Global Warming???

[kewp]

“And you’re not blinded and unbiased?”

Of course I’m biased! I would love to think that AGW was a bunch of hippie BS and we could all burn fossil fuels guilt-free.

I, unlike some people however, acknowledge my biases and turn to the scientific method and the peer-review process when I’m seeking the truth. Which, unfortunately in this case, comes to a conclusion that is the opposite to what I would very much like to believe. So I therefore must accept it.

Why on earth would I, or anybody, be biased *PRO* AGW? Maybe if you were a luddite or ELF nazi maybe, but what sane person would endorse it otherwise?

“The burden of proof is with IPCC, not the critics.”

You are making the claim the science is bad, the burden of proof is on *you* to prove it. Provide new research that invalidates the AGW hypothesis, or the IPCC. Get it published.

Until then, you are just an anonymous net nut, no different than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[Anonymous]

One question: you discount orbital insolation? Does this mean you’re rejecting Milanhovich cycles as a driver of climate?

No, not at all. That’s great.

I believe the classic Milankovich theory is not now the preferred orbital driver (there are also dust plane effects I believe), but such a thing is not relevant in the short term of the next 5 centuries or so and, although interested as basic science, it is not presently relevant to policy and the recent climatic record.

If you want better references on solar influence on the “global warming is caused significantly by cosmic rays” hypothesis I recommend Nir Shaviv as a serious scientist, although the following must also be considered:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0405.html

Certainly orbital effects and perhaps some large scale galactic events like cosmic rays can be important over long geologic timescales. It seems unlikely to be important in the short run, as in 500 years, whereas the GHG alteration by humans is both that rapid and of sufficient magnitude to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Unsupported statement. I can use it because it draws upon earlier work. You can’t condemn a publication because you don’t like the publisher. You have to condemn it because it is incorrect.. and have to prove it in the process.

Wanda: To call junkscience.org stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep who could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?

Otto Junkscience: Apes don’t read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it

[kewp]

“I’m reading this: http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

You may rebut that if you’d like.”

I’ll rebut that!

The author, the late Theodor Landscheidt, was an astrologer.

Yup, horoscopes, neptune is in the ninth quarter, pluto is up uranus, etc.

In this case he applies his copious background of astrological and numeroligical techniques to link solar cycles to wordly climate events. Complete crap of course. Total bollocks.

I encourage everyone to google “theodore landscheidt astrologer” if you don’t belive me. He’s published on John Daly’s site because he couldn’t get any of his stuff into any real journals. I’m assuming because its total garbage.

If a fraud like Landscheidt is the best you can come up with, you are lost. Completely.

[FutureSDguy]

Conversely, one could say that the theory of anthropogenic CO2 warming is so weak that someone who is an amateur climate scientist (according to Wiki page on him) can debunk it.

If the record shows a strong correlation between the sunspot record and earth temperature (even at a decade-resolution in the past century), and we know that earth’s temperature changes cannot cause changes in the number of sunspots, then it is reasonable to look here when describing climatic changes. IPCC does not appear to show any interest in it. To ignore other theories for global warming is unscientific.

[ucodegen]

Unsupported statement. I can use it because it draws upon earlier work. You can’t condemn a publication because you don’t like the publisher. You have to condemn it because it is incorrect.. and have to prove it in the process.

Wanda: To call junkscience.org stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep who could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?

Here we go again.. if instead of addressing the issue, insult the author. So is this new age science? I think someone is ‘trolling’ here.

[ucodegen]

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0405.html

I would like to see why these scientists “say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology.” Do they have a paper showing how the methodology is flawed?

[FutureSDguy]

But they have eleven (ELEVEN!) scientists that say so. You seem to forget that modern science is done by voting.

Anyway I’m still looking for material that shows that the rate of global temperature rise in the past century is higher than it has been in the past, say 1000 years or so (or any time scale).

[Anonymous]

Conversely, one could say that the theory of anthropogenic CO2 warming is so weak that someone who is an amateur climate scientist (according to Wiki page on him) can debunk it.

You could say so, but it is completely wrong. 99.999% (which is probably an underestimate) of the time that amateurs believe they have ‘debunked’ mainstream scientific results, they are wrong, arrogant and foolish, and usually uneducatable. In the case of junkscience.org, I actually don’t think he gives a crap as long as the paychecks keep flowing. It’s much easier to spew baloney for fast money even if (or especially if) you knew the reality, rather than compete in the brutal and difficult world of hard science. I remember that people on high school & college debate teams saying that they found it far easier to argue the side against their own personal beliefs, as there is much less emotional committment to pursue honest self-criticism or doubt, and they felt no shame in using deceptive tactics since it was just a game anyway.

Indeed it is scientifically appropriate, and essential to look at solar forcing. And it has been, very seriously, for decades. It was probably one of the first questions that Roger Revelle thought about, and was asked when starting to look at greenhouse effects as well, “How do you distinguish the Sun’s influence from GHG’s influence?” Of course this means that you have to develop a decades long program of both GHG monitoring (which Revelle did) and solar observations (which was done for astrophysical understanding & the space program as well).

One of the predicted effects is that with GHG changes for some reason I’m not sure of right now (but it’s basic physics) that increasing GHG will reduce temperature in upper atmosphere (while increasing overlal), whereas increasing solar forcing by itself will increase temprerature in all the atmospheric components. The observations agree with the GHG-predicted effect.

IPCC does not appear to show any interest in [solar forcing]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-4.htm

Let’s see what the 2007 report will say. I predict that it will show solar fluctuations in line with sunspot cycles, possibly with small mid-term trend, which is not sufficient in magnitude to explain observed warming without a GHG climate sensitivity of the reasonably consistent current estimates.

Now let’s just look at one section of one scientific meeting and the research happening there:

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_SH41A.html
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_SH43A.html

Now, of course this is all ‘in-progress’ technical research from one year, one meeting, but it is obvious that the notion that solar forcing has somehow been “ignored” (which is patently ridiculous) by the primary scientific community in developing the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is obviously, factually false. I remember hearing about an important paper in _Nature_ back in the early 90’s that appeared to show a significnat solar influence.

Undoubtably the solar influence IS there, but does not explain, in quantitative magnitude the observations, whereas including GHGs (which are rapidly increasing) do.

[Anonymous]

“Anyway I’m still looking for material that shows that the rate of global temperature rise in the past century is higher than it has been in the past, say 1000 years or so (or any time scale).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

* North, G R ([email protected]) , Texas A&M University, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, College Station, TX 77843-3150, United States

This is a presentation of results from a recently released report written by a committee established by the National Research Council and chaired by the speaker. The report was titled the same as the title of this talk. It focused on the methods of reconstructing the large scales of such surface temperature fields, since there has been considerable discussion in the scientific literature, assessments such as the IPCC, the popular press, blogs and even Congressional Hearings. The so-called �hockey stick’ curve indicating a gradual cooling from the beginning of the record at about 1000AD to roughly 150 years ago when the curve take a steep upward trend (the so-called global warming). The original publications by Mann, Bradley and Hughes were careful to present and emphasize error margins that have been ignored by many in the controversy. The Committee found that numerous subsequent publications have reported reconstructions that utilized different data and different statistical assumptions. These all fall within the error margins of the original studies. While the committee has some reservations about the period prior to the year 1600AD, it still concludes that it is plausible that surface temperatures averaged over the Northern Hemisphere over the last three decades are plausibly the warmest for any such comparable period in the last 1000 years.

[Anonymous]

I would like to see why these scientists “say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology.” Do they have a paper showing how the methodology is flawed?

Yes, that’s the whole point. The PR describes the paper published in the journal EOS.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.pdf

[Anonymous]

To call the science of junkscience.org stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep who could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQ’s, but you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you ape?

Otto Junkscience.org Science: Apes don’t read philosophy!

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.

[ucodegen]

But they have eleven (ELEVEN!) scientists that say so. You seem to forget that modern science is done by voting.

I’m sorry, I’m an old timer.. I don’t get this voting thing. During Stalin’s time, we never had a chance to do the thing called voting. The government told you what to think..

One of the predicted effects is that with GHG changes for some reason I’m not sure of right now (but it’s basic physics) that increasing GHG will reduce temperature in upper atmosphere (while increasing overall), whereas increasing solar forcing by itself will increase temperature in all the atmospheric components.

I think it was more along the lines of basic thermodynamics. GHGs trapping the heat in the lower atmosphere while helping the radiating in the upper atmosphere. (see 4th para below)

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0406.html

Some problems here, a gasses radiative ability does not depend on altitude, and is band specific. When a planetary body radiates through a gas, you see notches in the blackbody emissions from the absorption by the gases. When an gas absorbs thermal energy it will re-radiate the energy as a blackbody, but not necessarily in the same frequency it was absorbed in. Another problem is that an increase in temperature, decreases density and a decrease in temperature increases density. The least dense gas ‘wants’ to be on top (oversimplification.. but easiest way to state that a less dense gas wants to ‘float’ on a more dense gas). From the above reference:
As the amount of carbon dioxide increases, the upper atmosphere becomes cooler and contracts, bringing lower-density gas to lower heights.
But it also makes it more dense (PV = nRT, Temp in Kelvin). Temp and volume decrease, but number of moles stay constant. Atomic weight is tied to number of moles.. thereby with volume decreasing and weight constant.. increasing the density of the gas that just cooled.

I think they may be trying to rely too much on Venus as an example for the process, ignoring that Venus is largely 1 gas.. CO2 (96% in the quote). And that most of the warming is probably due to surface warming (because C02s absorption is band specific and the sun’s direct emissions do not favor energy absorption by C02, but blackbody emissions do favor energy absorption by C02). On Venus, the CO2 is being heated by the surface of Venus, not the sun. As it applies to the Earth, H20 is the wildcard. On Earth, water can move significant amounts of energy through phase changes. It is also less dense than C02 at the same temperature when in a gas phase. H20 also controls the ‘iris’ of the earth. (also why I consider it a wildcard).

On surface warming, I can relate that to a black surface on a sunny winter day (no wind). The air 1 foot away from the surface is very chilly. The air 1/4 inch or less from the surface is quite warm. The transfer of energy (heating) from the surface to the air can be faster than the transfer of energy from one segment of air to the next (air is a pretty good insulator).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thercond.html
On Earth though, because of water, we don’t only have to rely on thermal conductivity of the gases to move thermal energy, we also have phase change to move thermal energy (much much more effective).

It also helps that Venus is closer to the sun (in terms of temperature).

I would like to see why these scientists “say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology.” Do they have a paper showing how the methodology is flawed?

Yes, that’s the whole point. The PR describes the paper published in the journal EOS.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_e…This is the type of article I like. It looks like it attacks the conjecture on the reliability of Cosmic Ray Flux reconstruction, not on the actual possibility of Cosmic Rays effecting the earth’s climate. It attacks the reliability of the data used to form and justify the conjecture. I’ve just gone through the first part of it.. will need to read the rest later. I like these references better than the previous one along the same lines. It argues the point instead of just saying “I’m right you’re wrong.”

As I mentioned before, I look at both sides and take things apart.. (Now where is that gudgeon pin for my 351C.. got to get it back together so I can get to work… honey, were you using my torque wrench for a hammer again?)

[Anonymous]

This is the type of article I like. It looks like it attacks the conjecture on the reliability of Cosmic Ray Flux reconstruction, not on the actual possibility of Cosmic Rays effecting the earth’s climate.

Yes, this is how science works. Notice that articles by the cosmic ray crew were in fact published, and have some justification, and other scientists seriously consider them. Solar issues have been looked at for decades now.

This has been going on for a while, with assertions and challenges to the theory and the data, from within the professional community itself. It belies the notion that uncharacteristically from most other scientific fields, that there’s some enormous politically motivated agenda to invent stuff, and ignore real complexities. Real complexity in clouds was known quite a while ago (note that even with strong cloud feedback reducing temperature you will still change climate and weather enough potentially to be quite significant!)

And when the large bulk of a scientific community comes to a conclusion discussed in extensive depth, it usually means that it’s right.

In the present case, given the present confidence in the conclusion and the likely the risk of doing nothing, it’s now worth altering policy on the assumption that what we think is right indeed is right, and limiting the risk of the really bad “upper bound” scenarios.

The main problem anyway is coal, and not oil and gas. The latter two are sufficiently limited by geology that we probably won’t be able to burn enough to make things really catastrophic. Coal is the killer, because there IS enough to screw things up royally, and it’s cheap enough that we’re likely to do it. I favor rapid dismantlement of coal industry, replaced by combination of all other low-to-zero GHG emitting technologies. In the shorter run (50 years) this means nuclear fission predominantly.

[FutureSDguy]

I’m done discussing this topic. Thanks especially to ucodegen and DrChaos for a great discussion!

[Author]

Posts