Where do you stand on the GW/AGW issue?

[Dr. Imago]

I'm interested in seeing the results of what people think, based on current state of the science.

Discussion encouraged (including the inevitable criticisms of the way the poll's questions were worded).

-Dr. Imago

[Dr. Imago]

Discussion point:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

No doubt humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but at the current rate it will take 214 years for it to reach the dreaded doubling to 700 PPM. Even then, the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by weight, will only increase from 0.0577% where it was in 2005 to 0.1064% in the year 2219.

-Dr. Imago

[mhaze]

What those types of articles never seem to point out is the relevant fact (they do actually loiter on irrelevance quite nicely) which is the approximate CO2 content of the atmosphere WHEN THE FOSSIL FUELS RUN OUT.

Hint: It ain't nothing to worry about.

[Dr. Imago]

Well, what I thought was most interesting about that particular article was the fact that in 2002 and 2003 there was a "bump" in the measurement of atmospheric CO2. That was then followed by a return to the normal increases seen in the ensuing year.

If we are increasing the rate of fossil fuel consumption and we're meaningfully impacting or increasing the amount of CO2 poured into the atmosphere, wouldn't that "bump" have continued and/or been increasing? Certainly no one will try to argue that we've curtailed our CO2 emissions since then, would they?

I read somewhere recently (can't find the source now) that atmospheric CO2 actually follows global warming, not causes it. As oceans warm, their ability to store gasseous CO2 decreases and the near-surface dissolved CO2 would be liberated from them. If CO2 truly had a forcing effect, wouldn't this be a positive or "feed-forward" mechanism? In other words, we'd expect as the atmosphere got warmer more CO2 would be freed from the oceans into the atmosphere.

I don't know how current climatology models can explain the NOAA report. I'd like to hear, though. That one report has huge ramifications, if it is to be believed, across the entire spectrum of this argument, in my humble opinion.

-Dr. Imago

[Pixel42]

No doubt humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but at the current rate it will take 214 years for it to reach the dreaded doubling to 700 PPM. Even then, the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by weight, will only increase from 0.0577% where it was in 2005 to 0.1064% in the year 2219.
The GMST (Global Mean Surface Temperature) is approximately 30 degrees Celsius higher than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases. That's how much difference the current trace amounts make. Doubling them does not sound like a good idea to me.

[Tippit]

Both Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming are real. The question is, how does the former relate to the latter, and what is the scope. The average global temperature has increased by .5 to .75 degrees Celsius over the past century depending on who you ask, so global warming is indeed a real phenomenon. CO2 is a greenhouse gas with one of the highest GWPs (global warming potential), and human beings certainly contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere.

The largest constituent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, and it has by far the highest GWP as well. The aggregate GWP of CO2 is a fraction of water vapor's. The world's oceans transfer far more CO2 with the atmosphere than human activity emits, and there are other CO2 sinks like flora and various negative feedbacks that are not well understood and which all serve to regulate both atmospheric CO2, and global temperature.

In my opinion, CO2 is not a pollutant, and the AGW doom and gloom scenarios pushed by the IPCC are a way to justify global taxation by the UN, and to give credibility to UN regulating bodies. Global Warming is probably caused by changing trends in solar radiation, and/or geothermal activity that is part of a natural cycle. Something is heating the oceans, and the oceans are releasing the vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It is true that CO2 levels are among the highest they've ever been, and this is in part due to human activity, but this is also mostly irrelevant due to CO2's relatively low GWP next to H2O.

I would recommend watching both "An Inconvienient Truth" as well as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to better understand the cases being made. I would also point out that some of the IPCC and US government websites that list greenhouse gases and their GWPs seem to omit water vapor from the list, ostensibly to heighten the perception that CO2 is a huge problem because it appears first on their lists. The only rationale I could find for why they do this is that since water vapor is not significantly influenced by human activity they choose to remove it from some lists, which seems deceptive to me.

[m_huber]

What those types of articles never seem to point out is the relevant fact (they do actually loiter on irrelevance quite nicely) which is the approximate CO2 content of the atmosphere WHEN THE FOSSIL FUELS RUN OUT.

Hint: It ain't nothing to worry about.

There are two relevant questions in this debate.
1. Is the world warming up?
2. Are we causing it?

I offer for your consideration (taken from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/)

Global temperatures since the dinosaurs:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2104647644509f367b.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9746)

Global temperatures in (roughly) primate times:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_210464764454ae3587.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9747)

Trend in the last 1000 years:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_21046476447e6cff09.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9748)

There are a couple of things to notice here. One, the temperatures about 400 thousand years ago (Kya) were higher than temperatures now. Two, temperatures greater than 10 Mya were much higher than temperatures now. And three, temperatures have recently increased sharply.

So, the Earth naturally goes through warming cycles. We are currently in a warming cycle. So to (1), the answer is "yes."

The second question is a little more tricky, and the truth is that no peer reviewed articles on the subject are being written that say that humans are not causing an increase in the effect. There are some written that are undecided, but most say we are having a profound effect.

But the Earth has been warmer in the past, and even if we accelerate the rate of temperature increase, we won't be pushing the Earth past what it's seen before.

Does this mean that we shouldn't worry? No. Warmer temperatures mean less ice, which in turn means higher sea level. If all of the glaciers on the globe were to melt, vast areas along coastal regions (such as Louisiana, where I live currently) would be flooded. Even a rise in global sea level of a foot or two would cause flooding in areas like New York City, which has portions that are at sea level.

What we shouldn't worry about is destroying our planet. The Earth, and in fact, life, is going to be fine. We aren't going to mess with those, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the air. The Earth will sort it all out eventually, and life will evolve in new interesting and different ways.

What we could potentially do, and what scientific concern is really about, is accelerate the destruction of our own habitat. Mass migrations away from coastal areas would wreck our economy and likely lead to war in some form or another (not a guarantee, but a very plausible scenario).

It isn't "nothing to worry about." It is possibly that it will not play out in the doomsday scenario that it has been painted by some, but it is also possible that it will. Unfortunately, only time will tell.

[Pixel42]

The only rationale I could find for why they do this is that since water vapor is not significantly influenced by human activity they choose to remove it from some lists, which seems deceptive to me.
Water vapour tends to be ignored because there is a limit to the amount the atmosphere can absorb. Then it rains, and the level goes back down. There is no limit to the amount of CO2, methane etc that the atmosphere can hold.

Lots of useful info here: http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805

[Dr. Imago]

It seems to me that the most reasonable way of testing this would be to replicate, in the lab, atmospheric conditions where only the content of CO2 - in the fractions concerned - is used as the variable. The temperature changes could then be recorded and the actual contribution to warming or stored heat could be observed and recorded.

I've tried to find data published on such experiments, but can't seem to locate one. I've found at least one example of an experiment that is designed for high school students where 100% CO2 is used in comparison to current atmospheric air, and the variance doesn't seem to be more than four degrees Celsius when other factors are controlled.

Does anyone know of such data? Have such experiments been run?

-Dr. Imago

[Tippit]

I read somewhere recently (can't find the source now) that atmospheric CO2 actually follows global warming, not causes it. As oceans warm, their ability to store gasseous CO2 decreases and the near-surface dissolved CO2 would be liberated from them. If CO2 truly had a forcing effect, wouldn't this be a positive or "feed-forward" mechanism? In other words, we'd expect as the atmosphere got warmer more CO2 would be freed from the oceans into the atmosphere.



This is true. In fact there is a 600 year lag between global temperature change, and atmospheric CO2. The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is mostly regulated by the oceans, and yes, more CO2 in the atmosphere does provide positive feedback. But there are other dynamic CO2 sinks which regulate this in turn.



I don't know how current climatology models can explain the NOAA report. I'd like to hear, though. That one report has huge ramifications, if it is to be believed, across the entire spectrum of this argument, in my humble opinion.



The problem with climate models, is that you can tweak a few parameters and get them to indicate just about anything, and they probably don't fully reflect anywhere near the complexity that is involved in climate change. The science also exists in a highly politicized and polarized environment.

[Tippit]

Water vapour tends to be ignored because there is a limit to the amount the atmosphere can absorb. Then it rains, and the level goes back down. There is no limit to the amount of CO2, methane etc that the atmosphere can hold.

Lots of useful info here: http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805

CO2 is also absorbed. It's food for the plants and trees that cover the earth's surface, and it is absorbed from the atmosphere by the oceans as the earth cools. In fact there will be more flora as more CO2 food is produced, which serves as a natural sink for human CO2 emissions. Deforestation will of course offset this, but probably not in a meaningful way. And lets not forget that CO2 has a miniscule GWP next to water vapor. The crucial point is that CO2 is not the driving factor in greenhouse warming, not even close. CO2 would have to increase anywhere from 38 to 678%, depending on which GWP numbers you believe, in order to have the same warming potential.

[AK-Dave]

I really don't care too much about the warming aspects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Most animals (remember that most animals live in the ocean) will adapt by adjusting where they live. I'm more worried about the dissolved CO2 in the ocean lowering the pH of the ocean, which will prevent many organisms (corals, clams, etc) from being able to extract calcium from the water. A major disruption of the ocean ecology will have a more immediate impact than a global warming trend, as many people rely on fish and other ocean products for their protein.

I can dig up some relevant articles if anyone is interested in the effects of increased CO2 in the ocean.

-David

[Pixel42]

The crucial point is that CO2 is not the driving factor in greenhouse warming, not even close. CO2 would have to increase anywhere from 38 to 678%, depending on which GWP numbers you believe, in order to have the same warming potential.
So? I say again there is a limit to how much water vapour the atmsophere can hold. There is no such limit to how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere can hold. That's the crucial difference between them.

[Dr. Imago]

I really don't care too much about the warming aspects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Most animals (remember that most animals live in the ocean) will adapt by adjusting where they live. I'm more worried about the dissolved CO2 in the ocean lowering the pH of the ocean, which will prevent many organisms (corals, clams, etc) from being able to extract calcium from the water. A major disruption of the ocean ecology will have a more immediate impact than a global warming trend, as many people rely on fish and other ocean products for their protein.

I can dig up some relevant articles if anyone is interested in the effects of increased CO2 in the ocean.

-David

Yeah, let's look at them. I'd guess they are referring to increasing levels of carbonic acid and would be interested in seeing things such as what the actual effect is, as well as what the effect on photosynthetic microorganisms would be, especially in light of the fact that we are talking about parts per million changes.

-Dr. Imago

[Giggywig]

I'm on the "need more info" side. I'm also on the "I haven't felt like doing the research myself yet, and threads on GW around here degenerate by the 2nd page and become a chore to read" side.

[greymatters]

http://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/prev/8042254.jpg

Stop climate change (http://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/prev/8042254.jpg)?!? :boggled:

Nope, it's not photoshopped. This is a picture from Norway, where the former vice president was accepting his Nobel Peace Prize.

[Corsair 115]

In my opinion, CO2 is not a pollutant, and the AGW doom and gloom scenarios pushed by the IPCC are a way to justify global taxation by the UN, and to give credibility to UN regulating bodies. Uh, just when did the UN become a global government? Last I checked, it was hard to get it to agree to take action on anything.

Besides, any collective action is a result of negotiation and mutual agreement among the participating nations. In other words, there's a lot of talking until such time all the parties agree to the plan the talking produced.

Global Warming is probably caused by changing trends in solar radiation...If so then shouldn't we see warming on all the planets of the solar system? Especially the ones closer in? So shouldn't Mercury be a lot hotter now than before this solar radiation increase?

[Dr. Imago]

Thanks for your comments, Corsair and greymatters. But, I'm not really interested in the political side of the debate or speculation. I'm more interested in the "proof of concept" part.

I'd like to see an experiment, as described above, where the exact amounts of CO2 described are placed side-by-side in ideal conditions that control for other potentially confounding factors and a real measurement of the temperature change effects are observed and recorded.

I haven't been able to find such experiments published. It may be that I'm just not looking in the right places. If anyone can help and point us in the right direction, I'd be much obliged.

-copro

[EHLO]

Any waste product that humans produce and pump in to the land/ocean/atmosphere is going to have some effect, and if we don't fully understand what that effect is then it would seem prudent to minimise all emissions. I'm worried that the whole AGW/CO2 argument has obfuscated the issue of pollution/waste in general.

[m_huber]

Thanks for your comments, Corsair and greymatters. But, I'm not really interested in the political side of the debate or speculation. I'm more interested in the "proof of concept" part.

I'd like to see an experiment, as described above, where the exact amounts of CO2 described are placed side-by-side in ideal conditions that control for other potentially confounding factors and a real measurement of the temperature change effects are observed and recorded.

I haven't been able to find such experiments published. It may be that I'm just not looking in the right places. If anyone can help and point us in the right direction, I'd be much obliged.

-copro

Such an experiment would really be irrelevant. If we try to simulate the global effect of CO2 in a lab-scale system, we won't see the same results. Think about the column of atmosphere that sunlight radiates through, then tries to radiate back through. We cannot adequately replicate that on a smaller scale.

What we can do is look at indirect evidence of CO2 levels in the past. Check out what Yale (http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/index.cgi?page-selection=2) has online about CO2 in the Cenozoic, which doesn't correlate temperature directly, but does show that ecological changes were driven by processes other than pCO2 in the atmosphere.

Looking at temperature in an environment is really complex, because there is the expected trend that would show a close correlation between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature, and then there are extreme variations from that, often caused by meteor impacts or large volcanic events (or other large-scale phenomena). When we find periods of time that don't have these exacerbating factors, we see a close correlation between CO2 and temperature. The question, really, is whether the CO2 follows the temperature or visa-versa. We don't know the answer. We also don't know if it causes a feedback loop with global temperature.

You might look at this blog (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/175433/87) to see a straightforward analysis of why we think humans are playing a major role.
Greenhouse gases provide a reasonable explanation for the warming, while no other factor can explain the entire warming (though other factors, such as solar, might be playing a minor role).

And this (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499) entry on CO2/temperature correlation.

In summary, in the parlance of climate scientists, we would say that CO2 was acting as a "feedback" over the time period in the figure above. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the year-to-year atmospheric changes. Thus CO2 has now become a "forcing."

[Dr. Imago]

Think about the column of atmosphere that sunlight radiates through, then tries to radiate back through. We cannot adequately replicate that on a smaller scale.

Have we tried? It's a simple question. I think we can get a reasonable scientific "proof of principle" model that's every bit as valid as the current forecasting models.

The rest of your argument is valid, but is contingent upon a lot of supposition that (1) these measurements are accurate, (2) that we actually knew with relative certainty what the temperatures were when those phenomenological findings occurred, (3) that they accurately reflect climatologic conditions at the time the CO2 layers were stored, and (4) that they are relevant.

Personally, I see no clear evidence that solar is playing a "minor" role. That, to me, seems to be pure opinion, and since I last publicly commented on this subject I've done a lot of homework.

-Dr. Imago

P.S. At the time of this post, it is roughly 11 (47%) yes, to 10 (43%) no, to 2 (9%) "need more info". While this poll in and of itself is hardly scientific, clearly opinions vary widely on the subject.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Man made global warming is a scam to tax.

[Earthborn]

What those types of articles never seem to point out is the relevant fact (they do actually loiter on irrelevance quite nicely) which is the approximate CO2 content of the atmosphere WHEN THE FOSSIL FUELS RUN OUT.

Hint: It ain't nothing to worry about.I love to see your maths that it is nothing to worry about. (Hint: We still have hundreds of years of known reserves for coal, previously unreachable or undiscovered reserves oil and gas are opened every year... I don't see how converting all that carbon deposited during thousands of millions of years into atmospheric CO2 is not going to be something to worry about.)

[Hindmost]

I have been trying to follow the global warming science for about eight years now. Withing the last two years, I have shifted to the AGW camp. The overall data is too compeling to ignore and just say it is not a problem.

The process of sequestering fossil fuels took millions of years. In the last 150 years, we have burned a significant portion of those fuels and released carbon dioxide. (I am curious what percentage of the total fossil fuels have been burned already) It seems that such a short term release would have to have some effect on climate. With other atmospheric factors such as water vapor and aerosols, it is still difficult to determine the ultimate outcome, but the trends look bad.

Hopefully it won't greatly affect these guys...

http://www.ecology.com/dr-jacks-natural-world/most-important-organism/index.html

glenn

[Corsair 115]

Man made global warming is a scam to tax.Enacted by who? Administered by who? Collected by who?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Enacted by who? Administered by who? Collected by who?

Various governments.



I can't wait for the breathing tax.;) (you know humans expel CO2)

[Pixel42]

The question, really, is whether the CO2 follows the temperature or visa-versa
Surely it's both. CO2 is both a cause of, and a consequence of, global warming. Previous warmings have been initiated by many things - variations in the earth's orbit, the drifting of continents away from the poles etc etc - and that warming has then led (after a few centuries) to CO2 being released from the oceans and permafrost and a further warming. This current warming seems to have been primarily initiated by the greenhouse gases we have pumped into the atmosphere but it too, after a century or two, will lead to further warming as the oceans and permafrost yield up their CO2.

[a_unique_person]

Various governments.



I can't wait for the breathing tax.;) (you know humans expel CO2)

:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Surely it's both. CO2 is both a cause of, and a consequence of, global warming. Previous warmings have been initiated by many things - variations in the earth's orbit, the drifting of continents away from the poles etc etc - and that warming has then led (after a few centuries) to CO2 being released from the oceans and permafrost and a further warming. This current warming seems to have been primarily initiated by the greenhouse gases we have pumped into the atmosphere but it too, after a century or two, will lead to further warming as the oceans and permafrost yield up their CO2.

yep

[Bluefire]

I voted "No", but what I actually mean is:

The climate is always changing, and has always changed, which is natural. By the science it seems humans can affect it to a small amount (the couple of tenths of a degree that is a direct effect of incrased Co2 is rather uncontroversial.)

What I say "no" to is the "doomsday" scenarios. Eg. I don't believe
1. That humans are facilitating a "runaway" global warming
2. That an increase in temperature spells doom and gloom for the world.

I'm sure there will be both warmer and colder periods of time in the coming thousands of years. Hopefully we will not handicap our technical development and industry with the likes of kyoto-protocols, so when the really big temperature changes _really_ comes (probably naturally) we will have the ability to adapt to it reasonably well.

[Lonewulf]

I can't wait for the breathing tax.;) (you know humans expel CO2)

Not a bad idea.

For every human that breathes, we plant something that takes on CO2 and expels oxygen. If they're food crops, all the better.

[a_unique_person]

I voted "No", but what I actually mean is:

The climate is always changing, and has always changed, which is natural. By the science it seems humans can affect it to a small amount (the couple of tenths of a degree that is a direct effect of incrased Co2 is rather uncontroversial.)

What I say "no" to is the "doomsday" scenarios. Eg. I don't believe
1. That humans are facilitating a "runaway" global warming
2. That an increase in temperature spells doom and gloom for the world.

I'm sure there will be both warmer and colder periods of time in the coming thousands of years. Hopefully we will not handicap our technical development and industry with the likes of kyoto-protocols, so when the really big temperature changes _really_ comes (probably naturally) we will have the ability to adapt to it reasonably well.

Kyoto won't handicap anything, it will just change things for the better. Just like WWII started with people still using cavalry and biplanes, and finished with ballistic missiles, nukes and jet planes.

[Lonewulf]

Kyoto won't handicap anything, it will just change things for the better. Just like WWII started with people still using cavalry and biplanes, and finished with ballistic missiles, nukes and jet planes.

Is it really a good idea to compare Kyoto to starting WWII? o.O

[Bluefire]

Is it really a good idea to compare Kyoto to starting WWII? o.O

I guess he made my point for me. Comparing Kyoto to a big and destructive war is kinda playing into my hands ;)

I also think that it is an error to think that wars are good for scientific progress. Wars destroy a whole lot, and redirect development towards the efficient killing, at the expense of other developments.

Would making energy more expensive and/or limited in quantity redirect more research towards things that use less energy? I guess it would, but I'm not of the opinion that that is necessarily optimal. And the destructive effect on the industry (and daily life!) that needs much energy would be big.

[a_unique_person]

Is it really a good idea to compare Kyoto to starting WWII? o.O

I'm comparing the advances in technology that are possible if we don't sit around and wait for the market to come along to the party.

[a_unique_person]

I guess he made my point for me. Comparing Kyoto to a big and destructive war is kinda playing into my hands ;)

I also think that it is an error to think that wars are good for scientific progress. Wars destroy a whole lot, and redirect development towards the efficient killing, at the expense of other developments.

Would making energy more expensive and/or limited in quantity redirect more research towards things that use less energy? I guess it would, but I'm not of the opinion that that is necessarily optimal. And the destructive effect on the industry (and daily life!) that needs much energy would be big.

A lot of energy is wasted, the cheapest and most environmentally friendly energy is the energy you never use.

For some reason, the market will more than capable of helping us after global warming has affected the world, but is incapable of heading it off.

[Dr. Imago]

Again, does anyone know if the "proof of principle" experiments have been done, specifically at the concentrations we are talking about?

There are highschool-level experiments out there that are designed to test this. They are aimed at teaching highschool students about the effects of CO2 on global warming precisely how I've described, but they use far higher concentrations of CO2 than exist (or will ever exist) in the atmosphere.

We are talking about nearly negligible levels of change year-to-year in overall concentration of CO2, and I'd like to see if such experiments have been done at the concentrations described. I think an adequate climatologic model can be conducted in the laboratory that would prove the principle of CO2 heat re-radiation and it's actual effect on the surrounding "atmosphere" within the contained, controlled setting.

To me, this seems paramount. Right now all we have is observation and correlation, with subsequent forecasting based on the belief that those observations and correlations are causative. I'm just asking if there has ever been a proof of concept study done.

It also seems to me that we should be able to pretty accurately predict, from the actual known physical properties of CO2 ability to absorb photon energy, reach a higher energy state, then re-radiate that energy at infrared wavelengths as it returns to the ground state, what the magnitude of effect would be on an individual molecular basis. This could then be further extrapolated based on amount of energy put into the system times the total number of molecules exactly how much energy would be directly re-radiated, in the form of heat, from a group of CO2 molecules. This prediction could then be tested in the laboratory as I've described above.

This seems rather simple to me. All it requires is doing some calculations, based on the number of photon strikes a CO2 molecule would encounter during different days with different amounts and periods of sunlight. These experiments and calculations may have been done. Someone here (there are a lot of very intelligent and well-informed people participating on this forum) may know where they are or if they exist. I'm hoping that someone will share this info, if it exists. The current literature, and it's a lot, never seems to describe this in a physical chemistry sense. If it is out there, I'd just like to read it.

Thanks!

-Dr. Imago

[m_huber]

You can check this (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html) from NOAA. Don't know if it's exactly what you're looking for, but they have some projections of what the global conditions would be with 2x and 4x CO2 levels.

I'm not exactly sure what a highschool level project would be. I couldn't find it anywhere, and the only thing I can imagine taking two glass containers, letting one be filled with air and the other with either air + CO2 or pure CO2, then sticking them in the sun for a long time and measuring temperature differences at the end. I'm really not sure that this would give a good impression of how much effect CO2 can have on a global scale.

Keep in mind, an increase in global temperature of less than 1ºC can have a profound impact on the planet.

[Hindmost]

Again, does anyone know if the "proof of principle" experiments have been done, specifically at the concentrations we are talking about?

There are highschool-level experiments out there that are designed to test this. They are aimed at teaching highschool students about the effects of CO2 on global warming precisely how I've described, but they use far higher concentrations of CO2 than exist (or will ever exist) in the atmosphere.

We are talking about nearly negligible levels of change year-to-year in overall concentration of CO2, and I'd like to see if such experiments have been done at the concentrations described. I think an adequate climatologic model can be conducted in the laboratory that would prove the principle of CO2 heat re-radiation and it's actual effect on the surrounding "atmosphere" within the contained, controlled setting.

To me, this seems paramount. Right now all we have is observation and correlation, with subsequent forecasting based on the belief that those observations and correlations are causative. I'm just asking if there has ever been a proof of concept study done.

It also seems to me that we should be able to pretty accurately predict, from the actual known physical properties of CO2 ability to absorb photon energy, reach a higher energy state, then re-radiate that energy at infrared wavelengths as it returns to the ground state, what the magnitude of effect would be on an individual molecular basis. This could then be further extrapolated based on amount of energy put into the system times the total number of molecules exactly how much energy would be directly re-radiated, in the form of heat, from a group of CO2 molecules. This prediction could then be tested in the laboratory as I've described above.

This seems rather simple to me. All it requires is doing some calculations, based on the number of photon strikes a CO2 molecule would encounter during different days with different amounts and periods of sunlight. These experiments and calculations may have been done. Someone here (there are a lot of very intelligent and well-informed people participating on this forum) may know where they are or if they exist. I'm hoping that someone will share this info, if it exists. The current literature, and it's a lot, never seems to describe this in a physical chemistry sense. If it is out there, I'd just like to read it.

Thanks!

-Dr. Imago

Let me see if I can help on this one.

The climate models are so complex, the effects of so many parameters must be taken into account simultaneously. Many of the models look at temperature rise with and without an increase of CO2 to see if the models shows an effect on global temps.

The specific greenhouse capability of CO2 is known in detail as far as what wavelengths of infrared radiation absorbed and reradiated. See this link:

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/climate_n2/gases.html

However, once you add in clouds, particulates, other greenhouse gases, along with CO2 and several other factors, the models can be very sensitive to small changes in each. Clouds are particularly difficult to model and the effect from high clouds versus low clouds is different...etc. A large volcanic erruption can change everything and give quite a few years of global cooling before all the particulate precipitate out.

Most models, when taken as a group, indicate that the planet is warming due to burning fossil fuels--no big secret, but again they are all sensitive to small changes.

this link give a bunch of good info. as is condenses many studies into reasonable articles.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/

This gives a short description of the models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

glenn

[Dr. Imago]

With all due respect, can we please stop talking about "models" and the "predictions" and "projections" for a moment. I'm already very well familiar with those aspects of this debate.

I just want to see if anyone knows whether or not it has been specifically studied, in a controlled setting, what CO2 actually does at the concentrations described. I'm not concerned whether or not it is representative of what will happen on a global scale. I'm not concerned with the speculations about increasing amounts of CO2 efflux over the ensuing decades, for the moment. I'm concerned about what the physical properties, if you will, of one gas in a mixed, controlled microenvironment that controls for all other variables. I just want to know if these experiments have been done and what the results are.

It seems the bulk of the "pro-warming" argument rests on CO2 as a major "forcer" of climate change. Should we not understand precisely what this molecule does at the concentrations described? I'm sure that someone has done this experiment, and likely published it. I just don't know where. And, an exhaustive search of the Internet via Google has thus far turned up some interesting things, but not what I'm looking for.

In the meantime, here's the link to instructions on how to conduct the highschool experiment (at least one of them):

http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html

-Dr. Imago

[Hindmost]

With all due respect, can we please stop talking about "models" and the "predictions" and "projections" for a moment. I'm already very well familiar with those aspects of this debate.

I just want to see if anyone knows whether or not it has been specifically studied, in a controlled setting, what CO2 actually does at the concentrations described. I'm not concerned whether or not it is representative of what will happen on a global scale. I'm not concerned with the speculations about increasing amounts of CO2 efflux over the ensuing decades, for the moment. I'm concerned about what the physical properties, if you will, of one gas in a mixed, controlled microenvironment that controls for all other variables. I just want to know if these experiments have been done and what the results are.

It seems the bulk of the "pro-warming" argument rests on CO2 as a major "forcer" of climate change. Should we not understand precisely what this molecule does at the concentrations described? I'm sure that someone has done this experiment, and likely published it. I just don't know where. And, an exhaustive search of the Internet via Google has thus far turned up some interesting things, but not what I'm looking for.

In the meantime, here's the link to instructions on how to conduct the highschool experiment (at least one of them):

http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html

-Dr. Imago

That was the purpose of my first link...it showed the wavelengths absorbed etc. If you want more detail, you can just look at the spectrum that CO2 absorbs and scatters...this link gives a description about the absorption of infrared radiation

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It is impossible to discuss AGW from the standpoint of CO2 alone if you ask me...feedback loops are just too important. It kind of like a waterbed...can't push on the thing without something being affected.

glenn

[BobK]

Dr. Imago,

You may be interested in this article. (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf)

On page 32 they give a description of an interesting experiment by a fellow by the name of Wood back in 1909.

It seems an truly controlled setting would be quite difficult to achieve without suppression of convection.

[mhaze]

Again, does anyone know if the "proof of principle" experiments have been done, specifically at the concentrations we are talking about?

There are highschool-level experiments out there that are designed to test this. They are aimed at teaching highschool students about the effects of CO2 on global warming precisely how I've described, but they use far higher concentrations of CO2 than exist (or will ever exist) in the atmosphere.

We are talking about nearly negligible levels of change year-to-year in overall concentration of CO2, and I'd like to see if such experiments have been done at the concentrations described. I think an adequate climatologic model can be conducted in the laboratory that would prove the principle of CO2 heat re-radiation and it's actual effect on the surrounding "atmosphere" within the contained, controlled setting.

To me, this seems paramount. Right now all we have is observation and correlation, with subsequent forecasting based on the belief that those observations and correlations are causative. I'm just asking if there has ever been a proof of concept study done.

It also seems to me that we should be able to pretty accurately predict, from the actual known physical properties of CO2 ability to absorb photon energy, reach a higher energy state, then re-radiate that energy at infrared wavelengths as it returns to the ground state, what the magnitude of effect would be on an individual molecular basis. This could then be further extrapolated based on amount of energy put into the system times the total number of molecules exactly how much energy would be directly re-radiated, in the form of heat, from a group of CO2 molecules. This prediction could then be tested in the laboratory as I've described above.

This seems rather simple to me. All it requires is doing some calculations, based on the number of photon strikes a CO2 molecule would encounter during different days with different amounts and periods of sunlight. These experiments and calculations may have been done. Someone here (there are a lot of very intelligent and well-informed people participating on this forum) may know where they are or if they exist. I'm hoping that someone will share this info, if it exists. The current literature, and it's a lot, never seems to describe this in a physical chemistry sense. If it is out there, I'd just like to read it.

Thanks!

-Dr. Imago

Steve McIntyre (http://www.climateaudit.org/)is looking for an answer to a very similar question.
I always ask critics to provide an exposition of how doubled CO2 leads to 2.5 deg K; nobody seems to be able to answer: Ramanathan’s papers from the 1970s are where I’d start and I’ve been unable to locate any better expositions.
Ramanathan et al 1979

[mhaze]

That was the purpose of my first link...it showed the wavelengths absorbed etc. If you want more detail, you can just look at the spectrum that CO2 absorbs and scatters...this link gives a description about the absorption of infrared radiation

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It is impossible to discuss AGW from the standpoint of CO2 alone if you ask me...feedback loops are just too important. It kind of like a waterbed...can't push on the thing without something being affected.

glenn

But what if the temperature rise in the last century could be adequately explained by natural causes?

Would there then be any reason to such to consider CO2 as the only, or as a major cause?

[Dr. Imago]

That was the purpose of my first link...it showed the wavelengths absorbed etc. If you want more detail, you can just look at the spectrum that CO2 absorbs and scatters...this link gives a description about the absorption of infrared radiation

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It is impossible to discuss AGW from the standpoint of CO2 alone if you ask me...feedback loops are just too important. It kind of like a waterbed...can't push on the thing without something being affected.

glenn

Hey, thanks, Glenn. Sorry I missed this the first time. I remember looking at something similar to that article (I remember a couple of references) sometime back, but it has been updated since. I think the physical chemistry parts explaining the absorption spectrum for the various compounds are good, but words such as "assume", "estimate", and "generally accepted" appear a few too many times in the article for my liking. Overall, it's a good discussion and opinion, and is pretty well-balanced.

Thanks for sharing. But, still not exactly what I'm looking for. :)

-Dr. Imago

[Dr. Imago]

Dr. Imago,

You may be interested in this article. (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf)

On page 32 they give a description of an interesting experiment by a fellow by the name of Wood back in 1909.

It seems an truly controlled setting would be quite difficult to achieve without suppression of convection.

Well, this is (by its title alone) quite a provocative paper. I'm going to have to read through the whole thing when I have a little more time, but thanks for sharing with me.

I did skip to page 32, though, on your suggestion. And, I think that it raises a compelling issue. The difference, I think, in the experiment I'm suggesting is that you have a direct control, namely a separate vessel with regular atmospheric air that is subjected to the same external warming source. In effect, you are only measuring the differences between the two vessels. This would allow for a direct measurement attributable to the one variable that is different between the two vessels, namely the concentration of CO2.

The experiment is quite simple, and it is already described in the highschool experiment I posted earlier. This is used as "proof of principle" to highschool students about the reality of global warming. But, the problem is that in this experiment they are comparing a 100% concentration of CO2 to regular atmospheric air. This is needless to say not a fair comparison, and can mislead kids into believing there is possibly a greater effect than there is. In effect, it is ultimately teaching bad science. I would propose that they structure such an experiment to show the actual differences suggested by the purported "doubling" of atmospheric CO2 content that is supposed to occur over the next unspecified amount of time. That's the data I'd like to see.

Nonetheless, I will read this entire article you sent, Bob, when I get a little more time (first full weekend I've had off in a while, and last unfortunately until the end of January). Thanks for sharing!

-Dr. Imago

[a_unique_person]

Well, this is (by its title alone) quite a provocative paper. I'm going to have to read through the whole thing when I have a little more time, but thanks for sharing with me.

I did skip to page 32, though, on your suggestion. And, I think that it raises a compelling issue. The difference, I think, in the experiment I'm suggesting is that you have a direct control, namely a separate vessel with regular atmospheric air that is subjected to the same external warming source. In effect, you are only measuring the differences between the two vessels. This would allow for a direct measurement attributable to the one variable that is different between the two vessels, namely the concentration of CO2.

The experiment is quite simple, and it is already described in the highschool experiment I posted earlier. This is used as "proof of principle" to highschool students about the reality of global warming. But, the problem is that in this experiment they are comparing a 100% concentration of CO2 to regular atmospheric air. This is needless to say not a fair comparison, and can mislead kids into believing there is possibly a greater effect than there is. In effect, it is ultimately teaching bad science. I would propose that they structure such an experiment to show the actual differences suggested by the purported "doubling" of atmospheric CO2 content that is supposed to occur over the next unspecified amount of time. That's the data I'd like to see.

Nonetheless, I will read this entire article you sent, Bob, when I get a little more time (first full weekend I've had off in a while, and last unfortunately until the end of January). Thanks for sharing!

-Dr. Imago

I can't believe bobk referred you to that paper. It is a travesty of science, and not worthy of the name 'paper', since it spends the first half arguing a point that has never been made, that the 'greenhouse' effect is the same as a real greenhouse. No scientist has ever made that claim, it is purely an analogy made to help the layperson understand what they are talking about, since heat is trapped in the earths atmosphere, just as it is in a greenhouse. The actual mechanisms that trap the heat, however, are quite different.

[a_unique_person]

How the enhanced greenhouse effect works, and why it might be a little difficult to simulate it with at simple laboratory experiment.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Weart once again on the greenhouse effect, this time in his useful role as a historian of science. It should give you a good background on actual experiments that that have been done, and the progress of the science behind CO2 and global warming.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

[Hindmost]

But what if the temperature rise in the last century could be adequately explained by natural causes?

Would there then be any reason to such to consider CO2 as the only, or as a major cause?

Well, the natural causes thing always gets me. I am aware that some climate models indicate that global warming can be explained with natural causes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

The majority seem to indicate that probability of AGW right now. Of course that could change with increased accuracy of the models--which is what I am waiting for. CO2 can't really be considered as the only factor or even the major factor unless all inputs and there associated feedback is completely known. Domestic cows burping and farting could be a major greenhouse gas source.

Now for the natural part...over the past 150 years or so, the planet's population has greatly increased due to technology...not a big revelation. The energy from millions of oil wells and tons of coal mines has been burned during that time to fuel the technology we enjoy and the population increase...etc. There is nothing "natural" about that energy profile and to completely dismiss all that release of CO2 as having no affect on the global climate is not prudent no matter what any models indicate.

I am curious about how much of the total fossil fuel available has already been burned during the past 150 years--but don't know of any data.

glenn

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
But what if the temperature rise in the last century could be adequately explained by natural causes?

Would there then be any reason to such to consider CO2 as the only, or as a major cause?
Well, the natural causes thing always gets me. I am aware that some climate models indicate that global warming can be explained with natural causes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm
The majority seem to indicate that probability of AGW right now. Of course that could change with increased accuracy of the models--which is what I am waiting for.

Even if it was well established that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today, and even if one could show approximate 1500 year cycles of global temperatures resulting in periodic hotter periods, that would not conclusively rule out AGW.

So you need actual atmospheric tests to establish scientifically the measure of the effect of CO2. And if that can't be done (as is claimed) then we have a classic case of an "irrefutable hypothesis".

Unless the "CO2 theory" is proven wrong either in importance or in mechanism. A slew of new scientific studies lean in these directions.

[mhaze]

I can't believe bobk referred you to that paper. It is a travesty of science, and not worthy of the name 'paper', since it spends the first half arguing a point that has never been made, that the 'greenhouse' effect is the same as a real greenhouse. No scientist has ever made that claim, it is purely an analogy made to help the layperson understand what they are talking about, since heat is trapped in the earths atmosphere, just as it is in a greenhouse. The actual mechanisms that trap the heat, however, are quite different.

Perhaps because Gerlich refutes fourteen different versions of the "greenhouse effect" that are used by ill informed AGW true believers, who themselves can't even get the facts right on this central part of their belief set?

Where was that travesty of science?:D

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

The poll stands at 33 agree that we are making the Earth warm and 19 disagree.

So, the Earth is warming.

Isn't that how these polls work?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Well, this is (by its title alone) quite a provocative paper. I'm going to have to read through the whole thing when I have a little more time, but thanks for sharing with me.

I did skip to page 32, though, on your suggestion. And, I think that it raises a compelling issue. The difference, I think, in the experiment I'm suggesting is that you have a direct control, namely a separate vessel with regular atmospheric air that is subjected to the same external warming source. In effect, you are only measuring the differences between the two vessels. This would allow for a direct measurement attributable to the one variable that is different between the two vessels, namely the concentration of CO2.

The experiment is quite simple, and it is already described in the highschool experiment I posted earlier. This is used as "proof of principle" to highschool students about the reality of global warming. But, the problem is that in this experiment they are comparing a 100% concentration of CO2 to regular atmospheric air. This is needless to say not a fair comparison, and can mislead kids into believing there is possibly a greater effect than there is. In effect, it is ultimately teaching bad science. I would propose that they structure such an experiment to show the actual differences suggested by the purported "doubling" of atmospheric CO2 content that is supposed to occur over the next unspecified amount of time. That's the data I'd like to see.

Nonetheless, I will read this entire article you sent, Bob, when I get a little more time (first full weekend I've had off in a while, and last unfortunately until the end of January). Thanks for sharing!

-Dr. Imago


Some more stuff

A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK (http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html))
“We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods (1920-1930 and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005,” the abstract of the study read.
The peer-reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters, found that after a warm 2003 on the southeastern coast of Greenland, “the years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal being well below temperatures reached in the 1930’s and 1940’s.” The study further continued, “Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature average.”
In addition, the Chylek led study explained, “Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990’s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001].”
“To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.” The co-authors of the study were M.K. Dubey of Los Alamos National Laboratory and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada.

Explicitly denies AGW. See, if CO2 doesn't drive climate then NO model is correct.
Another problem for predictions of catastrophic sea level rise due to polar ice melt is Antarctica is not cooperating with the man-made catastrophic global warming models. “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models,” reads the February 15, 2007 press release announcing the findings of David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. (See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions LINK (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php))
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” Bromwich explained. The release explains that Bromwich’s research team found “no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.”

Self explanatory. Models says that AGW is HAPPENING right now. Also gave some predictions that failed.


1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm))

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed study shows that the recent climate changes have no man made components.

2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=38%20))
EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. If CO2 plays no role warming earth, then all AGW models will fail predicting global trends, which is the case (see all the other studies who falsify model outcomes and predictions)



4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875))
EXPLICITLY DENIES validity of agw models. See, if cloud effects are omitted, then the models would have fails and won't predict anything.


5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002234.html)) & (LINK (http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf))

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW. This peer reviewed paper finds causes other than man made CO2 emissions.
8) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,” the two scientists concluded. (LINK (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N3/C1.jsp)) & (LINK (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling))

EXPLICITLY DENIES AGW (read the pdf, they predict a cooling). If there is a cooling in the next years, as those guys predict in this peer rebviewed study, then by definition there is no AGW.

10) A June 29, 2007 critique by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” (LINK (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth)) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: “Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.” (LINK (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1844a))

There is not even a warming anomaly, so no AGW. See, if there are no 20 century anomalies then all models are wrong (again, that's why I posted so many papers that say that the models haven't passed reality check)


A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt: "Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies." [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD)) ]

Reality check for IPCC model NOT PASSED. Is consistent with the paper above and not with IPCC.

Update - September 11, 2007: Antarctic ice GROWS to record levels. Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. < > This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. (LINK (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent)) & (LINK (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high.html)) A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Excerpt: “A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." The research was led by David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. [See: Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions - (LINK (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php)) ]

Reality check for IPCC model NOT PASSED. See above.

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps because Gerlich refutes fourteen different versions of the "greenhouse effect" that are used by ill informed AGW true believers, who themselves can't even get the facts right on this central part of their belief set?

Where was that travesty of science?:D

Because it has nothing to do with the science.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3252537#post3252537)
Perhaps because Gerlich refutes fourteen different versions of the "greenhouse effect" that are used by ill informed AGW true believers, who themselves can't even get the facts right on this central part of their belief set? Where was that travesty of science?:biggrin:


Because it has nothing to do with the science.

Right. Many of the belief patterns of AGW true believers or "Warmers" as we affectionately refer to them are not precisely and accurately based on science, but are based on inaccurate and simplified representations of science. For this reason I appreciate that you recognize and admit that there is a lot of inaccuracy in AGW.

Gerlich, in noting this and clearing up these myths one by one, can of course be claimed to be attacking strawmen. But he has literature references for everyone of them, as I recall, scientific references.....

[a_unique_person]

Right. Many of the belief patterns of AGW true believers or "Warmers" as we affectionately refer to them are not precisely and accurately based on science, but are based on inaccurate and simplified representations of science. For this reason I appreciate that you recognize and admit that there is a lot of inaccuracy in AGW.

Gerlich, in noting this and clearing up these myths one by one, can of course be claimed to be attacking strawmen. But he has literature references for everyone of them, as I recall, scientific references.....

How do you argue with stupid. Find me one piece of science that says the 'greenhouse effect' works using the same heat containment mechanism as an actual greenhouse. Then find me popular references to the 'greehouse effect' as a way of explaining a complex scientific idea. You won't anything for question 1, but plenty for question 2.

[David Rodale]

How do you argue with stupid. Find me one piece of science that says the 'greenhouse effect' works using the same heat containment mechanism as an actual greenhouse. Then find me popular references to the 'greehouse effect' as a way of explaining a complex scientific idea. You won't anything for question 1, but plenty for question 2.

Oops.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
Called 'greenhouse gases' because they serve to hold heat in like the glass walls of a greenhouse

[a_unique_person]

Oops.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

That would be question two. It's called an analogy. :rolleyes:

[David Rodale]

That would be question two. It's called an analogy. :rolleyes:
An analogy?

Are you saying UCAR is teaching junk science, or speaking at a grade school level to make it more understandable? Or are you looking for science talk that says there actually is real glass?
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

Read some more. It appears you should be more careful when taking Schneibster's word for it. However, since you say it is an analogy, then should there be more heat accumulating in the troposphere than at the surface? After all that is what AGW hypothesis claims and UCAR is a principle climate model builder. I'm just asking. Perhaps a glass greenhouse is not the best analogy.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
Called 'greenhouse gases' because they serve to hold heat in like the glass walls of a greenhouse

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/greenhouse.html
Gases within the atmosphere act like glass, trapping the sun's
heat.http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm
Think of the earth as being inside a giant greenhouse. The gases act like a greenhouse’s glass walls -- they keep heat from escaping into space, and the earth stays warm.http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html
Have you ever seen a greenhouse? http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/greenhouse.html
They act like greenhouse glass.

[rockoon]

models models models

hogwash hogwash hogwash

garbage in, garbage out.

[a_unique_person]

An analogy?

Are you saying UCAR is teaching junk science, or speaking at a grade school level to make it more understandable? Or are you looking for science talk that says there actually is real glass?
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

Read some more. It appears you should be more careful when taking Schneibster's word for it. However, since you say it is an analogy, then should there be more heat accumulating in the troposphere than at the surface? After all that is what AGW hypothesis claims and UCAR is a principle climate model builder. I'm just asking. Perhaps a glass greenhouse is not the best analogy.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/greenhouse.html
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/greenhouse.html


And they've got the little balls joined together representing a molecule. Maybe you should write a scientific paper on that one. I'm sure they'd be very grateful to fix up that blooper as well.

[David Rodale]

And they've got the little balls joined together representing a molecule. Maybe you should write a scientific paper on that one. I'm sure they'd be very grateful to fix up that blooper as well.

No, I'm quite confident in the end, real science will prevail in spite of consensus dogma.

The point was AUP in case you didn't notice, the latest observational data is in clear contradiction to AGW hypothesis concerning troposphere warming, which is the analogy of a glass greenhouse used by each one of those examples given. I think you realize this.

Perhaps the peer reviewed paper below will aid programmers in their models whereby limiting one portion of their parameterization to a more realistic estimate with respect to climate sensitivity since now it is based on pre-conceived assumptions. Do you recall which chapter and verse IPCC explains how they arrive at ~2.5C increase in temperature via 2xCO2 and what peer reviewed article referenced? We can all look forward to the next IPCC report to include the many peer reviewed articles published after 2005 (did IPCC include any after 2005 in AR4?) diametrically opposed to the current "consensus". Maybe IPCC will even include the ones ignored this round.

Aren't we all interested in full and open disclosure of scientific evidence? I'm sure you are.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml
Abstract

An analysis of satellite and surface measurements of aerosol optical depth suggests that global average of aerosol optical depth has been recently decreasing at the rate of around 0.0014/a. This decrease is nonuniform with the fastest decrease observed over the United States and Europe. The observed rate of decreasing aerosol optical depth produces the top of the atmosphere radiative forcing that is comparable to forcing due to the current rate of increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Consequently, both increasing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and decreasing loading of atmospheric aerosols are major contributors to the top-of-atmosphere radiative forcing. We find that the climate sensitivity is reduced by at least a factor of 2 when direct and indirect effects of decreasing aerosols are included, compared to the case where the radiative forcing is ascribed only to increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. We find the empirical climate sensitivity to be between 0.29 and 0.48 K/Wm−2 when aerosol direct and indirect radiative forcing is included.
Received 2 April 2007; accepted 10 August 2007; published 13 December 2007.



Hmm, that sounds vaguely similar to Schwartz's calculations. Dr. Roy Spencer will soon be releasing his paper on climate sensitivity, which no doubt will also be of interest.

[a_unique_person]

No, I'm quite confident in the end, real science will prevail in spite of consensus dogma.


For gods sake. It's science. It is quite certain there are parts of it that are 'wrong', in the sense that science is never right, but a progression. But it's not dogma. That's an insult to the scientists working on the issue.

[a_unique_person]

Hmm, that sounds vaguely similar to Schwartz's calculations.

But for entirely different reasons. Typical of the denier crowd. They don't care how it is arrived at, just as long as the answer was what they wanted to hear.

[rockoon]

But for entirely different reasons.

So there is more than one reason?

Do you then deny the conclusions of Schwartz, the methodology of Schwartz, both, or neither?

[a_unique_person]

So there is more than one reason?

Do you then deny the conclusions of Schwartz, the methodology of Schwartz, both, or neither?

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how someone arrives at a lower value for climate sensitivity, apparently, just as long as it's lower than the IPCC value.

[rockoon]

I'm saying that it doesn't matter how someone arrives at a lower value for climate sensitivity, apparently, just as long as it's lower than the IPCC value.

Are you saying that both conclusions and both methodologies are wrong?

Why don't you just say what you mean?

(you are interrested in the science, right?)

[a_unique_person]

It's like that Dire Straights song "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be right"

[rockoon]

It's like that Dire Straights song "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be right"

Are you saying that both conclusions and both methodologies are wrong?

[mhaze]

For gods sake. It's science. It is quite certain there are parts of it that are 'wrong', in the sense that science is never right, but a progression. But it's not dogma. That's an insult to the scientists working on the issue.

Quite interesting to see a progression in which science is moving away from the few who had the consensus dogma view.


The poll stands at 33 agree that we are making the Earth warm and 19 disagree. So, the Earth is warming.

Isn't that how these polls work?

Interesting, but no. Observations and conclusions from them rule.

[a_unique_person]

Quite interesting to see a progression in which science is moving away from the few who had the consensus dogma view.

Amazing. If you bother to actually read the history by the PhD scientist Weart, it was those saying that AGW was a problem who were going against the consensus.

[mhaze]

No, I'm quite confident in the end, real science will prevail in spite of consensus dogma.

The point was AUP in case you didn't notice, the latest observational data is in clear contradiction to AGW hypothesis concerning troposphere warming, which is the analogy of a glass greenhouse used by each one of those examples given. I think you realize this.

Perhaps the peer reviewed paper below will aid programmers in their models whereby limiting one portion of their parameterization to a more realistic estimate with respect to climate sensitivity since now it is based on pre-conceived assumptions.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml


From your link to Chylek 2007.We find the empirical climate sensitivity to be between 0.29 and 0.48 K/Wm−2 when aerosol direct and indirect radiative forcing is included.
"empirical climate sensitivity"-
All feedbacks and forcings included? The change is to this chart's bottom line?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6998)

RealClimate.org, increasingly marginalized.

At what point do they go with correct numbers, abandon the hockey stick defense, and concentrate on subjects that deserve attention, such as the Asian brown cloud?

[Pipirr]

Amazing. If you bother to actually read the history by the PhD scientist Weart, it was those saying that AGW was a problem who were going against the consensus.


Quite so.

I'm reading the book right now: it's a fascinating story. At only 200 pages long it should easily fit in a Christmas stocking, for the AGW-curious in your life.

That's "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer R. Weart.

[mhaze]

Amazing. If you bother to actually read the history by the PhD scientist Weart, it was those saying that AGW was a problem who were going against the consensus.

Reality does tend to be somewhat more amazing than fiction. True historians have an adage, that for an unbiased view of history you must be no closer to the present than fifty years in the past. Apparently Weart hasn't heard that, since he soldiers on to the present day.

Since Weart's work is online, you're welcome to post sections of it for people on JREF to review. I think we've recently already debunked numerous of Weart's premises and conclusions, including the hockey stick, climate sensitivity, water vapor effects.

Anything else in Weart that you'd like to present?

[a_unique_person]

Reality does tend to be somewhat more amazing than fiction. True historians have an adage, that for an unbiased view of history you must be no closer to the present than fifty years in the past. Apparently Weart hasn't heard that, since he soldiers on to the present day.

Since Weart's work is online, you're welcome to post sections of it for people on JREF to review. I think we've recently already debunked numerous of Weart's premises and conclusions, including the hockey stick, climate sensitivity, water vapor effects.

Anything else in Weart that you'd like to present?

:rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

To answer the OP:

I stand where the science takes me, and where the scientists take me. So far, I'm convinced that humans have an effect on global warming. I mean, as far as I know, CO2 gas is not light enough to drift outside of the atmosphere like Helium or Hydrogen, and CO2 gas is known to cause a global warming effect. CO2 gas is majorly responsible for the heat trapped on Venus, in spite of also being some distance from the sun. CO2 gas is also planned to terraform Mars, using the greenhouse warming effect to slowly, over the process of tens of thousands of years, to make Mars habitable, and to melt the polar ice caps. (Though it requires other things, like seeding plants that can breathe the CO2 and the like)

I can't really be convinced that all of this is bunk... the effect of CO2 on Venus (which has an atmosphere made up of a majority of CO2 gas), and the proposed use of CO2 on Mars kinda points me to the fact that CO2 has some affect, and the more you have, the more likely it's going to warm the world.

It's pretty much like suggesting that evolution is bunk in my eyes. You have to ignore quite a few data points to think that CO2 gas has little or negligable effect... and you'd have to ignore quite a few data points to think that humans aren't expelling a great deal of it. And the more countries that industrialize, without some major changes to how we deal with things on earth, the more CO2 gas that we'll spew up. Hell, if the U.S. is bad, just think about what would happen if China, still using fossil fuels, decided to really pursue rapid industrialization? Not good, IMO.

Claiming that it's all a conspiracy by all nations to tax people... well, sure. And the Moon Landings were faked, JFK's assassination was by the CIA, and the government is also controlled by reptilian humanoids.




As for the idea of it being a "natural" warming effect... maybe. But c'mon here. How long have humans been around? 10,000 years? And over the past few hundred years, the world has been warming pretty quickly. Does the world really change it's climate significantly every few centuries? That's pretty sporadic for a planet that's been around for billions of years. It's also an interesting coincidence that it happens to be "naturally warming" while simultaneously, industrialization become more and more widespread and concentrated world wide...

[mhaze]

To answer the OP:
I can't really be convinced that all of this is bunk...

Facts are known in some cases to aid in changing opinions.

Does the world really change it's climate significantly every few centuries?

Yes.

It's also an interesting coincidence that it happens to be "naturally warming" while simultaneously, industrialization become more and more widespread and concentrated world wide...

It's also an interesting coincidence that everywhere there is a tombstone there is a dead person. We could live forever, if we just get rid of the tombstones?:)

[Lonewulf]

Yes.

Okay.

So if it changes every few centuries, I.E., if the world is so much hotter than it was in 1000 AD... why are we still here?

That's 10 full centuries. If it significantly changes to the degree it has been, then we should be broiling alive.

It's also an interesting coincidence that everywhere there is a tombstone there is a dead person. We could live forever, if we just get rid of the tombstones?
Actually, it seems more like you're claiming that a tombstone is simply a random rock, and the corpse is some wacky sun waves.

Mhaze, a few questions:

1) Can CO2 be trapped in the atmosphere? Yes or no? If no, how do you explain Venus' atmosphere?

2) Can CO2 cause a greenhouse effect? Yes or no? If no, how do you explain Venus' climate?

3) Are current industrial processes expelling CO2? Yes or no?

[sol invictus]

I was a little surprised at the results of this poll, particularly by how few people said they needed more information. But then I noticed how poorly written the options are:


Do you agree with the validity of current GW/AGW claims?

Yes, they are true and the current state of the science definitively proves this. It is also certain, likely, or probable that humans are contributing to it.

Very confusing wording. Part of the claim of GW science is that human-created greenhouse gases are contributing to the temperature increase and climate change. So the first sentence says science has definitively proven that humans are making a significant contribution to climate change. But the second allows for the possibility that it is merely probable that humans are contributing to GW.

So which is it? Personally I think it's probable but a long way from definitively proven.

[mhaze]

Okay.

So if it changes every few centuries, I.E., if the world is so much hotter than it was in 1000 AD... why are we still here?

That's 10 full centuries. If it significantly changes to the degree it has been, then we should be broiling alive.


Medieval Warm Period?


Mhaze, a few questions:

1) Can CO2 be trapped in the atmosphere? Yes or no? If no, how do you explain Venus' atmosphere?

2) Can CO2 cause a greenhouse effect? Yes or no? If no, how do you explain Venus' climate?

3) Are current industrial processes expelling CO2? Yes or no?1 and 2) Mechanisms on Venus are not comparable to the issues here. Total solar irradiance on Venus is huge compared to Earth. This is really not in question. Not even die hard AGW people compare Venus's climate to Earth's (although I am continually surprised at what they do come up with).

3) CO2 is output from industrial processes. CO2 is a trace gas; concentrations are measured in the parts per million. CO2 may have a very slight effect in warming temperatures on the globe, possibly 0.5C if the total concentration of CO2 was doubled. Recent science does not show it to have a huge, alarming effect (that would be if say a doubling of CO2 resulted in world temperature increase of 3-6C). The correlation of 20th century temperature with 20th century CO2 increase is in the neighborhood of R = 0.22, essentially no correlation at all.

Many excellent scientific articles have recently been posted to these threads at JREF which explain the current peer reviewed, published science in these areas. Answers to your questions are in those articles; if they are boringly technical, there are numerous websites that explain in everyday language what they mean. There are a lot of things that are not known for certain, definitely.

[Slimething]

Hello to the GW scholars! To no one's surprise, I voted that I need more info.

Actually, I don't need more info because what I really meant by that reply is that this climatology thing is a new science and, as such, its practitioners do not have the experience necessary to determine what is natural and what is manmade. I got schooled in my last thread on this topic when I prejudged the IPCC report as supporting the most extreme claims from the AGW camp. In truth, I found the IPCC report to be a fairly balanced document that does NOT support either a presumption that carbon dioxide is causative of climate change or that catastrophic changes will occur therefrom. So, really, if one believes in AGW, it's really up to them to choose which version of the future to believe.

My recommendation is to sit quietly and wait as nature answers. :popcorn1

[Dr. Imago]

My recommendation is to sit quietly and wait as nature answers. :popcorn1

That's the problem. Those convinced of the GW/AGW scenarios do not want to let you do precisely this.

-Dr. Imago

[a_unique_person]

That's the problem. Those convinced of the GW/AGW scenarios do not want to let you do precisely this.

-Dr. Imago

That's because if you want the proof that would be irrefutable, by then it is too late to prevent the problem. :cool: CO2 is the most persistent of the Greenhouse gases, and the 'lag' between CO2 levels and the point where stability is reached is many years.

The models are like a blind man with his white cane. We are trying to look into the future, but the models give us a vague idea of what is to come, but it is better than having no idea and saying we had better just wait.

Have you read the AR4 yet, from the IPCC.

[Slimething]

That's because if you want the proof that would be irrefutable, by then it is too late to prevent the problem. :cool: CO2 is the most persistent of the Greenhouse gases, and the 'lag' between CO2 levels and the point where stability is reached is many years.

The models are like a blind man with his white cane. We are trying to look into the future, but the models give us a vague idea of what is to come, but it is better than having no idea and saying we had better just wait.

No, AUP, what is needed is a workable plan based on a scientific prognosis with measurable progress with decent confidence limits. That is, you're first jumping to the conclusion and then looking for evidence. That's not the way science works. (Religion, yes/ science, no.) You have to go where the evidence takes you. So far, you may have enough evidence to convince you there's a problem but I am different than you and, for me, there are enough questions with enough different answers to make me hesitate to reach the same conclusion. I don't think you're wrong, per se, but I do believe you're being a bit hasty. You must admit that from the back-and-forth of most of these AGW threads with both sides having what I regard as quality (not silly) data, there is too much uncertainty right now to state that a rugged conclusion can be drawn.

That brings me to a workable plan. All I've heard from the most vocal AGW propoenents is "reduce CO2 emissions by n% by 20nn" but no plan. This reminds me of the situation when bureaucrats mandate that average automobile emissions should be reduced by 30% in ten years. How that is done is left entirely to automobile makers. Can they do it? Of course. All they have to do is manufacture our car bodies of balsa instead of steel. Net result? Lower emissions and higher traffic fatalities. Is that what was really intended? I doubt it but that's what you get without a well thought-out plan, which we lack.

And, don't pooh-pooh the value of accurate, validated models. As I said above, we need something to measure progress or we won't know if what we're doing is tapping our canes in the dark, without canes. Given a number of choices on cutting down CO2 emissions, or any other remedy one could choose, how do you propose to choose without a model to tell which is the most effective choice?

So, right now, we are not prepared to do anything intelligently. We can scare each other into doing something. Something that may help or not or even harm. Needlessly. So, tell me I have to reduce my emissions by 30% by 2020. I'll just laugh at you until you tell me how to do it with minimal inconvenience and a tangible benefit. That's how it always works. Flying jets to small resort islands and telling everyone that we're all gonna die due to AGW is counterproductive.


Have you read the AR4 yet, from the IPCC.

As I wrote in my first post in this thread, I did read a few chapters. The one that made the biggest impression on me was the one about the expected increase in ocean volume because I did not believe what some were saying about meters of water with thermal expansion accounting for half of it. Remember?

When I was finally shamed into reading the IPCC chapter on the topic, I found that I had pretty much been right. The entire ocean will not participate in thermal expansion, only the top 700 m or so. The thermal expansion will be, at worst, a few cm. This will contribute half to a very credible tidal increse of yet another few cm. Yet this 50% contribution is being used by AGW extremists even in the unlikely scenario that tidal encroachment will be measured in meters! I pointed out that this type of alarmism is nothing more than lies. Do you disagree?

[bigred]

Both Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming are real. The question is, how does the former relate to the latter, and what is the scope. The average global temperature has increased by .5 to .75 degrees Celsius over the past century depending on who you ask, so global warming is indeed a real phenomenon.
And based on my admittedly limited knowlege, that is quite an alarming rate. Nothing I suspect will exactly turn the world on its ear in our or a number of lifetimes to come perhaps, but in the bigger picture.....

[mhaze]

With all due respect, can we please stop talking about "models" and the "predictions" and "projections" for a moment. I'm already very well familiar with those aspects of this debate.

I just want to see if anyone knows whether or not it has been specifically studied, in a controlled setting, what CO2 actually does at the concentrations described.

It seems the bulk of the "pro-warming" argument rests on CO2 as a major "forcer" of climate change. Should we not understand precisely what this molecule does at the concentrations described?

-Dr. Imago

And they do not know. Quantum computing might help. 20-30 years off.

[rockoon]

Have you read the AR4 yet, from the IPCC.

Have you read the AR4 reviewer comments yet?

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, Vincent Gray is good for a ROFLMAO.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Slimething http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3264639#post3264639)
My recommendation is to sit quietly and wait as nature answers.


-Dr. Imago

That's the problem. Those convinced of the GW/AGW scenarios do not want to let you do precisely this.-Dr. Imago

Shotgun now, rifle later?

[a_unique_person]

No, AUP, what is needed is a workable plan based on a scientific prognosis with measurable progress with decent confidence limits.



That's exactly what the IPCC has been doing for over ten years now. If you want what's obvious to everyone stage, that's going to happen when it happens. For now the environment has been monitored, probed, and modelled. According to the IPCC, AGW is happening as predicted. The prediction for the future is what has been observed will get to the stage where it becomes a real problem. But by then, it will be too late to do anything to prevent it.



That is, you're first jumping to the conclusion and then looking for evidence. That's not the way science works. (Religion, yes/ science, no.) You have to go where the evidence takes you. So far, you may have enough evidence to convince you there's a problem but I am different than you and, for me, there are enough questions with enough different answers to make me hesitate to reach the same conclusion. I don't think you're wrong, per se, but I do believe you're being a bit hasty. You must admit that from the back-and-forth of most of these AGW threads with both sides having what I regard as quality (not silly) data, there is too much uncertainty right now to state that a rugged conclusion can be drawn.



I'm not being hasty. The word from the IPCC is act now, acting later will be too late. Once the CO2 is up there, it's not going anywhere for a long time.

That brings me to a workable plan. All I've heard from the most vocal AGW propoenents is "reduce CO2 emissions by n% by 20nn" but no plan. This reminds me of the situation when bureaucrats mandate that average automobile emissions should be reduced by 30% in ten years. How that is done is left entirely to automobile makers. Can they do it? Of course. All they have to do is manufacture our car bodies of balsa instead of steel. Net result? Lower emissions and higher traffic fatalities. Is that what was really intended? I doubt it but that's what you get without a well thought-out plan, which we lack.



The Kyoto plan was to reproduce the CFC plan, and leave it to market forces. The market decided to go crying to Congress in the US directly, because some part of it would lose out.


And, don't pooh-pooh the value of accurate, validated models. As I said above, we need something to measure progress or we won't know if what we're doing is tapping our canes in the dark, without canes. Given a number of choices on cutting down CO2 emissions, or any other remedy one could choose, how do you propose to choose without a model to tell which is the most effective choice?
Since the CO2 is the main cause of the warming, I'd pick CO2 as the thing we act on, and which we can act on.


So, right now, we are not prepared to do anything intelligently. We can scare each other into doing something. Something that may help or not or even harm. Needlessly. So, tell me I have to reduce my emissions by 30% by 2020. I'll just laugh at you until you tell me how to do it with minimal inconvenience and a tangible benefit. That's how it always works. Flying jets to small resort islands and telling everyone that we're all gonna die due to AGW is counterproductive.
If the biggest economy in the world would help out at the start, it would make a huge difference, rather than doing everything it can to hinder progress and protect the status quo.





As I wrote in my first post in this thread, I did read a few chapters. The one that made the biggest impression on me was the one about the expected increase in ocean volume because I did not believe what some were saying about meters of water with thermal expansion accounting for half of it. Remember?

When I was finally shamed into reading the IPCC chapter on the topic, I found that I had pretty much been right. The entire ocean will not participate in thermal expansion, only the top 700 m or so. The thermal expansion will be, at worst, a few cm. This will contribute half to a very credible tidal increse of yet another few cm. Yet this 50% contribution is being used by AGW extremists even in the unlikely scenario that tidal encroachment will be measured in meters! I pointed out that this type of alarmism is nothing more than lies. Do you disagree?The IPCC has predicted what it felt was pretty well conclusive, while also telling us what was possible. When you plan for risk, do you just cover what you know will happen, or what could happen? My company backs up it's data every night and places it in secure offsite storage. Will our building ever burn down? I doubt it, but it could.

As it is, the progress of change has suddenly accelerated in recent years, eg, the Arctic ice coverage. The AR4 is already out of date.

[Slimething]

That's exactly what the IPCC has been doing for over ten years now. If you want what's obvious to everyone stage, that's going to happen when it happens. For now the environment has been monitored, probed, and modelled. According to the IPCC, AGW is happening as predicted. The prediction for the future is what has been observed will get to the stage where it becomes a real problem. But by then, it will be too late to do anything to prevent it.

The IPCC has, IIRC, promulgated four separate scenarios and general pathways, not detailed plans. The more agressive plans are not workable as they demand free-trade economies to nationalize high-emission industries so that's a non-starter.

The bolded sentence is not true. AGW is not happening as predicted. First, the A in AGW is still a lively source of discussion among climatologists. Second, you can't claim that predictions are accurate then turn around and admit that you have no validated model. That's a non-sequitur. Warming is happening, of that we can be sure. We're still blind as to what's going to happen if the A in AGW is a fact.

I'm not being hasty. The word from the IPCC is act now, acting later will be too late. Once the CO2 is up there, it's not going anywhere for a long time.

When I said you were hasty, I was referring to your concluding that AGW was indeed correct. Suppose that I this moment became convinced that AGW was indeed occuring. Still, I would not know how to act responsibly without some measurement device to ensure me that:

I was on the right track
Help me choose among the several action plans I have
Make sure the other economies were doing their part
The Kyoto plan was to reproduce the CFC plan, and leave it to market forces. The market decided to go crying to Congress in the US directly, because some part of it would lose out.

What's your point here? If true, isn't this an indication that the Kyoto plan is untenable in free-market economies?


Since the CO2 is the main cause of the warming, I'd pick CO2 as the thing we act on, and which we can act on.


You're being hasty here also. What if you're wrong about CO2? To be fair, if AGW is occuring, I cannot conceive of a different cuasative agent than CO2 but I've been surprised before.

However, you missed my point. What I was saying is that, sure we can monitor atmospheric CO2, but doubt persists that this is a causative agent. If it is not or if it is not the primary agent, you will merely be chasing the wrong kite string. You may wind up harming the planet or humanity more than you are helping it. For that reason, we need to establish that AGW is occuring and, if it is, develop a tool to measure the activity of the causative agent(s) with as little lag time as possible.


If the biggest economy in the world would help out at the start, it would make a huge difference, rather than doing everything it can to hinder progress and protect the status quo.

I have to admit that this type of statement made me wince when I heard it used during the coverage of the latest global meeting. The statement makes no sense and it smacks more of politics than of a need for environmental action.

Let me be specific. Suppose a first-world country demurs from action. Per the above statement, no one does anything. If that's the case, the effort is already doomed. I am no psychic but I can predict right now that the US will not be able to achieve the emission cuts demanded by AGW supporters due to the very nature of its economy and government.

I will go on to categorically predict that, whereas many other industrialized or industrializing nations may ink the accord, they won't honor it. Why? Because you don't have the enforcement tools. Suppose major emitter signs but does not achieve their goal, how would you tell? Climatologists have already told you that the only reliable measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere must be taken on some remote location. THat being the case, how would you differentiate Chinese, US, French, German, Australian CO2? You must admit that signing and not complying would give your country quite an economic advantage over close competitors who sign and comply. Sorry to be so cynical but this is the way governments think. I've heard it often said that the US' achilles heel is that it tries to be fair and admired by other countries whereas other countries could not care less about those two goals.

The IPCC has predicted what it felt was pretty well conclusive, while also telling us what was possible. When you plan for risk, do you just cover what you know will happen, or what could happen? My company backs up it's data every night and places it in secure offsite storage. Will our building ever burn down? I doubt it, but it could.

To manage risk, you must know causative factors. To insure against any possible risk, you take preventive measures such as backing up data. That's a bad analogy, though. How often have you needed to recover backed-up data? The cost of backing up data is not tantamount in scale to what you are asking industrialized nations to do.

As it is, the progress of change has suddenly accelerated in recent years, eg, the Arctic ice coverage. The AR4 is already out of date.

Does that really matter? Will another report make a difference? Yes, the IPCC continues valuable research into climate change and those data must be analyzed and reported but why do we need another over-generalized and murky report about AGW?

[mhaze]

To be fair, if AGW is occuring, I cannot conceive of a different cuasative agent than CO2 but I've been surprised before.


Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.

For these you tax and control poor nations.

CO2....

For this you tax rich nations.

Now, what would you like to tax and control?:D

[a_unique_person]

Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.

For these you tax and control poor nations.

CO2....

For this you tax rich nations.

Now, what would you like to tax and control?:D

Conspiracy theories again? That forum is down the hall, second door on your right.

[Slimething]

Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.

For these you tax and control poor nations.

CO2....

For this you tax rich nations.

Now, what would you like to tax and control?:D

Conspiracy theories again? That forum is down the hall, second door on your right.

Actually, as I'm not as well-read as most of you here, I hadn't though of those other possibilities. So, we have other candidates than CO2? That means that these factors must be tested and modeled. Suddenly, the task is not so simple.

Science rarely is when there's this many variables involved. The scientific method requires not only the probable identification of a cause but also the debunking of other possible causes.

[fsol]

What's your point here? If true, isn't this an indication that the Kyoto plan is untenable in free-market economies?

The Kyoto plan is to use the market to reduce GHG emissions. This, the reasoning goes is the most efficient way of doing this.


I will go on to categorically predict that, whereas many other industrialized or industrializing nations may ink the accord, they won't honor it. Why? Because you don't have the enforcement tools. Suppose major emitter signs but does not achieve their goal, how would you tell? Climatologists have already told you that the only reliable measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere must be taken on some remote location. THat being the case, how would you differentiate Chinese, US, French, German, Australian CO2?

As far as I can tell...

In the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) what they do is this. They define schedule 1 industries. These are the industries that are complelled to enter into the ETS. Each individual installation then has to account for the GHG it emits. You can do this by measuring on site at each installation. Any other way wouldn't work because each installation is set an allocation of allowances (1 allowance = 1 Mt CO2 eq.) and at the end of they year they must hold as enough allowances to cover their emissions. If they emit too much they must buy allowances, if they emit less they can sell their surplus.

If you want to find out if a country has complied with the scheme then the data is all there.

The Market sets the price of allowances, so the number of allowances in the scheme has to be less than projected business as usual emissions. This didn't happen in Phase I and the price jumped about before dropping to the floor as a result. A charitable reading of this is that the installations said "we emit loads and loads so we need a big allowance," and no one really knew any diffrent. A less charitable reading would be that individual member states deliberately set allocations that they knew would be easy to conform to.

Anyway...part of the Phase I process of the ETS was to get this GHG measurement system up and running so that in Phase II (2008 - 2012), when they start to address the Kyoto targets, they have historical data on which to set the new allocation of allowances so that they are scarce enough to make the system work. The European Commision rejected most of the first national allocation plans for Phase II on the basis that the caps weren't tough enough so we wait to see whether it works, and what kind of teeth they have when it comes to forcing compliance.

[a_unique_person]

Actually, as I'm not as well-read as most of you here, I hadn't though of those other possibilities. So, we have other candidates than CO2? That means that these factors must be tested and modeled. Suddenly, the task is not so simple.

Science rarely is when there's this many variables involved. The scientific method requires not only the probable identification of a cause but also the debunking of other possible causes.

Apparently in the IPCC aren't too stupid to consider other factors, despite the claims by people such as Mhaze. :)

The Asiain Brown cloud has been subject to scrutiny, and is repsonsible for increased rainfall in the NW of Australia.

[fsol]

...Any other way wouldn't work because each installation is set an allocation of allowances (1 allowance = 1 Mt CO2 eq.) and at the end of they year they must hold as enough allowances to cover their emissions...

This should be 1 allowance = 1 tonne CO2 eq.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3265478#post3265478)
Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.
For these you tax and control poor nations.
CO2....
For this you tax rich nations.
Now, what would you like to tax and control?:biggrin:

Conspiracy theories again? That forum is down the hall, second door on your right.

Ducking and dodging a wee bit? What was the IPCC's opinion of deforestation?

[Slimething]

As far as I can tell...

In the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) what they do is this. They define schedule 1 industries. These are the industries that are complelled to enter into the ETS. Each individual installation then has to account for the GHG it emits. You can do this by measuring on site at each installation. Any other way wouldn't work because each installation is set an allocation of allowances (1 allowance = 1 Mt CO2 eq.) and at the end of they year they must hold as enough allowances to cover their emissions. If they emit too much they must buy allowances, if they emit less they can sell their surplus.

If you want to find out if a country has complied with the scheme then the data is all there.

The Market sets the price of allowances, so the number of allowances in the scheme has to be less than projected business as usual emissions. This didn't happen in Phase I and the price jumped about before dropping to the floor as a result. A charitable reading of this is that the installations said "we emit loads and loads so we need a big allowance," and no one really knew any diffrent. A less charitable reading would be that individual member states deliberately set allocations that they knew would be easy to conform to.

Anyway...part of the Phase I process of the ETS was to get this GHG measurement system up and running so that in Phase II (2008 - 2012), when they start to address the Kyoto targets, they have historical data on which to set the new allocation of allowances so that they are scarce enough to make the system work. The European Commision rejected most of the first national allocation plans for Phase II on the basis that the caps weren't tough enough so we wait to see whether it works, and what kind of teeth they have when it comes to forcing compliance.

Thanks for running through the efforts of the EU to maintain an effective and fair method of enforcing emissions limits. I've read the occassional article on how well this is going but, as we know, only the bad news makes the front page. As I've written previously, I am very pessimistic over these efforts. They're fine and dandy when the added costs are voluntary but you'll get anything from grumbling to outright fraud once the system is made mandatory.

So, for this too, I sit and watch.

[a_unique_person]

Ducking and dodging a wee bit? What was the IPCC's opinion of deforestation?

The claim is absurd, it deserves no response at all.

[a_unique_person]

Thanks for running through the efforts of the EU to maintain an effective and fair method of enforcing emissions limits. I've read the occassional article on how well this is going but, as we know, only the bad news makes the front page. As I've written previously, I am very pessimistic over these efforts. They're fine and dandy when the added costs are voluntary but you'll get anything from grumbling to outright fraud once the system is made mandatory.

So, for this too, I sit and watch.

There is no sit and watch option.

[Slimething]

There is no sit and watch option.

Heh. :p

[fsol]

Thanks for running through the efforts of the EU to maintain an effective and fair method of enforcing emissions limits. I've read the occassional article on how well this is going but, as we know, only the bad news makes the front page. As I've written previously, I am very pessimistic over these efforts. They're fine and dandy when the added costs are voluntary but you'll get anything from grumbling to outright fraud once the system is made mandatory.

So, for this too, I sit and watch.

The EU ETS has been compulsory since Phase I.

Phase I seems to be a bust as far as I can see. But it's only in Phase II when they are actually meant to be getting their act together. It's a learning process and what they learn from Phase I will go into Phase II.

Like you I wait with interest to see how it pans out.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.
For these you tax and control poor nations.
CO2....
For this you tax rich nations.
Now, what would you like to tax and control?:biggrin:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person
Conspiracy theories again? That forum is down the hall, second door on your right.Originally Posted by mhaze
Ducking and dodging a wee bit? What was the IPCC's opinion of deforestation?
The claim is absurd, it deserves no response at all.
A subject you wish not to discuss. Okay.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.
For these you tax and control poor nations.
CO2....
For this you tax rich nations.
Now, what would you like to tax and control?:biggrin:

Originally Posted by mhaze
Ducking and dodging a wee bit? What was the IPCC's opinion of deforestation?A subject you wish not to discuss. Okay.

Choose not to discuss? Until you come up with any evidence to back up your opinion, such claims are just as nonsensical as the moon landing hoax.

[mhaze]

Choose not to discuss? Until you come up with any evidence to back up your opinion, such claims are just as nonsensical as the moon landing hoax.

What's ridiculous is your assertion.

I simply point out, if one has a choice to tax a big asset base or a small one, a rational person would pick the big one.

[mhaze]

Thanks for running through the efforts of the EU to maintain an effective and fair method of enforcing emissions limits. I've read the occassional article on how well this is going but, as we know, only the bad news makes the front page. As I've written previously, I am very pessimistic over these efforts. They're fine and dandy when the added costs are voluntary but you'll get anything from grumbling to outright fraud once the system is made mandatory.

So, for this too, I sit and watch.

I notice Mexico is a signer to Kyoto.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!

[Slimething]

I notice Mexico is a signer to Kyoto.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!

Quite a few of the Kyoto signatories should be doing what they've pledged, AGW or no. Anyone who's been to Mexico City will attest to the fact that there's a "ceiling" on that city. Reducing CO2 emissions there would be a boon as it would reduce air pollution overall.

Do I think that Mexico will fulfill its obligations under Kyoto? No. Is that the US's fault? No. What does Mexico face as retribution? Nothing.

ETA: I'm not picking on Mexico. I love the place. However, it's government is not used to enacting or enforcing altruistic efforts. Please use it as a stand-in for most countries with similar governance.

[a_unique_person]

What's ridiculous is your assertion.

I simply point out, if one has a choice to tax a big asset base or a small one, a rational person would pick the big one.

So you have no evidence.

[Lonewulf]

So you have no evidence.

Right. Motive != evidence.

That's the same thing on the Moon Landing is a Hoax board. "Well, the government would want to do it because it would fool the commies. Since we have a motive, therefore it must have happened. You stupid idjits, can't you see how common sensical this is?! If it makes sense to us, therefore it must have happened!"

[Slimething]

Right. Motive != evidence.

That's the same thing on the Moon Landing is a Hoax board. "Well, the government would want to do it because it would fool the commies. Since we have a motive, therefore it must have happened. You stupid idjits, can't you see how common sensical this is?! If it makes sense to us, therefore it must have happened!"

Good point. In criminal cases, proving motive is not enough. The state mus also establish means and opportunity to have a viable case. As many times as a bank in my area has been robbed and I would have liked to have more money, I would have been in prison by now.

Still, logic favors the view that, given a choice of two different funds sources, a government would probably choose to tax the larger due to its magnitude and the lower impact on its subscribers. The politics of taxation are complex, though, so the state may go the other way due to strong popular opinion.

[mhaze]

.... logic favors the view that, given a choice of two different funds sources, a government would probably choose to tax the larger due to its magnitude and the lower impact on its subscribers. The politics of taxation are complex, though, so the state may go the other way due to strong popular opinion.

So if you were a taxing agency and could tax Mexico or the US, which would you pick? And how many of the 180 countries in Kyoto are net recievers of cash and benefits, either directly, or indirectly??

[Slimething]

So if you were a taxing agency and could tax Mexico or the US, which would you pick? And how many of the 180 countries in Kyoto are net recievers of cash and benefits, either directly, or indirectly??

Well, the US, of course as it has the higher GDP and, therefore, more value behind its money. Moreover, the politics would favor Mexico as the taxation authority would be criticized for picking on a poor nation. So, Mexico "wins" on two counts here.

The way that the dollar has been floating lately, though, you''d better do it quick!

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.
For these you tax and control poor nations.
CO2....For this you tax rich nations. Now, what would you like to tax and control?:biggrin:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3265502#post3265502)
Conspiracy theories again? That forum is down the hall, second door on your right.

I hadn't though of those other possibilities. So, we have other candidates than CO2? That means that these factors must be tested and modeled. Suddenly, the task is not so simple.

Science rarely is when there's this many variables involved. The scientific method requires not only the probable identification of a cause but also the debunking of other possible causes.

Yesterday and today hold uncertainty regarding whether any global climate change outside of natural variation even exists. As for tomorrow?

[a_unique_person]

Well, the US, of course as it has the higher GDP and, therefore, more value behind its money. Moreover, the politics would favor Mexico as the taxation authority would be criticized for picking on a poor nation. So, Mexico "wins" on two counts here.

The way that the dollar has been floating lately, though, you''d better do it quick!

The system of carbon trading was supposed to ensure a 'market' system was in place, no money would go to the government/s running the scheme, certainly not to the UN. It would just pass around between private companies.

[Slimething]

The system of carbon trading was supposed to ensure a 'market' system was in place, no money would go to the government/s running the scheme, certainly not to the UN. It would just pass around between private companies.

That's what I meant when I posted a while back that carbon-credit trading seems to me like a town surviving by doing each other's laundry. You're going to trust a stock market to self-police? Wow, the financial scandals that brings to mind!

[mhaze]

The system of carbon trading was supposed to ensure a 'market' system was in place, no money would go to the government/s running the scheme, certainly not to the UN. It would just pass around between private companies.

no money would go to the government/s running the scheme

HAHAHAHA!!!

[Lonewulf]

It's hilarious that a lot of this argument over GW/AGW seems to hinge on Kyoto, which is merely a proposed method to solve the problem.

And the whole thing was brought up as a conspiracy; that the same people that work "behind the scenes" in their dark and smoke-filled rooms planning on how to dupe saps into believe that global warming is a result of CO2, are the same ones that get all the sweet sweet cash.

So... has the evidence been presented yet, or have I missed it?

[rockoon]

And the whole thing was brought up as a conspiracy;

The conspiracy theory is that all the scientists and researches that present evidence contrary to the AGW theory are infact secretely funded by oil companies.

[a_unique_person]

no money would go to the government/s running the scheme

HAHAHAHA!!!

Perhaps you could point out where carbon trading on the free market is designed to put money in the pockets of the governments and IPCC? I have actually heard free market economists want a tax rather than an a trading scheme, if there has to be a way to manage CO2 production. They feel a tax would be much more efficient.

[a_unique_person]

The conspiracy theory is that all the scientists and researches that present evidence contrary to the AGW theory are infact secretely funded by oil companies.

No-one has ever claimed that, although the likes of Morano, Michaels and Singer are highly suspect. Singer has been happy to shill for the tobacco companies in the past.

[David Rodale]

No-one has ever claimed that, although the likes of Morano, Michaels and Singer are highly suspect. Singer has been happy to shill for the tobacco companies in the past.

You just did.

[rockoon]

No-one has ever claimed that, although the likes of Morano, Michaels and Singer are highly suspect. Singer has been happy to shill for the tobacco companies in the past.

Oh I bet you meant "highly suspect" of something other than a conspiracy.

[mhaze]

Perhaps you could point out where carbon trading on the free market is designed to put money in the pockets of the governments and IPCC? I have actually heard free market economists want a tax rather than an a trading scheme, if there has to be a way to manage CO2 production. They feel a tax would be much more efficient.

Public power utilities are owned by government.

Under Kyoto, utility prices go up.

Government makes money from Kyoto.

[Lonewulf]

The conspiracy theory is that all the scientists and researches that present evidence contrary to the AGW theory are infact secretely funded by oil companies.

Tu Quoque much?

[a_unique_person]

You just did.

No one has ever claimed they all are, as was stated. That some are suspect because they have shown they are 'guns for hire', is true, and I have named a few. People like Lindzen, Christy and others, who knows? There is no evidence they do it for those reasons.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person
Perhaps you could point out where carbon trading on the free market is designed to put money in the pockets of the governments and IPCC? I have actually heard free market economists want a tax rather than an a trading scheme, if there has to be a way to manage CO2 production. They feel a tax would be much more efficient.
Public power utilities are owned by government.
Under Kyoto, utility prices go up.
Government makes money from Kyoto.
Public power utilities are owned by government.
Under Kyoto, utility prices go up.
Government makes money from Kyoto.

Let's put to rest the complete lie that governments will not/do not profit from Kyoto.

[David Rodale]

No one has ever claimed they all are, as was stated. That some are suspect because they have shown they are 'guns for hire', is true, and I have named a few. People like Lindzen, Christy and others, who knows? There is no evidence they do it for those reasons.

No one has ever claimed they all areWhat exactly are you suspecting (accusing) them of? Being witches? Communists?

BTW, in your view what qualifies an individual of having authority to speak on issues of climate science?

Where's that list of 2500 of the world's top scientists at IPCC? Are they all "climatologists"? Is Dr. James Hansen a "climatologist"? Michael Mann?

Did you ever figure out if the atmosphere acts like a glass greenhouse or if there's actually real glass surrounding the earth?

P.S. Why hasn't the earth continued to warm?

[rockoon]

Tu Quoque much?

I did not address AUP's accusation, but instead made one of my own. That in itself prevents Tu Quoque.

You know what a Red Herring is, right? Guess not.

[Dr. Imago]

P.S. Why hasn't the earth continued to warm?

There, ladies and gentleman, is the rub. And, that is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one that needs to be answered, if the CO2 effect is indeed a real one.

No one has yet shown me the results of a "proof of concept" experiment, but just speculation, extrapolation, and interpolation based on past observation. And, after you get subjected to this particular methodology enough in medical science (with what are felt at the time of particular publication to be "undeniable facts" and are ultimately later to shown to be bunkum), you are compelled to question it when you see it in other disciplines as well.

-Dr. Imago

[a_unique_person]

Let's put to rest the complete lie that governments will not/do not profit from Kyoto.

ROFL. You can be amusing at times.

[Lonewulf]

I did not address AUP's accusation, but instead made one of my own. That in itself prevents Tu Quoque.

You know what a Red Herring is, right? Guess not.

Except that you committed one?

But flaunt the fact that you used a logical fallacy. I really don't care.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I was hoping to see facts and data, but instead I just see ego and stupidity. Compare your e-penis sizes for all I care.

[a_unique_person]

There, ladies and gentleman, is the rub. And, that is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one that needs to be answered, if the CO2 effect is indeed a real one.

No one has yet shown me the results of a "proof of concept" experiment, but just speculation, extrapolation, and interpolation based on past observation. And, after you get subjected to this particular methodology enough in medical science (with what are felt at the time of particular publication to be "undeniable facts" and are ultimately later to shown to be bunkum), you are compelled to question it when you see it in other disciplines as well.

-Dr. Imago

Have you considered that what you are demanding is not possible? The simple experiments were done over a hundred years ago.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The actual science these days is complex enough that even a 'simple' explanation leaves me scratching my head.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Demanding a simple experiment to prove the state of science as it stands is like a six year old demanding a pony for christmas. It's not going to happen. However, if you wish to read up on what is happening and why, please read the two links, in full, and the AR4 from the IPCC.

[a_unique_person]

What exactly are you suspecting (accusing) them of? Being witches? Communists?

BTW, in your view what qualifies an individual of having authority to speak on issues of climate science?

Where's that list of 2500 of the world's top scientists at IPCC? Are they all "climatologists"? Is Dr. James Hansen a "climatologist"? Michael Mann?

Did you ever figure out if the atmosphere acts like a glass greenhouse or if there's actually real glass surrounding the earth?

P.S. Why hasn't the earth continued to warm?

Singer, Michaels and Morano are guns for hire.

It has never been claimed the greenhouse effect works like a real greenhouse. It's an analogy, for the layman, to help explain a concept.

[a_unique_person]

Singer

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

[David Rodale]

Singer, Michaels and Morano are guns for hire.

It has never been claimed the greenhouse effect works like a real greenhouse. It's an analogy, for the layman, to help explain a concept.

You still have not made clear what you are "suspecting" (accusing) them of.

What is it exactly?

[mhaze]

No one has yet shown me the results of a "proof of concept" experiment, but just speculation, extrapolation, and interpolation based on past observation. And, after you get subjected to this particular methodology enough in medical science (with what are felt at the time of particular publication to be "undeniable facts" and are ultimately later to shown to be bunkum), you are compelled to question it when you see it in other disciplines as well.

-Dr. Imago

Following are just three of dozens of significant 2007 published, peer reviewed studies refuting AGW. There are to my knowledge no published, peer reviewed rebuttals to these. Warmers try to argue against them with scripts from Realclimate and a few other sites. But these studies have been out long enough for rebuttals to have been published if anyone disagreed with the scientific results.

With no rebuttals, then the work stands solidly on its merits. Blog rhetoric does not count. These conclusions may be tentatively made:
Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.
Natural variability explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century
climate models fail test against real clouds.....reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent1. “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf))

2. New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm))

3. New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875))

[Dr. Imago]

The actual science these days is complex enough that even a 'simple' explanation leaves me scratching my head.

There! You said it! AUP, you apparently just got it!

Now, run with that concept.

How is it possible, now that you've declared that you understand how complex this science is, to put all your eggs in the CO2 basket? If it is so complex, then it can't possibly be all chalked-up to CO2, a "simple explanation" can it?

Putting your "pony" analogy aside, what I'm asking for is simple: put the concentrations of CO2, and the purported physical properties of the substance, to the test at the concentrations we are discussing. This would be demanded in any other scientific investigation of a purported causative agent in any system. It is in medical science when someone makes a claim that could have an impact on human lives (and, I can name numerous examples where people thought one thing based on retrospective analysis and were later proved wrong prospectively). Things clearly are far more complex than they appear at first blush.

All that we have now is a big helping of association that is being interpreted as causation. Nothing more. If you look at what some are purporting this substance, CO2, can do at the concentrations in question, you will begin to understand why some of us are skeptical. We are talking seemingly homeopathic-level concentration increases in the atmosphere over decades.

Something is rotten in Denmark (no offense, Claus).

-Dr. Imago

[varwoche]

Following are just three of dozens of significant 2007 published, peer reviewed studies refuting AGW... I know this isn't fair Mhaze, but I wonder if you'll comment on this unattributed blurb in relation to the first study you cited? It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases.

[Dr. Imago]

Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.
Natural variability explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century
climate models fail test against real clouds.....reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent[/LIST][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]

These are clearly important considerations, mhaze. And, I think as we continue to muddle through our attempts at understanding the observed phenomenon, in light of previous predictions, we will see that this is a far more complex problem rife with confounders that make it difficult to pinpoint one primer "forcer" of climate change. And, that is the main point.

I can't (and any reasonable scientist shouldn't) conclude that we have observed a substantial, longterm, identifiable solitary causative agent in this observed shift in climate at this point in time. My main supposition is that it is premature to recommend broad, sweeping changes to the way we live our lives in order to prove a concept. And, that's just it: it's a concept at this point. We need more rigorous, undeniable proof that this concept is accurate.

My inclination is to surmise that global climate change, if it actually is occurring on a meaningful level, is a multifactorial problem that cannot be boiled down to one factor, and that enacting a seemingly herculean task of reducing the atmospheric levels of one substance in the attempt to change a single factor may not prove to do anything to mitigate that change. It may just add substantial cost, both economic and lifestyle modifying, to no real gain. Therefore, it doesn't seem prudent to impose those changes (i.e., namely what Kyoto is advocating) at this point in time. That's all.

I'm happy to take a "wait and see" approach while the science continues to mature. More observations will be made. More accumulated knowledge of a science that is still in its infancy will grow. I just don't see the point of the alarmism and call to arms, based on observations over the past few years, that many others feel. It will take a lot to convince me otherwise. And, apparently this poll (at the very least) demonstrates to me that a lot of others feel similarly, which is reassuring on some level.

It's okay to be "skeptical" of the science. And, that doesn't mean that it is necesarily wrong. This is part of the process. I marvel at how emotional this discussion has become. It seems that a lot of people have this sense of urgency about this issue that just is not meted out by the data at this time. I guess I hope the antagonistic tenor of this debate will be allayed by reason, open non-heated discourse, and the careful, unbiased, and non-emotional investigation of cooler heads looking at this "problem" from a birdseye view, having the courage to re-evaluate all the possibilities of this perceived phenomenon without any previously held assumptions. And, I realize that might be asking a lot.

-Dr. Imago

[mhaze]

A clinician would well known the meaning of the term "Multifactorial", and the serious risks of betting, on insufficient evidence, on CO2 (one possible causative agent), of something that might or might not even turn out to be a serious ailment.

[hammegk]

The Aussies & Europeans are completely willing to punish the US taxpayer with the bet; i.e. follow the money. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

There! You said it! AUP, you apparently just got it!

Now, run with that concept.

How is it possible, now that you've declared that you understand how complex this science is, to put all your eggs in the CO2 basket? If it is so complex, then it can't possibly be all chalked-up to CO2, a "simple explanation" can it?



When I go to my doctor, and ask why one type of blood pressure pills works better than another, he gives me a simple explanation. I press him for more detail, then after a few minutes of babbling, I take his point. He is the doctor, I am the patient, he studies these things in detail. The blood pressure tablets work.

One of the defining aspects of todays society is specialisation. We are no smarter now than we were 100,000 years ago, yet we can collectively send men to the moon, travel around the world, run massive cities, have a laser beam in every home. This doesn't happen because we are all geniuses, it's because we specialise. Sooner or later, you have to defer to the expert. That's why we have a sophisticated scientific method, it has been proven to, overall, get it right when it comes to collating and 'proving' the advance of scientific knowledge.

What is the risk I take in accepting their expertise? Despite the constant attacks of gloom and doom, we will get a world less reliant on fossil fuels. When you look at how much strife their is around the world due to the politics of fossil fuels, that has to be a good thing.

We will have more efficient transport systems. In cities that are choking on traffic, another good thing.

We will have lower fuel bills due to more efficient buildings.

Just as companies have had massive advances in computer technology due to the upgrades they did to meet the Y2K problem, so will companies benefit from modern technology when they upgrade old plant and equipment.



Putting your "pony" analogy aside, what I'm asking for is simple: put the concentrations of CO2, and the purported physical properties of the substance, to the test at the concentrations we are discussing. This would be demanded in any other scientific investigation of a purported causative agent in any system. It is in medical science when someone makes a claim that could have an impact on human lives (and, I can name numerous examples where people thought one thing based on retrospective analysis and were later proved wrong prospectively). Things clearly are far more complex than they appear at first blush.

Did you read the links? Please do so first. There are a lot of answers to your question there.



All that we have now is a big helping of association that is being interpreted as causation. Nothing more.

No, not at all. Read the links.



If you look at what some are purporting this substance, CO2, can do at the concentrations in question, you will begin to understand why some of us are skeptical. We are talking seemingly homeopathic-level concentration increases in the atmosphere over decades.

Something is rotten in Denmark (no offense, Claus).

-Dr. Imago
That you would phrase a question like that indicates to me that you do not understand the basics of the physics. You will have to do some homework. Read the links I provided.

[a_unique_person]

I know this isn't fair Mhaze, but I wonder if you'll comment on this unattributed blurb in relation to the first study you cited?

It's a worry, and yet one more point a lot of people just don't seem to get.

[mhaze]

Quote:
It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases.

I know this isn't fair Mhaze, but I wonder if you'll comment on this unattributed blurb in relation to the first study you cited?

Life's not fair.

What of the quote from Schwartz? Obviously it is a sidetrack from my main point, but I have no problem with that, or the quote. Let us say hypothetically that another scientist had wished to one up Schwartz (HA! That'd be an accomplishment! Good luck...) and chose to research aerosols and rebut the conclusions of Schwartz regarding climate sensitivity by looking at this issue of aerosols. Guess what? That ain't happened. But he is welcome to go at it.

I believe that it is correct, these mainstream published articles of the last year
not rebutted in the peer reviewed literature
should be tentatively considered validOne might choose to withhold judgment waiting for more studies to confirm these results. That's the conservative approach suggested by Slimething and Dr. Imago. Such a conservative approach might make sense scientifically irregardless of whether one's prior inclination was pro or anti AGW.

Nevertheless, we seem to have significant "anti AGW" peer reviewed studies popping up, and no rebuttals.:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Schwartz was one upped before he even published. He should read up on the enhanced greenhouse effect, which he completely ignored, and positive feedback mechanisms, which he also ignored.

[mhaze]

Schwartz was one upped before he even published. He should read up on the enhanced greenhouse effect, which he completely ignored, and positive feedback mechanisms, which he also ignored.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!

[mhaze]

The Aussies & Europeans are completely willing to punish the US taxpayer with the bet; i.e. follow the money.

You mean if we were to look at the trillions of dollars on the AGW table of proposed "solutions", and look at where that money was going, we might learn something?

I think I'm getting it. You mean some people would wind up with the trillions and some would have lost them? Wow.....:rolleyes:

[Dr. Imago]

That you would phrase a question like that indicates to me that you do not understand the basics of the physics. You will have to do some homework. Read the links I provided.

Huh? Did I ask a question before?

No, I said, essentially, I asserted that we are talking miniscule concentrations of a neglible gas that has not been proven, in a controlled setting, to exert the effect that it is purported to exert at the concentrations in discussion. How is that hard to undertstand? Miniscule annual changes. If we are releasing 7 gigatonnes of CO2 each year, it is into a 5,100,000 gigatonne atmosphere. Fart in a windstorm. Literally.

AUP, I am a physician who has, in addition to completing undergraduate and graduate course work in the sciences, has also taken a 4-year graduate-level specialty education in medicine. I've then continued training in anesthesiology, a four-year discipline, through which I'm approximately 5/8th's of the way completed. I am immersed in science on a daily basis, including the intracacies of human physiology, biochemistry, and - yes - the physiology of CO2 as a human metabolic byproduct. I have published peer-reviewed articles, as well as have been a reviewer in book chapter publications. I understand the complexities systems-based science, and I'm frequently amused at how "pop science" (as protrayed by the media) frequently misinterprets and completely gets wrong the basic things I know and use everyday to make my patients lives better.

I'm not going to read your links. If you are going to strive to insult me, at least attempt to do more than a sophomoric job of it.

-Dr. Imago

[a_unique_person]

Huh? Did I ask a question before?

No, I said, essentially, I asserted that we are talking miniscule concentrations of a neglible gas that has not been proven, in a controlled setting, to exert the effect that it is purported to exert at the concentrations in discussion. How is that hard to undertstand? Miniscule annual changes. If we are releasing 7 gigatonnes of CO2 each year, it is into a 5,100,000 gigatonne atmosphere. Fart in a windstorm. Literally.



Did you read the links I provided? Apparently not.



AUP, I am a physician who has, in addition to completing undergraduate and graduate course work in the sciences, has also taken a 4-year graduate-level specialty education in medicine. I've then continued training in anesthesiology, a four-year discipline, through which I'm approximately 5/8th's of the way completed. I am immersed in science on a daily basis, including the intracacies of human physiology, biochemistry, and - yes - the physiology of CO2 as a human metabolic byproduct. I have published peer-reviewed articles, as well as have been a reviewer in book chapter publications. I understand the complexities systems-based science, and I'm frequently amused at how "pop science" (as protrayed by the media) frequently misinterprets and completely gets wrong the basic things I know and use everyday to make my patients lives better.



Then you would understand the importance of many trace elements in the human body, and the ability of trace elements to disrupt our biological mechanisms and kill us. Just because something is present or absent in trace quantities does not mean it is insignificant and can be ignored.

I am also surprised that you ask for something that is absent in many areas of medicine, simple test for a complex issue that proves or disproves it.



I'm not going to read your links. If you are going to strive to insult me, at least attempt to do more than a sophomoric job of it.



You ask for evidence, then when it is presented, you refuse to read it :rolleyes:. One is a history of the discovery of the significance of CO2, the other why there is an enhanced greenhouse effect, both written by scientists. They aren't a newspaper article, or something I cooked up.



-Dr. Imago

[bobdroege7]

These conclusions may be tentatively made:
Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.
Natural variability explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century
climate models fail test against real clouds.....reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]1.


Make them tentatively because conclusion one and conclusion two are mutually exclusive.

In other words either the climate is sensitive to CO2 doubling or its all natural.

It can not be both.

Pick one

[bobdroege7]

Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.


Others publish different values for climate sensitivity, from the journal climate dynamics

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060825-0942-environment-climate.html


Schneider said the study, published in the journal Climate Dynamics, indicated that the outer ranges of likely temperature rises were 1.2-4.3 Celsius if carbon dioxide levels doubled.


It was before Schwarz, so maybe Schwarz is the latest and greatest.

[a_unique_person]

Schwarz has the problem, he has ignored prior research and tried to re-invent the wheel.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
These conclusions may be tentatively made:
Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.
Natural variability explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century
climate models fail test against real clouds.....reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percentMake them tentatively because conclusion one and conclusion two are mutually exclusive. In other words either the climate is sensitive to CO2 doubling or its all natural. It can not be both. Pick one

They are not exclusive because at current rates we would not reach a doubling of CO2 (with CO2 staying in the atmosphere for hundreds of years) until what, 2070?

Schwartz calculates that man's CO2 stays in the air for only 5-15 years. at that rate there could never be a problem.

As Varoche has pointed, Schwartz is concerned and should be that his work might be misconstrued or over generalized. Does a low climate sensitivity mean nations don't need to control pollution, black soot, Asian brown cloud, aerosols?

With respect to #2 Tsonis is saying that the effect of man's CO2 on global temperature is negligibly low.

Schneider said the study, published in the journal Climate Dynamics, indicated that the outer ranges of likely temperature rises were 1.2-4.3 Celsius if carbon dioxide levels doubled. It was before Schwarz, so maybe Schwarz is the latest and greatest.Well, yes.Make them tentatively
I think that's reasonable. But note the three studies, from completely different lines of research, interlock to destroy the IPCC theory of radiative forcing, and thus their primary conclusions about AGW. That is why I think we need to look for the presence or absence of rebuttals at the peer reviewed level. (AUP's opinion doesn't matter any more than mine or yours)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6998)

[a_unique_person]

My bad, re-reading Realclimate on Schwartz,



In short, the global temperature time series clearly does not follow the model adopted in Schwartz's analysis. It's further clear that even if it did, the method is unable to diagnose the right time scale. Add to that the fact that assuming a single time scale for the global climate system contradicts what we know about the response time of the different components of the earth, and it adds up to only one conclusion: Schwartz's estimate of climate sensitivity is unreliable. We see no evidence from this analysis to indicate that climate sensitivity is any different from the best estimates (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/) of sensible research, somewhere within the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2.
A response to the paper, raising these (and other) issues, has already been submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and another response (by a team in Switzerland) is in the works. It's important to note that this is the way science works. An idea is proposed and explored, the results are reported, the methodology is probed and critiqued by others, and their results are reported; in the process, we hope to learn more about how the world really works.


That Schwartz's result is heralded as the death-knell of global warming by denialist blogs and Sen. Inhofe, even before it has been officially published (let alone before the scientific community has responded) says more about the denialist movement than about the sensitivity of earth's climate system. But, that's how politics works

[a_unique_person]

Make them tentatively because conclusion one and conclusion two are mutually exclusive.

Any port in a storm....

[Dr. Imago]

Did you read the links I provided? Apparently not.

I'm already well familiar with the Arrhenius (etc.) arguments. I want a modern "proof of principle" using current, high-fidelity equipment. Why is this so hard to understand?

Then you would understand the importance of many trace elements in the human body, and the ability of trace elements to disrupt our biological mechanisms and kill us. Just because something is present or absent in trace quantities does not mean it is insignificant and can be ignored.

Again, with the continued false analogy with a closed system. Maybe this is the reason why so many people believe the AGW/CO2 arguments are plausible. That camp falsely believes that we're talking about such strict tolerances.

I am also surprised that you ask for something that is absent in many areas of medicine, simple test for a complex issue that proves or disproves it.

Well, you don't understand human research, apparently. For prospective research, there are IRB's and ethics committees and informed consent. When you are proposing something that may have a negative impact on human lives, you have to make sure you've ensured that every contingency is considered and there is a way to stop the study if it is clear that more harm than benefit is occurring.

Having said that, there are numerous examples where retrospective analysis and what was thought to be true was subsequently proven wrong when looked at prospectively in controlled settings. Take the case for the "miracles" of Vitamin E, for example.

You ask for evidence, then when it is presented, you refuse to read it :rolleyes:. One is a history of the discovery of the significance of CO2, the other why there is an enhanced greenhouse effect, both written by scientists. They aren't a newspaper article, or something I cooked up.

Again, I want a "proof of principle" experiment using modern equipment. This is not a hard thing to do. I'm not asking for much.

-Dr. Imago

[mhaze]

Again, I want a "proof of principle" experiment using modern equipment. This is not a hard thing to do. I'm not asking for much.-Dr. Imago

I'd like to see the folks evacuated from the Winslow, Arizona meteor crater, than have large amounts of CO2 pumped into it from downwind, say on a day when the wind is relatively calm.

That could yield some quite interesting results. But note that increasing the local concentration of CO2 over several hundred meters of altitude is a different thing than increasing it's concentration over the entire atmosphere. The differences can be enumerated, but this would still be an actual atmospheric test of CO2's effects.

And for those who compulsively shriek, wouldn't that kill all the varmits, deer, etc that might live in that crater? Answer: Yeah, so what. Just have a no limit hunting season for a week before the gas is dumped...

[mhaze]

My bad, re-reading Realclimate on Schwartz,

Got any peer reviewed rebuttals? Oh, someone has submitted a rebuttal? Was it accepted? We've got some promises and assurances of some published rebuttals?

Gosh, that will help me sleep at night, knowing that vigilant AGW believers are promising to publish rebuttals.

Hmmm.....

Were they accepted for print?

Don't know?

Hmm...

[Schneibster]

Think you've seen terrorism? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Check this out:

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000733/index.html

ETA: Here's an article from the International Herald Tribune on it: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/europe/food.php

Read between the lines: the climate changes in Australia and the Ukraine have affected grain production; farmers are selling out in Australia and moving to Tasmania where water is available. And looking to amortize the investment.

That ain't some hypothetical. That's the real world: people will be starving within the year if that doesn't get fixed. Guess what they're gonna do about it? Same thing they always do; and if they can't put together an army to do it, I guess the Taliban and Al Qaeda showed 'em how to get the bread sliced, didn't they?

If your whole village starved, and someone rescued you and showed you how to get revenge, and told you who to get it against, would you do it? How about if you didn't have any education except what your rescuers taught you, and that included a religion that says that anyone who believes differently than you deserves to be killed, or that their fate is unimportant?

Think about it. The science is all very well, but if this doesn't get fixed soon, there's gonna be the devil to pay and no pitch hot. Not to mention, we got our own problems with apocalyptic religions here in the US, and this is just gonna play right into that scenario, right? And like always, when things get dangerous, people are gonna look for a strong ruler- and that's gonna work out just the same way it always has.

Hope everybody on the "buttheresnoglobalwarming" side likes autocratic theocracies. Because that's where this is all going.

[Darth Rotor]

Think you've seen terrorism? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Check this out:

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000733/index.html

Read between the lines: the climate changes in Australia and the Ukraine have affected grain production; farmers are selling out in Australia and moving to Tasmania where water is available. And looking to amortize the investment.

That ain't some hypothetical. That's the real world: people will be starving within the year if that doesn't get fixed. Guess what they're gonna do about it? Same thing they always do; and if they can't put together an army to do it, I guess the Taliban and Al Qaeda showed 'em how to get the bread sliced, didn't they?

If your whole village starved, and someone rescued you and showed you how to get revenge, and told you who to get it against, would you do it? How about if you didn't have any education except what your rescuers taught you, and that included a religion that says that anyone who believes differently than you deserves to be killed, or that their fate is unimportant?

Think about it. The science is all very well, but if this doesn't get fixed soon, there's gonna be the devil to pay and no pitch hot. Not to mention, we got our own problems with apocalyptic religions here in the US, and this is just gonna play right into that scenario, right? And like always, when things get dangerous, people are gonna look for a strong ruler- and that's gonna work out just the same way it always has.

Hope everybody on the "buttheresnoglobalwarming" side likes autocratic theocracies. Because that's where this is all going.

Here's the deal, as I see it.

Need more information, but I also think "waste not want not" and that the pH change, and its influence on coral, is one of the more significant markers pointing to the problem.

Humans have a profound influence on the environment, in some cases, due to concentrated effort. The Cod fisheries of Europe and North America are a fine example of how that concentrated influence can spin out of control. It took political solutions to counter that, but someone paid the price. Me, in having trouble finding cod, and the Canadian and American cod fishing communities, who can't make a living at it anymore.

Any policy that one tries to implement on a global basis is at risk for political cheating and loophole diving. No, I do not trust for a minute any global environmental rule, when Mexico, our trade partner in NAFTA, faces NO SANCTIONS for how they poison their land in pursuit of profits, for both Mexican and American interests and shareholders.

Therefore, when I see how Kyoto is crafted, as a penalty, or a "you have it good" tax, its political nature overcomes its value.

Carbon trading? Carbon credits?

Who assigns value? Who won't cheat to make a buck on that market? Every other market people participate is filled with cheaters, loophole divers, and chicanery.

My response is to reduce my foot print a bit. That I can do. I do not trust China and India to self stifle growth, and those two nations are The 800 pound gorillas for the next fifty years.

Far to many "Kyoto is the answer" woos are unwilling to admit how politicized any policy formation is. It took strong arming to get the unleaded gas rule applied. It took strong arming to get the harsher envirnomental rules passed in CA for the past 30 years, political strong arming.

Someone pays a price for that.

Schneibster, I agree with you in one respect: like the battles over water rights that led to range wars in the old American West, the scarcity management issue has immense potential for more, not less, war in the next generation. Some observers of the Sudan conflict at the moment point to the land not being able to support the growth in population, and the age old tension between farmers and pastoralists, herders and ranchers.

People will die, and kill, over this thing we call quality of life.

They always have.

Those in the ivory tower seem to me to be unwittingly setting the conditions for more conflict, some of which will be armed, not less.

DR

[Slimething]

Think you've seen terrorism? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Check this out:

*blither..blither*

Hope everybody on the "buttheresnoglobalwarming" side likes autocratic theocracies. Because that's where this is all going.

Like I said, nothing like a calm, analytical, well-reasoned approach to things. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

I'm already well familiar with the Arrhenius (etc.) arguments. I want a modern "proof of principle" using current, high-fidelity equipment. Why is this so hard to understand?



You want a pony, again. Why are you asking people on a forum on the internet? I am an interested amateur. I like to take part in the debate. I do not know much about this topic compared to an expert, and especially not a body of experts. Whenever someone asks for a medical opinion here,the first thing someone will say is "go and see a doctor".

If you really want the answer, go to an expert. I know a climate researcher, and he gave up on telling people on the internet years ago, because they ignore science, and stick with their prejudices, which is a perfectly logical stance to take, since any attempt to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced is a complete waste of time. CO2 burners who committed to doing so are just like the alcoholic who doesn't want to give up, and gets very nasty when you try to convince them they should.



Again, with the continued false analogy with a closed system. Maybe this is the reason why so many people believe the AGW/CO2 arguments are plausible. That camp falsely believes that we're talking about such strict tolerances.



For the umpteenth time, I am just trying to say that a trace element can have a significant effect. Is that too hard to accept?



Well, you don't understand human research, apparently. For prospective research, there are IRB's and ethics committees and informed consent. When you are proposing something that may have a negative impact on human lives, you have to make sure you've ensured that every contingency is considered and there is a way to stop the study if it is clear that more harm than benefit is occurring.



The IPCC puts out information. People demand more research and information. Scientists like those in links I provided put their own time into trying to fill out the gaps. However, that becomes too much information, or there is always some other reason that it is not read. It's biased, it's the commies, it's not peer reviewed, it's too hard to understand, it's not exactly what I was asking for.

There are mountains of highly detailed information in research papers and specialist publications. I suggest you go and read them all.


Having said that, there are numerous examples where retrospective analysis and what was thought to be true was subsequently proven wrong when looked at prospectively in controlled settings. Take the case for the "miracles" of Vitamin E, for example.



Yes, there are many such examples, especially in medical research, where a team or two come up with wrong science. Further research then invalidates those findings. AGW has been heavily researched for over one hundred years now. There are many teams and hundreds of scientists poring over it right now. They still haven't found it to be incorrect. It's as sure as we are sure that smoking is bad for you.




Again, I want a "proof of principle" experiment using modern equipment. This is not a hard thing to do. I'm not asking for much.

-Dr. Imago

Did you read about the enhanced greenhouse effect? I gave you the link a few times. You won't get that in a lab. It involves an atmosphere that is kilometers high, for a start.



The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)





Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation. Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by CO2 in the middle levels of the atmosphere. Its energy transfers into the air itself rather than escaping directly into space. Not only is the air thus warmed, but also some of the energy trapped there is radiated back to the surface, warming it further.





=>CO2 greenhouse (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_0141)
That’s a shorthand way of explaining the greenhouse effect — seeing it from below, from "inside" the atmosphere. Unfortunately, shorthand arguments can be misleading if you push them too far. Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. So they tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail. What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in. While that may sound fairly simple once it is explained, the process is not obvious if you have started by thinking of the atmosphere from below as a single slab. The correct way of thinking eluded neary all scientists for more than a century after Fourier. Physicists learned only gradually how to describe the greenhouse effect. To do so, they had to make detailed calculations of a variety of processes in each layer of the atmosphere. (For more on absorption of infrared by gas molecules, follow the link at right to the essay on Basic Radiation Calculations.)


From the link I provided. You won't get that in a lab.

[mhaze]

Like I said, nothing like a calm, analytical, well-reasoned approach to things. :rolleyes:

Too bad the Santa Barbara blue line got axed.

More GW comedy is needed.

[Ezekiel Crowe]

Having not read through most of the thread, I cannot comment on what's been said, but I'm not about to read through more than four pages of forum posts just to be "up to date" on what everyone's thinking.

But the very issue of whether or not it's happening isn't as important as people tend to think it is. Either it is happening or isn't, and I'm really not sure whether to stand on the right wing or the left wing on the matter. Consider this, then: If radical climate change is happening, and we continue to do nothing about it, what will happen? On the same token, what if we make the effort, discover that we worried for nothing, and ended up with an economic depression that made the 1930s look like a cakewalk?

That is what we need to ask ourselves.

[The Gnomon]

Like I said, nothing like a calm, analytical, well-reasoned approach to things. :rolleyes:
Correct. It's nothing like a "calm, analytical approach." :)
Here's some scenarios:
1. Everybody buys into the CO2 hypothesis, and the world devotes available resources to decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere. (There's no shortage of suggested ideas to do this.)
1.a. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief, and the Earth cools off.
1.a.1 But the Ice caps continue to melt, and the coasts flood; or
1.a.2. And everything goes back to normal, or
1.b Warming continues, and
1.b.1 Nothing happens, or
1.b.2 Attempts to cope with rising water, climate changes, etc. are insufficient, because resources have been depleted in the CO2 reduction effort, and coasts flood, populations starve, governments collapse, and anarchy (image "Road Warrior) reigns.
2. CO2 continues to be ignored, and the levels rise, and
2.1 Nothing happens, or
2.2 The scenarios of 1.b occur, or
2.2 Something else happens
3. Intelligent, thoughtful persons investigate the global warming and make reasoned, experimentally-based determinations as to the best course of action to take, including atmosphere gas adjustment, changes in surface reflectivity, contingency plans for climate change, rainfall distribution, and water level changes. Plans are doable, flexible, and subject to continuous refinement as information, and the consequences of actions taken so far, are used to evaluate and assign priorities and to develop more innovative interventions (and discontinue those found to be ineffective).

One can hope for Sc. 3.:blush: The most likely is Sc. 2. :shocked:

Unquestionably, life will survive. It has survived much worse. Whether we, and/or "civilization" will survive, is another question entirely. :(

[mhaze]

Here's the deal, as I see it.
....the pH change, and its influence on coral, is one of the more significant markers pointing to the problem. DR

I would like to point you to this article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/cience_mag_jumps_on_global_mon.html), which discusses issues with the latest commentary by Donald Kennedy, editor of Science magazine, concerning coral reefs.

Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, has been a bad boy...

[Schneibster]

Here's the deal, as I see it.

Need more information, but I also think "waste not want not" and that the pH change, and its influence on coral, is one of the more significant markers pointing to the problem.

Humans have a profound influence on the environment, in some cases, due to concentrated effort. The Cod fisheries of Europe and North America are a fine example of how that concentrated influence can spin out of control. It took political solutions to counter that, but someone paid the price. Me, in having trouble finding cod, and the Canadian and American cod fishing communities, who can't make a living at it anymore. We disagree on whether more information is needed to start making decisions and taking actions, but we don't disagree in general on whether more information is needed.

It's relatively obvious (unless you ignore the majority (vast majority?) of climate science professionals' professionally stated opinion) that the amount of heat coming in to Earth's surface hasn't changed substantially, the amount of heat going out has decreased, and the amount of heat staying has increased. All three propositions are supported by extensive satellite evidence, and in addition that heat has to go somewhere, and we measure rising temperatures. Ignoring all the nonsense that the woos introduce at the instigation of the real players to cast doubt and delay action by another few months of profits, simple heat balance arguments based on satellite data tell us it's getting warmer, and when we measure it, that's what we find. All the best information we have says it's CO2, and if we reduce CO2, we'll reduce other pollutants that have serious health and environment effects along with CO2. If it turns out it's not CO2 but some other pollutant, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but we won't have hurt anything in the system by decreasing it, and we will have mitigated the impact of whatever that something else might be; we KNOW CO2 is a GWG, so decreasing it can only help it get cooler.

We can and have had major environmental impact; we are currently in the midst of what paleontologists describe as a mass extinction event, and as far as we can tell, it's us. At base, it's because we eat everything we come across if we can; it's more complicated than that, but it starts there. From that standpoint, GW is just one more in a series of catastrophes reaching back a hundred thousand years that we're implicated in causing various ways. A hundred thousand years is a blink of an eye to a paleontologist; the Permian Extinction took ten to fifty times that long, and they call that one the Great Dying.

There's a lot of whining about all the economic impact it will have, but the fact of the matter is, the economic impact of doing something is mostly going to be on the people currently rolling in wealth and can spare it, whereas the impact of doing nothing is going to be on the poorest, who will die in droves. If the rich try to screw up everybody else's lives so they can make another fifty million to add to the ten billion they already have, I predict it's gonna get ugly. You would think anyone could look at what happened in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, or in the US and France in the 18th, and figure how that was gonna go, but the average IQ is, after all, 100, and it doesn't seem to matter how rich you are.

Personally, if we start doing something pretty quick, I think we can save the situation; if we don't, I think we're in deep ****. Since I'm predicting terrorism, and since I'm pretty rich on the scale of most of the Third World, I figure I'm a target, and I ain't gettin' any of that money those *******s are makin' pumpin' all that CO2 out; basically, I get to pay for their greed, as if I wasn't already for health care and oil and the declining price of my property and the relatively ****** job I have to work at because they stole all the money out of the stock market. Gotta keep your eye on which side of the bread the butter's on, ya know? So screw 'em, they've already made enough messes, they got their friggin' money, they should now go piss off and let the rest of us clean up their mess AGAIN. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Don't be lookin' for any favors later on, either, if you ain't helpin'. (Not you personally, Darth.)

Any policy that one tries to implement on a global basis is at risk for political cheating and loophole diving. No, I do not trust for a minute any global environmental rule, when Mexico, our trade partner in NAFTA, faces NO SANCTIONS for how they poison their land in pursuit of profits, for both Mexican and American interests and shareholders.

Therefore, when I see how Kyoto is crafted, as a penalty, or a "you have it good" tax, its political nature overcomes its value.I see it just the opposite way; it's flawed, but it's better than nothing. If people start dying of starvation and terrorism escalates, or wars start over food, which it's looking increasingly like is getting ready to get ramped up, it's going to be a generation or more of the same crap we already had; whatever the latest one is, it'll be "worse than 9/11" or whatever the place and/or date of the detonation of the first terror-built nuclear weapon or whatever awful thing these *******s dream up to do. Being a member of the target class with not just a whole lot of real good options for preventing or even responding to such things other than yelling about it on an Internet forum if I don't exercise my franchise next year has a way of focusing my attention. I suspect a lot of our countrymen think the same. I sure hope so, because the last six years have been a real MCF.

The main point is, DO SOMETHING. Get off the schneid. Stop sitting around playing the same games the anti-evilution and homeopathic "medicine" crowd does. If the character of the games doesn't make it obvious what's really going on, I don't know what else to cite; the evidence is all out there, and the main body of it is available in threads here on this forum, and it's pretty clear. I argued on it until I became convinced that there was no more point than there is in arguing with some idiot who doesn't think the theory of relativity is right, or thinks fossils are all a plot by the Devil and/or a conspiracy involving ten million biologists. So I put 'em on ignore and I turned and walked away.

Is Kyoto the answer? Hell, no. But it's a START, which is better than we've made so far. Think it's not right? Fine, come up with something better. But the alternative is not doing nothing; that's not going to help. We did that for two decades and it's worse, not better. It's not going away on its own. Like I said, lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

Carbon trading? Carbon credits?

Who assigns value? Who won't cheat to make a buck on that market? Every other market people participate is filled with cheaters, loophole divers, and chicanery.

My response is to reduce my foot print a bit. That I can do. I do not trust China and India to self stifle growth, and those two nations are The 800 pound gorillas for the next fifty years.Way too true for my liking. China at least is a signatory to Kyoto, and if they want to keep doing business with the US and Europe, as far as I'm concerned they'd better sign whatever comes along next, and it better have teeth for them, because otherwise my personal boycott of Chinese and Indian products will continue, and I don't think I'm alone (in fact, I know I'm not).

Far to many "Kyoto is the answer" woos are unwilling to admit how politicized any policy formation is. It took strong arming to get the unleaded gas rule applied. It took strong arming to get the harsher envirnomental rules passed in CA for the past 30 years, political strong arming.

Someone pays a price for that.Sure, as long as it's not someone's life. And LA is a better place than it would be with ten million cars without catalytic converters farting out toxic waste into the atmosphere, no? I mean, I'm glad I don't have to live there, but there are people who don't have a choice.

The auto companies fought that tooth and nail, and they still are. Don't think a single damn thing has changed there. The ONLY reason they're making hybrids is because the market demanded it; the current administration sure as hell didn't, nor did their pet congresscritters for a few congresses back. Again, is it perfect? Hell, no. But we got off the schneid, and we got something done.

What I don't get is why it has to be all one way or all the other. Whatever happened to how industry gets things made being a matter of concern? We used to have subsidies for this stuff; you get the carrot, the subsidy, and the stick, the law. Take them both out, and let's get to work. Of course, we'd have a hell of a lot better chance if we hadn't spent every damn nickel on Iraq, but that's water over the dam; supposedly the US is the land of innovation, where the hell is the government? And you and I both know the answer to that question.

I recall a time when the US government was involved in basic research that led to innovations that changed the world. New industries opened up, new technologies burgeoned, everybody made a potful of money, and the future was so bright we all had to wear shades. But the old rich got frozen out of the party, so they took half their money and screwed everything up, and now they're buying everything they can up to prevent it happening again. It's not like they don't have enough; it's that they don't have control over it, so they wanna screw it up for everyone else to prove they're in charge. This is gonna get ugly if it keeps up, and I'm surprised more of them haven't figured that out. The last pack of old rich who screwed things up wound up playing the lead role in le grand guignol called The Terror in France in the 1790s. It can go down that way again, and it will, mark my words, if they don't get some respect for the quarter billion people they're screwing. You can screw some folks for a while without them noticing, but after a while they notice, and then they get mad, and it gets ugly.

Schneibster, I agree with you in one respect: like the battles over water rights that led to range wars in the old American West, the scarcity management issue has immense potential for more, not less, war in the next generation. Some observers of the Sudan conflict at the moment point to the land not being able to support the growth in population, and the age old tension between farmers and pastoralists, herders and ranchers. Precisely. It's an excellent example. Everyone makes it out to be some religious thing or something, but the truth is, the religious stuff is just a good excuse for following their own interests. It usually works that way. Won't be any different in the current case, either, just more widespread, and the tactics will be different. But the underlying reality will be what it always has been when resources are short. Humans are self-justification machines, and religion has always piggy-backed on that.

People will die, and kill, over this thing we call quality of life.

They always have.

Those in the ivory tower seem to me to be unwittingly setting the conditions for more conflict, some of which will be armed, not less.

DRNow that I disagree with; seems to me there's a difference between how many people will discard everything over quality of life if they aren't starving vs. if they are. It's a question of how big the recruiting pool is, you see. And the ones most fearsome are always the ones who have nothing to lose; that hasn't changed. What's changed is the damage they can do, and in two decades, that damage may be more than the Earth can sustain. Have you ever heard the term, mataglap nano? You should look it up and consider its potential as a terror weapon.

[bobdroege7]

I would like to point you to this article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/cience_mag_jumps_on_global_mon.html), which discusses issues with the latest commentary by Donald Kennedy, editor of Science magazine, concerning coral reefs.

Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, has been a bad boy...

Kennedy may be an irresponsible thief, but the author of the article you cited is as AUP would say "a nutter"


It's easy to imagine ways to fix coral reefs. For one thing, we could strip mine them if the ocean level drops, so that the top of the reefs will stay immersed in seawater. Or we can take blocks of the dead part of a reef (which is most of it), and spread them on top of the coral layer cake if the water level rises. We do that kind of thing all the time in dredging rivers and harbors. So we can keep adjust coral reefs to the heigh to sea water if that ever changes.

[mhaze]

Kennedy may be an irresponsible thief, but the author of the article you cited is as AUP would say "a nutter"

But how about the effects of GW/AGW on coral reefs? That is a subject unexplored here. Is it also unsubstantiated, as most or all other "effects" turn out on examination to be?

[bobdroege7]

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php



House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling.




the url gives it away, but who's house do you think this is?

sometimes we need to follow our leaders by doing what they do and not what they say.

[bobdroege7]

But how about the effects of GW/AGW on coral reefs? That is a subject unexplored here. Is it also unsubstantiated, as most or all other "effects" turn out on examination to be?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html

explore away, from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

The study, in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, predicts that isolated reef ecosystems like that around the Seychelles will suffer the most from global warming-caused bleaching events.



peer reviewed enough?

[a_unique_person]

I would like to point you to this article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/cience_mag_jumps_on_global_mon.html), which discusses issues with the latest commentary by Donald Kennedy, editor of Science magazine, concerning coral reefs.

Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, has been a bad boy...

A nice attack article, what has it got to do with science.




But global warming is a popular hypothesis, Dr. Kennedy. It's not established. You remember the difference.



Obviously hasn't read the AR4 yet.

[mhaze]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html

explore away, from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

peer reviewed enough?

No. It's a science news report and highly biased, not a peer reviewed article. Let's explore the bias."Bleaching is a global issue, and it's driven by global warming," Graham said. "So the onus is on all of us, really." "We need to reduce greenhouse gases and take these issues seriously."Now some actual peer reviewed articles. From worldclimatereport.com (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/07/07/corals-and-climate-change/) (longest running climate blog) -
Corals have a symbiotic relationship with certain photosynthetic algae in the genus Symbiodinium. The algae get nutrients from the corals and the corals acquire photosynthetic products from the algae. There are different groups (or clades) of Symbiodinium that vary genetically and that can benefit corals in different ways.

When bleaching occurs, corals essentially reject the Symbiodinium and thus lose their color. One of several potential causes of coral bleaching is high water temperatures. After bleaching occurs, large numbers of corals die. So it may seem that bleaching is not a very good evolutionary strategy.
But some corals manage to survive these bleaching events, which allows them to acquire new Symbiodinium that are potentially better adapted to their new environment....

...Andrew Baker proposed that bleaching may be an excellent strategy employed by corals that sacrifices short-term benefits for longer-term gains. That line of thinking would account for corals surviving for millions of years through much harsher climate changes than those that have been experienced over the last few decades.

Now, two new papers in Science add further evidence that corals must not be as “fragile” as certain senators might hope. Cynthia Lewis and Mary Coffroth of SUNY-Buffalo bleached Caribbean corals and exposed them to certain Symbiodinium genotypes for six weeks. The corals not only re-established symbiotic relationships with the algae, but in some cases they changed algae species, giving the corals a unique opportunity to select symbionts based upon the environmental conditions.

The second Science paper, by Angela Little and two coauthors from Townsville, Australia, looked at changing symbiotic relationships over the lifetime of the corals......

So death is not the corals’ only response to change. The ability of corals to shuffle symbionts is an effective adaptive strategy for dealing with environmental changes, such as changes water temperatures and light levels.... coral bleaching appears to be mass suicide to uninformed senators, it could actually be an excellent adaptive strategy that has allowed the species to survive for millions of years.
References:
Little, A.F., M.J.H. van Oppen, and B.L. Willis, 2004. Flexibility in algal endosymbioses shapes growth in reef corals. Science, 304, 1492–1494.
Lewis, C.L., and M.A. Coffroth, 2004. The acquisition of exogenous algal symbionts by an octocoral after bleaching. Science, 304, 1490–1492.
Baker, A.C., 2001. Reef corals bleach to survive change. Nature, 411, 765 –766.

[mhaze]

Kennedy may be an irresponsible thief, but the author of the article you cited is as AUP would say "a nutter"

Whomever AUP insults should be read. From the writer.Humans are the fastest-learning creatures ever known. In the last hundred years we have gone from choo-choo trains to scramjets. Give us another century, and who knows what we will do? Colonize Mars? Solarize energy? Double our life span? Human history gives lots of grounds for hope, and much less for despair.

It's easy to imagine ways to fix coral reefs. For one thing, we could strip mine them if the ocean level drops, so that the top of the reefs will stay immersed in seawater. Or we can take blocks of the dead part of a reef (which is most of it), and spread them on top of the coral layer cake if the water level rises. We do that kind of thing all the time in dredging rivers and harbors. So we can keep adjust coral reefs to the heigh to sea water if that ever changes.

My real worry is --- will we ever fix politicized science? Because if we allow the search for truth to be so easily twisted by political fads, we may be in really deep doo-doo.

[a_unique_person]

If we are so powerful, why can't we just find an alternative to fossil fuels?

[mhaze]

If we are so powerful, why can't we just find an alternative to fossil fuels?

That is a valid statement only inside the closed minds of radical environmentalists whom refuse to admit the existence of nuclear power.

[bobdroege7]

No. It's a science news report and highly biased, not a peer reviewed article. Let's explore the bias."Bleaching is a global issue, and it's driven by global warming," Graham said. "So the onus is on all of us, really." "We need to reduce greenhouse gases and take these issues seriously."Now some actual peer reviewed articles. From worldclimatereport.com (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/07/07/corals-and-climate-change/) (longest running climate blog) -
Corals have a symbiotic relationship with certain photosynthetic algae in the genus Symbiodinium. The algae get nutrients from the corals and the corals acquire photosynthetic products from the algae. There are different groups (or clades) of Symbiodinium that vary genetically and that can benefit corals in different ways.

When bleaching occurs, corals essentially reject the Symbiodinium and thus lose their color. One of several potential causes of coral bleaching is high water temperatures. After bleaching occurs, large numbers of corals die. So it may seem that bleaching is not a very good evolutionary strategy.
But some corals manage to survive these bleaching events, which allows them to acquire new Symbiodinium that are potentially better adapted to their new environment....

...Andrew Baker proposed that bleaching may be an excellent strategy employed by corals that sacrifices short-term benefits for longer-term gains. That line of thinking would account for corals surviving for millions of years through much harsher climate changes than those that have been experienced over the last few decades.

Now, two new papers in Science add further evidence that corals must not be as “fragile” as certain senators might hope. Cynthia Lewis and Mary Coffroth of SUNY-Buffalo bleached Caribbean corals and exposed them to certain Symbiodinium genotypes for six weeks. The corals not only re-established symbiotic relationships with the algae, but in some cases they changed algae species, giving the corals a unique opportunity to select symbionts based upon the environmental conditions.

The second Science paper, by Angela Little and two coauthors from Townsville, Australia, looked at changing symbiotic relationships over the lifetime of the corals......

So death is not the corals’ only response to change. The ability of corals to shuffle symbionts is an effective adaptive strategy for dealing with environmental changes, such as changes water temperatures and light levels.... coral bleaching appears to be mass suicide to uninformed senators, it could actually be an excellent adaptive strategy that has allowed the species to survive for millions of years.
References:
Little, A.F., M.J.H. van Oppen, and B.L. Willis, 2004. Flexibility in algal endosymbioses shapes growth in reef corals. Science, 304, 1492–1494.
Lewis, C.L., and M.A. Coffroth, 2004. The acquisition of exogenous algal symbionts by an octocoral after bleaching. Science, 304, 1490–1492.
Baker, A.C., 2001. Reef corals bleach to survive change. Nature, 411, 765 –766.

Ah, but it is peer reviewed and here is a link to the NAS artlice

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/22/8425?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=graham&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/2006&tdate=12/31/2006&resourcetype=HWCIT

and how about a link to the two science articles you quoted, you know you are quoting other peoples work without the proper citation as those quotes are not to be found through the worldclimatereport link.

[bobdroege7]

Whomever AUP insults should be read. From the writer.Humans are the fastest-learning creatures ever known. In the last hundred years we have gone from choo-choo trains to scramjets. Give us another century, and who knows what we will do? Colonize Mars? Solarize energy? Double our life span? Human history gives lots of grounds for hope, and much less for despair.

It's easy to imagine ways to fix coral reefs. For one thing, we could strip mine them if the ocean level drops, so that the top of the reefs will stay immersed in seawater. Or we can take blocks of the dead part of a reef (which is most of it), and spread them on top of the coral layer cake if the water level rises. We do that kind of thing all the time in dredging rivers and harbors. So we can keep adjust coral reefs to the heigh to sea water if that ever changes.

My real worry is --- will we ever fix politicized science? Because if we allow the search for truth to be so easily twisted by political fads, we may be in really deep doo-doo.



And you know AUP did not insult this author, right?