 from the industrial revolution, but can only be explained in simulations by those same increases and their associated forcing.
    Sun irradiation strength continued to increase from a trough during the little ice age and peaked after 1950, in the early '80's if I recall. Your statement is in contradiction with the facts.

    "Recent peer reviewed and published studies that have been linked here indicate aerosols interacting with solar and cosmic radiation have a much greater influence on global temperature and can account for 100% of that which might otherwise be attributed to increases in CO2."

    Bogus.
    No the statement above is accurate.

    The proposed physical mechanisms for the changes to albedo are not well descibed, varified, or even applicable to most of the atmosphere which already has sufficient cloud condensation nucli to form clouds. Most of this work as been done by Svensmark based in the lab creation of aerosols which aren't even large enough to act as cloud nuclei unless their concentration get impossibly high (and ever observed in the real atmosphere). Furthermore cosmic ray trend have been nearly flat during most of the recent warming. Perhaps more importantly when you look at studies such as that by Kristjansson which try to find a change in cloudiness related to well known cosmic ray peaks, there's absolutely no correllation which pretty must dismantles the entire argument.
    I would suggest you have a look at Dr. Lu's work. Svenmark did not address Lu's studies of fluorocarbons at all. This paper was discussed in earlier threads. In addition, changes in cloud cover since 1750 have not been included or factored into the empirical studies.
    --
    But we are well past the arguments of Co2 as a driver.
    We are focusing on the magnitude and the evidence is suggesting that the magnitude is not large enough to worry about.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I want testable evidence that can be measures, quantified, and calculated. If the science is settled, why isn't all the data and mathematical formulas out there?
    Is it really possible that you're simply not clicking the links people offer with their posts prior to asking such asinine questions?
    No, I do, and I have explained why they are not acceptable.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I mean, really... FFS, man. This has been understood for over 40 years, and you act as if it doesn't even exist.
    Like what doesn't exist? Global warning has occurred.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does cause warming.

    I have not seen anything to dispel mu sol;id belief that CO2 does not cause the degree of warming the AGW crowd claims.

    Isn't it funny how the article talks about the 400 to 710 wavenumbers not being used? They take the 710 to 780 area as an illustration of CO2 increase. Not very convincing to ignore most of it. Did you read why the 400+ is ignored? What if the same applies to the 710 to 780 area?

    Besides, what does 2 K in that area mean? It's a real small part of the spectra. It also took two different satellites to do this, and the linearity of the basebands could differ dramatically. Then how does pollution of the 70's affect the results with the cleaner air of 1996?

    I'm sorry, but too many reasons not to trust that small segment of CO2 as reliable, and like I said, it's not even quantified to a change of physical temperature change.

    I will say that it may be entirely correct. However, what effect is that small change suppose to represent?
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect.
    Yes, your point?
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation.
    Yes, do you think I don't understand this?
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths.
    Again, why are you quoting this? You act as if I don't understand these simple facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.
    Your point?

    Let me ask you something.

    Were all other factors except CO2 levels equal? How can anyone definitively say this is an accurate comparison?

    That link alone, complete with it's references and descriptions, is enough to convince any reasonable person to stop with the nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Let me ask you... Are you a reasonable person, Wild_Cobra?
    Obviously, more so than you.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I'm really rather uncertain about that at this point. Regardless, here is a link which directly addresses your request to me:
    Thin what you want. I know I have had enough of your incorrect assumptions of my viewpoint.
    This one actually merits some deep reading. I have saved it and printing it out. I will read it later.
     

  47. #46  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    How do you know the sun doesn't account for more recent warming?
    Because we have observed a decline in solar activity while the temps continue to go straight up. With a solar explanation, you would expect to see an entirely different distribution of heat in the atmosphere. There are other reasons as well. Why do you think the experts do not buy into the solar explanation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Point is, there is no real evidence that CO2 causes the degree of warming attributed to it.
    No real evidence? That's crazy talk. This was all predicted in the nineteenth century. So far, the predictions are holding up fairly well. THat's how a theory survives. We have tests in the lab and in the atmosphere that verify and quantify the GHE. Don't overstate your case.



    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    The sun supplies more than 99.9% of the earths heat. Once we have a greenhouse effect, radiative forcing is close to linear to heat. Any small changes in the sun is seen in the feedback of greenhouse gasses, clouded, etc. will be near linear also. Since the Maunder Minimum, to 2004, the sun has increased intensity by 0.20% on the 11 year average. Take 14C or 15C as a global temperature. Add 273.15 difference between Kelvin and Celsius. If I use 14 C, and 273 difference, I get 287 kelvin. Multiply by 1.002 and you get 287.574, or a 0.57 C increase in global temperature. Now subtract that from what ever you believe the temperature rise is since the industrial revolution is.
    I am not following you. It seems your approach is way too simplistic in the first place. YOu're not actually doing a radiation calculation so why did you convert to Kelvin? And then you just all of a sudden called Kelvin Celsius? That's not going to work. And where did you get 1.002? This comes across as really messy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I never said any such thing, and if you folled my posting you know that.I and getting real angry that people keep implying I believe that when I have so many times said otherwise. I simply say it is far weaker a greenhouse gas that it is thought of.
    I can't go through all of your posts. That's why I was asking you, so settle down. Now, what makes you think CO2 is weaker than the experts believe it to be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    We know that the CO2 is mostly from us.
    That is an incorrect statement. We can say that most of the increased levels are from us, but that would sill be wrong. The ocean contain more than 50 times as much as the atmosphere. I forget how much more, but plants contain so much more also. Small changes in these balances can affect the atmosphere more than man. 98% of our output should be absorbed by the ocean, but since it has been warming, it doesn't absorb as much as it should, and that small disturbance changes the equilibrium.

    You cannot say with certainty that man is the cause of the 100+ ppm increase since the 1700's.
    The increase is from us. We have isotope measurements that tell us this. Plus we have calculations of output that correlate. This is why these conversations are so annoying. You're just flat out denying the obvious. Yes, CO2 is in the ocean, but that's actually bad news, not good news. The ocean isn't absorbing as much because the rate of change is too high. And that is the entire heart of the problem. And by the way, certainty can only be a limit in science, not an actual destination.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Ice core data and other paleoclimate data.
    There is nothing in the record that shows the same RATE and magnitude, that I am aware of.

    [/quote]
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Ice core data and other paleoclimate data.
    There is nothing in the record that shows the same RATE and magnitude, that I am aware of.
    Here is a graphic reconstruction of temperatures through the ages.



    Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record

    Notice that the are several periods where RATE and magnitudes exceed the modern trend. If we were to go back further in time we will find many more cases.
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    How do you know the sun doesn't account for more recent warming?
    Because we have observed a decline in solar activity while the temps continue to go straight up. With a solar explanation, you would expect to see an entirely different distribution of heat in the atmosphere. There are other reasons as well. Why do you think the experts do not buy into the solar explanation?
    I know for a fact that many experts do accept that most of the present temperature trend is directly attributed to fluctuations in sun activity. As you say sun activity hit a peak in 1981-83 then formed a plateau through 2002 and has since dropped off. Here is one proxy for sun activity plotted with a global temperature compilation.



    Reference: The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) seminar, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998. Solar wind is used here as a measure of sun intensity.

    Notice that as you indicate after the 1980's while sun activity peaked, global temperature continued to rise (up until 2002 but has now also peaked). But note also that the data shows several other 20-30 year periods where the temperature trend fails to follow the the longer term pattern of tracking sun activity. This show us that it is not unusual for the two to be out of step for a time while still correlating in the longer term. We are now well aware that there are several ocean and atmospheric oscillations with terms ranging from 6 months to 50 years that are known to overprint the longer term climate patterns.

    Please explain the cause of the deviation between 1872 and 1886 and the one between 1930 and 1945 and how the cause of those deviations is different from the present deviation between 1983 and 2002. We must be able to account for these deviation in order to accept your implication.
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Point is, there is no real evidence that CO2 causes the degree of warming attributed to it.
    No real evidence? That's crazy talk. This was all predicted in the nineteenth century. So far, the predictions are holding up fairly well. THat's how a theory survives. We have tests in the lab and in the atmosphere that verify and quantify the GHE. Don't overstate your case.
    Wild Cobra's operative word is "degree" and you seemed to have missed it. With sun activity directly accounting for 70% of the current warming and the prospect that overprints of warmer ocean oscillations, lower than normal cloud cover, higher aerosol an numerous other influences acting in the years between 1975 and now, we have very little warming overprint to attribute to CO2 concentration increases. The Range often suggested is between -0.1 and +0.4 degrees C.
     

  51. #50  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    The links provided by inow don't even address the challenge posed above. They predictably avoid the inconvenient questions.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    How do you know the sun doesn't account for more recent warming?
    Because we have observed a decline in solar activity while the temps continue to go straight up. With a solar explanation, you would expect to see an entirely different distribution of heat in the atmosphere. There are other reasons as well. Why do you think the experts do not buy into the solar explanation?
    Why? Why isn't it conceivable that there are lags in any moving system, and the larger the system, the longer the lag?
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Point is, there is no real evidence that CO2 causes the degree of warming attributed to it.
    No real evidence? That's crazy talk. This was all predicted in the nineteenth century. So far, the predictions are holding up fairly well. THat's how a theory survives. We have tests in the lab and in the atmosphere that verify and quantify the GHE. Don't overstate your case.
    Yes, at first they used steam as their black body source, which yielded incorrect calculations. I could go on, but by the rest of your post, you really need to learn more basis stuff first.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    The sun supplies more than 99.9% of the earths heat. Once we have a greenhouse effect, radiative forcing is close to linear to heat. Any small changes in the sun is seen in the feedback of greenhouse gasses, clouded, etc. will be near linear also. Since the Maunder Minimum, to 2004, the sun has increased intensity by 0.20% on the 11 year average. Take 14C or 15C as a global temperature. Add 273.15 difference between Kelvin and Celsius. If I use 14 C, and 273 difference, I get 287 kelvin. Multiply by 1.002 and you get 287.574, or a 0.57 C increase in global temperature. Now subtract that from what ever you believe the temperature rise is since the industrial revolution is.
    I am not following you. It seems your approach is way too simplistic in the first place. YOu're not actually doing a radiation calculation so why did you convert to Kelvin? And then you just all of a sudden called Kelvin Celsius? That's not going to work. And where did you get 1.002? This comes across as really messy.
    Kelvin and Celsius have the same slope. When dealing in absolute terms, they must be stated. When dealing with differential terms, they are interchangeable.

    The 1.002 is the multiplier for a 0.2% increase. 1 + 0.002 (0.2%) = 1.002. How can you make such statements denying the theory when you don't understand such simple things?

    Zero kelvin is absolute zero, and where many calculations need to be based from in chemistry and physics.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I never said any such thing, and if you followed my posting you know that.I and getting real angry that people keep implying I believe that when I have so many times said otherwise. I simply say it is far weaker a greenhouse gas that it is thought of.
    I can't go through all of your posts. That's why I was asking you, so settle down. Now, what makes you think CO2 is weaker than the experts believe it to be?
    If it did, we would have far greater warming than we see because the solar influence is easily calculated.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    We know that the CO2 is mostly from us.
    That is an incorrect statement. We can say that most of the increased levels are from us, but that would sill be wrong. The ocean contain more than 50 times as much as the atmosphere. I forget how much more, but plants contain so much more also. Small changes in these balances can affect the atmosphere more than man. 98% of our output should be absorbed by the ocean, but since it has been warming, it doesn't absorb as much as it should, and that small disturbance changes the equilibrium.

    You cannot say with certainty that man is the cause of the 100+ ppm increase since the 1700's.
    The increase is from us. We have isotope measurements that tell us this. Plus we have calculations of output that correlate. This is why these conversations are so annoying. You're just flat out denying the obvious. Yes, CO2 is in the ocean, but that's actually bad news, not good news. The ocean isn't absorbing as much because the rate of change is too high. And that is the entire heart of the problem. And by the way, certainty can only be a limit in science, not an actual destination.
    Isotopic measurements are not definitive and in the noise range of errors. Besides, the Carbon Cycle does not discriminate enough between type of carbon.

    Even if it did, why does it matter? We know that we output about 1% annually of the total atmospheric CO2. We currently see something like 55% of the added CO2 to the Carbon Cycle system being sinked. Still, this 1% we output would be far better absorbed by the ocean if it wasn't warming. The latent energy is established within certain error tolerances, and nobody disagrees with that. Just to the level of warming. When you apply solubility vs. temperature, warming that occurred hundreds of years ago in the ocean could be why the ocean isn't absorbing more CO2 that it does. The 55% only accounts for surface absorption, but it should be greater than that number. If it could turn it all over without lag, it would absorb more than 98% of the added CO2 outside of equilibrium. We would still see under 300 ppm.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Ice core data and other paleoclimate data.
    There is nothing in the record that shows the same RATE and magnitude, that I am aware of.
    Yes. And you don't know that 1.002 is a way of applying a 0.2% increase.
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Would you please stop with links you don't bother discussing in your own words. Especially when they are the same tiresome ones you keep posting. Something they are so large, it's information overload and a waste of time to read any of it to look for a pertinent paragraph.

    Then on top of that. They just deny my conclusions, without denying my claims. Do any of those scientifically dismiss lag or aerosols?
     

  55. #54  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    In my own words:

    No matter which mechanism you invoke, the sun is not to blame for the recent warming trend.
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Inow, from one of the links within a link:

    From the coldest period of the Little Ice Age to the present time, the surface temperature of the Earth increased by perhaps 0.8°C. Solar variability may account for part of this warming which, during the past 350 years, generally tracks fluctuating solar activity levels. While increases in greenhouse gas concentrations are widely assumed to be the primary cause of recent climate change, surface temperatures nevertheless varied significantly during pre-industrial periods, under minimal levels of greenhouse gas variations. A climate forcing of 0.3 W m−2 arising from a speculated 0.13% solar irradiance increase can account for the 0.3°C surface warming evident in the paleoclimate record from 1650 to 1790, assuming that climate sensitivity is 1°C W−1 m−2 (which is within the IPCC range). The empirical Sun–climate relationship defined by these pre-industrial data suggests that solar variability may have contributed 0.25°C of the 0.6°C subsequent warming from 1900 to 1990, a scenario which time dependent GCM simulations replicate when forced with reconstructed solar irradiance. Thus, while solar variability likely played a dominant role in modulating climate during the Little Ice Age prior to 1850, its influence since 1900 has become an increasingly less significant component of climate change in the industrial epoch. It is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970, not withstanding recent attempts to deduce long term solar irradiance fluctuations from the observational data base, which has notable occurrences of instrumental drifts. Empirical evidence suggests that Sun–climate relationships exist on decadal as well as centennial time scales, but present sensitivities of the climate system are insufficient to explain these short-term relationships. Still to be simulated over the time scale of the Little Ice Age to the present is the combined effect of direct radiative forcing, indirect forcing via solar-induced ozone changes in the atmosphere, and speculated charged particle mechanisms whose pathways and sensitivities are not yet specified.
    Please note, this is from Judith Lean's earlier study. The 0.13% is revised to 0.20% in her later work. She attributes 0.3 degrees warming for a 0.13%. Simple math would show a 0.46 degree increase by her method for a 0.20% increase. She is also using 1°C W−1 m−2 and says it's within the IPCC range, but the IPCC uses closer to 0.5°C W−1 m−2 in the published AR4. Why can't these climate scientists in the AGW crowd find the correct constants and stop revising them?

    Please notice that even when the best experts explain this, they cannot quantify, or ignore "centennial" possibilities. She uses "unlikely" for solar warming since 1970. Not impossible. If she uses the same terminology as the IPCC, then unlikely means <33% probability. That is with the level of understanding she has to assess with.

    Suggested reading on the sun's effect:

    Consequences Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 1996: The Sun and Climate by Judith Lean and David Rind

    a few interesting points:
    Still, more factors were obviously perturbing the climate system than the lone hand of greenhouse gases. The global-mean temperature did not rise steadily: statistical analyses of the temperature record since 1850 reveal significant year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability. Moreover, what is known of the longer climatic record suggests that surface temperatures may have been systematically increasing since the late 17th century (Figure 3d), well before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, when greenhouse gas concentrations first began their upward climb.
    I probably didn't need the above paragraph. Seems most people agree there was solar warming before there was CO2 warming.
    A recent reconstruction of the solar total radiation since the 17th century that is consistent with both stellar and isotopic findings suggests an increase in solar total radiation of roughly 0.25 percent over the past three hundred years (Fig. 2c). Other studies also point to reductions in solar radiation during the Maunder Minimum in the range of 0.1 to 0.6 percent.
    The sensitivity of climate to solar radiation changes, as defined earlier, is not well known. A conservative estimate is that a 0.1 percent change in solar total radiation will bring about a temperature response of 0.06 to 0.2°C, providing the change persists long enough for the climate system to adjust. This could take ten to 100 years.
    Hmmm... conservative estimate, 0.25%, up to 0.2 C per 0.1%... looks like as high as 0.45 C for a conservative viewpoint of solar warming to me.
    If we assume that the climate is equally sensitive to radiative forcing from each of these causes, the net increase of 1.2 watts should have brought about an increase in global mean temperature of 0.3 to 1.1°C, depending on the climate sensitivity that is assumed. The documented rise of about 0.5°C in the same period falls at the low end of this range. It may be premature to make such a comparison, however, since it is uncertain when all of the warming would be felt, given the lag times of up to a century that are imposed on the climate system by the thermal inertia of the oceans.
    Got that Inow... "Lag times" and "thermal inertia." Cannot these factors account for the warming after 1970?
    CONCLUSIONS

    That the Sun plays a critical part in the Earth's climate system is indisputable; moreover, both the Sun and the climate change continually, over all time scales. Yet the physical connections that might link the variations seen on one with the variability presently occurring in the other are but poorly known. One and a half decades of continuous monitoring of direct solar radiation have provided long-needed information, but this short period of time is but a wink of an eye in the life of the Sun, and a woefully inadequate sample of the full range of its possible behavior.
     

  57. #56  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Got that Inow... "Lag times" and "thermal inertia." Cannot these factors account for the warming after 1970?
    No, they cannot and do not.
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Notice that as you indicate after the 1980's while sun activity peaked, global temperature continued to rise (up until 2002 but has now also peaked).
    Hardly. 2005 was the warmest while 2009 was tied as second warmest year.

    But note also that the data shows several other 20-30 year periods where the temperature trend fails to follow the the longer term pattern of tracking sun activity.
    At least you are starting to understand what climate is here....but than you return to confusing the differences again when you ask...

    Please explain the cause of the deviation between 1872 and 1886 and the one between 1930 and 1945 and how the cause of those deviations is different from the present deviation between 1983 and 2002. We must be able to account for these deviation in order to accept your implication.
    You really never need to account for differences of less than about 20 years because they really aren't climate issues. They might be interesting in their own right for other reasons.

    Does anyone here really think Co2 isn't a driver? If so the thread is answered. No climatologist claim it to the be the primary driver though it's importance has increased as it hits unprecedented levels and will likely exceed the natural composition by 2-4 times before we ween ourselves off fossil fuels.

    There isn't a single climate simulation that accounts for the rapid warming of the past 30 years without Co2 increasing--NOT ONE.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  59. #58  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Why? Why isn't it conceivable that there are lags in any moving system, and the larger the system, the longer the lag?
    I don't think you are answering the question.

    Yes, at first they used steam as their black body source, which yielded incorrect calculations. I could go on, but by the rest of your post, you really need to learn more basis stuff first.
    No. The GHE is well established and reasonably well quantified. It's chemistry and heat transfer. The real world issues involve negative feedbacks which are much more difficult to predict.

    Kelvin and Celsius have the same slope. When dealing in absolute terms, they must be stated. When dealing with differential terms, they are interchangeable.
    That is correct.

    The 1.002 is the multiplier for a 0.2% increase. 1 + 0.002 (0.2%) = 1.002. How can you make such statements denying the theory when you don't understand such simple things?
    Sorry. I knew you were using a multiplier, but I thought the percentage was different for a second. My bad.

    Zero kelvin is absolute zero, and where many calculations need to be based from in chemistry and physics.
    For a problem like this, where you are making some very heavy assumptions, you don't need to use kelvin. You are not doing a radiation transfer problem which would require kelvin. And you are making a basic math error.

    The only way the differential works is if both of the temperatures involved in the equation are using the same multiplier. Like this:

    T = x(T2-T1)

    But here is what you are doing:

    T = T2 - T1

    where T2 = T1x

    That's why you'll get different answers for each, when it shouldn't make any difference in the problem. You'll be at different points on the graph for each resultant figure for T2. Just use Celsius. It's 0.028.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    If it did, we would have far greater warming than we see because the solar influence is easily calculated.
    First of all, solar activity has declined. Secondly, solar activity is no more easily calculated than the GHE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Isotopic measurements are not definitive and in the noise range of errors. Besides, the Carbon Cycle does not discriminate enough between type of carbon.
    Could you explain to me why isotope readings are unreliable? I am not aware that those particular satellite studies were shown to be inconclusive at all.


    Even if it did, why does it matter? We know that we output about 1% annually of the total atmospheric CO2. We currently see something like 55% of the added CO2 to the Carbon Cycle system being sinked. Still, this 1% we output would be far better absorbed by the ocean if it wasn't warming.
    Again, the rate of increase is greater than absorption, and 1% is a little low, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    The latent energy is established within certain error tolerances, and nobody disagrees with that. Just to the level of warming. When you apply solubility vs. temperature, warming that occurred hundreds of years ago in the ocean could be why the ocean isn't absorbing more CO2 that it does. The 55% only accounts for surface absorption, but it should be greater than that number. If it could turn it all over without lag, it would absorb more than 98% of the added CO2 outside of equilibrium. We would still see under 300 ppm.
    The rate of absorption does not appear to change to that level. Secondly, what will actually happen is that CO2 stores will actually increase CO2 levels at some point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Yes. And you don't know that 1.002 is a way of applying a 0.2% increase.
    Nice cheap shot. I don't think you want to go there, since you don't know that a rate per dimension is in W/m^2, nor do you understand how to do heat transfer problems, apparently. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply in error.
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Notice that as you indicate after the 1980's while sun activity peaked, global temperature continued to rise (up until 2002 but has now also peaked).
    Hardly. 2005 was the warmest while 2009 was tied as second warmest year.
    There are several organizations compiling global mean temperature. The one you cite is under increasing pressure to release information about thier data and methods so that the compiled results can be independently validated. The GISS persistently returns the highest temperatures and it is recently diverging from the others compilations. Turns out that for years after 1989 they began excluding most (80%) of the reporting stations and this action has the effect of biasing the compiled data warmer than years where the stations are not removed. I suggest that this source not be used until they work these issues out.

    Regardless of which compilation one uses this decade represents a peak in recent history and the satellite measurements of lower troposphere temperatures (the data that is most free of bias) indicates an inflection point at 2002 which most climatologists seem to accept. El Nino oscillation beginning in early summer and peaking in November of 2009 had the predictable impact of raised temperatures over the Pacific which is easy to recognize in the results. If you wish attribute El Nino effects to CO2, I am anxious to hear the explanation.



    But note also that the data shows several other 20-30 year periods where the temperature trend fails to follow the the longer term pattern of tracking sun activity.
    At least you are starting to understand what climate is here....but than you return to confusing the differences again when you ask...

    Please explain the cause of the deviation between 1872 and 1886 and the one between 1930 and 1945 and how the cause of those deviations is different from the present deviation between 1983 and 2002. We must be able to account for these deviation in order to accept your implication.
    You really never need to account for differences of less than about 20 years because they really aren't climate issues. They might be interesting in their own right for other reasons.
    Actually the questions were rhetorical intended to demonstrate the point you are now making.

    Excellent then we should properly dismiss the deviation of global temperature from sun activity for the years between 1983 through 2002 as WC and I have been arguing all along. By this standard, the effects that might otherwise be assigned to human increases in CO2 are negligible, and the empirical relationships observed in the past are still in play.

    Does anyone here really think Co2 isn't a driver? If so the thread is answered.
    The difficulty in this question is use of the term driver. It implies a level of control and ability to steer climate in a particular direction. If that is what is meant by driver then I say YES!. If on the other hand you mean to say "Does anyone here really think changes in concentration of CO2 is not at least a minor factor in the earth's energy budget?" Then I am with you. The debate has and always will be one of extent, and as long as there are differences in the understanding of extent, then this thread is not answered.

    No climatologist claim it to the be the primary driver though it's importance has increased as it hits unprecedented levels and will likely exceed the natural composition by 2-4 times before we ween ourselves off fossil fuels.
    Attention to CO2 has increased but I don't think that we can say its importance as an influencer to the energy budget has increased.

    There isn't a single climate simulation that accounts for the rapid warming of the past 30 years without Co2 increasing--NOT ONE.
    Yes, that was the point of another thread on GCM's, that these simulators regurgitate the impacts coded into them by the designers. If the opinions of the designers are correct, then the results are correct, but if the opinions are incorrect then garbage in, garbage out. This is true even if the resultant garbage happens to track temperature in the short term. We both know that it does not in the long term. Here is what you said in that thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx-Fox
    The GCMs aren't going to validate anything.
    You are now doing what you denied in the other thread. You are using simulators as evidence/validation for the impact of CO2. This despite the fact that leading forecast experts dissected these models and documented failure to follow principles of good forecasting models in 172 of 189 points. They went on to show that a simple model that only violates 2 principles was 7.7 times more accurate than these GCM's. A recent paper published by a leading UN scientist demonstrates how long term (50 year) ocean oscillations account for the warming between 1975 and now. The reason why GCM's don't track with these oscillations is because the designers did not include them in their simulators. the GCM's have several other major shortcomings that figure into this warming. The reality is that simulators are nothing more than opinions in mathematical form. If the opinions are correct, then the simulator is correct, otherwise they are not.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    There isn't a single climate simulation that accounts for the rapid warming of the past 30 years without Co2 increasing--NOT ONE.
    Agreed. However, what if the models are wrong?

    I'm more inclined to think the unnatural trace gasses are the primary anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming. When I find the time, I'll do a little presumptive math.
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Why? Why isn't it conceivable that there are lags in any moving system, and the larger the system, the longer the lag?
    I don't think you are answering the question.
    I agree he did not, but I did. See my response above. Lynx-Fox seems to accept my response.

    No. The GHE is well established and reasonably well quantified. It's chemistry and heat transfer. The real world issues involve negative feedbacks which are much more difficult to predict.
    Sure but the extent of influence by modest changes in concentration of CO2 is not well understood. Empirical data indicates the influence is substantially less than the IPCC predictions, somewhere on the order of 105% to 75% less.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    If it did, we would have far greater warming than we see because the solar influence is easily calculated.
    First of all, solar activity has declined. Secondly, solar activity is no more easily calculated than the GHE.
    I agree. However we have the benefit of a long history of empirical correlation with solar activity. The correlation is excellent when averaged over 40 years or longer. It is still good when averaged over 10 years but there are periods of 15-30 years where global temperature proxies deviate from sun activity proxies. The years between 1983 and 2002 is an example of that deviation. It seems ill advised given the uncertainties in both GHE and solar activity to base policy on this. The more reasonable approach should be to assume the well established empirical trends still hold. This is particularly well advised given that there are several known atmospheric and ocean oscillations that act over these periods of time that are capable of explaining the temporary deviations from the longer term trends.
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Why? Why isn't it conceivable that there are lags in any moving system, and the larger the system, the longer the lag?
    I don't think you are answering the question.
    That's because I have no definitive answers. I do not attempt to account for all short term variables and changes. There are too many possibilities. The long term effects are far more reliable to consider.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Yes, at first they used steam as their black body source, which yielded incorrect calculations. I could go on, but by the rest of your post, you really need to learn more basis stuff first.
    No. The GHE is well established and reasonably well quantified. It's chemistry and heat transfer. The real world issues involve negative feedbacks which are much more difficult to predict.
    How can it be well established? Even today, it is too difficult to quantify. Too many noise variables.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Zero kelvin is absolute zero, and where many calculations need to be based from in chemistry and physics.
    For a problem like this, where you are making some very heavy assumptions, you don't need to use kelvin. You are not doing a radiation transfer problem which would require kelvin. And you are making a basic math error.

    The only way the differential works is if both of the temperatures involved in the equation are using the same multiplier. Like this:

    T = x(T2-T1)

    But here is what you are doing:

    T = T2 - T1

    where T2 = T1x

    That's why you'll get different answers for each, when it shouldn't make any difference in the problem. You'll be at different points on the graph for each resultant figure for T2. Just use Celsius. It's 0.028.
    I don't think you follow what is happening. Any change small change in the input power of a system with feedback will be approximately linear for all effects that don't have 'cutoff' points. When we are dealing with radiative forcing, irradiation is very close to proportional. I might be wrong on the forcing to degrees, but I am relying on approximate IPCC numbers for that. When the IPCC uses the 1.66 watts forcing for CO2, they are talking differential. Not absolute. You apply absolute functions to absolute zero. I fail to see how you get a 0.028.

    Let me ask you this. What if you apply your method to Fahrenheit, then convert to Celsius. Do the numbers match? They should, right?

    Are you taking 14C global average x 0.002 to get 0.028? I hope not.

    What if I decide to use Fahrenheit? 14 C = 57.2 F. 57.2 x 0.002 = 0.1144. F slope to C slope... 0.1144 x 5/9 = 0.0636. This type of calculation doesn't pan out, so how do you get the 0.028?
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    If it did, we would have far greater warming than we see because the solar influence is easily calculated.
    First of all, solar activity has declined. Secondly, solar activity is no more easily calculated than the GHE.
    No, power is power. Doesn't matter, watts-hours, joules, calories, etc. All easily converted to heat.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Isotopic measurements are not definitive and in the noise range of errors. Besides, the Carbon Cycle does not discriminate enough between type of carbon.
    Could you explain to me why isotope readings are unreliable? I am not aware that those particular satellite studies were shown to be inconclusive at all.
    When you look at the 12C, 13C, and 14C to determine anthropogenic vs. natural solubility of CO2, the measurable differences in the isotopes is just too small. It is in the error margins. That's all there is to it. If you believe otherwise, fine. That's actually well outside this thread topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Even if it did, why does it matter? We know that we output about 1% annually of the total atmospheric CO2. We currently see something like 55% of the added CO2 to the Carbon Cycle system being sinked. Still, this 1% we output would be far better absorbed by the ocean if it wasn't warming.
    Again, the rate of increase is greater than absorption, and 1% is a little low, I think.
    1% is close. The atmosphere is a little over 750 GtC and we output about 8 GtC annually. Close enough to 1% for the significant places we are working with.

    Yes, the rate of increase is greater than absorption, however, the increase should would have slowed down if the latent solar energy over the last few hundred years not warmed the ocean. The greater the deviation from equilibrium, the faster the absorption. The atmospheric levels probably should have tapered off long ago if the ocean wasn't warmer. This isn't anything I have tried to quantify past what the levels would be if there wasn't a time lag in equilibrium.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    The latent energy is established within certain error tolerances, and nobody disagrees with that. Just to the level of warming. When you apply solubility vs. temperature, warming that occurred hundreds of years ago in the ocean could be why the ocean isn't absorbing more CO2 that it does. The 55% only accounts for surface absorption, but it should be greater than that number. If it could turn it all over without lag, it would absorb more than 98% of the added CO2 outside of equilibrium. We would still see under 300 ppm.
    The rate of absorption does not appear to change to that level. Secondly, what will actually happen is that CO2 stores will actually increase CO2 levels at some point.
    I believe that atmospheric CO2 levels would increase anyway if we hadn't burned any hydrocarbons at all. As the ocean warms, it has a net released of CO2. As the ocean cools, it has a new absorption of CO2.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Yes. And you don't know that 1.002 is a way of applying a 0.2% increase.
    Nice cheap shot.
    Sorry, but I am getting tired of repeating things. You missing that made it appeared I was wasting my time.
    Quote Originally Posted by 64kix
    I don't think you want to go there, since you don't know that a rate per dimension is in W/m^2, nor do you understand how to do heat transfer problems, apparently. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply in error.
    I think we just have a misunderstanding. I case you are wondering, my 0.20% is the increase of one solar irradiation level to another. If I use an 11 year rolling average to Lean 2004, I get 1363.437 watt/meter sq for 1683 and 1366.205 watt/meter sq for 1989. The second is 1.00203 time larger than the first, or 0.2% This extra heat slowly warms the ocean, changing the solubility of CO2, and is stored as latent heat.

    Did you realize I was using the 0.2% from numbers in 1360+?

    I really am curious. Just how do you get 0.28?
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I agree he did not, but I did. See my response above. Lynx-Fox seems to accept my response.
    Hardly.
    Insistent of ignoring that natural year to year variability isn't the same as long term climate change and continuously cherry picking short periods of cooling within that natural variability while claiming they are relevant to the subject of climate.
    Preferring to use lower tropospheric satellite data which doesn't even represent the subject at hand--which is surface heating to deny the past 30 years of warming.
    Claims that cosmic rays could account for 100% of warming though no study suggest such a thing, including the linked to while completely ignoring the fact that correlations between solar radiance and temperature parted company more than 30 years ago.
    Continued inability to understand what “validate” means which not only is a failing of the understanding of science but a tired rehash of another thread about another related topic.

    Sorry Cypress. I don't agree with you most of the time on this subject. Your arguments seem to lack much understanding of atmospheric science (e.g the failure to understand the Vostok icecore T effective ends late 18th century), and appear willfully ignorant because when presented with the overwhelming number of studies by at the people who actually study the subject, you seem unwilling to read them and just hand wave them off.

    You seem more interested in hijacking threads towards your apparently conspiratorial views done by those outside atmospheric science than learning atmospheric science to engage in serious discussions.
    --


    It there a point of this thread continuing.

    The original premise of the thread has been answered.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Why is the boost unprecedented? Can you eliminate every other possibility? If so, please explain.
    What other possibilities of what are you talking about?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Now I agree it may have partially been because of man, but the ocean should have absorbed more than it has
    The ocean is not listening to you tell it what it should have done, and I suggest to you that it will not in the future either - that is, continued production of CO2 by fossil fuel combustion at the current rates will continue to boost CO2 atmospheric concentration as well as increase oceanic acidity in some surface waters.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Not true. Most I believe simply have been indoctrinated over time by learning false assumptions in college.
    How did that affect their instrument readings?

    How did their indoctrinators (and now you are talking about an even larger body of researchers, in all the different fields, educated in a previous generation) come to be so thoroughly indoctrinated themselves, in defiance of their own research and evidence?

    No, you are talking massive and widespread fraud, involving thousands of scientists over dozens of disciplines.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    My point is that before man, we have warmed 5 times as much as or greater than we have today.
    And that point is irrelevant. It will never become relevant. You keep repeating it as if you thought it was important for some reason. It isn't. Do you see why?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Can you demonstrate that todays patterns are different than the five natural warming periods before our current warming period?
    Of course not. We do know that It is very rapid - more rapid than the past ones, as far as is known. The CO2 levels lead the warming, rather than lagging as in the past, as far as we can tell. The CO2 levels are much higher than those acheived in previous interstade warmings, as far as we know, and still rising. It's in the wrong part of the various orbital cycles and such influences. But demonstration? Demonstration of that kind will be possible in a few hundred years, maybe.

    But again - your point? Can you explain the current warming, its timing and rate and patterns (I handed you a clear example pattern), without invoking greenhouse gas as a major - almost certainly the major - driver?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I believe that atmospheric CO2 levels would increase anyway if we hadn't burned any hydrocarbons at all. As the ocean warms, it has a net released of CO2. As the ocean cools, it has a new absorption of CO2.
    So? Sooner or later you are going to have to decide exactly when you think the critical solar warming of the ocean occurred - hundreds of years ago until now, with the ocean in equilibrium with the atmospheric CO2 all that time until the "lag" kicked in coincidentally at the beginning of the industrial revolution, or just recently, so that the ocean is giving off CO2 that looks like fossil fuel CO2 while increasing in acidity itself for mysterious reasons.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    This extra heat slowly warms the ocean, changing the solubility of CO2, and is stored as latent heat.
    The stuff that is stored as latent heat is not available to account for atmospheric temperature increases - so your precentage temp increases no longer match. The stuff that is stored in atmosphere affecting surface water reduces the solubility of CO2 as in the past times of such solar forcing (say the hypsithermal) - when the atmosphere had about 260-280 ppm CO2 and was in equilibrium with the ocean at that level.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    But even if we dismiss all of these alternatives for argument sake, we still have the comfortable reality that the unexplained warming is only 15 to 60% of the theoretical effect of AGW making it minor, of secondary influence with negative feedback effects and thus inherently stable
    If you have reason to be sure that the slower rate is from negative feedback effects, rather than saturable damping and absorption in future sources of trouble, that would be very reassuring to the rest of the scientific community.

    And if you are now in agreement with the "theoretical effect of AGW", taking comfort from observing that something is preventing it, the basic discussion is over.
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I agree he did not, but I did. See my response above. Lynx-Fox seems to accept my response.
    Hardly.
    Insistent of ignoring that natural year to year variability isn't the same as long term climate change and continuously cherry picking short periods of cooling within that natural variability while claiming they are relevant to the subject of climate.
    Preferring to use lower tropospheric satellite data which doesn't even represent the subject at hand--which is surface heating to deny the past 30 years of warming.
    Claims that cosmic rays could account for 100% of warming though no study suggest such a thing, including the linked to while completely ignoring the fact that correlations between solar radiance and temperature parted company more than 30 years ago.
    1983 actually and then began tracking again in 2002. 19 years, 11 years fewer than your 30 year climate trend figure. Since it is less than 30 years, it is not a deviation of great significance. The historical record include countless periods of 15-30 years where solar activity and temperature deviate. The recent period is not too unusual in that respect. Your argument is helping my case dramatically thanks so much. The long term statistical correlation actually remains quite good. It is primarily inow's research citations that want to ignore your 30 years makes a climate trend rule.

    Continued inability to understand what “validate” means which not only is a failing of the understanding of science but a tired rehash of another thread about another related topic.
    I rather suspect you have difficulty admitting errors.

    Sorry Cypress. I don't agree with you most of the time on this subject. Your arguments seem to lack much understanding of atmospheric science (e.g the failure to understand the Vostok icecore T effective ends late 18th century), and appear willfully ignorant because when presented with the overwhelming number of studies by at the people who actually study the subject, you seem unwilling to read them and just hand wave them off.
    You must have me confused with someone else. I generarly read the studies and often I find them correct for what they say. It is generally what they fail to say or address that becomes the issue. I don't recall taking exception to icecore data, either.

    You seem more interested in hijacking threads towards your apparently conspiratorial views done by those outside atmospheric science than learning atmospheric science to engage in serious discussions.
    I don't believe there is a conspiracy. I am more than willing to discuss all aspects of atmospheric issues. You, however quite clearly have cast your vote.

    The original premise of the thread has been answered.
    And yet there remains a disconnect by a factor of 3 or more in the magnitude of the impact.
     

  67. #66  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is primarily inow's research citations that want to ignore your 30 years makes a climate trend rule.
    What complete nonsense. Your lack of integrity is rather disturbing. You haven't even said WHICH reference, despite the fact that I've shared scores in support of my arguments in this thread and others (10 citations in this thread alone, and one of those was a link to another post of mine which itself had 8 references). Instead, you're content to dismiss them all equally with your generalization above.

    You're not to be taken seriously, cypress.
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is primarily inow's research citations that want to ignore your 30 years makes a climate trend rule.
    What complete nonsense. Your lack of integrity is rather disturbing. You haven't even said WHICH reference, despite the fact that I've shared scores in support of my arguments in this thread and others (10 citations in this thread alone, and one of those was a link to another post of mine which itself had 8 references). Instead, you're content to dismiss them all equally with your generalization above.

    You're not to be taken seriously, cypress.
    Nonsense, my statement is not intended to apply generally. It should be obvious from the context, especially when I say that I find many valid for what they describe. Clearly I refer to the citations that you have offered on this particular subject of sun activity and short term divergence of mean temperature. Your sources clearly state that sun activity cannot account for the warming trend post 1975 (the warming between 1983 and 2002 to be specific). But in doing so, they violate Lynx_Fox's suggested rule that short term patterns don't make a climate trend.
     

  69. #68  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    And which citation specifically would that be?
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    But in doing so, they violate Lynx_Fox's suggested rule that short term patterns don't make a climate trend.
    Why cherry pick the years? Global temperature has been on nearly continuous rise, excepting minor 1-3 year variations, since the mid 1960s. And that it still continues despite a deep solar minimum is telling.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    But in doing so, they violate Lynx_Fox's suggested rule that short term patterns don't make a climate trend.
    Why cherry pick the years? Global temperature has been on nearly continuous rise, excepting minor 1-3 year variations, since the mid 1960s. And that it still continues despite a deep solar minimum is telling.
    In a previous graphic, a sun activity proxy was plotted along with a proxy for global mean temperature. The two proxies track well except for certain short term deviations. One of those deviations are from 1983 - 2002, a 19 year period. Notice that there are several 10-25 year periods where deviations occur, but the longer term trends hold throughout history. Recent studies have proposed long term ocean and atmospheric oscillations to explain these deviations. Here it is again.



    Reference: The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) seminar, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998. Solar wind is used here as a measure of sun intensity.

    Note also that global temperature proxies (see below) indicate an inflection in the longer term trend at 2002 where the trend is now tracking sun activity once again. The exceptions to this are 1998 and 2009 when strong El Nino oscillations add a significant temperature overprint.



    Please identify where I am cherry picking?
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    "1983 - 2002"

    Your own graphs don't even support you positions.

    While there is obviously an effect based on solar output, the premise of your argument seems to be that when solar output is up, than any decadal warming must be completely attributed that warming, while where it doesn't than because you your cherry picked dates it isn't climate. They you compound your errors by repeating exclusive use of lower tropospheric temperatures rather than surface temperature completely ignoring or ignorant that satellite also suffers from numerous problems including: in contains weighted data from mid and upper troposphere, its margin of error is worse at the poles which is exactly where models predict and surface temperatures agree most warming by Co2 will occur, and it and of itself is cherry picked as the lowest rising temperature.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    "1983 - 2002"

    Your own graphs don't even support you positions.

    While there is obviously an effect based on solar output, the premise of your argument seems to be that when solar output is up, than any decadal warming must be completely attributed that warming, while where it doesn't than because you your cherry picked dates it isn't climate.
    That's absurd. My premise is that, in the long run, climate tracks with net solar energy reaching the earth and continues to do so today. Deviations occur from time to time and are likely do to numerous oscillations of various degree and periods given that there is a long history of deviations and that we are increasingly able to identify the causal agents.

    They you compound your errors by repeating exclusive use of lower tropospheric temperatures rather than surface temperature completely ignoring or ignorant that satellite also suffers from numerous problems including: in contains weighted data from mid and upper troposphere, its margin of error is worse at the poles which is exactly where models predict and surface temperatures agree most warming by Co2 will occur, and it and of itself is cherry picked as the lowest rising temperature.
    We spoke of satellite verses surface temperature readings in the past. Satellite data is certainly a proxy for mean temperature which have limitations, but there is no reason to suspect that they should not follow the correct trend and slope even if not accurate in absolute terms. If inaccuracies are found, the proxy can easily be adjusted and the results are easy to verify by independent analysis.

    On the other hand, the surface temperature proxies are now known to contain bias and they are nearly impossible to independently verify. GISS results are compromised by a warming bias for years later than 1989 and should be used with caution. GISS is/has been in the process of eliminating this bias but in the process, they seem to be biasing pre 1989 data downward so that the results show the same trend. HAD/CRU surface results cannot be verified because much of the raw data has been destroyed and data from Russia, Siberia and China is known to have been cherry-picked. As they are now, GISS and HAD/CRU results seem to include more opinion than fact. Both groups have a credibility gap that is growing rapidly.
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    That's absurd. My premise is that, in the long run, climate tracks with net solar energy reaching the earth and continues to do so today.
    Nobody disagrees with that.

    The question is what that implies for the effects of boosting the CO2 concentration by 50% or more. The greenhouse warming from that will of course involve solar radiation.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    As they are now, GISS and HAD/CRU results seem to include more opinion than fact.
    The world of scientific analysis is not divided into "opinions" and "facts". And your bizarre opinions about the analyses published by the GISS et al are not based in reasoning from evidence.
     

  75. #74  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Just a reminder, cypress... We're still waiting for you to identify specifically which of my citations you were referring to above.

    Let me share the quote to which I'm referring so there is no confusion:
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is primarily inow's research citations that want to ignore your 30 years makes a climate trend rule.
    Again... which research citation was that?
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    That's absurd. My premise is that, in the long run, climate tracks with net solar energy reaching the earth and continues to do so today.
    Nobody disagrees with that.

    The question is what that implies for the effects of boosting the CO2 concentration by 50% or more. The greenhouse warming from that will of course involve solar radiation.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    As they are now, GISS and HAD/CRU results seem to include more opinion than fact.
    The world of scientific analysis is not divided into "opinions" and "facts". And your bizarre opinions about the analyses published by the GISS et al are not based in reasoning from evidence.
    I guess you aren't following the news on this topic. GISS and HAD/CRU are all three taking a beating.
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Just a reminder, cypress... We're still waiting for you to identify specifically which of my citations you were referring to above.

    Let me share the quote to which I'm referring so there is no confusion:
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is primarily inow's research citations that want to ignore your 30 years makes a climate trend rule.
    Again... which research citation was that?
    Sorry Inow. If you want the respect of an answer you'll need to earn it... Quite frankly, I have tired of your insults and no longer feel any obligation to respond to you. I may comment on your posts, but I will generally dismiss any request you make. Good day to you.
     

  78. #77  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Just a reminder, cypress... We're still waiting for you to identify specifically which of my citations you were referring to above.

    Let me share the quote to which I'm referring so there is no confusion:
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is primarily inow's research citations that want to ignore your 30 years makes a climate trend rule.
    Again... which research citation was that?
    Sorry Inow. If you want the respect of an answer you'll need to earn it... Quite frankly, I have tired of your insults and no longer feel any obligation to respond to you. I may comment on your posts, but I will generally dismiss any request you make. Good day to you.
    Right. Now, which citation of mine did you mean when making your assertion above?
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    In the past couple months, inow offered several articles who's authors argued that sun activity and other natural effects that track with sun activity cannot account for the warming trend between 1983 and 2002. The primary argument for the conclusions seemed to be that while sun activity proxies generally track global mean temperature proxies historically, the two proxies diverge after 1983. The authors conclude therefore any warming after 1983 should not be attributed to natural influences. In making this argument, they are in contradiction to Lynx_Fox's climate trend rule which is that conclusions based on short term trends should be disregarded. This seems wise given the historical data which shows many, many short term periods less than 30 years in total where sun activity deviates from global mean temperature.
     

  80. #79  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Surely then it should not be too hard for you to be specific and cite one or two of them which "want to ignore your 30 years makes a climate trend rule."

    This is not to mention the fact that you are also now trying to move the goal posts. The authors of the studies I cited merely concluded that the climate of the last 30 years was not warming as a result of solar activity. They were not, as you attempt to suggest above, trying to "ignore the rule that a climate trend requires 30 years."
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I guess you aren't following the news on this topic. GISS and HAD/CRU are all three taking a beating.
    The only place I see GISS etc taking a beating is in the "news", specifically the corporate dominated media, and especially the more sensationalizing venues.

    They are not taking a beating in any scientific arena - their various data handling procedures that are being luridly misrepresented on the tabloids seem ordinary, even commendably solid, in the view of people who have no media agenda - at least, so far.

    Surely you are not mistaking media noise for scientific analysis and argument?
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I guess you aren't following the news on this topic. GISS and HAD/CRU are all three taking a beating.
    The only place I see GISS etc taking a beating is in the "news", specifically the corporate dominated media, and especially the more sensationalizing venues.

    They are not taking a beating in any scientific arena - their various data handling procedures that are being luridly misrepresented on the tabloids seem ordinary, even commendably solid, in the view of people who have no media agenda - at least, so far.

    Surely you are not mistaking media noise for scientific analysis and argument?
    The news reports are of scientific and statistical analyses by scientists and mathematicians critical of their procedures.
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The news reports are of scientific and statistical analyses by scientists and mathematicians critical of their procedures.
    Hardly. The "analysis" you speak of are for the most part entirely un-published, not peer reviewed and all too often not directed at the fields where they might actually contribute to the scientific arguments, but instead designed to dupe those ignorant of science to sap the voting power and hence political will to do anything that might threaten the fossil fuel industry. In many cases, such as the false arguments in denial of the "hockey stick," further independent analysis not only confirmed the hockey stick but sited the large volumes of further independent research using other proxies that have confirmed the original conclusions.

    We spoke of satellite verses surface temperature readings in the past. Satellite data is certainly a proxy for mean temperature which have limitations, but there is no reason to suspect that they should not follow the correct trend and slope even if not accurate in absolute terms. If inaccuracies are found, the proxy can easily be adjusted and the results are easy to verify by independent analysis.
    Sorry your flat wrong. First of all lower tropospheric temperature trends are not the same as the surface--and not meant to be and thus definitely don't have the same slope. The formula to calculate that lower tropospheric temperature has weighted frequencies from even the upper troposphere. (see weighting function below)
    And you can't easily adjust the "proxy" because the algorithm is limited to a narrow set of frequencies measured-there's only so much that can be done. Furthermore, you'd rather believe a graph from junk science (a web site by a non-scientist and Fox News columnist) than go to the source (http://www.ssmi.com/) --(if you had, you'd realize that the plotted figure is two versions behind and V3.2 being the most recent.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The news reports are of scientific and statistical analyses by scientists and mathematicians critical of their procedures.
    Hardly. The "analysis" you speak of are for the most part entirely un-published, not peer reviewed and all too often not directed at the fields where they might actually contribute to the scientific arguments, but instead designed to dupe those ignorant of science to sap the voting power and hence political will to do anything that might threaten the fossil fuel industry. In many cases, such as the false arguments in denial of the "hockey stick," further independent analysis not only confirmed the hockey stick but sited the large volumes of further independent research using other proxies that have confirmed the original conclusions.
    I am not surprised by the depth one goes through to protect their beliefs.

    We spoke of satellite verses surface temperature readings in the past. Satellite data is certainly a proxy for mean temperature which have limitations, but there is no reason to suspect that they should not follow the correct trend and slope even if not accurate in absolute terms. If inaccuracies are found, the proxy can easily be adjusted and the results are easy to verify by independent analysis.
    Sorry your flat wrong. First of all lower tropospheric temperature trends are not the same as the surface--and not meant to be and thus definitely don't have the same slope. The formula to calculate that lower tropospheric temperature has weighted frequencies from even the upper troposphere. (see weighting function below)
    And you can't easily adjust the "proxy" because the algorithm is limited to a narrow set of frequencies measured-there's only so much that can be done. Furthermore, you'd rather believe a graph from junk science (a web site by a non-scientist and Fox News columnist) than go to the source (http://www.ssmi.com/) --(if you had, you'd realize that the plotted figure is two versions behind and V3.2 being the most recent.
    Proxies are called proxies for a reason. They are not the same, but they tell an equivalent story or support similar conclusions.

    You can't seriously believe that lower troposphere satellite temperature estimates make a poor proxy for global mean temperature. You can't seriously believe that they do not correlate with surface temperature. Why are you so desperate that you would risk credibility with such statements? Why do you support numbers that are known to contain biases held by a group of people who resist sharing their data and methods with independent groups? What kind of science is that? Do you actually think it is proper to throw out 80% of the reporting stations included in results for earlier years when it is known that the result is to bias temperatures for the years where the data is removed? Do you actually believe you are being objective?
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Do you actually think it is proper to throw out 80% of the reporting stations included in results for earlier years when it is known that the result is to bias temperatures for the years where the data is removed?
    If you are talking about the GISS data handling, yeah, that was fine as explained. They said they were getting rid of noise - stations with wild variations and other signs of dysfunction, too few data points, etc. That's pretty standard.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Why do you support numbers that are known to contain biases held by a group of people who resist sharing their data and methods with independent groups?
    Your notion of an "independent group" and mine varies considerably. I find various different, sefl-organized countries' weather services and climate analyzers, various different universities' geology and paleontology and meteorology departments, to be independent. I find hired guns with no relevant expertise paid by corporate "think tanks" to provide ammo for propaganda campaigns to be not independent.

    btw: One reason people who have bought data under a non-sharing agreement don't share that data with freeloaders is that they have bought their data under a non-sharing agreement.
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    If you are talking about the GISS data handling, yeah, that was fine as explained. They said they were getting rid of noise - stations with wild variations and other signs of dysfunction, too few data points, etc. That's pretty standard.
    Wow...

    Do you know what comes to mind with that statement? That they are getting rid of the stations that really reflect the real variations.

    Think about it. Stations with wide open vegetation around them will have more things like the morning fog that covers natural landscapes. As man covers more of the landscape, this natural moisture variation is diminished.

    Could it be that this noise, is actually a natural component?
     

  87. #86  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Another post with nothing but FUD by WC. Go figure...

    I also note that Cypress has continued to ignore requests for him to support his claim and provide which of my references "ignore the 30 year makes a climate trend" rule. Again... Go figure.
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Do you know what comes to mind with that statement? That they are getting rid of the stations that really reflect the real variations.
    And of course anything that comes to your mind acquires validity, and ceases to be comically ignorant shit you haven't bothered to check out, due to its presence in your mind.

    I understand.
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Enough of that. The thread is well pass the few bits related to ice-core data and interpretation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •