Global Warming???

[1jrp1]

The IPCC report is thousands of pages long, represents 5+years of work and represents the combined knowledge of thousands of cited climate scientists as collated and distilled by the 20+ lead coordinators of the report. It represents tens of thousands of man-hours of debate and correspondance between the climate community as a whole.

The open letter you cite is a one page document by 60 individuals, many of whom are no longer active (emeritus), and many of whom aren’t climate scientists, and many of whom aren’t even scientists (economists).

You pretend to know more about climate and atmospheric physics than the vast majority of climate professionals who are telling you there is a problem. These are professionals who back up their theories with data. Instead you quote “facts” from sources that are obviously biased, who clearly misrepresent even the most rudimentary scientific evidence (junkscience.com). You imply that there is an inherent tendency among climate scientists to misrepresent or fake data to protect their funding sources (despite the fact that academic scientists are sumarilly fired, lose their careers when it is shown that they have faked or misrepresented data). Industry-funded “science,” on the other hand, has a long track record of faking and misrepresenting data, resulting in significant harm to society. Tobacco Science (nuff said). (BTW, I think Tobacco execs should be charged with murder.)

I am not trying to convince you. Giving you an education in climate science would take me weeks, and I’m not convinced you are sincere in your desire to know the truth. I am just trying to counter the misinformation you are putting out. What you are doing is putting the rest of us in danger, by continually repeating the misrepresentations and falsehoods of corporations trying to protect their profits at all costs. Climate change is happening, humans are almost certainly to blame, and there almost certainly will be hard consequences if we don’t start dealing with it soon. While you twiddle and try to convince others that the tide is not coming in, the tide is coming in nonetheless.

[Mark Holmes]

Astounding. That this many educated, well-informed people would even be arguing the validity of global warming science is incredibly sad. For me, the point is simple. If the global scientists conclusions are wrong, and we heed their advice to reduce CO2 emissions, the worst thing that will have happened is that we have cleaner air and perhaps fund a new green industry. But if we listen to the naysayers (whom I might add are dwindling in number) and ignore what is going on, the results could be catastrophic for at least our children. So for me, it becomes a moral dilemma. What do you think is the right thing to do?

[FutureSDguy]

“Climate change is happening, humans are almost certainly to blame, and there almost certainly will be hard consequences if we don’t start dealing with it soon”

And we come full circle. There is NO proof of this, which is why there’s such vitriol. It’s purely speculation based on models that make assumptions. e.g. Industry causes CO2, CO2 causes warming; using GDP to measure industrial output, extrapolate future GDP and from that, extrapolate future warming. That’s the ESSENCE of what IPCC’s report does!

Mark’s mentality: “even there is no conclusive proof, let’s do it anyway,” is fine and dandy, but convince companies that will go bankrupt to go along with you. There’s a lot of things humans do based on perceived, rather than real, benefit. If using science to understand global warming doesn’t matter in the end, what’s the point of being scientific?

jrp1: “In fact, it would be historic if anyone can conclusively prove that AGW is a farce.”

Exactly!

I was asked: “Anyways, I have a question for you, futureSDperson. Do you consider offering $10K cash awards to anyone that will dismiss scientifically determined results a good method to discover the truth? Discuss.”

I find that odd, because the other people have already countered the IPCC report. The oil companies would be better off coordinating these various people to come up with a good peer review of the IPCC report.

I don’t care who’s behind it or how much money is involved (but I do care that funding is given to both sides fairly, which isn’t happening). When it comes to science, the more scutiny you give to a theory, the better. This is obvious.

My counter question: The earth was warm enough to offer the vikings an ice-less Greenland 1000-1200. How did this happen without human-caused CO2?

[kewp]

“I don’t care who’s behind it or how much money is involved (but I do care that funding is given to both sides fairly, which isn’t happening).”

Oh, so you think climate science is a bigger business than the petroleum industry? That Exxon can’t afford to pay for the research? Didn’t they just report record profits?

Wanna buy some condos downtown? Cheap!

“My counter question: The earth was warm enough to offer the vikings an ice-less Greenland 1000-1200. How did this happen without human-caused CO2?”

Easy answer, that statement is totally false. The Greenland ice sheet is estimated to be around 110,000 years old. Ref: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node2.html

Good example of how your intellectually dishonest your position is, though!

[FutureSDguy]

“Oh, so you think climate science is a bigger business than the petroleum industry? That Exxon can’t afford to pay for the research? Didn’t they just report record profits?”

Huh? You lost me there buddy.

“Easy answer, that statement is totally false”

How is it totally false?

[Anonymous]

FutureSDguy wrote:

Easy Town: “Why don’t the critics provide us with information showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has had rates of growth during previous climate cycles anywhere equivalent to the past 100 years.”

(1) Why don’t you just look at the data. Here’s a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

(Notice that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, which is opposite of what environmentalists would like to have in order to support their agenda.)

“Why don’t they provide us with information showing that carbon dioxide does not have a tendency to trap heat.”

(2) Why don’t the scientists in support of AGW show that CO2 *does* have a tendanacy to trap heat? This is a theory that came out of seeing correlations between CO2 and temperature, but correlation does not mean causation.

But if you want a refutation, here is one: http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm. Too bad that energy of scientists have to be spent on refuting junk science instead of devoting time discovering truths.

“Why don’t they show that we are not really pumping billions of tons of pollutants into the air each year.”

Nobody disputes that. Reducing emissions will result in cleaner air–that’s easy to show. But will it result in cooling the Earth? (BTW, smog cools the Earth, so perhaps we should be polluting more, not less!)

Most of people only hear the anthrogenic global warming stuff, and assume its skeptics are ignorant. This is lazy. There is plenty of material out there that refutes AGW if you turn off your TV, take time away from your hippie friends, and go look for it.

First, thank you for the links as they provide interesting information.

Ok FSG, for the moment, let’s say that increased CO2 does not cause GW. Instead, lets look at separately the pieces of information you put forward to propose that human activity has no impact on climate and that it is all natural.

1. Your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg shows clearly “Present CO2 Level” as being at a level about 100% greater in magnitude from low to high as previous waves. How is that natural in any possible way? That extra 100% increase occured very recently in conjuction with the use of fuels the last couple of centuries. I doubt there is no connection between that level and human activity. Also, looking closely at the chart, tempurature does not always lead the way up or down. There is also no past precedent on the chart for CO2 leading the way as it has in modern history. So what is it exactly you intended this chart to refute?

2. Your link http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm by Heinz Thieme is interesting. However, if you follow the link to another of this author’s documents (http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm), he clearly says near the end of section 4:

All in all, it seems quite plausible that
anthropogenically increased humidification of
the atmosphere is already taking place, and
that it may be having definite meteorological
effects.

His explanation of said effects relates to an overall increase in the atmospheric mass from all emissions of human from largely human agricultural activity. The extra mass would cause more heat. He also states in section 5 that we should seriously examine all activities that increase O or N in the atmosphere – including fossil fuels – as these would increase the atmospheric mass.

So, exactly how were you expecting this author to support your claim that all climate change is natural? He says “it seems quite plausible” that you are wrong.

So, go call him lazy and ignorant if you please.

Forgetting about whether or not increased CO2 causes GW, you have provided no evidence for your claim that we as a species cannot affect the climate in dramatic ways that could impact millions more lives than would have otherwise been impacted by natural cycles.

If anything, you may have made an argument for lowering emissions from all human activity that increase O or N – and thereby atmospheric mass.

FSG, your increasing global humidity, so do your part to save the climate and stop breathing.

[FutureSDguy]

The premise upon which this AGW house of cards rests is with CO2, particulaly man-made CO2. I’m not claiming humans have NO impact on climate, only that it’s much smaller than the natural variation. Empirical data (not models) shows this. CO2 has been rising since 1800, well before humans came up, and the climate has both cooled and warmed in that time period. CO2 is a lagging metric when you look at the temperature trends over 400,000 years.

Just because I do not believe in the models that IPCC puts forth does not mean I don’t care about the environment. I just see a lot of damage in scientific thought as this “global warming” hysteria grows. Futhermore, we simply do not know enough about climite to really predict it. The bullying tactics of environmental organizations (including IPCC), and corresponding squelching of scientific dissent among qualified climate scientists are quite known and articles can be easily found by searching the web. It is not publicized, because the media is very one-sided in giving the public the story.

[1jrp1]

You are just flat wrong.

Fact: CO2 is higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years

Fact: Most of the rise from the 280 ppm pre-industrials to the current 380ppm has come in the last 70 years, and unambigulously is due to human activities (as proved by the radiocarbon signature of atmospheric CO2). This rise can in no way be called natural variation.

Fact: CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate (now ~2.8 ppm per year).

Fact: The correlation between temperature and CO2 is incredibly tight.

Fact: Before modern man, CO2 lagged temperature rises by several thousand years because the ice-age cycle was driven by orbital mechanics. However, once orbital mechanics primed the system, increasing CO2 took over as the main driver of temperature increase during the interglacial periods. With the advent of modern man and industrialization, CO2 has preceeded temperature rise. Without man’s activities, we would probably be entering another ice age. However, we are now we are dumping so much CO2 that we are actually raising the temperature very quickly, even when it should be starting to gradually decline (because we are past the inter-glacial maximum). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Future SDguy, you are doing a great disservice to climate scientists, and to your fellow human beings.

Call up the external relations departments of the best climate research programs in this country such as Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Columbia University, University of Washington, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Ask them if the IPCC accurately reflects their respective institution’s best understanding of climate change. Ask the lead scientists of the climate research programs at NOAA and NASA (despite Bush’s best efforts to silence them). You take the word of a handful oil industry puppets over literally thousands of scientists whose strongest desire is to do good science, stay out of the limelight, and further our understanding of the climate system.

The IPCC does not represent fringe environmental organizations. If anything it has been critisized as being too cautious, too conservative. And your supposition that the media is giving one side of the story side is simple-minded. Of the 15 or so people I know or personally have heard speak who are actively involved in climate change research, not one has said the the IPCC overreaches.

Your understanding of climate science and basic physics and chemistry is deeply flawed, or else your representation of it is deliberately deceitful.

I give you the following analogy. Imagine that 95% of the world astronomers made an anouncement that their models showed that the earth might be hit by an asteroid in 100 years time, and that this asteroid would wipe out half the life on earth. It would cost $300 Billion to stop this from happening. The models gave a 50% probability that this would happen. The window for launching a rocket that would stop the asteroid was only 20 years. You, and others like you, complain that the models were too uncertain, the economic cost too high to justify the program, more study was needed. After 10 years, the astronomers come back and say the models are now saying that the asteroid will hit with 90% probability. Now you say, “Your models are based on assumptions. Besides these experts over here (spotlight on a tiny handful of naysayers) disagree. All the rest of the scientists are just trying to scare us into giving them more funding. We need another 10 years study.” Another 10 years pass, the astronomers, even the naysayers, return and report that there is a 99.9% probability that asteroid will hit, but …. ooops, too late to do anything.

Again, I say that your bullheaded refusal to take the word of thousands of scientists, and instead regurgitate the propaganda of oil companies and the heritage foundation is putting the rest of us in danger. There is real consensus among the vast majority of professional scientists who have spent their entire professional lives studying climate. Climate change is coming, and there will be big consequences.

[ucodegen]

First off: The scientific method does not mean continually repeating something as fact, and then coming up with a disaster scenario for emphasis (to get people motivated without thinking it through). Scientific method entails forming a hypothesis and then testing it.

Second: The use of the term disbelivers/naysayers is highly loaded. It presupposes that the supposition is true without proving it. It also attempts to shut down all discussion (in violation of the scientific method). This is the reason I personally call the groups “pro” and either “anti or con”, and I get specific to “man made CO2 induced global warming”, as opposed to “global warming”.

Ok, now to the more major points: Lets take on the Vostok-ice-core: Take a look at the graph indicated, remember that it reads right to left (not left to right in time.. see scale on bottom).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
There was a real rise in CO2 before temperature occurred 350K years ago (remember right to left). The interesting part is the temperature correlation to particulate matter (dust). It is stated higher dust levels are believed to be caused by cold dry periods, but this in part is already known to be false. Higher particulate levels are already known to reduce global temperature (see temperature results after volcanic eruptions – global dimming). One of the biggest problems is discerning the temperature of the earth over the same period. Most methods have been proven to be horribly inaccurate. I would like to know how they came up with the temperatures.

Forth: I, personally, find it insulting that those who disagree with the forced consensus that man made CO2 is the cause of current global warming are immediately labeled as ‘industry puppets’. This again, is the use of inflammatory words to try to prove ones case by default. Since people brought up the issue of $10,000 offering by the oil industry, I would also like to counter with the Heinz award going to James Hansen for work on global warming..(Hansen is very strong advocate for humans as being the cause).. Heinz awards are unrestricted cash amounts up to $250,000.
http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients.asp?action=detail&recipientID=9
I also throw into the mix, Branson (Virgin Airlines) throwing some $25Million for solutions to sequestering C02. To the unproven claims that Bush is suppressing pro human caused global warming statements, I again bring up Hansen who works for NOAA (a governmental body). I also bring up as counter:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924286/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99627,00.html
Lawsuits are the opposite of giving money (they take money away from someone.. even just to defend oneself and come out even). Point summary: The pro global warming camp have proven themselves to be more aggressive financially than the con, the pro camp likes to hold out the simple 10K.. but compared to the awards and lawsuits being brought about.. and the scale of these.. the pro human cause global warming camp have proven the opposite to be true. Just leave the scientists alone and let them do their work in peace, whether they are pro or con. They know how to debate science, politicians and flamboyant CEOs don’t

Fifth; Since people have brought up the IPCC.. I will now point to where they are going to ‘re-write’ science:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf
search on grammatical (should end up being on page 4 of 15). Quoted:

“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

Is that how we conduct science? If the research is not consistent with the intended summary, change the research papers to put them in line? This is not exactly the behavior of a responsible scientific body. Summaries should always be derived from the underlying research, not the other way around.

Sixth: of 1jrp1 analogy, that is just plain ridiculous; What about the actual happening with respect the MTBE? We now have a carcinogen in our water supply because of the eco mandate for oxygenated fuel. This stuff does not go away, and is not going to break down for a considerable amount of time. Don’t even try to say that it was forced by the oil companies. It wasn’t. They don’t like the stuff. It is a ether, and a super solvent. That means that it dissolves the seals in the fuel processing plants (driving up the oil companies costs and causing plant fires), and you know they don’t like things that drive up their costs. Summary: doing something, just to prevent what is perceived as a problem, may be much worse than doing nothing at all until the full/real truth is figured out

I may get back to this with more.. but because I could not find my previous post w/respect to global warming.. I am going to start capturing what I am entering (fun fun fun). I don’t live for this blog.. I got a life elsewhere.. but to put it generally, my background is science (physics) but ended up working in the computer field(pay in expensive SD), and I used to work for SIO. When I see things distorted in the manner of the pro global warming group, I have to speak up. I do track the papers (computers for pay, physics because I like/want to). I am going to close for now with some little factoids and a link:

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient to plant life, and is an essential gas not a pollutant. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide (to the greenhouse).

At 360+/- parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere, less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. (This is why kewp’s experiment at http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/LearnNet/jesei/co2green/home.htm is a flawed example (the sample of C02 gas was 1,000,000ppm not 360ppm). In addition, the setup is flawed (lamp output is not guaranteed to be the same(should use same lamp with an apparatis setup forcing same distance, same type of glass). I also have problems with the ‘typical results. From time sample 2 to time sample 3, air shows a rapid drop in temperature.. even under continuous IR input?? somethings goofy here!! and also contradicts kewp’s earlier assertion that CO2 reflects.. kewp, it absorbs and then re-emits.. and it is very band (wavelength) specific. In addition, light transitioning phase changes refracts, not reflects.. big difference) Absorption is done in many ways: energies of ionization (moving an electron to an outer orbit), translational/rotational/vibration between chemical bonds of carbon and oxygen atoms as well as translational (brownian motion) of the whole.

And now the link:
http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
This paper does not detail the effect of evaporation and condensation of water. When water evaporates, it takes 1000 Calories to accomplish this (vs 1 Calorie to heat one degree Celcius). To condense, that heat has to be given up. Gaseous water has a very light atomic weight (approx 10) compared to oxygen gass(02 = 16) nitrogen (N2 = 14) Carbon Dioxide (C02 = 22). This means that when condensation occurs, it will likely be in the upper atmosphere (troposphere?). When gaseous water condenses to a vapor, its global warming feedback goes from a postive feedback to a negative feedback. It is also a very strong heat/thermal energy transport mechanism.

[ucodegen]

A brief summary on background knowledge needed to understand global warming:
Climatologists do not have the full knowledge to understand the inter-relations.
Neither do people with training in physics, and chemistry.
They each have a piece of the puzzle. The global warming issue requires true interdisciplinary knowledge.

Of all these groups, politicians, musicians etc probably have the least background knowledge. They also tend to be the most vocal (with the except of a few scientists).

NOTE: this is a continuation of the previous post..
Most of the simulations on C02 induced global warming involved models of the class “single column”, meaning it treats the section on earth as a single column of gas and does not differentiate between temperatures at altitudes very well, and therefore can not model thermal transport very well either. There is ongoing work (now) to improve the model with segmenting the gas column..
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/sccm/sccm.html
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/ccm3/source.shtml

http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/climate_modeling.html
As with all things, you add more variables to the model, compute time goes through the roof!!

[LostCat]

This is a great debate. Never thought there would be so much interest in the subject. Well actually I did. It’s just proof that Global Warming is going to be the next Capital Market that the USA starts to develop. It might be true, it might not, but the fear is real for those that might believe. With this fear will come productivity. Maybe it is the only thing that can pull this country out of debt..

LEt it be and let’s invent some cool stuff with the notion that the planet is going to turn to dirt and water and everyone is going to die if we don’t do something about it. WE need something else now that the housing market is going to fold. Maybe one of you experts can be the one that figures out a new concept car or something that forces us off oil..

[FutureSDguy]

Thanks ucodegen. I think 1jrp1 is being quite arrogant, with so-called “Facts” (CO2 and temperature are not tightly correlative, notably in the past 50 years, e.g. 1945 to 1975 cooling period). His “Facts” are case of crying wolf. And I sense so much fear in him, of me, and of independent thought.

Edit after research. Here’s the fantastically tight correlation between CO2 and temperature:

1880-1945: +.4 C
1945-1975: -.1 C
1971-present: +.3 C
total warming since 1880: +.6 C

If man starting spewing out most of the CO2 after World War II, why is most of the warming prior to it? Why did it get colder after World War II?

The asteroid analogy is weak. The trajectory of an asteroid is easily computed using Newtonian physics. There will be error, but that error is quantifiable based on measurement error, and not based on assumptions (i.e. plugging in unknown variables). We know positions of satellites billions of miles away to the meter. The current state of climate science is that the ability to know future climate is very very weak–do we know what the temperature will be 50 years from now? Hell no.

“Future SDguy, you are doing a great disservice to climate scientists, and to your fellow human beings.”

Because I don’t serve out your Kool Aid, I’m a disservice to fellow humans?

“Your understanding of climate science and basic physics and chemistry is deeply flawed, or else your representation of it is deliberately deceitful.”

I may not be a climate scientist, but I do have analytical thinking skills and I apply them when I read. And you are an arrogant twit. Why do i say this? Because you claim to know the truth better than me, and resort to insults when someone disagrees with you. I doubt you have read both sides like I have–I know the Kool Aid you’re drinking, trust me.

Here’s tonights reading. More to come. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html (Hint, it’s about hurricanes.)

[FutureSDguy]

Today’s reading. A nine-year old article about sunspots and its correlation to temperature. I find it very interesting that the sunspot theory is still as strong today as it was then (but unfortunately not stronger, but I attribute that to the lopsided attention to CO2).

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

There are more in-depth articles elsehwere. I chose this because it’s easier reading.

[Borat]

How about a poll? CC believers vs. CC doubters.

* What degree(s) do you hold?
* What’s the highest level math course you completed?
* What’s the highest level chemistry course you completed?
* What’s the highest level physics course you completed?
* Do you believe in evolution?

[FutureSDguy]

I’m not a CC doubter. I’m a AGW doubter. (Let’s get our terms straight. :))

I hold two degrees: Math, CS, and have a graduate degree in bioinformatics pending. This does not qualify me as a climate expert, but it does qualify me as one who can reason and evaluate the scientific works of others.

Math: lots and lots. Chemistry: basic. Physics: basic.

Evolution: yes

[Author]

Posts