http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/...

Two quick observations:

1. In the proxy data, increases in temperature often precede increases in atmospheric CO2 by decades and in one case by 800 years. So I guess the "correlation is not causation" is true enough.
   
2. In recent history, we have seen both large increases in temperature prior to significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (roughly 1865-1940) as well as forty years of moderate cooling while anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were soaring (roughly 1940-1979).

Please refer to the following entry (and graphs therein) in this series related to mid-century warming:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189

CO2 is only 1/3 of one percent of the air.  We've already increased the CO2 level 1/3 since the Industrial Revolution, and are due to double it mid-century.

One other REALLY BIG THING:  there are reserviors of carbon below the surface of the earth, and when the earth warms, they will predictably be released into the air.  Worse, as they slowly enter the atmosphere, it warms, causing them to emit faster (a feedback loop).  NASTY.

If those "global warming skeptics" don't believe the earth is sensative to increases of CO2, then they can just wait a few decades as the pot starts to boil.  Visit them during one of our future severe heatwaves and ask them if they've reconsidered.

Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing at roughly 0.5 - 2 ppm for the last 47 years (from Mauna Loa observatory data. In 1959 it was 315 ppm.  In 2006 it was 380 ppm. From 1959 to 1979 (20 of the 47 years) we saw moderate cooling. For the last 27 years we have seen warming.  Of course it is possible that increases in temperature has resulted in increased carbon dioxide concentrations, but that was just what the proxy data showed - so of course we don't want to rely on that data. Back to the GCMs people!

But what about methane?  Methane is 20-30% more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Increases in atmospheric methane concentrations trail increasing temperatures (much as historic CO2 has followed increased temperatures, if the proxy records are to be believed).  70% of the methane produced in the "global methane cycle" is anthropogenic (whereas less than 4% of the carbon in the global carbon cycle is anthropogenic, approximately 7 gigatonnes out of 210).

Only 20% of the anthropogenic methane comes from power generation (about the same amount comes from domesticated ruminants) the rest is caused by rice fields, biomass burning, landfills and waste disposal.

So leaving aside the fact that the temperature changes have preceded the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, why are we so worried about CO2 when methane is so much more effective as a greenhouse gas and anthropogenic methane is 70% of the methane cycle?

As far as nature vs. anthropogenic:  new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say the extraordinary planetwide warm-up (the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum) must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge.

I know, it's back to the GCMs.  A computer model that was fed 35 different levels of anthropogenic emissions tuned to 7 different sensitivities can't be wrong.

Let's try not to think about nature and the historical "massive outbursts of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide."  I am sure a 20% reduction in our anthropogenic carbon dioxide will be the answer.

We should be glad that we didn't sign on to Kyoto, lest we be tempted to get in on some of that fabulous "cap and trade" cash that is causing more environmental damage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/business/21pollute.html...

Always enjoyable exchanging ideas, keep 'em coming.


We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

please see http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610/33...

Trying to argue that the increase in CO2 is anything other than anthropogenic is about as fruitful as arguing the earth is flat.  Seriously.

"why are we so worried about CO2 when methane is so much more effective as a greenhouse gas and anthropogenic methane is 70% of the methane cycle?"

Methane in the air is measured in parts per _b_illion, CO2 parts per _m_illion.  Methane is a concern of its own, but CO2 dominates the GHG forcings.

"(the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum) must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge."

That's right, no clear cause.  But there is clear evidence it happened.  So what does that mean?

WRT your first comment, you might find this article illuminating:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76...

Thanks for the comments!

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

"Of course it is possible that increases in temperature has resulted in increased carbon dioxide concentrations"

please see http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/co2-rise-is-nat...

AND

And for your doubts about models there may be some reassurance for you in here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/51921/827

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

So here goes again:

clearly you agree that historically temperature rises preceded increases in greenhouse gases and then there was additional warming and additional increases in gases (forcings - I get it). Of course we both agree this happened as a result of natural processes.

What I find interesting is that now we have widespread changes in land usage and increases in temperature - both of which significantly affect the carbon cycle.

Yes, it is true that we are also increasing our own emissions of greenhouse gases - but relative to the amount of carbon in play in the carbon cycle, can you honestly say that a modest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will have any discernable effect on global climate change?

That is the important question.  Now before I hear the "it's the old two step, it's doesn't matter or it's too late..."  Honestly answer my question. What will be the net effect of a Kyoto like reduction in emissions? (diregarding the environmental damage being done in name of "cap and trade")

We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

Why is "cap and trade" a bad idea? Well, let's see, rich countries paying poor countries for the right to pollute. It would seem like an economic incentive for both countries to continue business as usual. The fact that there is a "carbon market" is beyond absurd.  The "carbon trading market" is failing and the Chinese are increasing "real" pollution as a result of these billion dollar deals.  These are two examples of the failure of this policy. I would like people to actually think before having a knee-jerk reaction and trying to legislate feel-good policies.

What is the goal?  How can it be reached?  Does it make sense?  We should be able to answer those questions before throwing our hat into the emissions cap and trade ring.

We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

Given the incontrovertible fact that the entire rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is fossil fuel emissions, yes, I can honestly say that reducing CO2 will slow climate change, reduced enough it should stop climate change.

Modest reductions may indeed have no discernible effect, which is why we need more than that.

Kyoto could work if the US would participate.  Kyoto is a long term and ongoing process, it is not simply a reduction to 1990 levels by 2012 and see ya later.  What happens after that has not been agreed on and may well be moot thanks to the US's misguided selfishness.  If it has not been agreed on, how can we estimate its effectiveness?

As a general answer to your question why I didn't discuss the effectiveness of Kyoto, aside from what I say just above, I do not believe in the utility of discussing any proposed solutions unless and until it is agreed that there is in fact a real problem of human origin.  Until then, questions about Kyoto's effectiveness are only a tool for obscuring the reality and urgency of the issue.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

The thought that we can "stop climate change" is so far removed from reality that it boggles the mind.

Haven't we already agreed upon the pre-anthro emissions climate change?  Temperatures rise - then greenhouse gases rise - then temperatures rise etc...

Now the goal is to "control climate change?"

Good luck with that.

I am all for reduced pollution.  I am all for common sense solutions and realistic ways of coping with climate change.  If we are serious about reducing CO2 we need to have a serious discussion about nuclear power (especially integral fast reactors),

We need to discuss how slow and predictable (and inevitable) sea level change will be addressed in countries all over the world.

What I am not for is inciting fear based on exaggerated scenarios in order to enact legislation that does nothing but redistribute wealth and exacerbate the problem, e.g. Kyoto.

Getting back to the original point - we have about 160 years of accurate temperature records, roughly 47 years of actual atmospheric CO2 observations and some scenarios kicked out by a GCM. To think we really understand how climate change works at this point is pretty presumptive.  We are still trying to sort out why oceans were cooling when they were supposed to be warming and why global temperatures were cooling while atmospheric CO2 was rising.  Most climate change scientists aren't anywhere near as "sure about global warming" as the alarmists.

Some of us are looking for more science and less fear mongering.  Every day you can find at least 10 stories that talk about polar bear-jellyfish-bird migration-tropical diseases-ice cap melting-sky is falling-Katrina was due to global warming etc...

Some common sense and rational thought is all I am looking for.

Thanks for the posts!

We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

That's rich Pete.

650,000 years of climate records somehow become "47"?  Hehehey.  

I guess you ARE here to ammuse us.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I think it can even be reversed.  More natural sequestration, through more conservation land restored to prairie, more wetland restoration, a large scale switch to organic farming that builds soil by storing organic matter that sequesters carbon.  

A recently released 10 year study in  Minnesota  of natural prairie puts the sequestration at 1.8 tons per acre per year.  Even half that for organic farm soil gives us the potential, along with switching to renewable energy, of reversing global climate change with uS action alone.  

Given the participation of the rest of the world, there is reason to be very hopeful.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Pete H,

Sorry but strawman attacks like this are not consistent with your claim that "common sense and rational thought is all I am looking for".  Having to spell out the obvious just removes any point of discussion, I am talking about the current anthropogenically caused climate change, not all climate change on every timescale between now and the time Sol becomes a red giant.

If we cease increasing the concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere there is every reason to expect the climate will stabilise on all policy relevant timeframes unless an asteroid crashes into the ocean, Yosemite blows its super volcano top or the sun cranks up the heat for unknown reasons.


"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

So I take it you are "on-board" with the proxy data?  Now we can have the discussion, which came first - the atmospheric warming or the increased greenhouse gases. If you want to hitch your wagon to the proxy data, then you have to give up your "greenhouse gases are the main climate forcing" argument (or at a minimum do some "that was then - this is now" fancy dancing).

Somehow this thread was supposed to teach "the believers" how to talk to a skeptic about CO2 being the main forcing in global climate change.

Well, here I am.  Let's hear it.

I have agreement that the proxy records clearly show temperature increases preceded greenhouse gas increases.  That doesn't exactly prove your point.  Somehow it seems to be more significant to you that the increased greenhouse gases THEN became a forcing that accompanied future increases in temperature - fair enough.

Now we switch to the current records.  How long do we have accurate temperature and CO2 data?  You tell me Mr. Amazing.  The most accurate data for greenhouse gases that everyone seems to be using is from Mauna Loa.  Do you have a different source of accurately measured atmospheric CO2? How about for "global temperatures?"  Please let us know.

We haven't even discussed how the response of temperature to increasing CO2 is logarithmic. Or any of a whole other host of issues with some of the current theories and GCMs.

So if we want to discuss the current warming trend, let's hear it.  How can we look at the recent, accurate CO2 and temperature data and make our case?

Cooling for several decades while CO2 increased exponentially?  Not a problem you say? Look at the long term? Well, that doesn't help either, it seems we had some serious warming when our atmospheric CO2 wasn't increasing exponentially, then cooling when it was, then warming when it was - darn. The proxy data? No that didn't work for us.  Maybe we can find that link when we look at the ...  

I know - the GCMs!

Climate gods be praised - we have our proof.

I guess you convinced me.

Now what about those pesky radiosonde readings that didn't show an increase in the atmospheric temperatures even though the GCMs said they should ...  I know - let's "time correct" them so they show some warming. Whew, I'm glad we got one sorted out.

Now what about those cooling oceans...  I know let's talk about the multi-decadal oscillation, but remember, that is only when we need to dismiss a cooling trend, if it is warming - it's proof of good old manmade greenhouse gas global warming.

And on and on it goes.

Always fun gentlemen.

We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

On the one side, we have peer-reviewed research, the findings of which have been multiply confirmed and stood the test of time to become the widely held consensus of the relevant scientific community.

On the other side we have you, random internet dude, who would have use believe that all of those thousands of scientists are blind to rudimentary empirical, logical, and methodological flaws.

You've obviously read just enough to be dangerous, but what is the point of re-litigating the basic science of global warming in a comment thread? Readers don't need to become prosecutors of the case, they just need to figure out who to trust. The answer to that seems obvious to me.

grist.org

Temperature actually rises while cO2 levels are dropping.  why?  Because land free of ice absorbs a lot of solar energy.  It's summer dood!

that's a yearly cycle.  That does not contradict the general trend in the graph.

And I believe Al DID explain how core samples of antarctic ice were taken to get that data going back 650,000 years.  But that doesn't fit the biblibcal timetable?  Is that it Pete?  Jesus told you the earth can't be 650,000 years old?

Why am I bothering with you at all?  because you amuse?  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Now we switch to the current records.  How long do we have accurate temperature and CO2 data?  You tell me Mr. Amazing.  The most accurate data for greenhouse gases that everyone seems to be using is from Mauna Loa.  Do you have a different source of accurately measured atmospheric CO2? How about for "global temperatures?"  Please let us know.

LegumeSam: You are absolutely right - we have 420,000 years of data - your link to the Vostok Ice Core data was spot on.  This data clearly "established a firm correlation between temperature and CO2 levels."  Of course if you actually look at the data you clearly see temperature changes PRECEDE the CO2 level changes.  So thanks for proving my point regarding the proxy data.  Note the discussion often contains some variation of the following statement:

"However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously.  It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."

It appears that the way to talk to a global warming skeptic is to claim that the proxy data clearly and unequivocally supports your belief.  Fair enough, but this may prove unsatisfying to those of you who actually read the data for yourselves.

If you begin to have some doubts about the "absolute certainty" of the proxy data supporting this theory (CO2 as the primary driver in global climate change) the next phase is an "Appeal to Authority."

You know this is where the "scientific consensus" is trotted out. Although I notice it now comes with some additional conditions - now it isn't just a "scientific consensus" but rather "the widely held consensus of the relevant scientific community."  So if you are a climatologist or a hurricane expert, or someone who isn't "a believer" you may just be irrelevant.  Wow, a pretty interesting way to conduct scientific inquiry.  Funny, but when you actually read the peer reviewed research it is full of cautious statements like "we should expect to find..." "In the future..."  "It is still unclear to what extent the..." "The current gcms predict..."  So if I am still a little skeptical - it is because of the peer reviewed research not despite it.

As a quick example, note the tenuous link asserted between hurricanes and global warming in the "peer reviewed research" and contrast it with the public statements made by those same researchers.  Oh, sorry David, I didn't mean to bring up another non- "CO2 is the driver" example on this blog thread.  Let's stick to that "firmly established correlation based on 420,000 years" or better yet that "widely held consensus of the relevant scientific community."

It also becomes apparent that if the "appeal to authority" isn't strong enough by itself, a little "argument ad hominem" is added for good measure. You know, this is where you not only claim the skeptic is too stupid to believe the "consensus" but is also possibly a "Jesus freak" (hat tip to amazingdrx) or "just some random internet dude" (hat tip to David Roberts).

Fair enough boys. Forgive me for questioning your beliefs.

Despite my scientific training and my reading of most the available published research on this topic, I must just be "blinded by Jesus" or maybe "just too stupid to understand the science" - be it the proxy data or the current observations.

Here is how you can talk to a skeptic and spare yourself the trouble of questioning your own beliefs:

"Trust the GCMs and believe the consensus."

If that doesn't work try:

"I bet you are a random internet Jesus freak hehehe"

Thanks for the posts it has been "enlightening."


We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

Pete H erects another strawman by saying "this is not the way to do science".  Of course it isn't, no one said it was.  Scientists should investigate everything and trust no statement absent solid data and consistent theory.  But looking to authority is a good way for lay people to deal with someone like Pete H who does not address one issue at a time, who erects strawmen, who dodges the substantive points in favour of the argumentative ones and who thinks he can rattle off a dozen trivially obvious errors and omissions that have escaped the notice of an entire field of science.

When it becomes too confusing and time consuming to address this gattling gun style of arguing, a step back can give very good perspective.  If Pete H sees all of these obvious problems, why can't NASA GISS, NOAA, NSA, IPCC, dozens of national science academies from around the world, AGU and every major institution dealing with climate realated science?  

The answer is that characters like Pete H have learned enough about the issue to bring up its complications and surprises but stopped short of understanding the explanations and the real implications of the uncertainties.  That is ignorance.

But worse is he refuses to acknowledge any of the answers when handed to him on a silver platter.  That is wilful ignorance.

The cooling in mid 20th century is not a contradiction of GH theory
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189...

The language of science always contains caveats. The peer reviewed science Pete claims to be familiar with does not agree with him that we don't really know what is going on
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/232046/03...

Satelittes and radiosondes do not contradict models or surface observations
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/223318/86


"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

"Someone like Pete H?" Really?

I keep trying to stay on one issue, specifically the link between atmospheric CO2 and global climate change.  That topic seems to break down into proxy data and current observations.

Please take a moment to review for me the substantive points that were handed to me on a silver platter regarding the proxy data that I have chosen to willfully ignore. I must have missed them while creating my army of strawmen.

Regarding the current observations (sorry if my Gatling gun is firing too quickly for you)  I see in the post that you reference you dismiss the complications with current obervations with this statement:

"The situation is similar to the cooling seen in the '40s and '50s. During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution."

Wow - "temporarily overwhelmed by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution."

I must have been temporarily overwhelmed by the facts or blinded by the silver platter. Either way, you sure know how to talk to a skeptic.

Even in my own argumentative, ignorant and confusing "Gatling gun" post I'll give you the last word. Did you expect that from a "character like me?" Long live argument ad hominem!

"...characters like Pete H have learned enough about the issue to bring up its complications and surprises but stopped short of understanding the explanations and the real implications of the uncertainties.  That is ignorance."

We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

Even in my own argumentative, ignorant and confusing "Gatling gun" post I'll give you the last word. Did you expect that from a "character like me?" Long live argument ad hominem!

"...characters like Pete H have learned enough about the issue to bring up its complications and surprises but stopped short of understanding the explanations and the real implications of the uncertainties.  That is ignorance."

Well, sorry if this doesn't apply to you.

I suppose the problem here is that you're making a large number of long posts, and for those of us who've been following the scientific debate on this, we've seen these kinds of arguments often, and not from scientists.  They come, pretty much exclusively, from PR people who are in the direct hire of oil-company funded "think tanks".  From your stance, you clearly are not a scientist.  There just aren't more than a handful of researchers right now who I'd describe as "global warming skeptics", and really none of them would back you on most of your arguments.

I'll give you one small area.  You put forward the claim that there is only CO2 data worth looking at going back 50 years or so.  But no researcher right now, even a skeptical scientist, would make that claim with you.  Both analysis of air trapped in ice cores (going back hundreds of thousands of years), and analysis of ocean sediments (going back further than that) are good proxies, and even a skeptical researcher has to include these in their analysis.  But they do not ignore them, nor do they play verbal games to essentially disceive their readers, as clearly you are doing above.

You've obviously been doing this for a while, and you're more interested in persuading people than in accurately relaying information, and letting the info speak for itself.  You clearly do not trust your readers to do that.

So people ask, not unreasonably, if you don't "have a dog in this fight".  Either you have an awful lot of time on your hands, or you're being paid to do this (even if you're not typing this from work now).

You're under no obligation to say what your background, or who you work for.  But your posts do beg the question.

Cheers,
Rob

Hehehey.  You forgot the "y".

We are not claiming that CO2 concentration is the only factor in global climate change, we are merely claiming that GHGs are the predominant cause  involved in the overall trend in recent global climate change.

Where natural cycles have average temperature dropping, it drops slower and to less of a degree than it otherwise would without human related GHGs.  Temps can be dropping (as in the northen hemisphere winter)at the same time GHGs are rising.  

Where natural cycles have temperatures warming, it warms faster and to a greater extent due to GHGs.  GHGs can be dropping (as in the northern hemisphere summer photosynthesis peak) while average temps are falling.

And in the latest part of the graph the human  GHG caused trend is going exponential.  Of course at various points in the graph, CO2 leads or lags average temperature.  

Earth's climate is the result of interaction between many different elements.  Does that mean we can't draw any useful conclusions from any of the data?  Is that why the hurricane predictions were ignored by the whitehouse during Katrina?  Science is only theory?  

Is that why evidence of GHGs as a major factor in global climate change was actively suppresed by political operatives inserted at NASA?  

The lake levels fluctuate by season here in northern Wisconsin, they also fluctuate over years long cycles.  In the past 30 years they have continued that fluctuation, but the trend is downward.  The snowfall and cold weather trend is down too over that longer time period.

Al's graph shows the huge difference in the recent GHG and temperature change unprecedented in the record going back 100s of thousands of years.  You want logical proof that GHGs are causing global warming.  But all science has is probability, conclusions based on empirical data.

Logical proof works well in mathematics, but it often falls short when empirical evidence is introduced.  That is the nature of our world.  

That is why I taunted you about you maybe operating in a different reality.  The faithbased reality our present leadership operates within.  Sorry, that was wrong.

Nice sophistry though Pete!  Maybe you ought to be a foxnews producer.    

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

For at least the last 15 years I have been following this topic - because I find it interesting.  Yes, I have spent more than a few hours a week following the global warming ballyhoo and have a Google alert with the global warming stories emailed to me daily. I keep up with Nature and some of the other publications and abstracts/papers that are available to the public.

No, I am not paid by anyone to air my opinions.

As it was stated before I am simply "some random internet dude" and I do apologize to amazingdrx for omitting the Y in his "heheheY," my bad. I am not a Jesus freak, although that might make it easier for everyone. My undergrad degree was in geology, but times change and people don't (or is it the other way around). I currently pay the bills with a technical sales job that has absolutely nothing to do with the oil, gas, power, automotive industries, conservative think tanks nor the vast right wing conspiracy (please, run Hillary run!!!).  I will be pretty pissed off if I find that people are being paid to rant when I am doing it for free!  To the conservative think tank schills out there - hook me up. I could use a new Harley, er... I mean Prius.

To focus in on the one small area you cited - I am NOT asserting that the only good CO2 data is from the last 50 years - only that the accurate OBSERVATIONAL record begins there.  Yes, there are lots of good "proxy" records out there and probably the Vostok Ice Core data is the most widely cited and commented on.  Yes, there are also ocean sediments, fossil records etc...  Proxy data is a sticky wicket and there has to be a way to integrate it (being that so many effects are limited geographically).  I get all that and I am "on board."

When discussing the proxy record don't you find it curious that the paleoclimatologists (a fancy new made up word for geologists that discuss the environment at the time the fossils/sediments were laid down) and other scientists use caution when making statements?

e.g. "However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously.  It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation."

A statement like that is ignored in favor of the "Al Gore" school of "scare 'em and sell 'em."  Even Robert Hanson has expressed concern that the issue has been oversold (and he should know!).  Of course in 2001 Dr. Hanson felt the warming would be modest and predictable and certainly nothing like the extreme scenarios being touted by the "Inconvenient Truth" squads.

The current "CO2 is the primary forcing" does not come from the proxy data - but rather from the observational data and the GCMs.

The current temperature record (from roughly 1860 to present day) shows what?

1860-1940: significant warming - but no indication that atmospheric CO2 has risen significantly or that it is a "primary forcing."

1940-1979: moderate cooling - but here the claim is that the CO2 forcing was "much less significant" and was "overwhelmed by other factors..."

1980 to present: warming accompanied by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, with periods of cooling (particulates from Mt Pinatubo primarily).

So here is my "skeptics" point of view:

The proxy data shows some correlation between global temperature swings and changes in CO2 levels. Despite the fact that the proxy record clearly shows the temperature variations precede the changes in CO2, it needs "interpretation." The "lesson learned" seems to be "well it could have happened the other way around - maybe we just aren't accurate enough to know." Or if you prefer - "the warming caused the increase in gases which then acted as a forcing causing more warming."

The observational data "supporting the CO2 forcing" is spotty from 1860-1979 and reasonably solid for the last 26 years (so long as the Mt Pinatubo and other mitigating factors are taken into account).

So what we are left with is the General Circulation Models.  So we take a best guess computer model and feed it 35 different levels of anthropogenic emissions tuned to 7 different sensitivities and viola' - scenarios that show everything from

"moderate and predictable"

to

"extreme - quick, somebody make a PowerPoint presentation with PhotoShopped satellite photos."

It's all good boys.  Having the discussion should "sharpen the sword." I think we all need to fine tune the rhetoric and present an accurate picture. If I am not being accurate, then by all means correct me (but please no more links to other parts of this blog).

Back to work in a few days, so hit me while I still have too much time on my hands.


We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

But seriously.  Are you in favor of cutting GHGs or not?  Do you not mind US reliance on oil from nations that support terrorism?

Do you think we ought to just keep up the status quo and hope it all works out?  Iran is already in the gun sights for preemptive attack, invasion, occupation, and nation building.

That'll cut into your downtime!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

If we want to have a comprehensive discussion that included integral fast reactors and other feasible ways to substantially reduce GHGs - no problem. After all, the GCMs tell us we need to reduce the GHGs or we will all die in a massive flood (now who is the Jesus freak - better build an ark to deal with those 20' sea level changes when the polar ice caps melt and the polar bears are forced to eat the cast of Lost as they film in Hawaii).

The arbitrariness (is that even a word?) of Kyoto and the documented environmental damage that is currently the DIRECT result of the Kyoto cap & trade shenanigans - should make everyone question the wisdom of that type of strategy.

If the problem is so severe, why does Al own 4 houses and fly around willy-nilly on his private jet telling people to change their light bulbs and telecommute (I know, I know, he has a corporation paying to pollute, er I mean paying for "carbon credits" to offset his Bigfoot-size carbon footprint).

I question the economic costs of arbitrary emissions caps and whether they are worth it. We know the money could be spent on other feasible large scale power generation technologies, or at a minimum those massive expenditures could be used to reduce the "real" pollution that is occurring.  I know it is nice to think if the US joins Kyoto then India and China will stop building dirty coal plants.  However, the reality is we are seeing billions of dollars being wasted and result is an incentive for the Chinese to build more pollution spewing refrigerant plants etc...

It is nice to do something that "feels good" but I am more in favor of doing something that makes sense and has an effect, a positive effect (unlike Kyoto).


We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

That won't sell.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

IMHO, you are the ONLY class act on this thread.

Since watching "An Inconvenient Truth" I have been plowing through the literature trying to understand the issues and the science behind them.  Sensitive to Al Gore's warning that the media has distorted the debate (seemingly creating a debate where none exists), I wanted to find convincing evidence one way or another to satisfy myself.  And what I have arrived at so far(and god knows I need to do MUCH more investigative reading), is exactly the inconclusive nature of some of the core evidence being put forth by those who contend the anthropogenic production of GHG is the source of great problems to come.

Why wouldn't anyone on this thread answer PeteH's simple question regarding the proxy data?  Why do you all change this discussion rather than address a valid sceintific concern?

I too am in favor in reducing the U.S. burning of fossil fuels, but let's do it for the right reasons, not science that still has a way to go before it can be used for drastic measures.

And if we are to take drastic measures, why doesn't this community acknowledge the wisdom in nuclear power as an immediate and broad-based solution to this problem?

Please tell me why>
BobK

Living things are water creatures, and yet we measure our comfort temperature with reference to the air.  Basically IMO, not a useful method.

So if it appears hotter to us it could be from many reasons, such as

(a) high humidity
(b) standing in the direct Sun's radiation
(c) or it could be just be warmer.

The opposite can occur,
(a) if you are in the shade and there is a low humidity, you will feel uncomfortably colder... is it really colder.

OK, so we get out our thermometer and find that the air temperature says we should be comfortable, but we are still cold.  Freeze in the shade and cook in the sunshine.

(b) or if there is a high humidity even shade conditions make you sweat.

Sorry if this is confusing, but I do not want to write a two finger dissertation on heat and water creatures.

Just let it be said that "thermometer air temperature" and "the comfort temperature of living things" is not simply correlatable.

[You can happily be in a room with no humidity and have a thermometer temperature well over 100 degrees centigrade.]  

The atmosphere will not warm as much under a constant Sun if the humidity is lowered.  

so as the air dries out, Global Cooling will become much more apparent.  We are seeing this already with "ice clouds".

No wonder y'all playing with fractions of degrees warming, and feeling the earth is heating up in a remarkable fashion.

IMO what is happening is actually cooling as the water vapour pressure in the air is generally falling.  

The oil layer on the sea is causing totally confusing trends when viewed through thermometer measurements. However the sea's temperature is warming, and it is valid to use a thermometer in this case.  So this is cause for concern, for it has to be warmed by the Sun, and not the atmosphere, [because the atmosphere is open to space.]  

Normally if the sea warms then that leads to higher humidity which leads to denser cloud cover, which then cools the sea.

It is too late to "analyse to make decisions", IMO, the measurements needed to define what is happening just are not made and have never been made.  So yes the Carbon Dioxide hype is misfounded, but while y'all are looking that way, the real problem just gets worse.

Who will stop using oil ?... come on hand up!!!

Y'all will just have to wait until the end it seems.

I think if you find this very confusing then ask specific questions.
:)

Pete H's concern about the proxy data has been answered several times, on this and the other thread he commented on.  See the link below, it is not complicated enough that his feigned inability to grasp it is convincing:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-le...

Nor is continually insisting no one has answered him yet.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

Too expensive, too dangerous, too long to build, too many NIMBYs, proliferation concerns and on and on.  We have been all over these issues here.

Wind is the lowest cost, cleanest, baseload power.  Get wise to wind.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Here is a quick link for your reading pleasure, along with the "discussion" regarding the time lag. Please note that the source is realclimate.org, which is the ultimate source of the info on the other links that have been posted.

This link discusses the 800 year lag and answers that pesky question: "which came first?" (Oops, we can't say that) how about: "what is significant?"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Begin quote:

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

End quote

Yes, you read that correctly.  Better yet, link to it and read it for yourself in context.

So "All that the lag shows is that CO2 DID NOT CAUSE THE FIRST 800 YEARS OF WARMING, out of the 5000 year trend."

That's all?  What about the next 4,200 years?

Well, "The other 4200 years of warming COULD in fact have been caused by CO2, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL from this ice core data."

So while it is clearly FACT that the first 800 years COULD NOT have been caused by increases in CO2, it is clearly A POSSIBILITY that the next 4,200 years MIGHT have been.  

(Of course if the increased temperatures are causing the increase in CO2, then you might ask what caused the first 800 years of warming and why COULDN'T that POSSIBLY have continued to cause significant warming during the next 4,200 years?)

Again, I am not a heretic in this new "global warming" religion being created by the true believers. (Dr. Hanson and Al Gore be praised!) Clearly the physics and even possibly some of the recent observations tell us that the greenhouse gases play a part and can be a significant forcing.  The problem is rather than have an honest discussion which includes all of the COULDS, MIGHT HAVES, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELLS, we are told the proxy data clearly PROVES that IS WHAT HAPPENED in the past.

Those very tortured sentences could have been written something like this:

"What the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming. It is certainly possible that the other 4200 years of warming could have been significantly affected by the increasing CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data and our current theories on global climate change."

"So while it is clear that CO2 could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming, it could have played a significant part during the last 5/6 of the warming."

Of course that second sentence is completely unnecessary, but the authors of the original link felt the need to include it, POSSIBLY to lend some weight to their theory.  Clearly fractions are powerful joss when demonstrating how 5/6 of the time something COULD POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE ICE CORE DATA. (Somehow 83.3% just didn't have the POP of 5/6).

It's always a pleasure boys.

We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

Perhaps you "have been all over these issues here" when it comes to nuclear power and the data supporting your global warming convictions.  However, by my judgment of this thread alone, you and your community are not very open to good ol' fashioned scientific enquiry.  I was hoping for otherwise and commend PeteH for his aplomb and ability to stick to the salient points.

Perhaps I should start another thread regarding nuclear power (and please advise if I should), but your quote...

"Too expensive, too dangerous, too long to build, too many NIMBYs, proliferation concerns and on and on.  We have been all over these issues here."

...implies to me that you have many misconceptions regarding this and probably other energy alternatives.  For example, wind power could NEVER be used as a base load source--it is simply too unpredictable.  Also, nuclear power is still significantly cheaper than wind power, and that doesn't take into account the large scale savings that countries like France and Japan are able to realize.  Offering "profileration" as a reason to discard nuclear power reveals depths of ignorance regarding how the nuclear fuel cycle works in western countries.  I can go on and on, but it would seem your mind is already made up.  If others are willing to engage in the debate, then I will start another thread.

In the meantime, in all fairness, I will read what previous discussions have occurred on this site and perhaps make a more informed assessment of this community.

cheers,
BobK

Again, I am not a heretic in this new "global warming" religion being created by the true believers. (Dr. Hanson and Al Gore be praised!) Clearly the physics and even possibly some of the recent observations tell us that the greenhouse gases play a part and can be a significant forcing.  The problem is rather than have an honest discussion which includes all of the COULDS, MIGHT HAVES, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELLS, we are told the proxy data clearly PROVES that IS WHAT HAPPENED in the past.
</backquote>

Scientists can never be 100% certain about anything, that's not how science works. One thing that is pretty certain is that when the temperature of the earth rises (for whatever reason, usually the sun) CO2 rises as well, creating a positive feedback. This is why scientists, as far as they can tell, reckon the other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been affected by a rise CO2.

This is largely irrelevant. The point is we are putting large amounts of CO2 unnaturally into the atmosphere now.

To assume this doesn't have any affect on the temperature is to ignore the well known infra-red absorption properties of CO2.

To assume this doesn't have any affect on the temperature is to ignore the well known infra-red absorption properties of CO2."

In that case maybe you can explain better then here http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/3/329 why higher levels of CO2 then we see today didn't cause a raise in temperatures during the Jurassic period, when the temperatures actually... decreased.

Well being a weather/climate expert, I would say seeing the mid Troposphere warm just as fast, or faster than the surface temperatures would be very good evidence for increased greenhouse effect. The thing is, most temp records show that mid troposphere temps have only gone up .1C to .2C while surface temps have gone up anywhere from .3C to .8C depending on the temp record you look at. Also, if ice core data actually showed temps follow CO2, that would be another piece of evidence that would point to CO2 causing global warming. But they dont. Not a single one. CO2 follows temp on every single ice core data record.

No offense, but that comment you made made you sound very ignorant on this subject.

The Weather Service.com CEO/ lead forecaster
Kevin

To assume this doesn't have any affect on the temperature is to ignore the well known infra-red absorption properties of CO2."

Not exactly. CO2 has only increased 1.6 w-m2 while solar irradiance has increased 2.2 w-m2. We dont know how much CO2 is naturally being added by the oceans due to the increase of the 2.2 w-m2 of solar irradiance. We also have no idea how much w-m2 has increased due to the long positive PDO phases we have had since 1920. The current +PDO phase started around 1975 and many think we have just switched back over to a -PDO phase. PDO is very imporant because it controls ENSO trends. +PDO causes more el ninos would in turn moves the jet stream further north and also adds more water vapor to the air. Now you may think more water vapor would lead to more clouds since 1980. But it hasnt. We are also in a +OLR phase which generally means more high level clouds and less low level clouds. So we have more water vapor in the air due to the +PDO phase from 1975-2006? and less low level clouds. I would say that is at least 5-10 w-m2 increase. That is my best guess. I put a question mark at the end of 2006 because mounting evidence shows that we have entered a -PDO phase but we dont know for sure if the +PDO phase has ended yet. If we are in a -PDO again, this will create more la ninas now and if we have entered this negative phase of the PDO cycle, we should start to see a cooling on Earth and also another -OLR phase.

Now CO2 has less and less of an effect as more is added. This is shown in many labs and just common sense. My best guess is that CO2 has caused about .1C to .2C of the total warming since 1900. If that is the case, the next 100 ppm (total of 480 ppm) will cause about .05C to .1C of additional warming and then next 100 ppm will cause .025C to .05C of additional warming(total of 580 ppm). I strongly believe that this next -PDO phase (like that from 1940s-1970s) will cause Earth to cool even with adding CO2. Also, I also believe solar activity is going to take a major dip in the next 5-30 years. I'm actually much more worried about global cooling over from now to 2040 than global warming.

The thing is, most temp records show that mid troposphere temps have only gone up .1C to .2C while surface temps have gone up anywhere from .3C to .8C depending on the temp record you look at.
Sorry, but that claim is just not true.

The satellites data was being measured incorrectly, in particular the day/night cycle was being read backwards, and orbital decay of the satellites path was not being accounted for.

This was addressed in the Journal of Science in 2005.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/mor ...

This was resolved last April 2006.
In the NOAA report.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends2.png
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalrep ...

Also, if ice core data actually showed temps follow CO2, that would be another piece of evidence that would point to CO2 causing global warming. But they dont. Not a single one. CO2 follows temp on every single ice core data record.

For someone who claims any specialty in climate science this is a rather gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Yes, solar activity is primarily responsible for iceage warmings due to tens of thousands of years of changes in the orbital pattens of the earth around the sun.
These are known as Milankovitch cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

But to claim that it's not possible that climate can be changed by any more than 1 variable is dishonest.

And right now, we know that it's not possible that the sun is the cause of the current warming.
http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png

As NASA Scientist Drew Shindell puts it:  The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades.http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/

The IPCC admits that solar variability is a factor in the past decades of global warming, abeit a very small one.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png

_

And since you seem to be quoting your statements from "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

How about you view this video by a GeoSciences Professor at the University of Edinburgh.

Which combats each of the distortions of science put forward by Swindle'

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216 ...

Examples are that thermometers are often located in "heat islands" of concrete that simply retain heat more than in the past.

Here's what the Modern Warming is like so far:

1. Not as hot as the Medieval Warming
   
2. Winters with less extreme cold.
   
3. Longer summers -- but with temperatures flattening from 2005 on into a status.

We dont know how much CO2 is naturally being added by the oceans due to the increase of the 2.2 w-m2 of solar irradiance.

Thats like saying we don't know how much CO2 is being added by the Amazon rainforrest, the oceans are a net carbon sink.

And the one way that they emit more CO2 is if you heat up the whole ocean, and warm up the bottom layer where all the carbon settles.

And that takes roughly 800 years to do.
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pd ...
_

A radio interview with Martin Durkin, the producer of "The Global Warming Swindle" goes over this quite well on how he intentionally mislead the audience on the properties of the ocean/CO2 interaction by using selective editing.

Hell, even he admits that "the rise in CO2 was caused by industry".

http://www.greyfalcon.net/carbon

_

Furthermore, we can know it's "our" carbon by measuring the radio-isotopes of the ambient carbon .

And the isotope concentrations point toward manmade carbon emissions.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

He's a professional lobbyist who routinely distorts science for personal gain.
http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-si ...

Yes I know that, i'm looking at the fixed data. You fail to tell me the amount of warming of the mid troposphere was with the "fixed" data because it is the exact same thing I just said. .1C to .2C.

"But to claim that it's not possible that climate can be changed by any more than 1 variable is dishonest."

Well I did mention solar  irradiance, the +PDO phases, the +OLR phases, co2, enso, and water vapor. That is 6 variables, not sure where I said theres only 1 variable.

"And right now, we know that it's not possible that the sun is the cause of the current warming."

Very misleading.

 The scales on your graphs that you showed  me are misleading with a large temp scale and co2 scale and a smaller solar activity scale to make it look like it hasn't changed as much. You cant just plot 2 variables on a graph and say "well they dont match exactly, it cant be controlling it ". If we did that, then we should throw out CO2 because when co2 was going up in the 1940s-1970s, the Earth started to cool. Now, what could have easily happened is that as solar activity was increasing, one of Earth's natural cycles the PDO,  went into a negative phase and cooled down Earth and only as we entered the positive phase in 1975 did we start feeling the full effects of the increase in solar activity. We have to remember that something, whether is was connected to the PDO phase switch or cosmic rays, lead to an increase in low level cloud cover in the 1940s-1970s. This would block some solar energy back into space and allow Earth not to feel the full effects of the solar activity increase until after 1975.

For example, in simple terms, its 9am and the sun is getting stronger (representing solar activity getting strong in the early 20th century) and the temp warms from 45 to 55, then around 10 am low level clouds move in the temp drops from 55 to 50 even when the sun is getting stronger (the 1940s-1960s). Then it clears out again and the sun is still strong (1970s- present) and the temp finally reaches the point that the sun could get it up to.

That is kind of what I'm trying to say what COULD have happened. I have no doubt that CO2 has caused .1C to .2C of this warming but other factors that I have mentioned in this post and my other posts are far more important I believe.

Yes this is exactly what will occur, unless we do something about the oil film.  And IMO this cooling will not stop.

A few degrees drop in themperature is far more destructive than a few degrees warming.

I have no doubt that CO2 has caused .1C to .2C of this warming but other factors that I have mentioned in this post and my other posts are far more important I believe.

The issue being that a relatively small warming in the troposphere is magnified by the increase in water vapor carrying capacity.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png

Eventually he would recycle threads that we had destroyed yesterday or last week as if they had never been discussed. The truth is out now beyond denial. DNA studies confirm that all humans are of one indivisible race.

At a certain level Global Warming denial is like racism. The research has been done, the data published and triple checked and published in thousands of peer reviewed articles. Global Warming is real and is caused by human activity.

So now the Global Warming deniers (who frequently overlap with our friends the racists) are frothing at the mouth and throwing out multiple crazy denial theories. I believe there is a heart to their denial. Those hippies were right.

All those crazy hippies that made whole grain bread and drove little cars and moved back to the land. They were right. They were right about driving smaller cars. They were right about living in funny straw bale, cob and rammed earth houses. They were right about those early stuttering solar systems and homemade windmills. They were even right about pot being a medicine and hemp being usefull biomass.

So we are left trying to pinch a bead of mercury when we argue with the deniers with logic. They don't care about our logic. They can invent new denials faster than we can logically refute them. They can even believe the earth is flat if that's what it takes. As long as those hippies aren't right.

Put the Carbon Back

It's like The Rainbow.

It helps people of all suasions.

The deserts recede...a bit.

The crops grow...more.

The population stabilizes.

A Golden Age of moderate warming...less cold...more health...fewer disasters.

Let's enjoy the Modern Warming.

Get out and ride a bike...before it's too late.

How can you not have this sink into your mind:

Forcings:

CO2= 1.6 w-m2
Solar IRR= 2.2 w-m2

(I think 2.2 is bigger than 1.6)

Other key points:

• Two +PDO/global +OLR phases and only one -PDO/global -OLR phase. We will have to wait until the second -PDO/ global -OLR phase to see the real net change in temperature which will probably be around 2040.

• The way water vapor has been used in the atmosphere since 1980 has favored warming (part of the global OLR cycle).

by Pangolin at 4:01 PM on 05 May 2007

S. Fred Singer is not a credible source.

sex GleyFlcn

Mmmmmm...how about this, from "Unstoppable Global Warming, p. 259":

S. Fred Singer, climate physicist, is internationally known for his work on climate, energy, and environmental issues,  His is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and currently servers as Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University....

[goes on for another 3 paragraphs]

Dr. Signer did his undergraduate studies at Ohio Sate University and earned his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.

Next time, use real data in your post instead of insane talk.

You post these happy little formula's that are supposed to justify.....what? My understanding that current climate change modelling relies upon thousands of papers and many thousands of hours of computer modeling on computers that didn't exist before 1990.

Even so predictions are understating the acceleration of Global Warming events as proven by the decline of the arctic ice cap and the melting of Greenland's glacial mass.

I support the IPCC as a base from which to work. Everybody knows where to find their studies and data.

You've got what? Give us a link to support your denialist BS.

Put the Carbon Back

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry (Google on "FullCAM"). When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts c