Global warming

[mhaze]

Hansen revises and checks the figures, it's patent fraud, McIntyre does it for him, he's a hero. :rolleyes:


Not sure what patent fraud means in oz-talk, but it is accounting fraud according to the GAAP standards here. That's the national standards for accounting that are followed by all public companies.

McIntyre thinks scientists should be accountable for the accuracy of their data according to the GAAP standards. I concur.

[a_unique_person]

Not sure what patent fraud means in oz-talk, but it is accounting fraud according to the GAAP standards here. That's the national standards for accounting that are followed by all public companies.

McIntyre thinks scientists should be accountable for the accuracy of their data according to the GAAP standards. I concur.

I think you misunderstand what McIntyre was saying. He was saying Hansen can't change the measurement system he is using. As far as I can tell, hansen moved from a less accurate system to one that is more accurate. McIntyre was wrong in either case.

[a_unique_person]

Only a gullible warmer could believe "adjusting" temperature data upward continually without justification or explanation is not to be questioned.

The trend is less than the climate models predicted, and it is going down. It won't be long until you folks will be back here trying to convince us that's a result of "global warming" as well. Irrefutable hypotheses are great aren't they?

Let's see. McIntyre continually trawls through Hansen's data, looking for errors. He's a hero. Hansens moves to a more accurate data set, he's a fraud. He can't win, because if he stayed with the old one, he'd be criticised for that too.

Meanwhile, you ignore the validation of Hansen's code by McIntyre. As did McIntyre. It was supposed to reveal all kinds of incompetence, but it didn't. I can't imagine the pressure Hansen is put under by this remorseless and merciless circling of the sharks, who only have the intention of eating him alive.

The troposphere is warming. At that rate, it's on track for the IPCC predictions. The first part is the warming of the troposphere, then the feedback mechanisms, which aren't to do with troposphere warming, take over.

[a_unique_person]

By the way, AUP, you never answered me on this.

I said I was willing to go 0.025 C/decade for AGW superimposed on the natural cycle, with 0.005 C/decade for CO2 "greenhouse effects".

Do you want to agree with that? If not, please look at the chart here and tell me how much for AGW in the last decade, how much for CO2, and how much was from the natural cycle.

Here are some things to mull over. I'll be pointing out some details in them which are quite relevant to the current discussion. Not that I've got all the answers, mind you....just trying to make an effort to ask the right questions.


You don't have to ask me, the IPCC has already worked it out. Read the report.

[a_unique_person]

Nearly all your posts are anecdotal and emotive consisting of scripted responses, news headlines, blogs, opinions, unsubstantiated claims, generalized statements, appeal to Authority etc.

I asked you to read the IPCC report, apparently that's not good enough. :(

[mhaze]

I think you misunderstand what McIntyre was saying. He was saying Hansen can't change the measurement system he is using. As far as I can tell, hansen moved from a less accurate system to one that is more accurate. McIntyre was wrong in either case.

ad wrongado argument.

Wrong and backwards. Hansen was wrong in either case. From the current main page....

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Should NASA climate accountants adhere to GAAP?

There are undoubtedly more Climate Audit readers familiar with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) than at other climate websites, but it’s worth re-stating one of the fundamental GAAP principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAAP): Principle of the permanence of methods: This principle aims at allowing the coherence and comparison of the financial information published by the company.
Now you may say that this is “science” and accounting principles don’t apply. And my response would be that I’d expect GAAP principles to be a minimum standard for the type of climate statistics being carried out by NASA. Even if NASA climate statisticians are unaware of GAAP per se, they should be adhering to the principles. Sharp practice is sharp practice, however it is gussied up.

[a_unique_person]

Which just goes to show why McIntyre is a danger to himself and others. Science is always changing.

The scientific method is what stays the same.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2974142#post2974142)
By the way, AUP, you never answered me on this.

I said I was willing to go 0.025 C/decade for AGW superimposed on the natural cycle, with 0.005 C/decade for CO2 "greenhouse effects".

Do you want to agree with that? If not, please look at the chart here and tell me how much for AGW in the last decade, how much for CO2, and how much was from the natural cycle.

You don't have to ask me, the IPCC has already worked it out. Read the report.

Yes it is an unpleasant question.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387)

This curve fit has a pretty good correlation to

the general temperature rise due to coming out of the Little Ice Age
the known hot period in the 1930s
polar ice cycles of 60-80 years
the cool period from 1940-1970
the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980Climate cycles accounts for all these major events and swings in the data.

The CO2 AGW cycle doesn't.

The CO2 AGW theory only explains the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980. But I've asked here repeatedly if someone could just show a relationship between the CO2 level and the temperature, first with 1850, then 1950, then with the last 30 years. No takers. Why?

Because CO2 does not have a significant relation to temperature as measured. And that's the core premise of the IPCC. They are wrong.

[a_unique_person]

Yes it is an unpleasant question.

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387)

This curve fit has a pretty good correlation to
the general temperature rise due to coming out of the Little Ice Age
the known hot period in the 1930s
polar ice cycles of 60-80 years
the cool period from 1940-1970
the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980Climate cycles accounts for all these major events and swings in the data.

The CO2 AGW cycle doesn't.

The CO2 AGW theory only explains the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980. But I've asked here repeatedly if someone could just show a relationship between the CO2 level and the temperature, first with 1850, then 1950, then with the last 30 years. No takers. Why?

Because CO2 does not have a significant relation to temperature as measured. And that's the core premise of the IPCC. They are wrong.

I keep on thinking if I ignore anything Singer says, you'll forget about him.

The cooling after the 40's was due to pollution. It's already been researched. If you want to confirm it yourself, go to Bangkok. The pollution is so bad the sun is a red orb all day. It cools the city. The pollution drifts down to the some resorts, one of which I spent a few days at. Occasionally the haze would lift, and the temperature would shoot up.

It's got nothing to do with Singer, his cycles, or his support of big tobacco and big oil. Now it's warming again. Hadley is following the climate much more closely than other climate models have been able to, and it's going to start rising again very soon. You tip a drop in the next few years, I'm backing them and it's going to rise.

[mhaze]

I keep on thinking if I ignore anything Singer says, you'll forget about him.

The cooling after the 40's was due to pollution. It's already been researched. If you want to confirm it yourself, go to Bangkok. The pollution is so bad the sun is a red orb all day. It cools the city. The pollution drifts down to the some resorts, one of which I spent a few days at. Occasionally the haze would lift, and the temperature would shoot up.

I gave you your opportunity to pick three annoying references. You declined, so now you get annoyed. Get over it. AGW Believers must be scripted that the cooling period after 1940 was due to pollution for two reasons. otherwise the theory of AGW caused by CO2 has a very inconvenient truth.

Here are the reasons the Mann-Hansen-Gore team scripted response on the 1940-1970 cool period is that it is caused by pollution

we fixed that pollution, fixed that cooling. Look! We can fix stuff.
obviously now we can fix CO2, fix that dangerous accelerated temperature riseYour citing the presence of major pollution today doesn't help a theory that we fixed major global cooling for a thirty year period by eliminating pollution.

[a_unique_person]

I gave you your opportunity to pick three annoying references. You declined, so now you get annoyed. Get over it. AGW Believers must be scripted that the cooling period after 1940 was due to pollution for two reasons. otherwise the theory of AGW caused by CO2 has a very inconvenient truth.

Here are the reasons the Mann-Hansen-Gore team scripted response on the 1940-1970 cool period is that it is caused by pollution
we fixed that pollution, fixed that cooling. Look! We can fix stuff.
obviously now we can fix CO2, fix that dangerous accelerated temperature riseYour citing the presence of major pollution today doesn't help a theory that we fixed major global cooling for a thirty year period by eliminating pollution.

No, Mann-Hansen-Gore had nothing to do with the research into particle pollution that causes cooling. It's a real phenomenon, I have experienced an extreme example myself. It's also the reason why Australia's average rainfall is constant, because it is the reason there is more rainfall in the NorthWest of Australia.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/70s-cooling-again-but-why.html

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2974915#post2974915)
AGW Believers must be scripted that the cooling period after 1940 was due to pollution for two reasons. otherwise the theory of AGW caused by CO2 has a very inconvenient truth.

Here are the reasons the Mann-Hansen-Gore team scripted response on the 1940-1970 cool period is that it is caused by pollution
we fixed that pollution, fixed that cooling. Look! We can fix stuff.
obviously now we can fix CO2, fix that dangerous accelerated temperature riseYour citing the presence of major pollution today doesn't help a theory that we fixed major global cooling for a thirty year period by eliminating pollution.


No, Mann-Hansen-Gore had nothing to do with the research into particle pollution that causes cooling. It's a real phenomenon, I have experienced an extreme example myself. It's also the reason why Australia's average rainfall is constant, because it is the reason there is more rainfall in the NorthWest of Australia.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/70s-cooling-again-but-why.html

Mann-Hansen-Gore stretched the fact that particle pollution causes cooling out until it was said to cause a 30 year period of global cooling that overwhelmed the global warming that was happening at the same time.

Then they had an excuse why 1940-1970 did not fit their model.

Just like they tried to do away with
the Little Ice Age
the Medieval Warming Period
and just like their wish to show 1998 as warmer than the 1930s.All relating to showing "Unprecedented Man Made Global Warming" since the 1980s. Well, yes it was unprecedented, and yes it was man made. By them.

Here is the actual temperature data. The smooth line is a curve fit with pretty good correlation. The prediction is that temperatures will cool off in the coming decade.

No reason for alarm.
No obvious heavy CO2 warming component overlaid on the line, is there?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387)

[David Rodale]

I think you misunderstand what McIntyre was saying. He was saying Hansen can't change the measurement system he is using. As far as I can tell, hansen moved from a less accurate system to one that is more accurate. McIntyre was wrong in either case. Please note there is a difference between accuracy and precision. What McIntyre is saying is science is just as accountable as any business when submitting data for public consumption. The law requires NASA/NOAA et al to abide by such standards of accountability. Hansen has been playing games and breaking the law. That may not sit well with you, but is the truth.
Would you please correct the incorrect information on your webpage. This request is made pursuant to the Data Quality Act.
Yours truly,
Stephen McIntyre


Let's see. McIntyre continually trawls through Hansen's data, looking for errors. He's a hero. Hansens moves to a more accurate data set, he's a fraud. He can't win, because if he stayed with the old one, he'd be criticised for that too.

Meanwhile, you ignore the validation of Hansen's code by McIntyre. As did McIntyre. It was supposed to reveal all kinds of incompetence, but it didn't. I can't imagine the pressure Hansen is put under by this remorseless and merciless circling of the sharks, who only have the intention of eating him alive.

The troposphere is warming. At that rate, it's on track for the IPCC predictions. The first part is the warming of the troposphere, then the feedback mechanisms, which aren't to do with troposphere warming, take over.
Crocodile tears for Dr. Hansen.
As for the comment on troposphere warming, it sounds like you’re rewriting AGW hypothesis which says the troposphere should warm at a faster rate than the surface. Since this is not the case, that hypothesis is rejected. No Unique, if you bothered to look at the satellite data, there is no trend in the troposphere, hence the ‘new and improved’ global warming from Met O (Hadley).


You don't have to ask me, the IPCC has already worked it out. Read the report.
I asked you to read the IPCC report, apparently that's not good enough. :(
Ad nauseam

Which just goes to show why McIntyre is a danger to himself and others. Science is always changing.

The scientific method is what stays the same.
Do you know what full disclosure means? Reproducibility?


I keep on thinking if I ignore anything Singer says, you'll forget about him.

The cooling after the 40's was due to pollution. It's already been researched. If you want to confirm it yourself, go to Bangkok. The pollution is so bad the sun is a red orb all day. It cools the city. The pollution drifts down to the some resorts, one of which I spent a few days at. Occasionally the haze would lift, and the temperature would shoot up.

It's got nothing to do with Singer, his cycles, or his support of big tobacco and big oil. Now it's warming again. Hadley is following the climate much more closely than other climate models have been able to, and it's going to start rising again very soon. You tip a drop in the next few years, I'm backing them and it's going to rise.

More anecdotal evidence and ad hom? Shocking!

Please cite the paper quantifying the global cooling from 1940-1970 as it relates to pollution.

What is Hadley basing it’s predictions on?

You don't have to ask me, the IPCC has already worked it out. Read the report.
I asked you to read the IPCC report, apparently that's not good enough. :(
Ad nauseam



A minor contradiction; surely a oversight or Freudian slip? Review the satellite data and point out the current warming trend. Please clarify, what is and isn't rising/warming:
The troposphere is warming.
and it's going to start rising again very soon. You tip a drop in the next few years, I'm backing them and it's going to rise.
What is causing the current stagnation in temperature rise? Pollution? Volcanoes? What event (per Met O's 'new and improved' model) will cause it to rise again?

[mhaze]

Please cite the paper quantifying the global cooling from 1940-1970 as it relates to pollution.

A minor contradiction; surely a oversight or Freudian slip? Review the satellite data and point out the current warming trend. Please clarify, what is and isn't rising/warming:

What is causing the current stagnation in temperature rise? Pollution? Volcanoes? What event (per Met O's 'new and improved' model) will cause it to rise again?

In partial defense of AUP's position please look at this.

Australian Greenhouse Office. (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/)

The very things that we are disputing the certainty or even likelihood of (AGW) are denied by the government itself. The government there asserts CO2 is bad, yada yada yada. Although there are some skeptics, they are likely much rarer than here in the US - as AUP says from his perspective "they are nutters". Not agreeing with it a bit, just trying to get the context right. There is an active "Ministry of Truth" down under.

Perhaps the next subject should be how the Australian citizens get back all the money they gave to supposedly fix the "greenhouse gas emissions problem", after it is scientifically proven to not be a problem.

Shouldn't all those billions be given back?

We're headed over the top of the curve on this chart, temperatures are stabilizing. If the chart is right, then temperatures will head down.

Safekeeper, the people in Norway should get back the $466 per person that they were forced to cough up for the 2007 startup of higher utility bills that was supposedly to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Don't you want the money back?

Here's the climate cycle - right hand side is marked as to uncertainty.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387)

Here's CO2 - obviously NOT DRIVING temperatures.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc3ec01c7c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8386)

The US has been roundly criticized for not joining Kyoto.

Next we shall be criticized for it being our scientists at NASA and our ex Vice President who hoisted the mistaken, scientifically unproven concept of AGW based on carbon dioxide emissions.

[oponol]

Yes it is an unpleasant question.

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387)

This curve fit has a pretty good correlation to

Curve fitting and correlation don't provide an explaination of cause. "Coming out of the little ice age" is a description of warming, not an explaination for why it warmed. The wave pattern given is far to short to extrapolate it's continuation, and even so even the wave pattern alone does not necessitate that underlying increasing trend.

The CO2 AGW theory only explains the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980. But I've asked here repeatedly if someone could just show a relationship between the CO2 level and the temperature, first with 1850, then 1950, then with the last 30 years. No takers. Why?

Because as you've already said, AGW theory only expects the trend since about 1980.

Because CO2 does not have a significant relation to temperature as measured. And that's the core premise of the IPCC. They are wrong.

The IPCC doesn't claim that co2 has a significant relation to temperature across the entire 20th century. It simply didn't alter enough in the early 20th century to cause appreciable warming back then.

[mhaze]

Curve fitting and correlation don't provide an explaination of cause. "Coming out of the little ice age" is a description of warming, not an explaination for why it warmed. The wave pattern given is far to short to extrapolate it's continuation, and even so even the wave pattern alone does not necessitate that underlying increasing trend.

Because as you've already said, AGW theory only expects the trend since about 1980. The IPCC doesn't claim that co2 has a significant relation to temperature across the entire 20th century. It simply didn't alter enough in the early 20th century to cause appreciable warming back then.

Perhaps this will help. Here is a summary of 135 separate published studies of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere prior to Keeling's work.

Is there some period(s) of years that you can point to and show a mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Beck's study (http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm) goes back to the year 1800 and is the summary of 135 separate published studies and over 90,000 separate tests on atmospheric CO2 concentration with a precision of better than 3%.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f05b27a581d.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8395)

Show some linear or logrithmic, or other relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature. That is essentially what the IPCC argues should be the case.

[a_unique_person]

Mann-Hansen-Gore stretched the fact that particle pollution causes cooling out until it was said to cause a 30 year period of global cooling that overwhelmed the global warming that was happening at the same time.

Then they had an excuse why 1940-1970 did not fit their model.



Mann-Hansen-Gore had nothing to do with the research into particle pollution. Unless you think there is a massive conspiracy going on, in which case you are in the wrong part of the forum. I direct you towards the Truthers in aisle 6.


Just like they tried to do away with
the Little Ice Age
the Medieval Warming Period
and just like their wish to show 1998 as warmer than the 1930s.All relating to showing "Unprecedented Man Made Global Warming" since the 1980s. Well, yes it was unprecedented, and yes it was man made. By them.

Here is the actual temperature data. The smooth line is a curve fit with pretty good correlation. The prediction is that temperatures will cool off in the coming decade.

No reason for alarm.
No obvious heavy CO2 warming component overlaid on the line, is there?


[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387)


You have it curving down, then presumably, it will curve up again. To what? At what rate is the overall trend in your graph?

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps this will help. Here is a summary of 135 separate published studies of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere prior to Keeling's work.

Is there some period(s) of years that you can point to and show a mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Beck's study (http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm) goes back to the year 1800 and is the summary of 135 separate published studies and over 90,000 separate tests on atmospheric CO2 concentration with a precision of better than 3%.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm


[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f05b27a581d.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8395)

Show some linear or logrithmic, or other relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature. That is essentially what the IPCC argues should be the case.

Have you got your beer goggles on? If you look at the ice core samples, leading directly onto the Mauna Loa, the curve is a perfect trend. The so called accurate measurements jump around like a yo-yo, and are clearly so error prone as to be useless. Perhaps you might like to ask Mr McIntyre to do an audit of them?

[a_unique_person]

In partial defense of AUP's position please look at this.

Australian Greenhouse Office. (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/)

The very things that we are disputing the certainty or even likelihood of (AGW) are denied by the government itself. The government there asserts CO2 is bad, yada yada yada. Although there are some skeptics, they are likely much rarer than here in the US - as AUP says from his perspective "they are nutters". Not agreeing with it a bit, just trying to get the context right. There is an active "Ministry of Truth" down under.

No, it's all just 'gesture politics', that is, only meant to settle the people down and let them think something is being done.

This is what they really think.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/18/1189881513935.html



THE Liberal Party has allegedly told its federal and state members to decline invitations to events starring former US vice-president Al Gore.
Since his failed presidential run in 2000, Gore has been an advocate for reducing carbon emissions and tackling climate change, reaching a wide audience through his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
Invitations to the events run by public relations heavy Max Markson were issued to Liberals from the Prime Minister down. Only one accepted, then promptly cancelled.
"There is absolutely an official boycott in place," said Markson, a noted ALP fund-raiser.
"It is a national and state boycott. We had one NSW Liberal MP (respond) and he had to ring back and apologise and say he wasn't allowed to come. In the end the only Liberal Party representative at any event will be former PM Malcolm Fraser, who is turning up in Melbourne on Friday."
Liberal state director Julian Sheezel denied the party had told candidates to stay away.
"There is no credibility in that assertion at all," he said.

[mhaze]

No, it's all just 'gesture politics', that is, only meant to settle the people down and let them think something is being done.

This is what they really think.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/18/1189881513935.html

That is quite interesting. So they have their "Ministry of CO2", but it's sort of a big PR scam? How is that related to Gore, that he would not really be welcomed by politicians?

[mhaze]

Have you got your beer goggles on? If you look at the ice core samples, leading directly onto the Mauna Loa, the curve is a perfect trend. The so called accurate measurements jump around like a yo-yo, and are clearly so error prone as to be useless. Perhaps you might like to ask Mr McIntyre to do an audit of them?

For which reason the Mauna Loa curve and ice core measurements are shown, also, on the graph.

The chemical measurements as stated, had a max error of 3%.

Cherry picking a bit there are you?

[David Rodale]

Have you got your beer goggles on? If you look at the ice core samples, leading directly onto the Mauna Loa, the curve is a perfect trend. The so called accurate measurements jump around like a yo-yo, and are clearly so error prone as to be useless. Perhaps you might like to ask Mr McIntyre to do an audit of them?

No Unique, there isn't a perfect curve leading onto the Mauna Loa. If you'd bother to research the many tens of thousands of CO2 measurements prior to and after Mauna Loa, you'd know the "perfect trend" is bunk. You would also know about the "missing sink".

Aside from that, viewing the chart below, notice the pattern existing from the Mauna Loa measurements? What does it say? Even a wild guess?

Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f107c6ad21e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8410)

This may help:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt

[mhaze]

Have you got your beer goggles on? If you look at the ice core samples, leading directly onto the Mauna Loa, the curve is a perfect trend. The so called accurate measurements jump around like a yo-yo, and are clearly so error prone as to be useless. Perhaps you might like to ask Mr McIntyre to do an audit of them?


Here is another chart from the compilation. An excel spreadsheet is downloadable with all the data, by the way.

Interesting that warmers ignore all the studies of atmospheric CO2 concentration except the two - ice cores and Mauni Lao - that supposedly support their hypothesis of CO2 being the primary driving agent for climate.

You would think, then, warmers could show a simple correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature - using some group of years for temperature and their preferred, cherry picked CO2 data.

I'm still waiting for that.

Thought that maybe the problem was in the data set, that more data would hep. So I got these and contributed them. In the meantime, given the apparent weakness of the CO2 hypothesis, it seems reasonable for me to stay on the skeptical side.;)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f10b288631d.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8411)

[mhaze]

Here is another chart from the compilation. An excel spreadsheet is downloadable with all the data, by the way.;)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f10b288631d.png

A note about the data. Please note that the ice core data provides only one measurement (one ice core???) at the beginning, middle and end of the bell shaped curve centered around 1942.

One measurement trumps hundreds, including those done by two Nobel prize winners?

Only in the world of Gore/IPCC science.

[a_unique_person]

For which reason the Mauna Loa curve and ice core measurements are shown, also, on the graph.

The chemical measurements as stated, had a max error of 3%.

Cherry picking a bit there are you?

The CO2 measuring jumps all over the place, until we start measuring it at Mauna Loa. Then all of a sudden, it doesn't jump all over the place.

[a_unique_person]

A note about the data. Please note that the ice core data provides only one measurement (one ice core???) at the beginning, middle and end of the bell shaped curve centered around 1942.

One measurement trumps hundreds, including those done by two Nobel prize winners?

Only in the world of Gore/IPCC science.

Hundreds of seperate measurements by different people at different times using different equipment at different places under different conditions. One of the attractions of Mauna Lao is that it provides a "well mixed" consistent reading. The dove-tail from ice core to Mauna Loa shows the match up and consistency between the two.

[a_unique_person]

No Unique, there isn't a perfect curve leading onto the Mauna Loa. If you'd bother to research the many tens of thousands of CO2 measurements prior to and after Mauna Loa, you'd know the "perfect trend" is bunk. You would also know about the "missing sink".

Aside from that, viewing the chart below, notice the pattern existing from the Mauna Loa measurements? What does it say? Even a wild guess?

Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f107c6ad21e.jpg

This may help:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt

This may help more.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

[a_unique_person]

Law Dome ice core, antarctica.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif

From Cape Grim Tasmania

http://www.dar.csiro.au/capegrim/image/cg_CO2.png

A shorter record, but it validates Mauna Loa.

[mhaze]

Hundreds of seperate measurements by different people at different times using different equipment at different places under different conditions. One of the attractions of Mauna Lao is that it provides a "well mixed" consistent reading. The dove-tail from ice core to Mauna Loa shows the match up and consistency between the two.

This is a perfect example of cherry picking and data dredging.

Yet with your cherry picked dredges you cannot show that simple correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Not even with my giving you your choice of a subset of the years? 1850 - present, 1950 - present, 1980 - present?

Not even with my providing additional sources - over 135 actual data sets with 90,000 results - which I am also not objecting to your cherry picking and data dredging from?

I do not know what else is humanly possible to do, to help AGW Warmers produce a solid, credible and scientific foundation for the manmade CO2 drives climate change hypothesis.

You can not say I did not try to help.

This is not good for the credibility of the AGW hypothesis that CO2 is the major driver of climate. What can be done to salvage this theory?

[mhaze]

A Congressional Briefing about forecasts of global warming given by Scott Armstrong on Thursday, Sept 13 is available on YouTube (http://tinyurl.com/yw8unx) The briefing was based on the Green & Armstrong paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?" (http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)The global warming paper is the first of what we hope will be many forecasting audits of public policy issues to be presented on the new Special Interest Group page at http://publicpolicyforecasting.com (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://publicpolicyforecasting.com/). (17 September, 2007)

Armstrong's Congressional Briefing video and power point presentation are also available here. (http://ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=375&Itemid=92)
and here is the full text of the paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?". (http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)

Some conclusions.
"We have been unable to find a scientific forecast to support global warming."
"Climate models use models to express their judgements.
The "Seer Sucker" theory proposed 1978 applies to global warming. "No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, seers will find suckers". Tetlock (2005) found support for this theory with an evaluation of 82,000 forecasts over 20 years.

[mhaze]

North Pole 127-314 Global Warming Thread 962-1277

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf) of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?



Online Video and Audio

Global Warming: An Unsettled Science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQH5aa5Q0s)
Television interview (and transcript) 10 minute video (http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/503) of Singer and Avery "Physical evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycles"
the myth of global warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuNxy6i1o0&mode=related&search=)
scare tactics in Incon Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M&mode=related&search=) - laugh - ignore - repeat
traveling global warming show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw)
great global warming swindle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag)
globale warming opportunities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc)
canadians for global warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOcqgnqWG8)
doomsday called off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=)
data from the great global warming swindle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4boaEbtjByU&mode=related&search=)
Glenn Beck w. Durbin (Producer of GGWS) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efe7LzQ36Pk&mode=related&search=)
1958 - Global Warming - It's NOT newly Known (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOcqgnqWG8)
Myron Ebell Discusses Global Cooling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxIqNuQakJg&NR=1)
Newsnight: CO2, they call it life, we call it a greenhouse gas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKUblhXJw8&mode=related&search=)
Freeman Dyson 2of2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk&mode=related&search=) Global Warming / Stratospheric Cooling
1of2 Bogus Climate Models (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU&mode=related&search=)
Global Warming Myth Exposed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKL3Lv_DzfU&mode=related&search=): The Video Al Gore Fears Most
MIchael Crichton on Global Warming Part 1 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noec6Xkx73k)
State of Fear: Science or Politics with Michael Crichton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZTXeJWApwY&mode=related&search=)
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU&mode=related&search=)
Atlantic ocean temperatures. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857805.jpg http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-058

CO2 - major driver of climate change?
Beck's study (http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm) goes back to the year 1800 and is the summary of 135 separate published studies and over 90,000 separate tests on atmospheric CO2 concentration with a precision of better than 3%.http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

notice the pattern existing from the Mauna Loa measurements? What does it say?Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata...co2_mm_mlo.dat (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat)
This may help:http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt
This may help more. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/)
CO2 is a serial fertiliser. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...eB2C/Index.jsp (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp)
Law Dome ice core, antarctica. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
From Cape Grim Tasmania http://www.dar.csiro.au/capegrim/image/cg_CO2.pngA shorter record, but it validates Mauna Loa.

Economics and Global Warming
the full text of the paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?". (http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/sc...h/11tiern.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/science/earth/11tiern.html) But the best strategy, he (Lomberg) says, is to make the rest of the world as rich as New York
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Norton/
Quoting from Simon's book "Scarcity or Abundance? A debate on the Environment"
http://www.climateaudit.org/ (http://www.climateaudit.org/)Should NASA climate accountants adhere to GAAP?


http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/co...n-lomborg.html (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/colbert-report-with-bjorn-lomborg.html)
Lomburg on the Cobert Report. (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/colbert-report-with-bjorn-lomborg.html)
IPCC economic model assumptions (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/089.htm). These are labeled B1, A1T, B2, A1B, A2, and A1F1.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/089.htm (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/089.htm)
Keller et al 2007 (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/2/2/024004) Environmental Research Letters "The regrets of procrastination in climate policy"
Pielke, Roger Jr., 2007 Science Direct "Mistreatment of the economic impacts (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2543-2007.21.pdf) of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change."
Nordhaus 2007 (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf) The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy
Nordhaus, 2007 (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/stern_050307.pdf) - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
The US does not release more CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_ capita) than any other country per capita. And many countries emit more CO2 per dollar of GNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxid e_emissions),


Climate Cycles
Climate Change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf) The possibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #410
Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm)

Alarmism on climate has no basis in peer reviewed research (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml), according to a tabulation of hundreds of articles. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

Television interview (and transcript) 10 minute video (http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/503) of Singer and Avery "Physical evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycles".
Singer, Fred 2007 Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycle (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf)
Singer's summary (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/) of the 1,500 year climate cycle book in html.

R. Monastersky, "Viking Teeth Recount Sad Greenland Tale," Science News, vol. 19, 1994. from Singer 2007. (http://forums.randi.org/www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/) "Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycle"

Solar
MHaze has linked to http://www.solarcycle24.com (http://www.solarcycle24.com/) , the sun is currently in a state of relative calm.
Prediction of strong SC24:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ec_cycle24.htm (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm)
http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita...ik06GRLMar.pdf (http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/Dik06GRLMar.pdf)
Prediction of weak SC24:
http://www.spacew.com/news/05Mar2005/index.php
http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Ses...piyali_ihy.pdf (http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Session3/piyali_ihy.pdf)
Schatten also predicts weak.
General information:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/S...2007_table.pdf (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf)
http://sidc.oma.be/news/094/SolarCycle24-eng.pdf
http://allesoversterrenkunde.nl/cont...ew_reco rds=1 (http://allesoversterrenkunde.nl/content.shtml?http://allesoversterrenkunde.nl/cgi-bin/scripts/db.cgi?db=default&id=default&ID=605&ww=1&view_records=1)

Cryosphere
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi..._ neighbors=1 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1)
How does this fit into the equation? Apparently increased sea ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere:
The Antarctic has a different climate system compared to the Arctic.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-warming/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/)
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...rctic_ice.html (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html)
Kilimanjaro is one example of intense research.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.south.jpg (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg)
NASA Finds Vast Regions of West Antarctica Melted (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-058) in Recent Past
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-atd021207.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php)
A NEW RECORD FOR ANTARCTIC ICE EXTENT?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NE...ICE_EXTENT.doc (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc)
The models predicted that the Antarctic would not warm as quickly as the rest of the planet. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-warming/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/)
As for Antarctica, the inner reaches have ice growing more plentiful not despite AGW but due to it. It goes without saying that temperatures are not going to increase the 50 degrees it takes the inner reaches to reach melting temperature, even if parts of them are heating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg).
Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1107046v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Oerlemans&searchid=1111000586989_7764&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=3/31/2005%22)
From the compilations (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129) of World Glacier Monitoring Service
The glacier is currently 12 km long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Glacier) and terminates 19 km from the Tasman Sea. It exhibits a cyclic pattern of advance and retreat,

AGW is a significant cause of Arctic ice retreat is a claim being made by... Dr. Ted Lambos, Glaciologist / US National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1912202.htm?enviro)..... and a team of NASA scientists (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html)... ... and by a team of scientists from Scripps, Brookhaven, US Dept of Energy (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=712)... ... and by a team of scientists from NCAR, UW, and McGill (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/arctic.shtml)...


Rain, Drought, Hurricanes
No amount of chart-diving and suckling from ClimateAudit's teats is going to bring back any ice, break any droughts, or prevent any floods. This study How Much More Rain (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N33/EDIT.jsp) Will Global Warming Bring? Shows GW would increase rain by a factor of 3x over the predictions of the IPCC models. A paper by Gemma Narisma et al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GeoRL..3406710N) that counted severe drought episodes showed no increase.

How Much More Rain (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N33/EDIT.jsp) Will Global Warming Bring?
Alexander 2007 (http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf) - trying to figure out how to predict rainfall. He relates solar activity to river flow, finds some correlations, raises some unanswered questions. Alexander has a very clear explanation of the sun's wobble and movements and how they affect the earth. nzclimate science.net/images/PDFs/ (http://science.net/images/PDFs/)alexander 2707.pdf

as shown here (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/rainmaps.cgi?page=map&variable=deciles&period=6month&area=aus) rainfall in australia ...No sign of drought The last 12 months (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/rainmaps.cgi?page=map&variable=deciles&period=12month&area=aus) has seen low rainfall in the....Australia's rainfall is not decreasing in total (as is shown here) (http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/aus/latest.gif),
the annual Australian rainfall, for example.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/r...&season=011 2 (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain&region=aus&season=0112)

Looks like Victoria has lots of water. (http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/dams_storage.cfm?uid=3506-8538-5661-1132)
Please check these charts and data (http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/) from your own country then tell me if you still believe that. I agree you may be being told this is the by factions in your country.http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/

Propaganda, Disinformation and Misinformation

The green party of Australia have released a flyer (http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/) that is sent to households. In it it describes the consequences if you vote liberal or labor at the forthcoming election.
The High Priest, Hansen, leading the prayer vigil in Greenland. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/GlobalWarming/story?id=3572327)
Australian Greenhouse Office. (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/)There is an active "Ministry of Truth" down under.
Alternate view: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...881513935.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/18/1189881513935.html)

Various Subjects
LITTLE GREEN DATA BOOK (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDATASTA/64199955-1178226923002/21322619/LGDB2007.pdf)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Water vapour.
How Much More Rain (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N33/EDIT.jsp) Will Global Warming Bring?
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...ort-published/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/05/02/ccsp-report-published/)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...g-differences/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/16/conflict-of-interest-in-the-ccsp-report-temperature-trends-in-the-lower-atmosphere-steps-for-understanding-and-reconciling-differences/)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/17/ccsp-advocacy-report-appears/)
Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-143.pdf (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf)
Wentz 2007 in Science is the issue.http://www.nasa-news.org/documents/p..._Much_More.pdf (http://www.nasa-news.org/documents/pdf/Wentz_How_Much_More.pdf)
This is the famed 'water vapour feedback' (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=133).
It seems Hansen has finally released his code. Link (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2031)
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...4068db11f4&p=4 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/s...-litarete.html (http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/sceinteficelly-litarete.html)
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/diagn...ubprojects.php (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/diagnostic_subprojects.php)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar...es/fig2-18.gif (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18.gif)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sargo_%28SSN-583%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sargo_%28SSN-583%29)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm)
Anthony Watt's interim results. www.surfacestations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org/)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2048#comments
UHI. It's already taken into account. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index...&submit=Search (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index.php?s=uhi&submit=Search)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi.../pdf/R-274.pdf (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-274.pdf)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-145.pdf (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-145.pdf)
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhink...JGR-A_2007.pdf (http://www.geography.uc.edu/%7Ekenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf)
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...7-88-6-913.pdf (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf)
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/U...des/index.html (http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html)
But some scientist suspect it is a cause of GW.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/


climate models with the IPCC climate sensitivity that take all this into account are able to reproduce 20th century temperature trends:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publicat...additivity.pdf (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf)

[DaChew]

mhaze, why do you hate the earth? (sorry, couldn't resist. props to all on this discussion. very interesting. back to lurk.)

[oponol]

Perhaps this will help. Here is a summary of 135 separate published studies of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere prior to Keeling's work.

Is there some period(s) of years that you can point to and show a mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Beck's study (http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm) goes back to the year 1800 and is the summary of 135 separate published studies and over 90,000 separate tests on atmospheric CO2 concentration with a precision of better than 3%.

Beck's paper really hasn't got much weight on this subject. The worst part of it in my opinion is how he takes every data point and draws a curve through every single one.

Other than that there's a stack of reasons why the reconstruction must be wrong.

He doesn't mention that site bias (not measuring precision) is what prevented accurate measurements back then. That's precisely why Callendar set up the Mauna Loa monitoring station so remotely - to avoid the contamination issues that plagued co2 measurements elsewhere.

Measurements taken in and around cities are subject to large variations in surface co2 that can be carried by the wind. co2 concentration can differ by location by as much as 100ppm. It's just not reliable.

Another good reason for Beck's reconstruction not being correct is that the record since Mauna Loa came online has shown co2 rising steady and smooth with less than 3ppm change from year to year, yet we are expected to believe that before the 60s co2 was jumping about year to year like crazy? As if it knew to start behaving once we started measuring it properly? In one case Beck's reconstruction has it jumping 80ppm and then falling again within a few years.

That raises another reason to doubt Beck's reconstruction. Current understanding of the carbon cycle can't explain how such rapid swings of that magnitude in atmospheric co2 could be possible.

The fact that the ice core records disagree is just the icing on the cake of reasons to believe the reconstruction is not correct.

[oponol]

No Unique, there isn't a perfect curve leading onto the Mauna Loa. If you'd bother to research the many tens of thousands of CO2 measurements prior to and after Mauna Loa, you'd know the "perfect trend" is bunk. You would also know about the "missing sink".

Aside from that, viewing the chart below, notice the pattern existing from the Mauna Loa measurements? What does it say? Even a wild guess?

Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f107c6ad21e.jpg


It shows that the rise in co2 each year has accelerated over time as human emissions of co2 have accelerated over time, and it also shows the natural variation on top of this long term trend.

[oponol]

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?

The causation was determined long ago. Here is a paper from 1956
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AmJPh..24..376P

Radiation-convection models of the atmosphere are based on empirical data, and those show co2 is significant component of the greenhouse effect, and that increasing co2 causes warming.

[mhaze]

Beck's paper really hasn't got much weight on this subject. The worst part of it in my opinion is how he takes every data point and draws a curve through every single one.

Other than that there's a stack of reasons why the reconstruction must be wrong.

He doesn't mention that site bias (not measuring precision) is what prevented accurate measurements back then. That's precisely why Callendar set up the Mauna Loa monitoring station so remotely - to avoid the contamination issues that plagued co2 measurements elsewhere.

Measurements taken in and around cities are subject to large variations in surface co2 that can be carried by the wind. co2 concentration can differ by location by as much as 100ppm. It's just not reliable.

Another good reason for Beck's reconstruction not being correct is that the record since Mauna Loa came online has shown co2 rising steady and smooth with less than 3ppm change from year to year, yet we are expected to believe that before the 60s co2 was jumping about year to year like crazy? As if it knew to start behaving once we started measuring it properly? In one case Beck's reconstruction has it jumping 80ppm and then falling again within a few years.

That raises another reason to doubt Beck's reconstruction. Current understanding of the carbon cycle can't explain how such rapid swings of that magnitude in atmospheric co2 could be possible.

The fact that the ice core records disagree is just the icing on the cake of reasons to believe the reconstruction is not correct.

It is quite interesting, isn't it?

There is no question that the Mauna Loa does very precise measurements, however the chemical tests were said to be accurate to within 3%. 3% is fine for this work.

Now is there a substantial reason to throw out all, or part of the data?

If so, on what basis? Can you point to scientific studies that go through these 135 studies and invalidate them? I think not. That really is the quesiton, whether these studies have been refuted in the peer reviewed literature.

You bring up the fact that many of the tests may have been done near cities and may have been affected by the "co2 plume". Of course that was well understood, and please note, many were not so affected.

I fail to see the absence of bloated, gluttonous cherry pickers and rabid dogs of data dredging....

[oponol]

It is quite interesting, isn't it?

There is no question that the Mauna Loa does very precise measurements, however the chemical tests were said to be accurate to within 3%. 3% is fine for this work.

Now is there a substantial reason to throw out all, or part of the data?

Yes, the surface is the source of co2 into the atmsosphere and as a result there is a lot of contamination going at the surface which is carried about by the wind. Very few areas at the surface represent the co2 concentration of the atmosphere as a whole because of this contamination.

This paper documents the existance of this contamination
http://www.uni-duisburg-essen.de/imperia/md/content/geographie/klimatologie/henninger2004.pdf#search=%22co2%20urban%20mixing%2 0ratio%22


You bring up the fact that many of the tests may have been done near cities and may have been affected by the "co2 plume". Of course that was well understood, and please note, many were not so affected.

It wasn't understood, in fact back then it wasn't even understood there was a well mixed co2 concentration in the atmosphere. It was believe co2 was distributed unevenly precisely because that's what measurements were showing.

[CapelDodger]

mhaze, why do you hate the earth?

Oi. Take it to Politics. M'kay? This is Science. No hate, no love, no good and evil, no personalities, just the facts :cool:.

[CapelDodger]

The causation was determined long ago. Here is a paper from 1956
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AmJPh..24..376P

Thanks for that link.

"In contrast to other theories of climatic change, the carbon dioxide theory predicts a warming trend that will continue for centuries or as long as fossil fuels are burned in significant quantities. "

A theory that's still standing up to observations of one heck of an experiment. Kudos to Plass and Gilbert.

[CapelDodger]

Here's a bet. The Arctic ice grows back and does not shrink to zero as alarmists are claiming may happen pretty shortly.

I'm still aiming for precision on this "alarmist" word : if those who are making this claim - say, that Arctic sea-ice is gone by 2020 - turn out to be right, are (were) they still alarmists?

How about that one? No gentlemen's wagers, money escrowed at the start.

I take from that the clear message that I'm not dealing with a gentleman.

You ask me to bet on "pretty shortly" and zero Arctic sea-ice. That won't happen until Greenland's northern coast stops calving icebergs, which will take some considerable time. (Unless things really go pear-shaped, of course.) I don't make bets where there's so much wriggle-room for the bookmaker.

I'll bet on your 60-80 year cycle not bringing us more summer ice in three to eight years.

[a_unique_person]

This is a perfect example of cherry picking and data dredging.

Yet with your cherry picked dredges you cannot show that simple correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Not even with my giving you your choice of a subset of the years? 1850 - present, 1950 - present, 1980 - present?

Not even with my providing additional sources - over 135 actual data sets with 90,000 results - which I am also not objecting to your cherry picking and data dredging from?

I do not know what else is humanly possible to do, to help AGW Warmers produce a solid, credible and scientific foundation for the manmade CO2 drives climate change hypothesis.

You can not say I did not try to help.

This is not good for the credibility of the AGW hypothesis that CO2 is the major driver of climate. What can be done to salvage this theory?

The Mauna Loa record is validated by the Cape Grim. Oponol has already done an excellent job of filling you out on the rest of it.

[a_unique_person]

North Pole 127-314 Global Warming Thread 962-1277

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.



3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?


Refer to the IPCC reports.

[CapelDodger]

Depending on what SC24 does, it may very well be as warm as today, maybe even slightly warmer. However, if SC24 is weak as some predict, it will be cooler and continue downward from there. By all accounts SC25 will be much weaker. SC24 is the grey area. There is a 4-15 year lag response.

You really have been spending a lot of time in ClimateAudit. Let me know how that works out for you. Myself, I like to get out more. As in outside. Beyond a controlled environment.

[CapelDodger]

North Pole 127-314 Global Warming Thread 962-1277

What's with the cut-and-paste? The decor of your comfort-zone is of no great import.

[CapelDodger]

The Mauna Loa record is validated by the Cape Grim. Oponol has already done an excellent job of filling you out on the rest of it.

And a tip of the hat to oponol from me too :).

[CapelDodger]

The fact that the ice core records disagree is just the icing on the cake of reasons to believe the reconstruction is not correct.

The very cherry on the icing of a well-baked layer-cake.

As opposed to Beck's half-baked confection, which resembles a collapsed souffle.

[David Rodale]

Beck's paper really hasn't got much weight on this subject. The worst part of it in my opinion is how he takes every data point and draws a curve through every single one.

Other than that there's a stack of reasons why the reconstruction must be wrong.

He doesn't mention that site bias (not measuring precision) is what prevented accurate measurements back then. That's precisely why Callendar set up the Mauna Loa monitoring station so remotely - to avoid the contamination issues that plagued co2 measurements elsewhere.

Measurements taken in and around cities are subject to large variations in surface co2 that can be carried by the wind. co2 concentration can differ by location by as much as 100ppm. It's just not reliable.

Another good reason for Beck's reconstruction not being correct is that the record since Mauna Loa came online has shown co2 rising steady and smooth with less than 3ppm change from year to year, yet we are expected to believe that before the 60s co2 was jumping about year to year like crazy? As if it knew to start behaving once we started measuring it properly? In one case Beck's reconstruction has it jumping 80ppm and then falling again within a few years.

That raises another reason to doubt Beck's reconstruction. Current understanding of the carbon cycle can't explain how such rapid swings of that magnitude in atmospheric co2 could be possible.

The fact that the ice core records disagree is just the icing on the cake of reasons to believe the reconstruction is not correct.

Please review the methodologies precisely.

What is causing the CO2 fluctuations in the Mauna Loa record? Does it imply a long CO2 life cycle?
Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f1c6357bb97.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8431)

Do chemical laws apply to AGW such as Henry's Law Constant?

[a_unique_person]

Please review the methodologies precisely.

What is causing the CO2 fluctuations in the Mauna Loa record? Does it imply a long CO2 life cycle?
Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f1c6357bb97.jpg

Do chemical laws apply to AGW such as Henry's Law Constant?

Cape Grim validates Mauna Loa record, as stated already.

[mhaze]

The causation was determined long ago. Here is a paper from 1956
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AmJPh..24..376P

Radiation-convection models of the atmosphere are based on empirical data, and those show co2 is significant component of the greenhouse effect, and that increasing co2 causes warming.

Plass is not the answer. Here was a guy working with first generation computing equipment in the middle of the Cold War. Effects of radiation were of interest at that time, his work fell into that general category. He followed the work of Callender and elaborated it into something of a theory that CO2 changes drove all climate changes, entire ice ages and the like.

Plass was essentially an early theorist of CO2 causes global warming. Lab measurements tell us what we know about the CO2 molecule today.

Where are actual experiments in the layers of the atmosphere that are supposedly affected by CO2? That show the green house effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere, and which therefore prove what exactly climate sensitivity is?

Published experiments, data and methods, that are repeatable? Actual atmospheric experiments with real air molecules, at real altitudes, as the sun comes up and the layer warms?

That doesn't seem an unreasonable question, does it?

[David Rodale]

Cape Grim validates Mauna Loa record, as stated already.

Evidently you don't understand as your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the question. I can't think of phrasing it any simpler so it must be assumed you don't.

[mhaze]

Yes, the surface is the source of co2 into the atmsosphere and as a result there is a lot of contamination going at the surface which is carried about by the wind. Very few areas at the surface represent the co2 concentration of the atmosphere as a whole because of this contamination.

This paper documents the existance of this contamination
http://www.uni-duisburg-essen.de/imperia/md/content/geographie/klimatologie/henninger2004.pdf#search=%22co2%20urban%20mixing%2 0ratio%22

It wasn't understood, in fact back then it wasn't even understood there was a well mixed co2 concentration in the atmosphere. It was believe co2 was distributed unevenly precisely because that's what measurements were showing.

The paper you cite is one of Beck's own references.

I understand that Beck's paper may not be well liked in certain circles.;)

However, if it were useful to use some of the data to prove a correlation or even causation, between CO2 and temperature, we might be able to come to some agreement.

Many of the 135 studies are available in PDF in the links on Beck's site and all the data is there from all the studies. There is no need to use Beck's summary, use original data.

Can the needle to correlation and possibly causation thus be threaded?

[mhaze]

I'm still aiming for precision on this "alarmist" word : if those who are making this claim - say, that Arctic sea-ice is gone by 2020 - turn out to be right, are (were) they still alarmists?


No.

[a_unique_person]

Published experiments, data and methods, that are repeatable? Actual atmospheric experiments with real air molecules, at real altitudes, as the sun comes up and the layer warms?

That doesn't seem an unreasonable question, does it?

Do you think that CO2 will not absorb and re-emit radiation in the atmosphere as it does in the laboratory?

[a_unique_person]

The paper you cite is one of Beck's own references.

I understand that Beck's paper may not be well liked in certain circles.;)

However, if it were useful to use some of the data to prove a correlation or even causation, between CO2 and temperature, we might be able to come to some agreement.

Many of the 135 studies are available in PDF in the links on Beck's site and all the data is there from all the studies. There is no need to use Beck's summary, use original data.

Can the needle to correlation and possibly causation thus be threaded?

Original data, that is flawed for the reason Oponol already stated, the CO2 is not mixed in well, which would explain the wild fluctuations seen in the data. The smooth curve observed at Mauna Lou is confirmed by two independent sources, the ice core, and Cape Grim. Neither of these sources have CO2 levels fluctuating so randomly.

[mhaze]

Do you think that CO2 will not absorb and re-emit radiation in the atmosphere as it does in the laboratory?

Anyone who has worked in both field and lab work should question how CO2 performs in the troposphere, where other factors exist than in the lab.

[mhaze]

Original data, that is flawed for the reason Oponol already stated, the CO2 is not mixed in well, which would explain the wild fluctuations seen in the data. The smooth curve observed at Mauna Lou is confirmed by two independent sources, the ice core, and Cape Grim. Neither of these sources have CO2 levels fluctuating so randomly.

what? you don't like spagetti graphs?:rolleyes:

Fluctuating data sets have some merit. If you pick the right sets that go opposed at the right places you could make the little ice age and the medieval warming period go away. Helps make a nice smooth shaft for hockey sticks.

I'm just trying to help warmers prove CO2 causes temperature rise.

If everyone believes it, we should be able to just prove it.

Right?

[a_unique_person]

Anyone who has worked in both field and lab work should question how CO2 performs in the troposphere, where other factors exist than in the lab.

CO2 is CO2, if it's in the lab or not. It's going to absorb radiation and re-radiate it.

[a_unique_person]

what? you don't like spagetti graphs?:rolleyes:

Fluctuating data sets have some merit. If you pick the right sets that go opposed at the right places you could make the little ice age and the medieval warming period go away. Helps make a nice smooth shaft for hockey sticks.

I'm just trying to help warmers prove CO2 causes temperature rise.

If everyone believes it, we should be able to just prove it.

Right?

It's not a matter of liking spaghetti graphs or not. It's a matter of are they reasonable or not. The chaotic behaviour of temparature is to be expected, the mixed level of CO2 not. The mix of CO2 at ground level in inhabited areas, yes.

[Geckko]

Can I throw something else into the mix here?

I have been reading quite a bit in many places about the history of the greenhouse theory and the earth's climate and the role of CO2 in all that. I came across something that has left me connfused. Let me explain:


I read here (on this forum) that the relationship and effect is one which has been understood for a long time.
I also read here that the threat of global warming comes from the potential further large increase in temperature that will be caused by future increases in CO2.
I am also aware of James Hansen who is a climate modeller and his views that temperature increases will acceleate (tipping points he refers to).


Then I came across this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

and this statement in particular:
although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

My bold.

These were result from a climate model at the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center. Wouldn't that be James Hansen's model?

So there is my dilemna. I can't see how all three of the statements above can be correct.

Either we haven't understood this for a long time, or the effect of the next increase in CO2 will be much less that that experienced to date.

[a_unique_person]

Can I throw something else into the mix here?

I have been reading quite a bit in many places about the history of the greenhouse theory and the earth's climate and the role of CO2 in all that. I came across something that has left me connfused. Let me explain:
I read here (on this forum) that the relationship and effect is one which has been understood for a long time.
I also read here that the threat of global warming comes from the potential further large increase in temperature that will be caused by future increases in CO2.
I am also aware of James Hansen who is a climate modeller and his views that temperature increases will acceleate (tipping points he refers to).Then I came across this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

and this statement in particular:


My bold.

These were result from a climate model at the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center. Wouldn't that be James Hansen's model?

So there is my dilemna. I can't see how all three of the statements above can be correct.

Either we haven't understood this for a long time, or the effect of the next increase in CO2 will be much less that that experienced to date.

That fact has been known from the start, and is well understood. It's not the issue, the main problem is the "enhanced" effect, from feedback mechanisms. It actually took a bit of work to convince scientists that CO2 was an issue, since the logarithmic response was well known.

1) Increasing CO2 will increase warming, either way, even if it is not as strong. Don't forget, we are talking about a doubling of the amount of CO2 with time, so even if the effect is reduced from the direct CO2 contribution, we are adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere.
2) There are feedback effects. These include change of albedo, as ice melts so that darker areas of the earth are revealed that absorb, rather than reflect, radiation.
3) Measured responses to CO2. Albedo is changing, temperature is rising.

PS

Read the IPCC report. That alone will keep you occupied for quite a while.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

[mhaze]

Can I throw something else into the mix here?

I have been reading quite a bit in many places about the history of the greenhouse theory and the earth's climate and the role of CO2 in all that. I came across something that has left me connfused. Let me explain:
I read here (on this forum) that the relationship and effect is one which has been understood for a long time.
I also read here that the threat of global warming comes from the potential further large increase in temperature that will be caused by future increases in CO2.
I am also aware of James Hansen who is a climate modeller and his views that temperature increases will acceleate (tipping points he refers to).Then I came across this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

and this statement in particular:


My bold.

These were result from a climate model at the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center. Wouldn't that be James Hansen's model?

So there is my dilemna. I can't see how all three of the statements above can be correct.

Either we haven't understood this for a long time, or the effect of the next increase in CO2 will be much less that that experienced to date.

We haven't understood it for a long time, and numerous articles and studies indicate that a doubling of CO2 may yield a temperature increase of 0.5-1.1 degrees, not the 2.5-6.5 C that the IPCC indicates.

So there is a big argument over how much of an effect this is - is it a critical problem, requiring everybody to lower greenhouse gas output? Or is it a relatively insignificant problem? To put that into a perspective, suppose the increasing industrialization, technology transfers and rapidly increasing wealth in many parts of the world have a net effect by 2050 of raising global average temperature 0.5 - 1.0 C.

Most people wouldn't care. If it was 6.5 C, that is a tremendous difference.
So it is a giant lie when people say "the science is settled". There is a lot of misinformation, and there are a lot of people with agendas confusing the scientific issues.

Then there are issues with positive and negative feedbacks, and with these crazy "tipping point" ideas that Alarmists use. Hansen has moved into that arena. Every time the IPCC issues a report, their forecasts are less catastrophic, and Hansen gets more so.

I wouldn't bother reading the IPCC stuff, by the way. Maybe the summary for policymakers just to get a flavor of what they are telling governments should go do.

[mhaze]

That fact has been known from the start, and is well understood. It's not the issue, the main problem is the "enhanced" effect, from feedback mechanisms. It actually took a bit of work to convince scientists that CO2 was an issue, since the logarithmic response was well known.

1) Increasing CO2 will increase warming, either way, even if it is not as strong. Don't forget, we are talking about a doubling of the amount of CO2 with time, so even if the effect is reduced from the direct CO2 contribution, we are adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere.
2) There are feedback effects. These include change of albedo, as ice melts so that darker areas of the earth are revealed that absorb, rather than reflect, radiation.
3) Measured responses to CO2. Albedo is changing, temperature is rising.


If all that was so very true, these unanswered questions and challenges would be ridiculous, like questioning gravity.

Hmm.... what you just said must not be correct ...

Although this part "It actually took a bit of work to convince scientists that CO2 was an issue" was certainly true. They had to be convinced of what was politically correct to say and do. What would affect their funding.

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf) of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?

[a_unique_person]

If all that was so very true, these unanswered questions and challenges would be ridiculous, like questioning gravity.

Hmm.... what you just said must not be correct ...

Although this part "It actually took a bit of work to convince scientists that CO2 was an issue" was certainly true. They had to be convinced of what was politically correct to say and do. What would affect their funding.



The conspiracy theory forum is that way.

If they were so fixated on money, they'd be accountants and CEOs, not researching climate.



Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.



It's not one paper, that would be impossible, since the subject is so complex. Ref IPCC reports.


2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf) of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.



There are so many woo papers, it would be impossible to debunk them all using the scientific process, without extra funding. Hang on, you just said that was all that motivated them. Give them more funding.



3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?


Read the IPCC report.

[mhaze]

Please review the methodologies precisely.

What is causing the CO2 fluctuations in the Mauna Loa record? Does it imply a long CO2 life cycle?
Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f1c6357bb97.jpg

Do chemical laws apply to AGW such as Henry's Law Constant?

It would appear that the El Nino affects the CO2 level more than any of the other factors on the graph. El Nino also affects temperatures......

It's curious how all the graphs used by the IPCC and Gore crowd show such a smooth curve for CO2. They must have used something like a ten year average to get rid of the spikes which upset their Creed.

[a_unique_person]

It would appear that the El Nino affects the CO2 level more than any of the other factors on the graph. El Nino also affects temperatures......

It's curious how all the graphs used by the IPCC and Gore crowd show such a smooth curve for CO2. They must have used something like a ten year average to get rid of the spikes which upset their Creed.

The Conspiracy Theory forum is that way.

Three independent sources show that well mixed CO2 is going up in what is a smooth curve, with the seasonal influences quite visible. The ice cores, Mauna Loa, and Cape Grime. They are all in on the conspiracy?

[mhaze]

Go back and study DR's CO2 concentration by year chart.

Give it a two long black or three beer look, whichever you prefer.

[a_unique_person]

Go back and study DR's CO2 concentration by year chart.

Give it a two long black or three beer look, whichever you prefer.

I'll give it a seconds thought when he explains WTF it is supposed to mean.

[Safe-Keeper]

If all that was so very true, these unanswered questions and challenges would be ridiculous, like questioning gravity.[Rhetorical question]Then why does Kent Hovind's evolution challenge stand unanswered?[/Rhetorical question]

[varwoche]

...just as water-vapour acts as a positive feedback to the CO2 feedback. Getting back to the 'CO2 impact is negligible due to water vapor' canard ... A new study has been published by DOE / Livermore Natl Labs reaffirming:
The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.
...
This is the first identification of a human fingerprint on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm)

[Mycroft]

Getting back to the 'CO2 impact is negligible due to water vapor' canard ... A new study has been published by DOE / Livermore Natl Labs reaffirming:

I dunno, that article seems to be an elaborate example of "begging the question."


"When you heat the planet, you increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture," said Benjamin Santer, lead author from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Modeling and Intercomparison. "The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases."

We know that the air is warmer, and we know that warmer air holds more water, so unless there is some other link between greenhouse gases and air moisture then this statement makes no sense. We expect to find more moisture in the atmosphere because the air is warmer, this is true regardless of how the air got to be warmer.

More water vapor -- which is itself a greenhouse gas -- amplifies the warming effect of increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback."

If this is true, if there is no other mechanism in the system to moderate or reverse this "positive feedback", then why isn't our climate like Venus due to a runaway greenhouse effect from the last warming period from 1500 years ago?

This isn't the first time the Earth has been this warm. If the warming causes the ice caps to melt, releases trapped CO2 in the permafrost, releases methane trapped under the sea, and all these countless other effects that feed this loop, then life should have ended many times over.

That I've never seen an adequate answer to this question is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical of global warming theories.

Basically, "fingerprinting" involves searching for a computer model-predicted pattern of climate change (the "fingerprint") in observed climate records. Fingerprint techniques allow researchers to examine a change in some property of the climate system and make rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for that change.

Okay, so what would have been useful information that this reporter chose to leave out is information that describes how this "fingerprint" is arrived at and exactly what it is that excludes other theories.

[Safe-Keeper]

If this is true, if there is no other mechanism in the system to moderate or reverse this "positive feedback", then why isn't our climate like Venus due to a runaway greenhouse effect from the last warming period from 1500 years ago?We're saying there's a positive feedback, not that it has infinite strength.

[CapelDodger]

mhaze, why do you hate the earth? (sorry, couldn't resist. props to all on this discussion. very interesting. back to lurk.)

If you could lurk effectively you wouldn't have been followed. Apparently you were :mad: .

[psyexplorer]

Global Warming is real. Al Gore said so! Actually I've never seen proof.

[CapelDodger]

Please review the methodologies precisely.

What is causing the CO2 fluctuations in the Mauna Loa record?

When it comes to the El Nino/La Nina variation one possible explanation springs to mind. During a La Nina (and to a lesser extent during a La Nada) deep cold water upwells along the eastern coast of Latin America, bringing a wealth of dissolved nutrients. This nourishes phytoplankton which absorb CO2 from the ocean (which in turn absorbs it from the atmosphere). The vast biomass that results is evidenced by the wealth of fish in the region. Not all of it is eaten before it dies, of course, so some of the absorbed carbon sinks to be sequestered in sediments. That's a "carbon sink" for you.

During an El Nino, warm water flows east across the Pacific and slows down (perhaps turns off) the upwelling. Phytolankton die back and less CO2 is absorbed and sequestered. This is evidenced by the dearth of fish at such times.

Another point : the upwelling cold water can absorb more CO2 than warm surface water, firstly because cold water can hold more CO2, and secondly because the deep water is pretty old - centuries at least - and so hasn't been exposed to the high atmospheric CO2-load that's been around more recently.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure the science is right, but I don't have numbers to run.

I've nothing on the intriguing volcano effect, apart from a recent paper suggesting that volcanoes leave a longer-lasting signal in oceans than they do in the atmosphere. (Where I came across it I can't recall.) This suggests a relatively strong cooling of oceans by volcanoes, thus dissolving more CO2. That's pretty rough, though. I hope somebody has something better.

At least this bar-chart puts the "eruptions emit more CO2 than humans do in a decade" meme to sleep.

Does it imply a long CO2 life cycle?
Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f1c6357bb97.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8431)Given that every year saw an increase in CO2 whatever the conditions, it certainly doesn't imply a short one. Perhaps medium - a 30 year half-life seems reasonable. We could perhaps narrow it down from the rising trend-line, but ballpark terms are good enough I'd have thought.

Do chemical laws apply to AGW such as Henry's Law Constant?

AGW is entirely consistent with all branches of science. And with observations made over the last few decades.

[CapelDodger]

Global Warming is real. Al Gore said so! Actually I've never seen proof.

Wow, a splatter-post. All gore and no plot.

[CapelDodger]

We're saying there's a positive feedback, not that it has infinite strength.

Quite. As I understand it, the feedback is logarithmic, not linear, so each unit increase has a smaller effect. This leads us to the mathematical concept of a limit.

It's the same on Venus (that's mathematics for you), but of course Venus isn't the same as the Earth-Moon system.

[a_unique_person]

Global Warming is real. Al Gore said so! Actually I've never seen proof.

Have you looked for the evidence?

[mhaze]

Getting back to the 'CO2 impact is negligible due to water vapor' canard ... A new study has been published by DOE / Livermore Natl Labs reaffirming:

Two comments after reading the article.

1. It may well be that the reporter didn't do too good a job - that's not unusual - but I didn't get clearly what was proven and how from the writeup. Basically, my response after reading it was not "ah HAA" but "Huh?"

One thing is very clear, though, this is more computer modeling, not actual atmospheric experiments.

2. I've quoted and mentioned that Wentz 2007 seemed like an important article. Wentz showed that atmospheric water increase for a given temperature rise was almost 3x that shown in IPCC models, obviously invalidating those models. Also appears that the feedback effect nets out at negative (reasonable) vs. positive (unreasonable).

Brief conclusion: A lot is going on with the water and cloud cycle that we don't understand (we already knew that) and people are seriously trying to figure it out (a good thing) and they are making some progress.

Is the DOE/Livermore study related to one of the several challenges made to AGW believers? That wasn't clear to me.

[a_unique_person]

Two comments after reading the article.

1. It may well be that the reporter didn't do too good a job - that's not unusual - but I didn't get clearly what was proven and how from the writeup. Basically, my response after reading it was not "ah HAA" but "Huh?"

One thing is very clear, though, this is more computer modeling, not actual atmospheric experiments.



They used the modelling to explain the measurements. I don't know what sort of experiment you think will satisfy you, given there is only one planet, and we don't have any spare ones handy to work with. We can create a virtual planet with models, however. Models are used throughout science and engineering, with great success.



2. I've quoted and mentioned that Wentz 2007 seemed like an important article. Wentz showed that atmospheric water increase for a given temperature rise was almost 3x that shown in IPCC models, obviously invalidating those models. Also appears that the feedback effect nets out at negative (reasonable) vs. positive (unreasonable).

Brief conclusion: A lot is going on with the water and cloud cycle that we don't understand (we already knew that) and people are seriously trying to figure it out (a good thing) and they are making some progress.

Is the DOE/Livermore study related to one of the several challenges made to AGW believers? That wasn't clear to me.


Wentz does not invalidate the models. The models were known from day one to be deficient, and they are constantly being improved. They predicted an increase in water vapour content, and that has been measured. According to Wentz, the amount that falls as rain is larger than anticipated, but rain is also a cycle, so you can have both, more rain, and more water content.

[CapelDodger]

One thing is very clear, though, this is more computer modeling, not actual atmospheric experiments.

There's only one atmospheric experiment going on at the moment.

You'll surely have noticed that there's a lot of observation in there.

"
Using 22 different computer models of the climate system and measurements from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), atmospheric scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers have shown that the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of this 'atmospheric moistening' is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels."


That's a lot of people signing-up to a career-breaker, don't you think? They seem to be pretty convinced. You may not understand why, but I'm sure they do. As do I.

2. I've quoted and mentioned that Wentz 2007 seemed like an important article. Wentz showed that atmospheric water increase for a given temperature rise was almost 3x that shown in IPCC models, obviously invalidating those models.

IPCC models? I thought the IPCC collated research and model results, rather than run models themselves. Are you sure this guy wasn't referring to the 22 models mentioned above? You may have read it as "IPCC models", but I doubt that's what was said.

If this guy's right it only invalidates the models insofar as they will underestimate the equilbrium temperature, given that H2O is a greenhouse gas. No refuge there, I'm afraid.



Also appears that the feedback effect nets out at negative (reasonable) ...

(comforting)

... vs. positive (unreasonable).

(alarming)

Is the article peppered with anti-fnords that I can't see? (OK, that is obscure.) How exactly does this appear from the article? (For which thank you, varwoche; just keep loading and passing on up for the cock-and-fire stuff :))

Brief conclusion: A lot is going on with the water and cloud cycle that we don't understand ...

There's a lot going on in the banking world that we don't yet understand. There's also a lot that we do understand. Given those two facts, the credit market has seized-up horribly. Caution is the watchword, as it always has been when this sort of thing has happened before. Of course, when it comes to AGW there isn't the same level of experience to go on.

... (we already knew that) and people are seriously trying to figure it out (a good thing) and they are making some progress.

Meanwhile there are record downpours from the Midlands through Africa, India and China, other regions are suffering droughts, and cyclonic activity is remorselessly increasing. Whatever the precise interplay of mechanisms may be, the observed outcome is not good. Which surely suggests caution even in the political world.

Is the DOE/Livermore study ...
More accurately, that would be "atmospheric scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers". One blessing of being "international" is to be beyond the dread clutches of Al Gore.

... related to one of the several challenges made to AGW believers? That wasn't clear to me.

It was and is what it was. Nothing to do with your so-called challenges. I hope you're not suffering from ring-master delusions.

[CapelDodger]

Wentz does not invalidate the models. The models were known from day one to be deficient, and they are constantly being improved. They predicted an increase in water vapour content, and that has been measured. According to Wentz, the amount that falls as rain is larger than anticipated, but rain is also a cycle, so you can have both, more rain, and more water content.

The H2O component of the atmosphere is always tiny compared to the H2O throughput. Of course, as humans it's the throughput - rain and dessication - that we care about. We call it "weather". When it comes to climate, it's that tiny component that makes a difference. And the climate dictates the rate of throughput.

It's a point worth making, I think. It's why, in general, wet places will become wetter and dry places will become drier.

There are, of course, larger movements. The same pole-ward shift of rainbands seems to be bringing floods to central Africa while it brings drought to Australia.

Time to quit Australia and move to the greening Sahara. Heck, isn't that how humanity has coped so adequately with climate change in the past? It's no big deal. People can always move :rolleyes:.

[psyexplorer]

Have you looked for the evidence?

Yes I have but it's irrelavent. From the looks of the thread, the issue is so polarized. People have already made up their minds one way or the other and you're either driving a hybrid or you're not.

[a_unique_person]

Yes I have but it's irrelavent. From the looks of the thread, the issue is so polarized. People have already made up their minds one way or the other and you're either driving a hybrid or you're not.

You could look up the IPCC for the scientific evidence. That's what scepticism is all about evidence.

[CapelDodger]

I dunno, that article seems to be an elaborate example of "begging the question."

It's nothing of the sort. It doesn't even report anything of the sort.


We know that the air is warmer, and we know that warmer air holds more water, so unless there is some other link between greenhouse gases and air moisture then this statement makes no sense.

I can see two candidates for "this statement" : "natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change" and "The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases."

Neither requires some other link to make sense.

We expect to find more moisture in the atmosphere because the air is warmer, this is true regardless of how the air got to be warmer.

The most plausible explanation for the warming is AGW. Got anything else?

If this is true, if there is no other mechanism in the system to moderate or reverse this "positive feedback", then why isn't our climate like Venus due to a runaway greenhouse effect ...

The Venusian climate is in equilibrium, so the greenhouse never ran away.

... from the last warming period from 1500 years ago?

If you're postulating a 1500-year warming period you'll find yourself on your own, even in this company.

This isn't the first time the Earth has been this warm.

It is for you, though.

If the warming causes the ice caps to melt, releases trapped CO2 in the permafrost, releases methane trapped under the sea, and all these countless other effects that feed this loop, then life should have ended many times over.

"Life" isn't you. Life will sail on through what's coming. Whether it includes iPod-wearing life is another matter.

That I've never seen an adequate answer to this question is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical of global warming theories.

Now you have. Care to serve me up another of your primary reasons?



Okay, so what would have been useful information that this reporter chose to leave out is information that describes how this "fingerprint" is arrived at and exactly what it is that excludes other theories.

Chose to leave out? If you want one paragraph that will somehow encapsulate the process for an otherwise ignorant audience, you're asking far too much.

You may not understand, but that doesn't mean others don't. You may not survive AGW, but that doesn't mean life won't.

[CapelDodger]

Yes I have but it's irrelavent. From the looks of the thread, the issue is so polarized. People have already made up their minds one way or the other and you're either driving a hybrid or you're not.

Life is not about your ride. Really. At your age it might seem to matter enormously, but it's really not the issue.

[a_unique_person]

Life is not about your ride. Really. At your age it might seem to matter enormously, but it's really not the issue.

It's an interesting state of affairs, by just creating enough doubt, even if much of it is self-contradictory, the deniers win.

[Mycroft]

It's nothing of the sort. It doesn't even report anything of the sort.




I can see two candidates for "this statement" : "natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change" and "The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases."

Neither requires some other link to make sense.



The most plausible explanation for the warming is AGW. Got anything else?



The Venusian climate is in equilibrium, so the greenhouse never ran away.



If you're postulating a 1500-year warming period you'll find yourself on your own, even in this company.



It is for you, though.



"Life" isn't you. Life will sail on through what's coming. Whether it includes iPod-wearing life is another matter.



Now you have. Care to serve me up another of your primary reasons?





Chose to leave out? If you want one paragraph that will somehow encapsulate the process for an otherwise ignorant audience, you're asking far too much.

You may not understand, but that doesn't mean others don't. You may not survive AGW, but that doesn't mean life won't.

Oi. Take it to Politics. M'kay? This is Science. No hate, no love, no good and evil, no personalities, just the facts :cool:.

:oldroll:

[Mycroft]

We're saying there's a positive feedback, not that it has infinite strength.

Great! So what are the mechanisms that temper this feedback loop?

[mhaze]

Yes I have but it's irrelavent. From the looks of the thread, the issue is so polarized. People have already made up their minds one way or the other and you're either driving a hybrid or you're not.

Well, I certainly have not made my mind up. That's why I've repeatedly asked the Believers to provide simple, direct scientific evidence. And why these questions arose -

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.


It's not one paper, that would be impossible, since the subject is so complex. Ref IPCC reports.

2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf) of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.



There are so many woo papers, it would be impossible to debunk them all using the scientific process, without extra funding. Hang on, you just said that was all that motivated them. Give them more funding.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?



Pretty simple. Shouldn't be that hard. No good answers so far....

[mhaze]

Great! So what are the mechanisms that temper this feedback loop?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f3b8d086a50.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8458)
Perhaps this discussion by Christy will help as a introduction to why cloud and precipitation systems operate as a negative, not a positive feedback.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)

Precipitation Systems: Nature's Air Conditioner? (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)

It is well known that precipitation is an important process in the atmosphere. Besides being necessary for life on Earth, all of the rain and snow that falls to the ground represents excess heat that has been removed from the Earth's surface during the evaporation of water. That heat is deposited in the middle and upper tropopshere when the water vapor condenses into clouds, some of then produce precipitation.

I believe it can be demonstrated that precipitation systems ultimately control most of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Most of the atmosphere (the lower 80%, called the troposphere) is continuously being recycled through precipitation systems (see Fig. 7), on a time scale of weeks. Winds in the troposphere's 'boundary layer' pick up water vapor that has been evaporated from the surface, and then transport this vapor to precipitation systems, where an equal amount of vapor (on average) is removed as rain or snow.

Partly because precipitation systems cover only several percent of the Earth's surface at any given time, even most climate researchers do not appreciate the controlling influence these systems have on the climate system. All of the humid air flowing into precipitation systems in the lower troposphere ends up flowing out of those same systems, mostly in the middle and upper troposphere. (The only exception is thunderstorm downdrafts, which you have likely experienced before). That air flowing out has moisture (water vapor and cloud) amounts that are controlled by precipitation processes within the systems. This constitutes the direct effect that precipitation systems have on the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

Partly because precipitation systems cover only several percent of the Earth's surface at any given time, even most climate researchers do not appreciate the controlling influence these systems have on the climate system. All of the humid air flowing into precipitation systems in the lower troposphere ends up flowing out of those same systems, mostly in the middle and upper troposphere. (The only exception is thunderstorm downdrafts, which you have likely experienced before). That air flowing out has moisture (water vapor and cloud) amounts that are controlled by precipitation processes within the systems. This constitutes the direct effect that precipitation systems have on the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.
Detecting Tropical Cyclones Using AMSU (http://datamining.itsc.uah.edu/case_studies/cyclone.html)
Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029698.shtml)
Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm) Roy Spencer revised Aug. 9, 2007
Star Search by Roy Spencer (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=063006D)
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676)
Spencer, Roy W.. "NOT THAT SIMPLE / GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm? page=0)", New York Post, 2007-02-26. Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-04-07 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_7).
Spencer, Roy W. (2007-03-19). STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf) (PDF). House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-03-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_7)

[mhaze]

We know that the air is warmer, and we know that warmer air holds more water, so unless there is some other link between greenhouse gases and air moisture then this statement makes no sense. We expect to find more moisture in the atmosphere because the air is warmer, this is true regardless of how the air got to be warmer.

If this is true, if there is no other mechanism in the system to moderate or reverse this "positive feedback", then why isn't our climate like Venus due to a runaway greenhouse effect from the last warming period from 1500 years ago?

This isn't the first time the Earth has been this warm. If the warming causes the ice caps to melt, releases trapped CO2 in the permafrost, releases methane trapped under the sea, and all these countless other effects that feed this loop, then life should have ended many times over.

That I've never seen an adequate answer to this question is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical of global warming theories.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f3ba6abea5d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8459)

Indeed, this simple everyday reality - that the water cycle releases heat - seems to be lost on the warmers. And then they escape into arm waving about "Intensity of severe weather events has increased".

No, it hasn't. Check this.

Is there a relation between Hurricane Intensity and Global Warming in Australia? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/29/hurricanes-down-under/#more-261)

Nott, J., J. Haig, H. Neil, and D. Gillieson. 2007. Greater frequency variability of landfalling tropical cyclones at centennial compared to seasonal and decadal scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 255, 367–372.

A team of scientists from institutions in Australia and New Zealand figured a way to do it, and here is the trick. The water that condenses in the clouds of tropical cyclones is slightly different from the water that forms in regular tropical clouds. Due to the enormous amount of water in a tropical cyclone and the height at which water condenses, the water is depleted in a particular isotope of oxygen (called the "oxygen 18 isotope" and denoted as "δ18O"). The Nott et al. team explain "An isotope gradient occurs across the cyclone with the eye wall region experiencing lowest levels of δ18O and low levels also occur within the zones of uplifted air around the cyclone known as spiral bands." It is likely that the most intense tropical cyclones will have "cloud tops at greater altitude around the eye and in spiral bands. The longevity of the system and hence the amount of rain that has occurred prior to the system crossing the coast also plays a role in the extent of isotope depletion." So if we had a water sample from each event, we could examine the δ18O level and have an index of the severity of the storm – finding the water samples sounds like a problem.

They estimate tropical cyclone intensity from AD 1226 to AD 2003, and global warmers will not be happy.

Nott et al. writes "it is clear that the period between AD 1600 to 1800 had many more intense or hazardous cyclones impacting the site than the post AD 1800 period. Seven events that were more intense/hazardous than the 1911 event occurred during this 200 yr period. Indeed the cyclone registering the lowest isotope difference value, hence the most intense or hazardous, of the entire record occurred here during this time."

[a_unique_person]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f3ba6abea5d.jpg

Indeed, this simple everyday reality - that the water cycle releases heat - seems to be lost on the warmers. And then they escape into arm waving about "Intensity of severe weather events has increased".

No, it hasn't. Check this.

Is there a relation between Hurricane Intensity and Global Warming in Australia? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/29/hurricanes-down-under/#more-261)

Nott, J., J. Haig, H. Neil, and D. Gillieson. 2007. Greater frequency variability of landfalling tropical cyclones at centennial compared to seasonal and decadal scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 255, 367–372.

A team of scientists from institutions in Australia and New Zealand figured a way to do it, and here is the trick. The water that condenses in the clouds of tropical cyclones is slightly different from the water that forms in regular tropical clouds. Due to the enormous amount of water in a tropical cyclone and the height at which water condenses, the water is depleted in a particular isotope of oxygen (called the "oxygen 18 isotope" and denoted as "δ18O"). The Nott et al. team explain "An isotope gradient occurs across the cyclone with the eye wall region experiencing lowest levels of δ18O and low levels also occur within the zones of uplifted air around the cyclone known as spiral bands." It is likely that the most intense tropical cyclones will have "cloud tops at greater altitude around the eye and in spiral bands. The longevity of the system and hence the amount of rain that has occurred prior to the system crossing the coast also plays a role in the extent of isotope depletion." So if we had a water sample from each event, we could examine the δ18O level and have an index of the severity of the storm – finding the water samples sounds like a problem.

They estimate tropical cyclone intensity from AD 1226 to AD 2003, and global warmers will not be happy.

Nott et al. writes "it is clear that the period between AD 1600 to 1800 had many more intense or hazardous cyclones impacting the site than the post AD 1800 period. Seven events that were more intense/hazardous than the 1911 event occurred during this 200 yr period. Indeed the cyclone registering the lowest isotope difference value, hence the most intense or hazardous, of the entire record occurred here during this time."

That aint a willy willy, thats (http://strikeone.com.au/dustdevil/) a willy willy.

[BobK]

The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change.
I'd be amazed if they could explain it. Last I knew our atmosphere has three dimensions. (kg/m²) is two dimensional. I would find it astonishing if they could find any three dimensional content contained within a two dimensional area. Is there some alternate universe I haven't heard about?

[a_unique_person]

I'd be amazed if they could explain it. Last I knew our atmosphere has three dimensions. (kg/m²) is two dimensional. I would find it astonishing if they could find any three dimensional content contained within a two dimensional area. Is there some alternate universe I haven't heard about?

It appears they are referring to per m2 of the earth's surface, which is quite valid. If they were referring to per m3, the figures would make no sense at all.

[a_unique_person]

Nexus6 on McIntyre.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/bottom-of-barrel.html

[Locri]

Life is not about your ride. Really. At your age it might seem to matter enormously, but it's really not the issue.

I'm going to try to say this in the most polite way I possibly can, but PLEASE get over your "I'm older therefore I know more/am wiser than you" mentality.

And I think you are missing the point of his posting entirely... it's not so much the "ride" that he's interested in but just rather saying that most of the people in this thread (if not all) seem to be either specifically at one extreme or the other.

[Locri]

Great! So what are the mechanisms that temper this feedback loop?

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

[Safe-Keeper]

Great! So what are the mechanisms that temper this feedback loop?Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

The statement that the positive feedback effect is permanent just because it's there is a bit akin to the Creationists' 'well, if the Moon is moving away from us so and so fast it'd have been brushing the treetops of Earth by year x BC!'. In short, it's a non-sequitur.

+what CapelDodger said in Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

[mhaze]

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

I provided an answer four or five posts back, somewhat non-technical. Were you looking for something different? Outside of that, I agree completely with your comments and frustration.

Precipitation Systems: Nature's Air Conditioner? (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)

It is well known that precipitation is an important process in the atmosphere. Besides being necessary for life on Earth, all of the rain and snow that falls to the ground represents excess heat that has been removed from the Earth's surface during the evaporation of water. That heat is deposited in the middle and upper tropopshere when the water vapor condenses into clouds, some of then produce precipitation.

[mhaze]

Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).
Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).
The statement that the positive feedback effect...(nonsense snipped)
+what CapelDodger said in Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

With all due respect, Safekeeper, typing "Words" like "Positive feedback" is not descriptive of the process. Go back and read about Positive and negative feedback. Here is just one fundamental issue from our friend Wikipedia.

Does it apply to climate? Can you draw the feedback loops and assign values to them? How do you prove that a given feedback is positive or negative?


Nyquist stability criterion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_criterion)

The Nyquist stability criterion, named for Harry Nyquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Nyquist), provides a simple test for stability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability) of a closed-loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-loop) control system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_system) by examining the open-loop system's Nyquist plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_plot). Stability of the closed-loop control system may be determined directly by computing the poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_%28complex_analysis%29) of the closed-loop transfer function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_function). In contrast, the Nyquist stability criterion allows stability to be determined without computing the closed-loop poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Closed-loop_poles&action=edit).

[mhaze]

Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

The statement that the positive feedback effect is permanent just because it's there is a bit akin to the Creationists' 'well, if the Moon is moving away from us so and so fast it'd have been brushing the treetops of Earth by year x BC!'. In short, it's a non-sequitur.

+what CapelDodger said in Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

New Challenge for AGW Believers

4. Given the presumption (unproven) that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased warming, show that the water cycle, including effects of clouds, causes a net positive feedback on the CO2 effect as opposed to a negative feedback on the CO2 effect.

[Mycroft]

Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

The statement that the positive feedback effect is permanent just because it's there is a bit akin to the Creationists' 'well, if the Moon is moving away from us so and so fast it'd have been brushing the treetops of Earth by year x BC!'. In short, it's a non-sequitur.

+what CapelDodger said in Post 1326 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2983912&postcount=1326).

Okay, so what are the limits of this feedback?

[Mycroft]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f3b8d086a50.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8458)
Perhaps this discussion by Christy will help as a introduction to why cloud and precipitation systems operate as a negative, not a positive feedback.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)

Precipitation Systems: Nature's Air Conditioner? (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)

It is well known that precipitation is an important process in the atmosphere. Besides being necessary for life on Earth, all of the rain and snow that falls to the ground represents excess heat that has been removed from the Earth's surface during the evaporation of water. That heat is deposited in the middle and upper tropopshere when the water vapor condenses into clouds, some of then produce precipitation.

I believe it can be demonstrated that precipitation systems ultimately control most of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Most of the atmosphere (the lower 80%, called the troposphere) is continuously being recycled through precipitation systems (see Fig. 7), on a time scale of weeks. Winds in the troposphere's 'boundary layer' pick up water vapor that has been evaporated from the surface, and then transport this vapor to precipitation systems, where an equal amount of vapor (on average) is removed as rain or snow.

Partly because precipitation systems cover only several percent of the Earth's surface at any given time, even most climate researchers do not appreciate the controlling influence these systems have on the climate system. All of the humid air flowing into precipitation systems in the lower troposphere ends up flowing out of those same systems, mostly in the middle and upper troposphere. (The only exception is thunderstorm downdrafts, which you have likely experienced before). That air flowing out has moisture (water vapor and cloud) amounts that are controlled by precipitation processes within the systems. This constitutes the direct effect that precipitation systems have on the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

Partly because precipitation systems cover only several percent of the Earth's surface at any given time, even most climate researchers do not appreciate the controlling influence these systems have on the climate system. All of the humid air flowing into precipitation systems in the lower troposphere ends up flowing out of those same systems, mostly in the middle and upper troposphere. (The only exception is thunderstorm downdrafts, which you have likely experienced before). That air flowing out has moisture (water vapor and cloud) amounts that are controlled by precipitation processes within the systems. This constitutes the direct effect that precipitation systems have on the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.
Detecting Tropical Cyclones Using AMSU (http://datamining.itsc.uah.edu/case_studies/cyclone.html)
Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029698.shtml)
Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm) Roy Spencer revised Aug. 9, 2007
Star Search by Roy Spencer (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=063006D)
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676)
Spencer, Roy W.. "NOT THAT SIMPLE / GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm? page=0)", New York Post, 2007-02-26. Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-04-07 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_7).
Spencer, Roy W. (2007-03-19). STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf) (PDF). House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Retrieved on 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007)-03-0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_7)

I'm not going to read all your links, but if I understand your point correctly you're just saying that increased water vapor in the air leads to more heat being radiated back into space because the water vapor carries it up to the troposphere?

If that's so, what about the increased heat retention of water vapor in the atmosphere?

[Locri]

The statement that the positive feedback effect is permanent just because it's there is a bit akin to the Creationists' 'well, if the Moon is moving away from us so and so fast it'd have been brushing the treetops of Earth by year x BC!'. In short, it's a non-sequitur.

And you know what, I completely agree with you. It is nonsense to think that it's permanent. I don't think it is and no one else should. But the fact remains that if it isn't a permanent effect, there is obviously some negative feedbacks and other balancing mechanisms in place that have gone on for several millions of years that most of the AGW people seem to completely ignore.

[Locri]

I provided an answer four or five posts back, somewhat non-technical. Were you looking for something different? Outside of that, I agree completely with your comments and frustration.

[Link removed due to filter, see original post]
Precipitation Systems: Nature's Air Conditioner?
It is well known that precipitation is an important process in the atmosphere. Besides being necessary for life on Earth, all of the rain and snow that falls to the ground represents excess heat that has been removed from the Earth's surface during the evaporation of water. That heat is deposited in the middle and upper tropopshere when the water vapor condenses into clouds, some of then produce precipitation.


Ahh, yes, I did miss that post. Sorry. Although I would probably add that there is easily the chance for many other things going on that contribute to the climate balancing. Then again, I was generally aiming my comment towards the other side of the argument as I feel that a lack of understanding of climate feedbacks and the climate system as a whole seems to be a very weak point in the AGW argument.

[a_unique_person]

With all due respect, Safekeeper, typing "Words" like "Positive feedback" is not descriptive of the process. Go back and read about Positive and negative feedback. Here is just one fundamental issue from our friend Wikipedia.

Does it apply to climate? Can you draw the feedback loops and assign values to them? How do you prove that a given feedback is positive or negative?


Nyquist stability criterion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_criterion)

The Nyquist stability criterion, named for Harry Nyquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Nyquist), provides a simple test for stability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability) of a closed-loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-loop) control system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_system) by examining the open-loop system's Nyquist plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_plot). Stability of the closed-loop control system may be determined directly by computing the poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_%28complex_analysis%29) of the closed-loop transfer function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_function). In contrast, the Nyquist stability criterion allows stability to be determined without computing the closed-loop poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Closed-loop_poles&action=edit).
When a microphone feeds back, it doesn't keep on getting louder forever, it's limited by the power of the amplifier. When the climate has feedbacks, it's limited by the power coming from the sun, or the feedback mechanism itself runs out. Albedo changes when ice melts, causing the earth to absorb more radiation, rather than reflect it. When all the ice is gone, that's the end of that feedback mechanism. It's all also limited by the amount of radiation from the sun in the first place.

[a_unique_person]

And you know what, I completely agree with you. It is nonsense to think that it's permanent. I don't think it is and no one else should. But the fact remains that if it isn't a permanent effect, there is obviously some negative feedbacks and other balancing mechanisms in place that have gone on for several millions of years that most of the AGW people seem to completely ignore.

But the earth will change permanently, and it is a rapid change in geological terms. From a thermodynamic point of view, rapid change = chaos. Previous rapid changes have seen mass extinctions. We, collectively, will see massive changes needed in our infrastructure. The global wheat crop isn't doing too well, this year, for example.

We have seen the Asian economic meltdown come and go, and the rest of the world carried on, ditto 9/11, and other massive hits on the earths economic systems. This will affect all countries in the world, at the same time.

It will mean many species, such as polar bears being the most obvious ones, go extinct. Many other species will need to move to cooler climates, or adapt. Adaptation takes time, and the species won't have hat. Man now controls much of the land that blocks the way for species migration.

[a_unique_person]

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

You want answers from research scientists into the details of the matter? Read the IPCC report. If that doesn't have enough detail for you, try asking a question at Realclimate.

We are just interested amateurs here.

[a_unique_person]

Look what's the most important topic for the Australian election this year.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22461097-601,00.html



THE unprecedented crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin has propelled water to the top of the political agenda, with John Howard and Kevin Rudd battling to convince voters they can alleviate the devastating effects of Australia's prolonged drought.
The Prime Minister yesterday promised more drought relief for farmers, with Peter Costello outlining a controversial solution for urban water shortages -- a desalination plant for every capital city.
And Kevin Rudd used his trip to Walgett in northwest NSW to promote a $60 million strategy to help farmers prepare for the effects of climate change.
Under the Howard rescue plan -- to be considered by cabinet next week -- irrigators and communities suffering through record-breaking drought in the Murray-Darling Basin will receive extra support, probably in a two-phase package. It will include changes to exceptional circumstances drought assistance to make it easier for farmers -- particularly those who rely on irrigation -- to access immediate financial relief.
The package is also likely to include longer-term measures targeted at communities along the Murray that have received little or no water allocations this season and are watching their permanent plantings and crops die.
Farmers predict that if all the permanent plantings in the basin die it will cost up to $4 billion to replace them and the lost income could total $8 billion.





There are so many complaints about the cost of preventing climate change, but little appreciation of the cost of coping with it. The figures mentioned are just the dollars to deal with the farmers. A far bigger cost will be the increased cost of food.

[mhaze]

Look what's the most important topic for the Australian election this year.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22461097-601,00.html

There are so many complaints about the cost of preventing climate change, but little appreciation of the cost of coping with it. The figures mentioned are just the dollars to deal with the farmers. A far bigger cost will be the increased cost of food.

Yes, your politicians are really working the fear factors on these myths.

AUP you did not answer a question I posed a while back.What is the name of the foreign company that is making $10-15B off of your supposed need for desalination plants?
There may be an interesting story there...

[mhaze]

Yeah... I've brought up the same thing quite awhile ago in this thread and it was never answered satisfactorily except the standard "Well, it's different this time, we swear!"

That's one of the reasons I got so frustrated and stopped replying to this thread... people seem to be very unwilling to admit valid points and attempt to address them and instead just ignore the issue entirely.

Read the IPCC summary for policymakers only if you want to see how politicized the "science" has got.
If that doesn't have enough detail for you, try asking a question at Realclimate.
They censor the good questions.:D

[a_unique_person]

Yes, your politicians are really working the fear factors on these myths.

AUP you did not answer a question I posed a while back.What is the name of the foreign company that is making $10-15B off of your supposed need for desalination plants?
There may be an interesting story there...

I have no idea what it is, perhaps you could tell me?

The politicians don't have to work the myths, long established farms are just about to become unworkable.

[Mycroft]

When a microphone feeds back, it doesn't keep on getting louder forever, it's limited by the power of the amplifier.

Thank you for the analogy.


When the climate has feedbacks, it's limited by the power coming from the sun, or the feedback mechanism itself runs out.

Which doesn't make sense. There is no practical limit to the output of the Sun, and there is no indication of when any of the feedback mechanisms listed would "run out".


Albedo changes when ice melts, causing the earth to absorb more radiation, rather than reflect it. When all the ice is gone, that's the end of that feedback mechanism.

Except it wouldn't be the end. The ice would still be gone, and taken at face value the theory would suggest that the lack of ice would prevent the cycle from ever swinging back to cooler temperatures.

Yet the Earth has been warmer in the past than it is right now, and if that were true then we would never have our current situation. So there must be some mechanism that would not just end the feedback mechanism, but reverse its effects.

Either that or the alarmists are mistaken.


It's all also limited by the amount of radiation from the sun in the first place.

Which is a lot, and is not a practical limit for the sake of this discussion.

[oponol]

What is causing the CO2 fluctuations in the Mauna Loa record? Does it imply a long CO2 life cycle?

There is natural variation from year to year as many natural sources and sinks are sensitive to temperature. The rising co2 trend due to human activity is on top of this variation. Not sure whether you are refering to residence time of an average co2 molecule, or amount of time it would take for the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial co2 levels.

Do chemical laws apply to AGW such as Henry's Law Constant?

Yes and also warmer oceans absorb less co2.

[oponol]

Where are actual experiments in the layers of the atmosphere that are supposedly affected by CO2? That show the green house effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere, and which therefore prove what exactly climate sensitivity is?

I think you have to give an example of an experiment that would be necessary or would even work. I don't buy the idea that you can just sit a sensor somewhere in the atmosphere and determine what the warming effect would be of doubling co2.

Data for the transmission of IR in the atmosphere in different layers has comprehensively been collected for other reasons
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/

That should be enough to model the absorption and emission of radiation in the atmosphere

[oponol]

--deleted duplicate--

[oponol]

Go back and study DR's CO2 concentration by year chart.

It charts change in concentration by year.

[David Rodale]

It charts change in concentration by year.

It is annual mean growth rate by year.
What is your analysis?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f4b1f89980c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8476)

[a_unique_person]

It is annual mean growth rate by year.
What is your analysis?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f4b1f89980c.jpg

But what do you think it means?

[varwoche]

Which doesn't make sense. There is no practical limit to the output of the Sun, and there is no indication of when any of the feedback mechanisms listed would "run out". Huh?

A limited amount of energy reaches the earth from the sun.

If all ice on earth were to melt, there would no longer be a feedback loop caused by decreasing albedo.

The ice would still be gone, and taken at face value the theory would suggest that the lack of ice would prevent the cycle from ever swinging back to cooler temperatures. First off, what theory?

Second, there are factors that effect temperature other than albedo, obviously.

Yet the Earth has been warmer in the past than it is right now, and if that were true then we would never have our current situation. Unclear what you mean here.

So there must be some mechanism that would not just end the feedback mechanism, but reverse its effects. If you are trying to say that there are factors that effect temperature other than albedo and man made CO2, you are correct and I'm pretty sure you will find no disagreement on such basic facts.

You seem to be implying that a theory has been put forth that AGW will cause the earth to be permanently hot. If such a theory exists, I'm unaware of it.

Either that or the alarmists are mistaken. Who precisely are the alarmists and what precisely is their mistake?

[mhaze]

I think you have to give an example of an experiment that would be necessary or would even work. I don't buy the idea that you can just sit a sensor somewhere in the atmosphere and determine what the warming effect would be of doubling co2.

Data for the transmission of IR in the atmosphere in different layers has comprehensively been collected for other reasons
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/

That should be enough to model the absorption and emission of radiation in the atmosphere

HITRAN, in which serious errors were found and corrected just recently.

(Were studies done using HITRAN prior to 2005 corrected and restated with the new data? Not that I am aware of).

In the apparent lack of adequate atmospheric experiments, here is one format.

Keep in mind, as DR has pointed out, that atmospheric CO2 concentration varies considerably - in one location, over the course of a year - downwind of a major urban environment - in a year with El Nino or without.
Moreover, numerous environments hold low or negligible quantities of water vapor.

Therefore, it seems possible to look directly at various concentrations of CO2 in the air and what their effects are, instead of taking refuge in highly questionable computer modeling.

A balloon (or series of them) is launched with instrumentation to measure IR spectral emission, temperature, CO2 concentration and the like. The supposed effects of CO2 enhancing the "greenhouse effect" are at higher tropospheric altitudes.

On top of the balloon is placed a circular "fence", made perhaps of simple bubble plastic with aluminized mylar on the outer side.

Air above the balloon is now largely sheltered from IR radiation from the earth. Air on sides and below the balloon is affected by IR radiation. The hypothesis to be tested might be "there is no measurable difference in temperature of the samples of air protected from Earth's IR as compared to samples exposed to Earth's IR.

Of course "temperature" would imply that the CO2 absorbed IR and it became kinetic energy and was imparted to other air molecules in the vicinity. There is more arm waving in theory of CO2 greenhouse effects than that, some has to do with "re emission" by CO2 of photons.

Make no mistake about it, the physics gets very complex and the modeling by computers is unable to handle adequately exactly what CO2 does in the air, with other gases around it.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze Yes, your politicians are really working the fear factors on these myths. AUP you did not answer a question I posed a while back.What is the name of the foreign company that is making $10-15B off of your supposed need for desalination plants?
There may be an interesting story there...
I have no idea what it is, perhaps you could tell me?

Check it ou.? Ask around. See if anybody you know knows where 10-15 Billion (minimum) of your country's money is going. Or are they all too petrified with fear at the mythological effects of climate change to think objectively and criticize?

Hmm.... 10-15B of contracts at stake, plenty of money there for a marketing and advertising campaign to "enlighten" the public about the fearsome nature of "climate change".

[a_unique_person]

HITRAN, in which serious errors were found and corrected just recently.

(Were studies done using HITRAN prior to 2005 corrected and restated with the new data? Not that I am aware of).



Recently? They worked it out years ago, from what I can tell.


In the apparent lack of adequate atmospheric experiments, here is one format.

Keep in mind, as DR has pointed out, that atmospheric CO2 concentration varies considerably - in one location, over the course of a year - downwind of a major urban environment - in a year with El Nino or without.
Moreover, numerous environments hold low or negligible quantities of water vapor.

I am still trying to work out what he thinks he is pointing out :confused:

[Pipirr]

I am still trying to work out what he thinks he is pointing out :confused:


Beats me. Maybe you have to be a part of a secret club to know.

[mhaze]

Add to the list of things which influence atmospheric CO2 - the full moon. Man's supposed contribution is about 1.2 ppm per year, so every full moon is a variation equal to about 2 years of man's supposed contribution. Variation due to yearly climate - looks like about 9 ppm.

It should be pretty easy to design an experiment that picks a time and place of testing, such that the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere equal to 10 years of man's supposed contributions, and evaluate the hypothesized CO2 effect based on that.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f5396bb5e2c.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8478)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f53e08a5718.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8479)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446f53ed173d7f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8480)


Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies considerably - in one location, over the course of a year - downwind of a major urban environment - in a year with El Nino or without.
Moreover, numerous environments hold low or negligible quantities of water vapor.

Therefore, it seems possible to look directly at various concentrations of CO2 in the air and what their effects are, instead of taking refuge in highly questionable computer modeling.

A balloon (or series of them) is launched with instrumentation to measure IR spectral emission, temperature, CO2 concentration and the like. The supposed effects of CO2 enhancing the "greenhouse effect" are at higher tropospheric altitudes.

On top of the balloon is placed a circular "fence", made perhaps of simple bubble plastic with aluminized mylar on the outer side.

Air above the balloon is now largely sheltered from IR radiation from the earth. Air on sides and below the balloon is affected by IR radiation. The hypothesis to be tested might be "there is no measurable difference in temperature of the samples of air protected from Earth's IR as compared to samples exposed to Earth's IR.

Of course "temperature" would imply that the CO2 absorbed IR and it became kinetic energy and was imparted to other air molecules in the vicinity. There is more arm waving in theory of CO2 greenhouse effects than that, some has to do with "re emission" by CO2 of photons.

Make no mistake about it, the physics gets very complex and the modeling by computers is unable to handle adequately exactly what CO2 does in the air, with other gases around it.

[CapelDodger]

Ahh, yes, I did miss that post. Sorry. Although I would probably add that there is easily the chance for many other things going on that contribute to the climate balancing. Then again, I was generally aiming my comment towards the other side of the argument as I feel that a lack of understanding of climate feedbacks and the climate system as a whole seems to be a very weak point in the AGW argument.

There's a lack of precision in some feedbacks, but no great lack of understanding. Water-vapour is a positive feedback. Clouds may be a negative one, but if so observation reveals that its effect is small. Permafrost is a positive feedback, as is albedo.

It's difficult to be precise about the numbers involved since science has never before had the opportunity to observe climate change of this magnitude. That's the atmospheric experiment that's going on now : jack up CO2-load and see what happens. Observations taken during the experiment will teach us more about the various interactions and their scale.

Science can make some inferences about the overall scale of feedbacks from glacial/inter-glacial phase-shifts. Picking apart the different contributions is problematic, though. Direct observations made during the current warming will avoid that problem. We have satellites to observe cloud-cover, albedo, and the tree-line. The behaviour of melting premafrost can be studied on the ground. Surface and sub-surface sensors can monitor the oceans. We'll be pretty expert on the whole subject in a few more decades.

[a_unique_person]

There's a lack of precision in some feedbacks, but no great lack of understanding. Water-vapour is a positive feedback. Clouds may be a negative one, but if so observation reveals that its effect is small. Permafrost is a positive feedback, as is albedo.

It's difficult to be precise about the numbers involved since science has never before had the opportunity to observe climate change of this magnitude. That's the atmospheric experiment that's going on now : jack up CO2-load and see what happens. Observations taken during the experiment will teach us more about the various interactions and their scale.

Science can make some inferences about the overall scale of feedbacks from glacial/inter-glacial phase-shifts. Picking apart the different contributions is problematic, though. Direct observations made during the current warming will avoid that problem. We have satellites to observe cloud-cover, albedo, and the tree-line. The behaviour of melting premafrost can be studied on the ground. Surface and sub-surface sensors can monitor the oceans. We'll be pretty expert on the whole subject in a few more decades.

The criticism, as far as I can make it out, is that the models aren't coming up with the detail. They never have been expected to, and probably won't, since what appears to be the demand is that they model the micro climates around the world, which are subject to chaotic behaviour. They do appear to track the average global temperature pretty well, though, which is what they are claimed to be able to do, given the scenarios that have to be taken into account. Given that rise in temperature, the feebacks that are predicted are happening, and observable.

[CapelDodger]

The criticism, as far as I can make it out, is that the models aren't coming up with the detail. They never have been expected to, and probably won't, since what appears to be the demand is that they model the micro climates around the world, which are subject to chaotic behaviour. They do appear to track the average global temperature pretty well, though, which is what they are claimed to be able to do, given the scenarios that have to be taken into account. Given that rise in temperature, the feebacks that are predicted are happening, and observable.

Not only that, but no unexpected feedbacks have appeared. The rate of, say, permafrost melt is unexpectedly high, but we always knew it would be a positive feedback - permafrost sequesters a lot of carbon. It probably makes a significant contribution during glaciatl/inter-glacial phase-shifts. Working out how much is bit of a nightmare, of course, given that the permafrost-zone migrates on the surface of a sphere.

I'll make a point here that may not be universally appreciated : a positive feedback amplifies any change, warming or cooling. If the "natural cooling phase" that some predict for the near future does occur, the positive feedbacks will soon make it apparent.

[CapelDodger]

It is annual mean growth rate by year.
What is your analysis?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f4b1f89980c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8476)

I've provided some of my own (on the previous page). Care to comment on it, or provide a little analysis of your own?

"What about this, then?" does not constitute an argument. "Well, what about it?" does , on the other hand, constitute a response. So ... what about it?

The bar-chart reveals that CO2-load is increasing. The rate varies year-on-year - which is why decadal figures are more illuminating than annual - but it carries on inexorably upwards. To my mind, that's a lot more relevant than annual (let alone monthly) variations in the rate.

[CapelDodger]

Add to the list of things which influence atmospheric CO2 - the full moon.

Is there any discernible trend in this lunatic influence, do you know? The Moon to me, in all its phases, is one of those constants that puts all this surface-skim stuff into perspective.

Man's supposed contribution is about 1.2 ppm per year, so every full moon is a variation equal to about 2 years of man's supposed contribution. Variation due to yearly climate - looks like about 9 ppm.

And yet, according to the David Rodale bar-chart, when you work out the accounts at the end of the year the bottom-line keeps coming out positive. So all that intra-annual variation really means nothing.

It should be pretty easy to design an experiment that picks a time and place of testing, such that the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere equal to 10 years of man's supposed contributions, and evaluate the hypothesized CO2 effect based on that.

While isolating said place from the rest of the world's climate. Not really practicable, is it?

You might well find somewhere with a wildly fluctuating CO2-load, but what will that tell you? Squat, that's what. Greenhouse warming doesn't happen overnight.

[CapelDodger]

Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies considerably - in one location, over the course of a year - downwind of a major urban environment - in a year with El Nino or without.


If you total all the areas downwind (?) of urban enviroments, it still comes to a tiny fraction of the Eastern Pacific influenced by El Nino/La Nina. Just to get some sense of scale.

Moreover, numerous environments hold low or negligible quantities of water vapor.


None of them over the oceans, which constitute about 70% of the surface. Of the rest, the dessicated area is a small minority. There's a desert band from the Sahara to the Gobi but it's well outweighed by the wetlands to North and South.

Therefore, it seems possible to look directly at various concentrations of CO2 in the air and what their effects are, instead of taking refuge in highly questionable computer modeling.


You can't stop the weather from intruding unless you consider the whole planet. Sorry, but there it is. Without doing the experiment in a greenhouse, anyway, which would rather negate the purpose.

[CapelDodger]

Beats me. Maybe you have to be a part of a secret club to know.

Call me uncharitable, but I think mhaze is just flailing around. There, I've said it.

[a_unique_person]

Not only that, but no unexpected feedbacks have appeared. The rate of, say, permafrost melt is unexpectedly high, but we always knew it would be a positive feedback - permafrost sequesters a lot of carbon. It probably makes a significant contribution during glaciatl/inter-glacial phase-shifts. Working out how much is bit of a nightmare, of course, given that the permafrost-zone migrates on the surface of a sphere.

I'll make a point here that may not be universally appreciated : a positive feedback amplifies any change, warming or cooling. If the "natural cooling phase" that some predict for the near future does occur, the positive feedbacks will soon make it apparent.

Which is why Hansen says he is worried. When the climate changes, it often seems to flip from one state to another, due to the feedback mechanisms. We have been fortunate to live in a time when negative feedback mechanisms have kept the climate relatively stable.

[a_unique_person]

Hockey stick alive and kicking.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

[mhaze]

You might well find somewhere with a wildly fluctuating CO2-load, but what will that tell you? Squat, that's what. Greenhouse warming doesn't happen overnight.

It would happen overnight if it existed.

[a_unique_person]

It would happen overnight if it existed.

It happens from the top of the troposphere down. The higher parts of the troposphere are going to be well mixed, because the CO2 is produced at the surface. Localised eddies at the surface aren't going to make much difference to the overall effect.

[oponol]

Therefore, it seems possible to look directly at various concentrations of CO2 in the air and what their effects are, instead of taking refuge in highly questionable computer modeling.

Conclusions like this are possible then:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

[David Rodale]

It happens from the top of the troposphere down. The higher parts of the troposphere are going to be well mixed, because the CO2 is produced at the surface. Localised eddies at the surface aren't going to make much difference to the overall effect.

Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events? Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed c)chemical and thermodynamic laws actually do apply to CO2.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f5ffbe95965.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8489)

Further, does CO2 have the omnipotent power to control ENSO and volcanoes? How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2? Note the correlation between temperature change and CO2 change in the following graph:
data source:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (graph data is taken from global temperatures, with annual changes)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f6008157314.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8490)

It is difficult to discern at first glance looking at the seemingly perfectly smooth upward trend normally shown, but the pattern is definitely there. What is actually driving CO2 levels?

Please explain where Segalstad is wrong:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt

[a_unique_person]

Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events? Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed c)chemical and thermodynamic laws actually do apply to CO2.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f5ffbe95965.jpg

Further, does CO2 have the omnipotent power to control ENSO and volcanoes? How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2? Note the correlation between temperature change and CO2 change in the following graph:
data source:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (graph data is taken from global temperatures, with annual changes)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f6008157314.jpg

It is difficult to discern at first glance looking at the seemingly perfectly smooth upward trend normally shown, but the pattern is definitely there. What is actually driving CO2 levels?

Please explain where Segalstad is wrong:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt

Why is there an underlying signal? To confirm that it is burning of fossil fuels behind the background trend, "carbon dating" has been used.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

That there is not a uniform lockstep happening in what is a chaotic system does not surprise me at all, neither that there is an underlying background trend.

Another geologist out of his depth? For some reason, engineers and geologists seem to be behind a lot of the ignorance out there.

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

[a_unique_person]

One thing I note about coping with global warming, the deniers say we can't afford collective action, but we can rely on the free market to help when the problems kick in. We will also be able to work our way out using our advancing technological skills.

Two points.

Why can't the free market do something now, (it will cost us too much apparently), how do we know it can react appropriately when the time comes.
Why can't we use our great technological skills to prevent the whole problem now? Why should we be able to rely on technology in the future when it is not magically preventing the problem now?

[mhaze]

Conclusions like this are possible then:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

All kinds of conclusions are possible by looking at the actual data. As I am sure you are aware, quite often one study is rapidly followed by another which directly contradicts it. Then another comes out that points to a deeper underlying meaning, etc. That's the process.

But when I am suggesting that we (here on this forum) look at the raw data and try to see if there are correlations and actual relationships, it is only because it does seem like the correct way to study and understand the issue.

The entire subject of AGW has been highly politicized and biased even in what should be the purely scientific arena. Consider any discussion on quantum physics on the JREF forum. There is none of the nonsense that is seen on discussions on global warming.

[mhaze]

One thing I note about coping with global warming, the deniers say we can't afford collective action, but we can rely on the free market to help when the problems kick in. We will also be able to work our way out using our advancing technological skills.

Two points.

Why can't the free market do something now, (it will cost us too much apparently), how do we know it can react appropriately when the time comes.
Why can't we use our great technological skills to prevent the whole problem now? Why should we be able to rely on technology in the future when it is not magically preventing the problem now?

After the vast number of studies and scientists whom you have denied, calling them as nutters and loons (without reading a bit of it) you would like to ask a question like this?

Maybe you should just go read some of their work or consider alternate points of view.

By the way what you are describing is an engineering problem and the application of the engineering method to solving a problem. Oh, but you have already denied engineers, geologists, and economists.

[mhaze]

Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events? Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed c)chemical and thermodynamic laws actually do apply to CO2.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f5ffbe95965.jpg

Further, does CO2 have the omnipotent power to control ENSO and volcanoes? How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2? Note the correlation between temperature change and CO2 change in the following graph:
data source:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (graph data is taken from global temperatures, with annual changes)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346f6008157314.jpg

It is difficult to discern at first glance looking at the seemingly perfectly smooth upward trend normally shown, but the pattern is definitely there. What is actually driving CO2 levels?

Please explain where Segalstad is wrong:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt

The powerpoint presentation is quite interesting.

Three points I think are worth repeating from it -

1. We need to talk about heat capacity and heat energy, not temperature
2. Clouds are the real thermostat, having far more temperature regulating power than CO2
3. There have been over 40 scientific studies that prove the atmospheric CO2 lifetime to be 5-6 years, not the "hundreds of years" that the IPCC alleges.

Overall the AGW concept is primarily a radiative energy model, while the actual planet is mostly a convective energy system.

Now AGW True Believers deny over 135 peer reviewed studies of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and also, over 40 scientific studies of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Hmm....other established areas of science do they deny the reality of?

[mhaze]

It happens from the top of the troposphere down. The higher parts of the troposphere are going to be well mixed, because the CO2 is produced at the surface. Localised eddies at the surface aren't going to make much difference to the overall effect.

You are confusing the time for co2 equilibrium to be reached with how long and where the effect is seen, if there is any effect. For troposphere, consider 20,000 feet. It takes an hour or so for a cumulonimbus to develop and reach 20,000 feet. That or less is obviously how long co2 on the ground spreads. As I recall from somewhere, the speed of reaching equilibrium concentration in gas partial pressure should be the speed of sound in the medium (might have that wrong).

But that has no relation to how and when there is a greenhouse effect. There is one or is not one as the case may be, at 20,000 feet at the instant the sun rises above the horizon, and begins the process of thermal warming of the planet. You can take it from there to see the daily cycle, and also the "global warming" cycle as it applies to winter and summer.

The actual effect of "global warming" should be in the rate of change of tropospheric temperatures, right? How rapidly they heat up in response to the Earth's IR, and how rapidly their heat content decays.

Upper Troposphere = cold.

Hmm....moving heat from a cold area to a hot area....

[a_unique_person]

All kinds of conclusions are possible by looking at the actual data. As I am sure you are aware, quite often one study is rapidly followed by another which directly contradicts it. Then another comes out that points to a deeper underlying meaning, etc. That's the process.

But when I am suggesting that we (here on this forum) look at the raw data and try to see if there are correlations and actual relationships, it is only because it does seem like the correct way to study and understand the issue.

The entire subject of AGW has been highly politicized and biased even in what should be the purely scientific arena. Consider any discussion on quantum physics on the JREF forum. There is none of the nonsense that is seen on discussions on global warming.

Yet it too is just based on science.

[a_unique_person]

The powerpoint presentation is quite interesting.

Three points I think are worth repeating from it -
1. We need to talk about heat capacity and heat energy, not temperature



You are ignoring the change that is happening. In terms of degrees K, it's quite small, but that small change is enough to change the climate and ecosystems drastically. That is, and always has been, the point.


2. Clouds are the real thermostat, having far more temperature regulating power than CO2



Ditto. So far clouds haven't stopped the warming, either.


3. There have been over 40 scientific studies that prove the atmospheric CO2 lifetime to be 5-6 years, not the "hundreds of years" that the IPCC alleges.



It's the change that is significant. Mauna Loa and Cape Grimes both show, it's steadily increasing. The isotope measurements confirm it's us adding the extra CO2. It's not going away, it's accumulating.


Overall the AGW concept is primarily a radiative energy model, while the actual planet is mostly a convective energy system.



It's the radiation that is trapping the extra heat, jacking up the temperature of the whole system, that is, it is a 'forcing'.


Now AGW True Believers deny over 135 peer reviewed studies of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and also, over 40 scientific studies of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.



No, it's about why is it increasing, the change that increased amount is causing, and the lifetime of that increase.


Hmm....other established areas of science do they deny the reality of?

You are into the realms of fiction.

[a_unique_person]

You are confusing the time for co2 equilibrium to be reached with how long and where the effect is seen, if there is any effect. For troposphere, consider 20,000 feet. It takes an hour or so for a cumulonimbus to develop and reach 20,000 feet. That or less is obviously how long co2 on the ground spreads. As I recall from somewhere, the speed of reaching equilibrium concentration in gas partial pressure should be the speed of sound in the medium (might have that wrong).

But that has no relation to how and when there is a greenhouse effect. There is one or is not one as the case may be, at 20,000 feet at the instant the sun rises above the horizon, and begins the process of thermal warming of the planet. You can take it from there to see the daily cycle, and also the "global warming" cycle as it applies to winter and summer.

The actual effect of "global warming" should be in the rate of change of tropospheric temperatures, right? How rapidly they heat up in response to the Earth's IR, and how rapidly their heat content decays.

Upper Troposphere = cold.

Hmm....moving heat from a cold area to a hot area....

As CD said, measure the infra red coming from the sky at nighttime. It might be cold up there, but the CO2 is radiating energy.

[Badger]

Ditto. So far clouds haven't stopped the warming, either.



Dude, clouds/water vapour trap heat, and to a much greater extent than CO2.

[a_unique_person]

Dude, clouds/water vapour trap heat, and to a much greater extent than CO2.

Yes, it's all in the IPCC reports. The question is the change, why it is warming.

[mhaze]

Yes, it's all in the IPCC reports. The question is the change, why it is warming.

Yes, all the contraditions and illogical conclusions that are in the IPCC reports, we should rout them out into the open and expose how ridiculous they are. I would have no problem with always stating page and chapter numbers when referring to the IPCC reports. Would you also like to do so?

Why is it warming? It appears to be because we are in the warming phase of a 60-80 year cycle and also coming out of a little ice age.

Now let's think that thru carefully. It used to be a "little ice age". Now it is not. Is it probably getting warmer, colder, or would there be no change in temperature?

[mhaze]

As CD said, measure the infra red coming from the sky at nighttime. It might be cold up there, but the CO2 is radiating energy.

You are kidding, right? The sky is glowing slightly infra red and that means ....

[Mycroft]

Huh?

A limited amount of energy reaches the earth from the sun.

Thank you, Varwoche, but I'm not trying to partake in an argument, I'm just asking some questions about a subject I don't understand as well as I would like. If you don't understand the questions I'm asking or have no answers, then please leave it for someone who does.

[CapelDodger]

You are kidding, right? The sky is glowing slightly infra red and that means ....

Slightly? Relative to what?

The night-sky glows in the infra-red. What more do you need? That radiation - heat - is coming from the sky straight back here. Absent any alternative explanation - as usual - this confirms greenhouse theory.

[Skeptical Greg]

Slightly? Relative to what?

The night-sky glows in the infra-red. What more do you need? That radiation - heat - is coming from the sky straight back here. Absent any alternative explanation - as usual - this confirms greenhouse theory.


Do you think there is a chance that any of the massive amount of heat that is being radiated from the Earth on the night side, is being reflected back by the clouds and the atmosphere ?

[a_unique_person]

Do you think there is a chance that any of the massive amount of heat that is being radiated from the Earth on the night side, is being reflected back by the clouds and the atmosphere ?

Why do you think scientists investigate these things? Read the 4AR.

[CapelDodger]

Dude, clouds/water vapour trap heat, and to a much greater extent than CO2.

The effect of clouds is two-fold : on the one hand they reflect light from the Sun back into space (some of it even back into the Sun, where it has no significant effect), on the other they radiate infra-red down to the surface. Where it has some effect.

Water-vapour is a very different matter. It doesn't relect light from above, but it does absorb infra-red from below. That said, clouds are full of water-vapour, and the air below them is generally close to saturation. So the water-vapour effect probably dominates on a cloudy night.

It has long been a contrarian argument that clouds might be a negative feedback to climate change, but experience has demonstrated otherwise. It was always very speculative.

Water-vapour has long been recognised as a positive feedback to any climate forcing.

[Skeptical Greg]

Why do you think scientists investigate these things? Read the 4AR.The question was why we can detect infra red in the night sky ...

Do you think there is a chance that any of the massive amount of heat that is being radiated from the Earth on the night side, is being reflected back by the clouds and the atmosphere ?

[CapelDodger]

Do you think there is a chance that any of the massive amount of heat that is being radiated from the Earth on the night side, is being reflected back by the clouds and the atmosphere ?

Most of the atmosphere is transparent, so it doesn't reflect anything, long-wave infra-red from the surface at any time or short-wave sunlight during the day. Long wave radiation does not reflect as readily as short-wave, so reflection of infra-red by clouds is tiny if it exists at all.

Apart from which, even in cloudless conditions there's still an infra-red glow from the atmosphere. It's not reflection. Re-emission, as per greenhouse theory, remains a very credible candidate.

[CapelDodger]

Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events?

The rate of increase is varying, not the CO2-levels. Look at your bar-chart again. Every year different, but every year an increase.

Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels

Of course there isn't, since there are other influences. Such as the effects of El Nino/La Nina/Itsa Nada on carbon sinks.

b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed

Hardly likely on such a short-term chart, and what's this 200-year life cycle? Do you mean the 100-year half-life?

c)chemical and thermodynamic laws actually do apply to CO2.

Of course they do. Who's ever said different?


Further, does CO2 have the omnipotent power to control ENSO and volcanoes?

Is it not more likely that El Nino/La Nina and ENSO influence carbon sinks? I commented on that a page or two back, in a direct response that you seem to have ignored, unless I've missed something. Which is always possible.

How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2?

How can you claim that volcanoes emit significant amounts of CO2 when the evidence shows that they reduce the rate of increase? I'm still at a loss to explain the mechanism involved, but there it is in the data. Volcanoes do not emit significant amounts of CO2.

[CapelDodger]

Thank you, Varwoche, but I'm not trying to partake in an argument, I'm just asking some questions about a subject I don't understand as well as I would like. If you don't understand the questions I'm asking or have no answers, then please leave it for someone who does.

There is not one single question-mark in the post that varwoche was responding to. No questions, just statements. Such as "there's no practical limit to the output of the Sun". Which there is. More to the point, the Sun's output is observable and observed.

What are your questions? Only ask, and you will be answered.

Or you could just slither back to Politics, whatever, it's all good.

[a_unique_person]

The question was why we can detect infra red in the night sky ...

Do you think there is a chance that any of the massive amount of heat that is being radiated from the Earth on the night side, is being reflected back by the clouds and the atmosphere ?

Why would you care what I think, I'm not a scientist, and this is a complex area of research. I would seriously suggest you read the 4AR, if you question any of the claims made by the IPCC, then move on from there. Otherwise this is all just a waste of time.

[mhaze]

The question was why we can detect infra red in the night sky ...

Do you think there is a chance that any of the massive amount of heat that is being radiated from the Earth on the night side, is being reflected back by the clouds and the atmosphere ?


http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/id10.html

Here is a 16 year old student (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eponderthemaunderd/id10.html) that says that IR glow is just good old water vapor, probably in the ten or twenty meters above CD and AUP's heads.

Who is right?

[a_unique_person]

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/id10.html (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eponderthemaunderd/id10.html)

Here is a 16 year old student (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eponderthemaunderd/id10.html) that says that IR glow is just good old water vapor, probably in the ten or twenty meters above CD and AUP's heads.

Who is right?

Hmmm, who should I believe, a 16 year old student, or teams of scientists? Hmmm, it's a tough decision, I'll go .... with ..... the ....... scientists. Yep, the scientists.

[mhaze]

Hmmm, who should I believe, a 16 year old student, or teams of scientists? Hmmm, it's a tough decision, I'll go .... with ..... the ....... scientists. Yep, the scientists.



http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/ispm.html)

Scientists? Well then.

Instead of reading the IPCC, the summary documents of which were written by non scientists and reviewed, changed and approved by governments before printing, one would want the scientists independent assessment.

Well... at least if you thought a 16 year old kid might get it wrong...

(hint: of course she got it right, why else would I have linked...:rolleyes:)This page provides information on the Independent Summary for Policymakers (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/ISPM.pdf) (ISPM) of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4), recently published by the Fraser Institute (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/). The ISPM is not a critique of or a response to the IPCC Report. It is a detailed summary, written on the premise that a great deal of good, balanced science is presented in the IPCC report and it should be widely disseminated and carefully read. The ISPM includes some 300 direct citations to the IPCC report and provides detailed chapter locations so that readers can look up the IPCC sections for themselves.

In producing this Summary we have worked independently of the IPCC, using the Second Order Draft of the IPCC report, as circulated after revisions were made in response to the first expert review period in the winter and spring of 2006. Section references will be checked against the final IPCC version, to be released in May 2007. If, in preparing the final draft of the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC substantially rewrites the Assessment text, such that the key summary materials presented herein need to be re-worded, we will do so and publish an Appendix to that effect.

[CapelDodger]

Here is a 16 year old student (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eponderthemaunderd/id10.html) that says that IR glow is just good old water vapor, probably in the ten or twenty meters above CD and AUP's heads.

Most of it is from water-vapour. Not in the ten or twenty metres above ground, obviously. That's just silly. But there's no question that water-vapour is the most influential greenhouse gas. There's no shortage of it at any temperature that doesn't freeze over the oceans.

If water-vapour were the only greenhouse gas, the oceans would be frozen all the way through. Earth's climate would be no different from the Moon's.

It's not wet atmosphere that makes the Earth warm, it's a warm Earth that makes the atmosphere wet. CO2 is what makes for a warm Earth. Water-vapour is just a positive feedback.

[a_unique_person]

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/id10.html (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eponderthemaunderd/id10.html)

Here is a 16 year old student (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eponderthemaunderd/id10.html) that says that IR glow is just good old water vapor, probably in the ten or twenty meters above CD and AUP's heads.

Who is right?

I tried to read it, I really did, but she gets so much wrong it just ends up being annoying. The simple fact of the matter is, like the people who hand out mathematical prizes, you just end up with an stream of ignoramii turning up at your door saying "I can square the circle". Even though it has been mathematically proven to be impossible, even though trained mathematicians gave up on the notion 200 years ago, still some idiot claims to have the proof of how to do it.

Let me know when she has actually read and understood the 4AR, which is the starting point, and I'll have another look at what she has to say then.

[a_unique_person]

Take this.



This is a huge problem for the IPCC and greenhouse gas theorists. Not only do they have enormous numbers of calculations to make for each cubic meter of atmosphere, but those calculations change every few seconds depending on temperature, humidity, elevation, lattitude, local geography, clouds, wind, time of day, season, and etc. They try to use super computers to make these calculations, but even the best computers are not powerful enough, which is why computer climate models are still only “an approximation of reality” (Veiser 2000).



She seems to think that the computers have to model the actions of every molecule reacting with every photon, which is nonsense, of course. They don't model anything like every cubic metre.



Another problem that has been suggested with the whole radiative-heat transfer theory proposed by the IPCC is because as altitude increases, density decreases, thus leading to fewer and fewer collisions. There are fewer molecules in a unit of space above than below. I would agree that CO2 molecules would suffer fewer collisions at higher altitudes and have a chance to relax and emit their photons in all directions, 50% in an upward direction and 50% in a downward direction. But the photons headed upward are going to travel farther than the photons traveling downward because of the lower density above. Further, as the photons travel downward and are absorbed by CO2 molecules, they are again subjected to collisions. This makes me wonder how a photon can make it back to the surace of the earth and reheat the surface.



That's evidence. All you have to do is wonder how something can be true, decide it's not, and that's it.

The whole essay is full of rubbish like this.

[Diamond]

nzclimatescience? "commonsense about climate change" give me a break. Science is not about common sense. If it was, no one would have thought of quantum mechanics. It is more and more about understanding highly complex systems. A bunch of earnest nutters and contrarians, with little actual expertise in what is actually being researched, doing just what the deniers all want, finding any answer but CO2, which is the point. It's the sun, no it's a natural cycle, no it's not actually changing, measurements are wrong, it's anything but CO2. Vincent Gray is past it, he has no idea what current research is nor how to understand it, Bellamy is a botanist, Carter is a simple contrarian in the mold of Lindzen, who is outside his field of competence.

Hoo boy AUP is getting desperate.

Perhaps I should put this in a sig:

"Science is not about common sense - AUP"

Clearly rattled by inconvenient truths, you resort to smear, innuendo and plain old-fashioned lying.

YOU are the simple contrarian. YOU are the denier.

CO2 has never caused warming as seen by every ice core record which shows carbon dioxide rise to be a delayed response. Why? Because YOU don't understand quantum physics. If you did, you'd know that the mean temperature of the atmosphere cannot rise by simply changing the partial pressure of a trace gas.

But you don't know that, because in AUP-world, ignorance is a part of view.

[Diamond]

If water-vapour were the only greenhouse gas, the oceans would be frozen all the way through. Earth's climate would be no different from the Moon's.

Rubbish. Absolute nonsense. Where do you get this drivel from?

It's not wet atmosphere that makes the Earth warm, it's a warm Earth that makes the atmosphere wet. CO2 is what makes for a warm Earth. Water-vapour is just a positive feedback.

This is clearly a religious belief, typical of creationists. No mention of the sun, solar cycles, no mention that water vapour has a very large negative feedback because of its cloud forming properties.

Its CO2, CO2, CO2 and its all the fault of man, man, man, because Capeldodgy read it in Marx, Marx, Marx

[Diamond]

I tried to read it, I really did, but she gets so much wrong it just ends up being annoying. The simple fact of the matter is, like the people who hand out mathematical prizes, you just end up with an stream of ignoramii turning up at your door saying "I can square the circle". Even though it has been mathematically proven to be impossible, even though trained mathematicians gave up on the notion 200 years ago, still some idiot claims to have the proof of how to do it.

Let me know when she has actually read and understood the 4AR, which is the starting point, and I'll have another look at what she has to say then.

The much more likely reason is that AUP doesn't like the implication that his creationist friends are fundamentally wrong on a point of science. The student must be wrong because AUP says so.

Let's see YOUR full explanation, with references to primary scientific literature and with equations showing with the student is wrong. We'll wait. We're patient.

[Diamond]

Slightly? Relative to what?

The night-sky glows in the infra-red. What more do you need? That radiation - heat - is coming from the sky straight back here. Absent any alternative explanation - as usual - this confirms greenhouse theory.

You mean, in the absence of an atmosphere, the night side of a planet falls straight to absolute zero?

Greenhouse theory predicts things which are not observed in the real atmosphere. But rather than deal with them, claim that everything change in the atmosphere, warm or cold, is predicted by greenhouse theory when it doesn't.

[a_unique_person]

The much more likely reason is that AUP doesn't like the implication that his creationist friends are fundamentally wrong on a point of science. The student must be wrong because AUP says so.

Let's see YOUR full explanation, with references to primary scientific literature and with equations showing with the student is wrong. We'll wait. We're patient.

What I said was, the evidence she provides is useless.

[a_unique_person]

You mean, in the absence of an atmosphere, the night side of a planet falls straight to absolute zero?

Greenhouse theory predicts things which are not observed in the real atmosphere. But rather than deal with them, claim that everything change in the atmosphere, warm or cold, is predicted by greenhouse theory when it doesn't.

That's one of the interesting points. Christy has been saying the troposphere records are wrong, McIntyre has been pursuing and beating up on Hansen with a baseball bat. Yet for years McIntyre has been perfectly content to ignore Christy and the problems he has had with his data, and the take it for gospel.

[stevea]

You mean, in the absence of an atmosphere, the night side of a planet falls straight to absolute zero?

Greenhouse theory predicts things which are not observed in the real atmosphere. But rather than deal with them, claim that everything change in the atmosphere, warm or cold, is predicted by greenhouse theory when it doesn't.

No. The night sky, above the atmosphere radiates at about 4 degrees Kelvin,
and yes that has an impact on the plantary surface temperature.

The first few posts on this topic were made by a strident and very incorrect "scneibster' who incorrectly assumed that the temperature calculation was a simple one based on black body radiation. That is (it should be clear) nonsense. Albedo and the spectral characteristics of the atmosphere are rcitical to any argument. The relationships are not simple and each 'effect' has other side effects which may either increase or decrease the supposed warming trend.

The problem is highly complex - I hope we see this now. Let me make an analogy. We have another highly complex system in biology, but in the case of biology, unlike environmental sciences, we can create experiments which are substantially comparable to the cases of interest. Yet there are differences. I was just reading through the data sheet on a new medication.
There was some evidence of a tertogenic effect of this med at high doses in a particular breed of rat, but not in other test animals. There was a possible carcinogenic effect at very high long term doses in some animals, but not others. So what exactly are the implications for normal use in humans ? It's very difficult to say anything definitive. The big pharma company that developed this medication makes very cautious statements and careful disclosures regarding the extrapolated impact of this medication on humans.

Now in contrast we have environmental scientists who, like astronomers and cosmologists, are unable to implement useful experiments. They must be satisfied with observation of existing environments. So exactly how many planetary atmospheric systems have environmentalists studied ? How often were their models demonstrated to accurately predict surface temperature ? Given the single local planet as their primary object of study - just how good is the quality of long-term temperature records and records of atmospheric gaseous content, of volcanic activity ? Obviously the answer is that this observations that inform this area of study have severe limitations. Despite this the recent claims of accuracy and consensus by all, are remarkably lacking in caution and are not at all circumspect.

If environmental scientists were as subject to law suit for damages as drug companies they would, I think, be making more careful statements about what data is currently suggesting, rather than jumping on the fear-mongering bandwagon.

No science is not about common sense and it is also not about concensus. I don't really care if an argument is proposed by an illustrious committee nor a 16 yo girl. As in any rational discussion , we should evaluate the arguments and not the proponents.


We should all be concerned that human activity has *apparently* caused a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. No one can argue that pollution via CO2, NO, ozone depleting chemicals and ground-water polluting chemicals is a net good. Also the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen that human activity makes available as runoff chemicals has a large net positive impact on the amount of plant growth - which is also generally viewed as a negative.

So whether one believes in the catastrophic global warming hypothesis or more simply in the clearly evidenced idea that current human activity is having a major impact wrt conventional pollution - what can practically be done about it ?

What force would compel less developed countries from burning fossil fuels even if more advanced countries avoid these ? What force will cause a roughly 1/3rd population decrease that would be necessary to avoid creating atmospherically fixed nitrogen for farming ? (it's estimated that 30-40% of all the nitrogen in the average human comes from a chemical plant).

Let's get past the dubious climate hypothesis. What can be done about it is a very intractable problem.

[mhaze]

No. The night sky, above the atmosphere radiates at about 4 degrees Kelvin,
and yes that has an impact on the plantary surface temperature.

We should all be concerned that human activity has *apparently* caused a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. No one can argue that pollution via CO2, NO, ozone depleting chemicals and ground-water polluting chemicals is a net good. Also the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen that human activity makes available as runoff chemicals has a large net positive impact on the amount of plant growth - which is also generally viewed as a negative.

So whether one believes in the catastrophic global warming hypothesis or more simply in the clearly evidenced idea that current human activity is having a major impact wrt conventional pollution - what can practically be done about it ?

What force would compel less developed countries from burning fossil fuels even if more advanced countries avoid these ? What force will cause a roughly 1/3rd population decrease that would be necessary to avoid creating atmospherically fixed nitrogen for farming ? (it's estimated that 30-40% of all the nitrogen in the average human comes from a chemical plant).

Let's get past the dubious climate hypothesis. What can be done about it is a very intractable problem.

Pretty good comments and I agree with your approach. However you include co2 as a pollutant.

It would be nice to actually establish if man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is a "bad" or not. How could that be done?

Without some certainty on that, it isn't possible to understand whether "the intractable problem" is insignificant or important.

[mhaze]

The whole essay is full of rubbish like this.

Her science beats your science or lack of.

She argues the merit of a complex issue, while you shriek rubbish, nutters, and loons.

[a_unique_person]

Her science beats your science or lack of.

She argues the merit of a complex issue, while you shriek rubbish, nutters, and loons.

I say that because that is what they are.

She says



This makes me wonder how a photon can make it back to the surace of the earth and reheat the surface.



That's it for the evidence, an argument from ignorance.

She also shows she has no idea how modeling is done.

Corbyn has a knowledge of the climate, but he hides it from everyone. That completely breaks the scientific model. The howls from McIntyre about about Jones are piercing, because they can't produce the data years after a paper was written and it has been long lost, but Corbyn won't even produce a reason why claims what he does, he just arbitrarily states results with no more reason than it's got something to do with the sun.

Monckton is an ignoramous. There is no better way to put it. His calculations, which are simple models, are wrong. He has no idea what he is talking about.

Daly, ditto. Daly even refers to Landscheit, an astrologer.

Crichton is a novelist, but he has assumed the powers to offer expert insight into computer modeling, without ever having actually studied the subject. It's just his opinion, nothing more.

[mhaze]

Rule 12.

"Attack the argument, not the arguer".

[Mycroft]

There is not one single question-mark in the post that varwoche was responding to. No questions, just statements.

Yup. Statements addressing statements that addressed previous questions.


Such as "there's no practical limit to the output of the Sun". Which there is. More to the point, the Sun's output is observable and observed.

The energy output of the Sun over a given period of time is measurable and finite, however if the discussion is global warming then the issues revolves around how much of that energy is absorbed versus how much of that energy is reflected/radiated away. The fundamental question revolves the cumulative effect of this energy, not how much is put out in a given period of time.

What are your questions? Only ask, and you will be answered.

Or you could just slither back to Politics, whatever, it's all good.

Hmm, nice.

[mhaze]

The energy output of the Sun over a given period of time is measurable and finite, however if the discussion is global warming then the issues revolves around how much of that energy is absorbed versus how much of that energy is reflected/radiated away. The fundamental question revolves the cumulative effect of this energy, not how much is put out in a given period of time.


Right. It'd be nice if we had had for some decades, integrating thermometers at the surface and sea temperature measuring points, instead of thermometers that were manually read twice a day. Cumulative energy is a key number, but we don't even seem to know it accurately.

[mhaze]

http://downloads.heartland.org/21977.pdf

500 published scientists (http://downloads.heartland.org/21977.pdf) whose work substantiates skepticism of AGW as proposed by the IPCC.

Hmm....

[a_unique_person]

http://downloads.heartland.org/21977.pdf

500 published scientists (http://downloads.heartland.org/21977.pdf) whose work substantiates skepticism of AGW as proposed by the IPCC.

Hmm....

Did you read the titles?

The majority of them appear to be work on variability of the climate in geological terms. No one has ever disputed that. It's just that at the moment, it appears to be us.

Did they homeland institute actually ask these scientists if their interpretation of the work is correct? That also seems to be a common denier trick. Finally, a lot of the work is based on the use of proxies for inferring past climate condition. All of a sudden, that's acceptable science and quite believable.

[CapelDodger]

Yup. Statements addressing statements that addressed previous questions.

No questions then.

The energy output of the Sun over a given period of time is measurable and finite ...[/qote]

Why, then, the silly statement about it "having no limit"?

[quote]... however ...

Her comes the explanation ...

... if the discussion is global warming ...

In a fundamental sense, it is.

... then the issues revolves around how much of that energy is absorbed versus how much of that energy is reflected/radiated away.

Which really doesn't explain the silly statement.

Earth's climate stabilises when its energy budget settles around the balanced.

The fundamental question revolves the cumulative effect of this energy, not how much is put out in a given period of time.[/quite]

OK, now we have a revolving fundamental question concept, but I don't see that as progress.

Do you have a coherent question to ask?



[quote]Hmm, nice.

Thank you. I rather liked it.

[mhaze]

She seems to think that the computers have to model the actions of every molecule reacting with every photon, which is nonsense, of course. They don't model anything like every cubic metre.
The whole essay is full of rubbish like this.


Hmmm.... let's see. A CO2 or water molecule gets excited by being hit, bangs around a bit more...that's gas expansion. So we're talking a gas working against gravity, the atmosphere moving up a bit.... where it is colder. That uses up the kinetic energy of the gas heated by radiation from the earth doesn't it? Is some energy left over to re radiate downward? Is there a lot of it? How much?

A bit hard to move energy from a colder place to a hotter place, isn't it?

Ooops.

Looks like Kristine Byrnes, the high school student, does make sense.

So AUP, what do you say we go through her table of contents one chapter at a time? Might be lots of good rubbish there.

You might learn a thing or two.

[mhaze]

The much more likely reason is that AUP doesn't like the implication that his creationist friends are fundamentally wrong on a point of science. The student must be wrong because AUP says so.

Let's see YOUR full explanation, with references to primary scientific literature and with equations showing with the student is wrong. We'll wait. We're patient.

A deafening silence.

But on www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org), plenipotentiary suggests a solution in line with the general concepts of anthropogenic causation.

Posted on 09/18/2007 12:28:41 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Eplenipotentiary)Q I still haven’t had explained to me how the seasonal variations in CO2 concentration create the seasons.


A Well, first of all you have to forget all that stuff about the spinning Earth being tilted at an angle of twenty-something degrees to the ecliptic, and cooling during its Northern winters, warming during its summers. Forget about the Sun. Or better still, think of the Earth as being flat.


Think instead about CO2 in the atmosphere. During summer, when plant photosynthesis is maximum, plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and reduce its levels, and thus reduce global warming, resulting in a subsequent cold winter. During winter, when plant photosynthesis is at a minimum, CO2 levels tend to rise, resulting in global warming - and the subsequent warm summer.


See. Quite easy to explain.


You’ll probably want to know about anthropogenic seasonal variation too. That is, how humans manage to create the seasons. And this happens because, during winter, humans tend to light fires to keep warm, and these fires generate CO2, which causes global warming, and results in warm summers. During these warm summers, humans stop burning fires, and the excess CO2 is absorbed by plants, reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and bringing global cooling, and the subsequent winter.


The result, as I’m sure you’ll see, is that the seasonal cycle of spring-summer-autumn-winter is entirely created by human activity, and if humans would simply stop burning fires in winter, this seasonal variation would vanish, and terrestrial surface temperatures would remain more or less constant.


Convinced? I’m sure you are. If you want to save the world from the endless cycle of the destruction of the creation, all you have to do is to not turn on your heating system when temperatures fall 10 or 20 degrees C below zero. It would also help if you stayed outside, and didn’t wear any clothes, or ate anything. You know by now that it makes no sense to do stupid things like that, right?

[CapelDodger]

A deafening silence.

This is what you're reduced to? Responding to a typically vapid Diamond post about lack of response to a typically vapid contribution by a sixteen-year old with something as vapid as this?

There are substantial points being made around here, and you're not responding to them. The cut-and-paste side-stepping that follows does not qualify as a response.

[a_unique_person]

This is what you're reduced to? Responding to a typically vapid Diamond post about lack of response to a typically vapid contribution by a sixteen-year old with something as vapid as this?

There are substantial points being made around here, and you're not responding to them. The cut-and-paste side-stepping that follows does not qualify as a response.

I am supposed to respond to a 16 year old who provides the phrase "I don't see how" as evidence, with science and equations? :eye-poppi

[mhaze]

I am supposed to respond to a 16 year old who provides the phrase "I don't see how" as evidence, with science and equations? :eye-poppi

I have not seen much math from your direction.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good response.

[a_unique_person]

I have not seen much math from your direction.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good response.

I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers, nor the math. I am quite happy to refer you to the scientists who do.

[Mycroft]

Hmmm.... let's see. A CO2 or water molecule gets excited by being hit, bangs around a bit more...that's gas expansion. So we're talking a gas working against gravity, the atmosphere moving up a bit.... where it is colder. That uses up the kinetic energy of the gas heated by radiation from the earth doesn't it? Is some energy left over to re radiate downward? Is there a lot of it? How much?

A bit hard to move energy from a colder place to a hotter place, isn't it?

Ooops.

Looks like Kristine Byrnes, the high school student, does make sense.

So AUP, what do you say we go through her table of contents one chapter at a time? Might be lots of good rubbish there.

You might learn a thing or two.

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that because the air is thinner in the upper atmosphere, that more heat is radiated away from the planet because heat that radiates down towards the planet is more likely to encounter more molecules in the denser air and thus be re-directed upwards again?

Also, if IR is detected in the night sky, it's evidence that heat is being radiated away from the planet?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[PogoPedant]

I have not seen much math from your direction.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good response.

But to point and say "See! She doesn't know, therefore evidence!" is less good.

[bobdroege7]

Hmmm.... let's see. A CO2 or water molecule gets excited by being hit, bangs around a bit more...that's gas expansion. So we're talking a gas working against gravity, the atmosphere moving up a bit.... where it is colder. That uses up the kinetic energy of the gas heated by radiation from the earth doesn't it? Is some energy left over to re radiate downward? Is there a lot of it? How much?

A bit hard to move energy from a colder place to a hotter place, isn't it?

Ooops.

Looks like Kristine Byrnes, the high school student, does make sense.

So AUP, what do you say we go through her table of contents one chapter at a time? Might be lots of good rubbish there.

You might learn a thing or two.

You need to learn about the variation of temperature with altitude. Do not assume that at higher elevations the temperature is colder, it is not so. And you don't make sense talking about a single molecules temperature, pressure or expansion.

you are just not making sense

[bobdroege7]

A deafening silence.

But on www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org), plenipotentiary suggests a solution in line with the general concepts of anthropogenic causation.

Posted on 09/18/2007 12:28:41 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Eplenipotentiary)Q I still haven’t had explained to me how the seasonal variations in CO2 concentration create the seasons.


A Well, first of all you have to forget all that stuff about the spinning Earth being tilted at an angle of twenty-something degrees to the ecliptic, and cooling during its Northern winters, warming during its summers. Forget about the Sun. Or better still, think of the Earth as being flat.


Think instead about CO2 in the atmosphere. During summer, when plant photosynthesis is maximum, plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and reduce its levels, and thus reduce global warming, resulting in a subsequent cold winter. During winter, when plant photosynthesis is at a minimum, CO2 levels tend to rise, resulting in global warming - and the subsequent warm summer.


See. Quite easy to explain.


You’ll probably want to know about anthropogenic seasonal variation too. That is, how humans manage to create the seasons. And this happens because, during winter, humans tend to light fires to keep warm, and these fires generate CO2, which causes global warming, and results in warm summers. During these warm summers, humans stop burning fires, and the excess CO2 is absorbed by plants, reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and bringing global cooling, and the subsequent winter.


The result, as I’m sure you’ll see, is that the seasonal cycle of spring-summer-autumn-winter is entirely created by human activity, and if humans would simply stop burning fires in winter, this seasonal variation would vanish, and terrestrial surface temperatures would remain more or less constant.


Convinced? I’m sure you are. If you want to save the world from the endless cycle of the destruction of the creation, all you have to do is to not turn on your heating system when temperatures fall 10 or 20 degrees C below zero. It would also help if you stayed outside, and didn’t wear any clothes, or ate anything. You know by now that it makes no sense to do stupid things like that, right?


And you posted this, why?

I mean, what is the point of plentipotiary's vapid post.

Does his not making any sense support your not making any sense?

[mhaze]

You need to learn about the variation of temperature with altitude. Do not assume that at higher elevations the temperature is colder, it is not so. And you don't make sense talking about a single molecules temperature, pressure or expansion.

you are just not making sense

I'm quite aware of temperature gradients, lapse rates, humidity vs. altitude, etc. What does not make sense?

[mhaze]

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that because the air is thinner in the upper atmosphere, that more heat is radiated away from the planet because heat that radiates down towards the planet is more likely to encounter more molecules in the denser air and thus be re-directed upwards again?

Also, if IR is detected in the night sky, it's evidence that heat is being radiated away from the planet?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

More or less. If you read IR with a meter pointed up, you are reading the cumulative IR from all of the atmosphere above your position. That in turn is comprised of emissions from water vapor, CO2, and the supposed "all important" additional bit of CO2 from man made sources.

This has been discussed in great detail hundreds of places and rapidly gets quite technical. Here are some comments from DocMartyn in a discussion at www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org) which explore ways to actual prove or disprove the theory we are discussing -

DocMartyn says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:48 pm...if CO2 has the ability to reflect IR back to the ground level then it can easily be measure.

The temperature profile of the south pole has been studied since the 50’s. I looked at the RATE at which the pole cools in the winter. One would expect GHG to slow the rate of cooling, if CO2 were a powerful GHG. Alas, the pole appears to be cooling more rapidly now than it did 40 years ago, although the changes are quite small. I suspect that this would also be the case in dusk til dawn temperature change in sand deserts. The Arizona crater would be a good site. in this one we could raise the CO2 to 800ppm with ease and have a look at the change in the day and night time absolute temperatures.

Finally, finally, they never do actual expirements. I have never seen anyone shine a pulsing signal(tuneable)-laser into space through the atmosphere and measure the amount of light absorbed and light reflected back to Earth. Using ground stations, aircraft and satallites it would be relitivly easy to workout what was happening to the light and where it was going. These people don’t do this sort of thing, either because they dont have a background in expirements or they are worried about the answers.

Which leads right back to....
Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[a_unique_person]

What planet do these guys life on? He's a conspiracy theorist and all. CO2 is not a 'powerful' GHG. It just happens that if you increase the concentration, it will increase the temperature by a degree or so, by itself, and the feedback mechanisms will take care of the rest, as is being observed.

You don't need to shoot a laser into space, you just need to do it in a lab to observe the effect. I don't even think a laser would be the right frequency, it's long wavelength radiation, not short, that is doing the heat transfer.

Why is he afraid to just read up on the existing literature that explains all this? Is he worried about the answer?

[Megalodon]

What planet do these guys life on?

A planet where the scientists have immediate access to the funding necessary for such an experiment... I mean, stations, aircraft and satellite to measure a pulse of a laser. This... gentleman doesn't even take into account the sheer dimension that such laser should have to allow measurments after reflection and scatter.

If birds are in the way, dinner is served...

[Mycroft]

A planet where the scientists have immediate access to the funding necessary for such an experiment... I mean, stations, aircraft and satellite to measure a pulse of a laser. This... gentleman doesn't even take into account the sheer dimension that such laser should have to allow measurments after reflection and scatter.

If birds are in the way, dinner is served...

I don't know about immediate access, but for an issue that important, if such an experiment would shed light then wouldn't it make sense for someone to make the resources available?

[Megalodon]

I don't know about immediate access, but for an issue that important, if such an experiment would shed light then wouldn't it make sense for someone to make the resources available?

It would make sense, if it wasn't a horrible amount of money to throw at something that has been established by chemistry and physics decades ago.

No funding agency would fund such an experiment, and I would even guess that it is not feasible to begin with, due to the laser scale problem.

I might be wrong, some of the physicists here can correct me.

[mhaze]

It would make sense, if it wasn't a horrible amount of money to throw at something that has been established by chemistry and physics decades ago.

No funding agency would fund such an experiment, and I would even guess that it is not feasible to begin with, due to the laser scale problem.

I might be wrong, some of the physicists here can correct me.
Ever point a ten watt laser up into the sky?

[CapelDodger]

It would make sense, if it wasn't a horrible amount of money to throw at something that has been established by chemistry and physics decades ago.

What I'm sensing is another "Publish The Code" strategem. Until it's done, the evidence isn't good enough. If it were done, well, drop the subject. Move on to something else.

No funding agency would fund such an experiment, and I would even guess that it is not feasible to begin with, due to the laser scale problem.

That strikes me as an informed opinion, not just a guess. That migrating goose is definitely cooked.

[CapelDodger]

On the subject of funding, didn't NASA recently ditch plans for some Earth-observation satellites because the Bush-Cheney focus is on Mars? For its oil, apparently :).

[CapelDodger]

More or less. If you read IR with a meter pointed up, you are reading the cumulative IR from all of the atmosphere above your position. That in turn is comprised of emissions from water vapor, CO2, and the supposed "all important" additional bit of CO2 from man made sources.

It includes the one-third extra CO2 and the extra water-vapour that results from the warming effect that one-third extra CO2. Water-vapour is a feedback. Since water-vapour is the dominant factor in the greenhouse effect, that's the all-important addition, don't you think? (Forget clouds and stuff, let's postulate clear skies here.)

This has been discussed in great detail hundreds of places and rapidly gets quite technical.

I can't help thinking - and saying - it becomes a comforting hum to you at that point.

Here are some comments from DocMartyn in a discussion at www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org) which explore ways to actual prove or disprove the theory we are discussing -

Events are really putting the onus on disproof, don't you think? The situation is evolving just as predicted by AGW decades ago, with increasing precision as time has passed. Ice-retreat has been a surprise, but in rate, not sign. As with all inevitable retreats, the timetable is the focus of discussion while events dictate.

DocMartyn says:


February 2nd, 2007 at 7:48 pm...if CO2 has the ability to reflect IR back to the ground level then it can easily be measure.


At which point he demonstrates his pig-ignorance. CO2 does not reflect infra-red. AGW is not based on that erroneous concept in any manner or form. No molecule reflects anything. Reflection is an electromagnetic phaenomenon that manifests in vastly larger systems. Clouds, for instance, or a mirror.

All that follows is just as worthless because it's derived - rather amateurishly, in my opinion - from nonsense.

[CapelDodger]

I am supposed to respond to a 16 year old who provides the phrase "I don't see how" as evidence, with science and equations? :eye-poppi

Yes, it's come to that. Whether that's more desperate than Inhofe summoning Crichton is debatable; the Republicans would have had to hold the Senate for us to know that Inhofe wouldn't have summoned this insightful adolescent. And even then it would depend on how cute she is. (Not how hot, obviously :).)

[a_unique_person]

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/ispm.html)

Scientists? Well then.

Instead of reading the IPCC, the summary documents of which were written by non scientists and reviewed, changed and approved by governments before printing, one would want the scientists independent assessment.

Well... at least if you thought a 16 year old kid might get it wrong...

(hint: of course she got it right, why else would I have linked...:rolleyes:)This page provides information on the Independent Summary for Policymakers (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/ISPM.pdf) (ISPM) of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4), recently published by the Fraser Institute (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/). The ISPM is not a critique of or a response to the IPCC Report. It is a detailed summary, written on the premise that a great deal of good, balanced science is presented in the IPCC report and it should be widely disseminated and carefully read. The ISPM includes some 300 direct citations to the IPCC report and provides detailed chapter locations so that readers can look up the IPCC sections for themselves.

In producing this Summary we have worked independently of the IPCC, using the Second Order Draft of the IPCC report, as circulated after revisions were made in response to the first expert review period in the winter and spring of 2006. Section references will be checked against the final IPCC version, to be released in May 2007. If, in preparing the final draft of the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC substantially rewrites the Assessment text, such that the key summary materials presented herein need to be re-worded, we will do so and publish an Appendix to that effect.


It's starts off with a basic lie



The ISPM was prepared by experts who are fully qualified and experienced in their
fields, but who are not themselves IPCC chapter authors, nor are they authors of the
IPCC Summary for Policymakers.



Yet look at the retired scientists on the report? Kininmonth is a good example. He has no idea what the state of the science is, he has never worked in it.

[a_unique_person]

All that follows is just as worthless because it's derived - rather amateurishly, in my opinion - from nonsense.

Which is the basic problem, as I said earlier. There is an endless stream of amateurs who can prove that AGW is false, just as they can square the circle. Do they all deserve creedence?

[bobdroege7]

I'm quite aware of temperature gradients, lapse rates, humidity vs. altitude, etc. What does not make sense?

That reply doesn't make any sense either, so I'll break down the post I said made no sense.


Hmmm.... let's see. A CO2 or water molecule gets excited by being hit, bangs around a bit more...that's gas expansion.

A single molecule cannot expand


So we're talking a gas working against gravity, the atmosphere moving up a bit.... where it is colder.


An increase in altitude does not necessarily indicate a decrease in temperature.


That uses up the kinetic energy of the gas heated by radiation from the earth doesn't it? Is some energy left over to re radiate downward? Is there a lot of it? How much?

A bit hard to move energy from a colder place to a hotter place, isn't it?

Ooops.

Again, confusing the properties of a single molecule with the properties of a large number of molecules, just like the 16 year old with her vapid football analogy. I don't get women and football analogies.

Also when CO2 absorbs the infared photon, the increase in energy goes to the stretching and vibrational modes of the molecule, not the velocity which corresponds to the temperature. Only when that molecule collides with another molecule can that vibrational energy be transferred into heat or the velocity of another molecule.


Looks like Kristine Byrnes, the high school student, does make sense.

So AUP, what do you say we go through her table of contents one chapter at a time? Might be lots of good rubbish there.

You might learn a thing or two.

Na, the girl makes little sense.

[a_unique_person]

Let's consider this scenario. A 16 year old girl writes to the head of the WSJ and tells him how he should run his business better.

[Diamond]

It includes the one-third extra CO2 and the extra water-vapour that results from the warming effect that one-third extra CO2. Water-vapour is a feedback. Since water-vapour is the dominant factor in the greenhouse effect, that's the all-important addition, don't you think? (Forget clouds and stuff, let's postulate clear skies here.)

It's all important only because CapelDodgy thinks its all important. Water vapour is a feedback because Capeldodgy is fixated by MAN-MADE carbon dioxide. The atmosphere has positive feedbacks because CapelDodgy says they do, not because they exist.

And no, we can't forget clouds and stuff because they are critical factors in a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK system which dominates the Earth's climate. We also can't forget the Sun, unless of course you're really determined.

But if there was warming die to an enhanced greenhouse effect, then there would be other observations which would be obvious, such as a large warming of the upper troposphere above the tropics - something that isn't observed.

We still haven't heard the Capeldodgy explanation for how increasing the partial pressure of a trace gas like carbon dioxide can cause warming because its never happened in the past, and it cannot happen according to quantum physics.

But then, since when has ignorance of physics ever stopped Capeldodgy before?

[a_unique_person]

It's all important only because CapelDodgy thinks its all important. Water vapour is a feedback because Capeldodgy is fixated by MAN-MADE carbon dioxide. The atmosphere has positive feedbacks because CapelDodgy says they do, not because they exist.



No, I would presume CD has been reading the various reports of the IPCC and other sources. He doesn't just think it, he has read the science on the matter.

Have you actually read any of the reports?

[bobdroege7]

We still haven't heard the Capeldodgy explanation for how increasing the partial pressure of a trace gas like carbon dioxide can cause warming because its never happened in the past, and it cannot happen according to quantum physics.

But then, since when has ignorance of physics ever stopped Capeldodgy before?


Please explain how it cannot happen according to quantum physics. Please state your knowledge level of quantum physics. And please stop calling him Capeldodgy, it is an ad hominem attact and does nothing for your reputation.

[mhaze]

That reply doesn't make any sense either, so I'll break down the post I said made no sense.

A single molecule cannot expand

An increase in altitude does not necessarily indicate a decrease in temperature.

Again, confusing the properties of a single molecule with the properties of a large number of molecules, just like the 16 year old with her vapid football analogy. I don't get women and football analogies.

Also when CO2 absorbs the infared photon, the increase in energy goes to the stretching and vibrational modes of the molecule, not the velocity which corresponds to the temperature. Only when that molecule collides with another molecule can that vibrational energy be transferred into heat or the velocity of another molecule.


Actually, I think you know exactly what I meant in my comments, and just would like to pick at them. "A single molecule cannot expand". That is not really worth discussing, is it? If you would like me to rephrase my comments in "adult terms", well, I'll be happy to.

[mhaze]

New York- Czech President Vaclav Klaus told journalists in New York today it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness were eliminated.

In his speech at the special U.N. summit on climate change in New York today Klaus said that despite the artificially created idea about a large extent of ongoing climate changes, the recent rise in global temperatures has been very small in historical comparison and its impact on man and his activities are basically negligible.

Klaus told journalists that the only chance was his proposal that the United Nations organise two parallel inter-governmental panels to discuss climate changes and publish two competing reports, because it was a political question.

"Let us look for a real solution," he said.

He said he would not take part in today's lunch at which former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore who holds the views on the global warming different from Klaus's would be present.

He said he agreed that it was correct to compare different views.

"However, this would require the side that behaves as if it has a monopoly on the truth showed the willingness for a dialogue and a public discussion. I am prepared for such a debate any minute," Klaus said.

[a_unique_person]

New York- Czech President Vaclav Klaus told journalists in New York today it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness were eliminated.

In his speech at the special U.N. summit on climate change in New York today Klaus said that despite the artificially created idea about a large extent of ongoing climate changes, the recent rise in global temperatures has been very small in historical comparison and its impact on man and his activities are basically negligible.

Klaus told journalists that the only chance was his proposal that the United Nations organise two parallel inter-governmental panels to discuss climate changes and publish two competing reports, because it was a political question.

"Let us look for a real solution," he said.

He said he would not take part in today's lunch at which former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore who holds the views on the global warming different from Klaus's would be present.

He said he agreed that it was correct to compare different views.

"However, this would require the side that behaves as if it has a monopoly on the truth showed the willingness for a dialogue and a public discussion. I am prepared for such a debate any minute," Klaus said.

Is this politician authority, or what scientific research does he base these claims on?

Entirely independent scientific bodies around the world have come to the same conclusions, including the peak US bodies. I can see what will happen, there will be a lot more money spent on research and and more accusations of a gravy train.

[DaChew]

Speaking of independent scientific bodies, it's being reported today that James Hansen of NASA has received $720,000 from George Soros. http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836

That, on top of the $250,000 he received from the Heinz Foundation, makes just under a million bucks that we know of.

[oponol]

Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events?

Because both affect global temperature and that has a knock on effect on how much co2 is emitted/absorbed over a full year.

Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels

Certainly not

b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed

Certainly not

How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2?

Volcanoes don't emit high levels of co2. co2 most likely drops because of the cooling of global temperatures in the years following a large volcanic erruption.

Note the correlation between temperature change and CO2 change in the following graph:

It is difficult to discern at first glance looking at the seemingly perfectly smooth upward trend normally shown, but the pattern is definitely there. What is actually driving CO2 levels?

Human emissions


Please explain where Segalstad is wrong:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt

Sorry don't have powerpoint, but he's confusing atmospheric lifetime of a single molecule (a few years) with residence time for co2 to fall back to previous levels (decades to centuries). The longer time period is due to the fact that as more co2 from the atmosphere is absorbed it becomes harder to absorb more. While co2 drop would start off fast, it would slow down. Much in the opposite way it has risen.

[oponol]

Overall the AGW concept is primarily a radiative energy model, while the actual planet is mostly a convective energy system.

Convection is included in the models

Now AGW True Believers deny over 135 peer reviewed studies of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and also, over 40 scientific studies of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

See my post above. This accusation is based on conflating two seperate processes.

[CapelDodger]

Volcanoes don't emit high levels of co2. co2 most likely drops because of the cooling of global temperatures in the years following a large volcanic erruption.

More precisely, from the barchart presented by David Rodale it's the rate of increase in CO2 that drops, not CO2.

The cooling effect, especially on the oceans (thereby enabling them to dissolve more CO2), is my first guess too. I also wonder whether there's and "ocean-seeding" effect from ejected material - iron and potassium in particular. Speculation, of course, but informed speculation :).

I mentioned earlier (possibly on the Arctic Ice thread) that the fall-off in the rate of increase demonstrates that volcanoes do not emit significant amounts of CO2, but David Rodale seems to have missed that entire post.

If somebody would care to fund me, I'll happily hang out in the South Seas with a small fleet of research vessels waiting for an eruption. When one kicks off it'll take me next to no time to throw aside the dusky maidens, sober-up, and start the observations. Honest. I'm raring to go.

[CapelDodger]

New York- Czech President Vaclav Klaus told journalists in New York today it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness were eliminated.

As a politician, Klaus no doubt finds a disinterested field of study, such as science, incomprehensible.

In his speech at the special U.N. summit on climate change in New York today Klaus said that despite the artificially created idea about a large extent of ongoing climate changes, the recent rise in global temperatures has been very small in historical comparison and its impact on man and his activities are basically negligible.

He's very ignorant, isn't he? And not a nice person - you should check out his wider political stance.

Klaus told journalists that the only chance was his proposal that the United Nations organise two parallel inter-governmental panels to discuss climate changes and publish two competing reports, because it was a political question.

See above. Klaus clearly can't distinguish between science (a search for truth) and politics (choosing a belief).

It would actually be interesting to watch him, and like-minded politicians, appoint their alternative IPCC. Would Crichton be in, I wonder? Would explicit rejection of the existing IPCC reports be a necessary qualification? Presumably members of the IPCC would be excluded. The cat-fight over precedence amongst those that do get in would be deeply amusing too.

Ain't gonna happen, though. Or it would have done already.

"Let us look for a real solution," he said.

From his statement he already knows there isn't an AGW problem, so the problem this solution applies to is presumably the progress - glacially slow though it is - towards action being taken. An anti-IPCC would stop that.

He said he would not take part in today's lunch at which former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore who holds the views on the global warming different from Klaus's would be present.

Gives you a flavour of the guy, doesn't it? Unless he just wasn't invited or has a prior engagement.

He said he agreed that it was correct to compare different views.

Well he would, wouldn't he?

"However, this would require the side that behaves as if it has a monopoly on the truth showed the willingness for a dialogue and a public discussion. I am prepared for such a debate any minute," Klaus said.

He's not prepared for a scientific debate, he's up for a rhetorical debate full of lawyers' tricks, like any standard politician. Or like Singer, as another example.

This is the Science Forum, not Politics. So I'll say no more about Klaus.

[CapelDodger]

And no, we can't forget clouds and stuff because they are critical factors in a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK system which dominates the Earth's climate. We also can't forget the Sun, unless of course you're really determined.

I was posting very specifically about a proposed experiment to measure the atmosphere's response to infra-red emissions from the surface. Clouds would be a complicating factor that can easily be eliminated by conducting the experiment on a cloudless night. That's standard practice when conducting an experiment : limit the variables to those in question.

[CapelDodger]

And you posted this, why?

You have to wonder, don't you?

From that post and others it's clear that mhaze thinks that increasing CO2 is supposed, in the AGW sense, to be like turning on another bar on an electric fire. Which is obvious nonsense, ergo AGW is obvious nonsense.

mhaze doesn't have a firm grasp on the fundamentals, that's obvious. It's more debatable whether he could find his fundament using both hands.

[CapelDodger]

Which is the basic problem, as I said earlier. There is an endless stream of amateurs who can prove that AGW is false, just as they can square the circle. Do they all deserve creedence?

It's striking how much "What about this, eh?" there is from the few contrarians that are sticking it out here. There's a lot of Ring-Master Syndrome at play. The contrarians present the hoops and demand we jump through them.

Bollocks to that.

When mhaze quotes someone who starts off with CO2 reflecting infra-red, I'm on it like a fly on a flesh-wound. That's my choice :).

It's not as if contrarians need to be convinced before the real world is allowed to go its own way. Which is just the way that we expected from a while back, having a good grasp of the science. Not exactly as we expected, because we never had an exact expectation. We had a general expectation, and lo, we were right and now we're starting to see the detail.

Not the detail of how things were twenty years ago, of course, who cares? (Lots of people, apparently.) The detail of the process. One thing that's very clear is that the process is faster than we generally expected twenty years ago.

What the hey, in three to eight years contrarians will be extinct.

[bobdroege7]

Actually, I think you know exactly what I meant in my comments, and just would like to pick at them. "A single molecule cannot expand". That is not really worth discussing, is it? If you would like me to rephrase my comments in "adult terms", well, I'll be happy to.

Yes, that would be helpful.

I mean, that is what this whole thread is about, that is the theory about how CO2 as a greenhouse gas can cause an increase in temperature.

Your statements about what happens when a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon of infared light cleary show that you do not understand the process at hand.

Any statements by you that will clearly show that you understand the process would be helpful.

It is difficult to find peer reviewed literature on the internet that describes this process, as the science is not very new. Introductory college texts on Astonomy or Organic chemistry or spectroscopy would have the information.

[Mycroft]

It would make sense, if it wasn't a horrible amount of money to throw at something that has been established by chemistry and physics decades ago.

No funding agency would fund such an experiment, and I would even guess that it is not feasible to begin with, due to the laser scale problem.

I might be wrong, some of the physicists here can correct me.

I don't know how much raising the level of CO2 in the Arizona crater to 800 ppm would cost (although it might be as simple as lighting some fires), but if the laser in the sky would bring results, that doesn't seem so expensive.

I might be wrong, but if there is anything testable about the issue then shouldn't it be tested?

[Mycroft]

It's striking how much "What about this, eh?" there is from the few contrarians that are sticking it out here. There's a lot of Ring-Master Syndrome at play. The contrarians present the hoops and demand we jump through them.

Bollocks to that.

If someone were to demand that you do anything, they would certainly have to be a confused person. The rest of us can clearly see the difference between someone who understands the issues and works to make his position understood, and someone who merely amuses himself in looking for opportunities to make japes and one-liners. You are no more a part of this debate than the football-fan who paints his naked oversized belly his team colours and belches ridicule at his opponents between gulps of stadium beer is a member of the team he cheers.

[mhaze]

Convection is included in the models

See my post above. This accusation is based on conflating two seperate processes.

Convection, included, very poorly if you like.

As for CO2 and it's time in the atmosphere, when you the 200 year life cycle is observed are you referring to the time for CO2 to lapse back to "pre industrial levels"? In turn that implies that the "good level" of CO2 is the pre industrial level?

Trying to be sure I have your point of view right...

[oponol]

Convection, included, very poorly if you like.

As for CO2 and it's time in the atmosphere, when you the 200 year life cycle is observed are you referring to the time for CO2 to lapse back to "pre industrial levels"? In turn that implies that the "good level" of CO2 is the pre industrial level?

Trying to be sure I have your point of view right...

There's a graph that sums it up well here:
http://thinkearth.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/carbon-dioxide-residence-time-in-the-atmosphere/

[mhaze]

I don't know how much raising the level of CO2 in the Arizona crater to 800 ppm would cost (although it might be as simple as lighting some fires), but if the laser in the sky would bring results, that doesn't seem so expensive.

I might be wrong, but if there is anything testable about the issue then shouldn't it be tested?

Wonders never cease.

Taking a quick look at the Winslow crater, about 0.2 cu km in volume, looks like four K tons of co2 would double the concentration. That's without considering losses.

Even considering losses, it does not seem to be a big job to do it.

[CapelDodger]

Convection, included, very poorly if you like.

Convection is not hard to model.

As for CO2 and it's time in the atmosphere, when you the 200 year life cycle is observed are you referring to the time for CO2 to lapse back to "pre industrial levels"?

That will take many thousands of years, if it happens at all. See the graph oponol has linked to.

In the short term CO2 can be taken up in biomass, but there's a limit to how much, since CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant-growth. Water, space and nutrients are not in infinite supply.

The ocean's capacity to absorb CO2 reduces when it warms (as it is today), but it's still not saturated. Over-turning brings up cold deep water which has not yet been exposed to the high over-pressure of CO2 during the last century. Surface water, with its a high concentration of CO2, sinks, thus gradually sequextering the CO2. I say "gradually" because this overturning cycle takes place over thousands of years.

In turn that implies that the "good level" of CO2 is the pre industrial level?

It implies no such thing. There is no "good" or "evil" level of CO2. No value-judgments ares involved. This is just science.

With the fossil-CO2 that's already been added to the oceans and atmosphere a new equilibrium will be reached in a few centuries. That equilibrium will necessarily be higher than the pre-industrial equilibrium since there's a lot more CO2 in the system. A third more in the atmosphere, and a goodly amount in the oceans (I'm not sure what proportion, but significant enough for surface-water acidification to be a concern in itself).

Trying to be sure I have your point of view right...

I've described the science as best I can. Any questions?

[CapelDodger]

Wonders never cease.

Taking a quick look at the Winslow crater, about 0.2 cu km in volume, looks like four K tons of co2 would double the concentration. That's without considering losses.

Even considering losses, it does not seem to be a big job to do it.

Remind me : what would be the point?

[mhaze]

Well, CP, you have presented the IPCC view. I'm just trying to get at what Oponal exactly meant. Since the view as you have presented it is that which is commonly presented, but when one examines the actual research, it does not seem clear at all.

You have presented assertions. They may or may not be correct. Consider: Why are we discussing this? Because DR referenced some 40 studies that show that turnover of CO2 in the air is a few years - say 5 years. Therefore, I noted that "now believers deny 135 studies of CO2 concentration, and 40 studies of CO2 turnover" or something to that effect.

Oponal indicates that's apples and oranges. Looks like the same issue to me, unless the discussion is the one I just asked regarding the time frame to get the atmospheric concentration back down to preindustrial levels.

Turnover of CO2 appears to take just a few years, not the hundreds you years you claim (and the IPCC, and oponal claims, but I am not sure of his context).

It would appear that the IPCC, you, and Oponal must reject the 40 studies of atmospheric turnover time for CO2, in order to assert "hundreds of years". I am not saying that I completely understand this issue, but I do understand it isn't completely understood.

[mhaze]

four K tons of co2 would double the concentration. That's without considering losses.

Correction: 75 kilo tons.

[CapelDodger]

Well, CP, you have presented the IPCC view.

What is it with you and the IPCC? The IPCC is a panel convened by governments under the auspices of the UN to report on the current state of science appertaining to climate change. It does not have a view, not does it dictate to the world of science.

What I wrote was about the science. Did you read any of it? If so, do you have a problem with any of it? Is there any point I should expand on?

I'm just trying to get at what Oponal exactly meant. Since the view as you have presented it is that which is commonly presented, but when one examines the actual research, it does not seem clear at all.

Yes, it does. You just need to be able to understand the research.

You have presented assertions. They may or may not be correct.


I can assure you they are correct. Pick one and tell me it isn't.

Consider: Why are we discussing this? Because DR referenced some 40 studies that show that turnover of CO2 in the air is a few years - say 5 years.

Turnover rate is not the same as retention rate. (I think that's been pointed out before.)

Therefore, I noted that "now believers deny 135 studies of CO2 concentration, and 40 studies of CO2 turnover" or something to that effect.

Knowing the difference between retention rate and turnover rate does not amount to denying studies of turnover rate (which some of those studies might actually allude to, for all I know). Where concentration comes into it I don't know.

Oponal indicates that's apples and oranges. Looks like the same issue to me ...

No surprises there.

... unless the discussion is the one I just asked regarding the time frame to get the atmospheric concentration back down to preindustrial levels.

Actually, your stuff was one long non sequitur.

Turnover of CO2 appears to take just a few years, not the hundreds you years you claim (and the IPCC, and oponal claims, but I am not sure of his context).

I was referring to retention rate. Not turnover rate.

It would appear ...

It clearly does so appear to you ...

... that the IPCC ...

Again with the IPCC :confused:.

... you, and Oponal must reject the 40 studies of atmospheric turnover time for CO2, in order to assert "hundreds of years". I am not saying that I completely understand this issue, but I do understand it isn't completely understood.

OK.

Turnover rate first. Turnover rate refers to the average time a molecule of CO2 spends in the atmosphere after it enters it. This is, apparently, on the order of five years. CO2 leaves the atmosphere when it enters plants or is dissolved in the ocean. It returns to the atmosphere when plants decay or are eaten and digested (much the same process), or when it evaporates from the ocean. There it stays for, on average, something like five years then goes through the cycle again.

Retention rate next. Retention rate refers to how long a mass of CO2 introduced over a short period into the atmosphere continues to have an influence on the CO2-load. This is on the order of a century or two.

Think of the system as a job-market. People move between jobs : turnover rate is analogous to the average time they spend unemployed. Increase the the labour-pool by, say, 10% without creating more jobs : the retention rate is how long it takes for the unemployment rate to return to its previous level.


Over the long-term CO2 will be sequestered from the atmosphere in the form of limestone. That's a slow process. In the meantime we're going to have to get used to it being around.

[CapelDodger]

Correction: 75 kilo tons.

This is going to look frickin' amazing if you get the lighting right.

Obviously, the only way this could be done is by dumping two or three thousand refrigerated truck-loads of dry ice into the crater over a very short period - a few hours, maybe. It could be done - just build enough refrigerated storage capacity nearby and hire in a few hundred trucks - but the effect will be really spooky as all the moisture in the air above and around the crater condenses. Like I say, with the right lighting it would be a real show. You could finance the whole thing by selling tickets and transmission rights.

Apart from that, what's the point again?

[CapelDodger]

If someone were to demand that you do anything, they would certainly have to be a confused person. The rest of us can clearly see the difference between someone who understands the issues and works to make his position understood, and someone who merely amuses himself in looking for opportunities to make japes and one-liners. You are no more a part of this debate than the football-fan who paints his naked oversized belly his team colours and belches ridicule at his opponents between gulps of stadium beer is a member of the team he cheers.

All that for one "slither", and I still reckon "slither" won it.

Nobody would mistake you for "someone who understands the issues and works to make his position understood", but there are those who've made the same mistake about me. They lack your insight that being amusing precludes understanding and communication. (Irony)

[CapelDodger]

To return to the Avery-Singer saviour cycle of 1500 plus or minus 500 years, this seems to be founded on D-O events, which involve a rapid warming around Greenland. They've been detected in the record of the last glaciation, and seem to have a peridicity of about 1500 years. They are associated with glacial periods, not inter-glacials, and they represent local warming, not global warming. In fact, D-O events are associated with a cooling in the Southern Hemisphere. The current working theory (no pun intended) is that they involve a cyclic variation in the thermohaline circulation that transfers heat between the North Atlantic and the Southern Oceans.

On that basis, D-O events represent a redistribution of heat-energy within the system, not global warming. They bear no relation to what's occurring now.

Is there more to the Saviour Cycle than that?

(Damn, I'm picking up that "give it a silly name and it'll go away" virus. More self-discipline is called for. It's not big and it's not clever :mad:)

[mhaze]

CP. Thank you for your valiant efforts in attempting to explain science, However, you don't speak for other people so I'll wait for the question asked to Oponol to be answered by him.

Everything you have said regarding the CO2 cycle is your opinion only and does not change my point of view. But you are welcome to produce some references that lend credibility to your assertions.

Regarding Singer and D/O cycles, you can follow the links I have provided after you requested something that could be accessed with a low speed modem - html version of Singer. You will find lots of interesting things that you may feel you can refute.

I'll wait for you to develop some logical rebuttal of Singer. Please include references to substantiate your assertions. Just saying something is a fact or is true does not make it true or convince others. It is a belief, unless substantiated. Also, if every fifth word in your rebuttal is "weasel", don't expect a reply.

Did I miss your reply to my simple question based on "siren song of 80% uncertainty"? I noticed several non answers of various sorts. An actual answer is produced with the following keys:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . % - + = / ^ * > < ( ) [ ] |.Siren song...
Suppose

2005 ice is 1,000,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.
2006 ice is 900,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.

How much did ice change?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

AGWr's arguments are discussed in extnd in this paper:

A Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming



http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html


The purpose of this paper is to provide a layman’s critique of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, and in particular to challenge the fairly widespread notion that the science and projected consequences of AGW currently justify massive spending and government intervention into the world’s economies. This paper will show that despite good evidence that global temperatures are rising and that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas and help to warm the Earth, we are a long way from attributing all or much of current warming to man-made CO2. We are even further away from being able to accurately project man’s impact on future climate, and it is a very debatable question whether interventions today to reduce CO2 emissions will substantially improve the world 50 or 100 years from now.


Despite the "layman" word, the paper shows a very good amount of reasons to be sceptical about AGW, as described in the IPCC 2007 report.

Worth the reading.

[CapelDodger]

CP. Thank you for your valiant efforts in attempting to explain science, However, you don't speak for other people so I'll wait for the question asked to Oponol to be answered by him.

In the meantime, I'm talking to you.

Everything you have said regarding the CO2 cycle is your opinion only and does not change my point of view.

My opinion only? Is it only my opinion that CO2 is both dissolved in and evaporates from the oceans, and that one molecule can be dissolved at one time and evaporate later? Or that CO2 can be absorbed by photosynthesis and subsequently breathed out by browsing animals? Are there opinions otherwise?

But you are welcome to produce some references that lend credibility to your assertions.

Produce some that lend credibility to any other opinions. Those would be opinions that don't accept that CO2 can be absorbed by grass to make leaf and then be breathed out by browsing animals. Are you aware of any such opinions?

Regarding Singer and D/O cycles, you can follow the links I have provided after you requested something that could be accessed with a low speed modem - html version of Singer. You will find lots of interesting things that you may feel you can refute.

Given that you've found them already, why not present them? What's in there apart from the D-O events? Something must have convinced you.

I'll wait for you to develop some logical rebuttal of Singer. Please include references to substantiate your assertions. Just saying something is a fact or is true does not make it true or convince others. It is a belief, unless substantiated. Also, if every fifth word in your rebuttal is "weasel", don't expect a reply.

No mention of weasel in my last post.

Did I miss your reply to my simple question based on "siren song of 80% uncertainty"? I noticed several non answers of various sorts. An actual answer is produced with the following keys:




0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . % - + = / ^ * > < ( ) [ ] |.Siren song...Suppose2005 ice is 1,000,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.2006 ice is 900,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.How much did ice change?

The origin of the "80%" was your claim that reports of Arctic ice-extent were 50-80% inaccurate. Remember? You actually said something along the lines of "All these reports are 50-80% inaccurate" and then retreated into "predictions are 50-80% inaccurate", not having noticed the difference between prediction and report. Do you really want to revisit that?

I know you think your question is terribly clever, but it still doesn't absolve you of that earlier silliness. Nor is it clever.

Anyhoo, can you raise some of those opinions that are so different from mine? And anything substantial on the Singer-Avery cycle would be appreciated. Surely you can remember something other than the D-O events, given how impressed you seem to be by it.

If all Avery-Singer have is D-O events, I've already dealt with it. D-O events include a Southern Hemisphere cooling - measured by the same means, and by the same people - so they have nothing to say about global warming. This is global redistribution of heat-energy. I surely don't have to explain the difference.

[CapelDodger]

AGWr's arguments are discussed in extnd in this paper:

A Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming



http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html





Despite the "layman" word, the paper shows a very good amount of reasons to be sceptical about AGW, as described in the IPCC 2007 report.

Hey, long time. Any news from Africa yet? Last I heard, McIntyre was out there cooling the place down the way he did the lower-42 in the US. I hope there's some progress, because those guys really need it. It gets damn' hot in Africa.

Worth the reading.

Give us some highlights. What in particular struck you as interesting?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Hey, long time. Any news from Africa yet? Last I heard, McIntyre was out there cooling the place down the way he did the lower-42 in the US. I hope there's some progress, because those guys really need it. It gets damn' hot in Africa.


Read about it yourself
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=54
:)



Give us some highlights. What in particular struck you as interesting?http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/chapter-3-the-b.html

I will not even try do full justice here to the basic theory of AGW theory. I highly encourage you to check out RealClimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/). This is probably the premier site of strong AGW believers and I really would hate to see AGW skeptics become like 9/11 conspiracists, spending their time only on like-minded sites in some weird echo chamber.

[a_unique_person]

Well, CP, you have presented the IPCC view. I'm just trying to get at what Oponal exactly meant. Since the view as you have presented it is that which is commonly presented, but when one examines the actual research, it does not seem clear at all.

You have presented assertions. They may or may not be correct. Consider: Why are we discussing this? Because DR referenced some 40 studies that show that turnover of CO2 in the air is a few years - say 5 years. Therefore, I noted that "now believers deny 135 studies of CO2 concentration, and 40 studies of CO2 turnover" or something to that effect.

Oponal indicates that's apples and oranges. Looks like the same issue to me, unless the discussion is the one I just asked regarding the time frame to get the atmospheric concentration back down to preindustrial levels.

Turnover of CO2 appears to take just a few years, not the hundreds you years you claim (and the IPCC, and oponal claims, but I am not sure of his context).

It would appear that the IPCC, you, and Oponal must reject the 40 studies of atmospheric turnover time for CO2, in order to assert "hundreds of years". I am not saying that I completely understand this issue, but I do understand it isn't completely understood.

You seem to have misunderstood the interpretation of the papers. This has happened several times now that papers are cherry picked and misinterpreted by denialist bloggers and sites. Oponal has already said why DR is wrong.

[bobdroege7]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . % - + = / ^ * > < ( ) [ ] |.Siren song...
Suppose

2005 ice is 1,000,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.
2006 ice is 900,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.

How much did ice change?



Allright, I'll bite

ice decreased by 100,000 +/- 190,000

which means it could have increased

thanks for the excercise

[Megalodon]

I don't know how much raising the level of CO2 in the Arizona crater to 800 ppm would cost (although it might be as simple as lighting some fires), but if the laser in the sky would bring results, that doesn't seem so expensive.

I might be wrong, but if there is anything testable about the issue then shouldn't it be tested?

No it wouldn't be that simple, since then you would have all the other components of smoke to deal with. As CD poited out, you would need large amounts of dry ice, a big laser and a lot of measuring equipment... all stuck in a hole in Arizona. Then you would need no wind, so that you have no particles in the air, some test runs, so that you can figure where to place the equipment, and a couple of planes to check the amount of infrared escaping the hole.

Of course, this means that the scientists involved had to take a few years from their own research - and their lives- to form a consortium, write a proposal, and start actually implementing it. This to basically show what we already know.



Or you could start emmiting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and wait till the concentration is high enough for the sky to glow in infrared...

[mhaze]

No it wouldn't be that simple, since then you would have all the other components of smoke to deal with. As CD poited out, you would need large amounts of dry ice, a big laser and a lot of measuring equipment... all stuck in a hole in Arizona. Then you would need no wind, so that you have no particles in the air, some test runs, so that you can figure where to place the equipment, and a couple of planes to check the amount of infrared escaping the hole.

Of course, this means that the scientists involved had to take a few years from their own research - and their lives- to form a consortium, write a proposal, and start actually implementing it. This to basically show what we already know.

Bulk CO2 is 0.15 - 0.30 USD per kg, so it would appear that the initial amount mentioned, 75 KG, would simply be a matter of ordering some bulk (liquid CO2) tanker trucks over. $100K USD would buy say at $ 0.25 per KG 400,000 KG, which should do nicely.

Note that my calculation of 75kg was to double the entire concentration of CO2 - and that there is really no need to do that, increasing the concentration by one third or one half would likely do fine.

The experiment would only show what we already know? Our knowledge should be at least as good as our proof of theories of man made causation of the ozone hole, right?

But the "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic ozone depletion may have been completely wrong Singer's 1989 opinion (http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/advinozon.html) that banning CFCs was premature and scientifically wrong appears correct.Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being (http://www.icecap.us/).” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

Our understanding of the ozone hole formation, twenty years after the Montreal protocol, is in shambles. Of course more studies are needed to verify these conclusions. Perhaps the ozone scare should have been suspect in the first place, since the theory was proposed by Lovelock in 1974.

Given gross errors in the consensus of science coupled with political action such as this, how can one say that the hypothesized meteor crater experiment, "would only prove what we already know?"

[a_unique_person]

Bulk CO2 is 0.15 - 0.30 USD per kg, so it would appear that the initial amount mentioned, 75 KG, would simply be a matter of ordering some bulk (liquid CO2) tanker trucks over. $100K USD would buy say at $ 0.25 per KG 400,000 KG, which should do nicely.

Note that my calculation of 75kg was to double the entire concentration of CO2 - and that there is really no need to do that, increasing the concentration by one third or one half would likely do fine.

The experiment would only show what we already know? Our knowledge should be at least as good as our proof of theories of man made causation of the ozone hole, right?

But the "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic ozone depletion may have been completely wrong Singer's 1989 opinion (http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/advinozon.html) that banning CFCs was premature and scientifically wrong appears correct.Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being (http://www.icecap.us/).” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

Our understanding of the ozone hole formation, twenty years after the Montreal protocol, is in shambles. Of course more studies are needed to verify these conclusions. Perhaps the ozone scare should have been suspect in the first place, since the theory was proposed by Lovelock in 1974.

Given gross errors in the consensus of science coupled with political action such as this, how can one say that the hypothesized meteor crater experiment, "would only prove what we already know?"

The Chloride chemistry is a complex chain of reactions. The CO2 absorption and re-emission of radiation is pretty basic.

[mhaze]

Allright, I'll bite

ice decreased by 100,000 +/- 190,000

which means it could have increased

thanks for the excercise

Thanks - since CD really, really does not want to answer this question. Some people are math - phobic.

But no to your answer, because they are two separate observations.

2005 - Ice was somewhere between 900 and 1100.
2006 - Ice was somewhere between 810 and 990

Ice could have increased by 90k or decreased by 290k. Or anywhere in between...

Which is right? The simple statement, "Ice decreased by 100k", or the statement qualified by the error bounds?

This illustrates a point you made earlier about Kristin Byrnes, and our discussing the effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere either in (a) 16 year old grammer (b) "adult" grammer (c) limited technical language readable to most say, college educated people(d) several levels of actual technical vocabulary. What level is the best to explain or discuss something on?

My one course in college on quantum theory was so long ago as to enable me to truthfully say I have sort of a really vague idea about quantum theory.

Regarding the possible consequences of CO2 in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. With CO2 we are talking about "three body problems". The interaction of the molecules with the rest of the atmosphere are impossible to model with computers. It appears impossible to know the relative proportion of energy transferred from CO2 via re emitted photons, and the proportion transferred to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy. In turn this implies lab experiments on CO2 do not provide a valid factual basis for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.

[CapelDodger]

Read about it yourself
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=54 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=54)
:)


If there's something in there you kept to yourself, well, this Forum obviously isn't important to you. I'm sure you told all your floozies about it :mad:. You just don't care about us any more, do you?


http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/chapter-3-the-b.html (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/chapter-3-the-b.html)

I mostly hang out here, JREF Forums. Not RealClimate - which has gained the iconic status of Al Gore, the IPCC, and Hansen, I've noticed.

Naturally there's a lot of "What about this, eh?" that goes on, it being a public forum and all, but there's also a lot of "I heard this, from here" and "I heard this, and thought ..." .

I'm far less interested in where you've heard something than I am in what you've heard. Only then might I care about where you heard it.

So what have you heard?

[CapelDodger]

Allright, I'll bite

I wish you hadn't. Look what happened.

"Thanks - since CD really, really does not want to answer this question. Some people are math - phobic."

If he'd had to keep that pent up for much longer something crucial would have burst.

OK, he makes an idiot of himself in the process, but given time mhaze would have torn himself a new one just to let it out. That would have been much funnier to watch.

A-level Pure Math, Applied Math and Physics, Maths and Computing at University, and I'm math-phobic because I mock his puerile effort from a distance.

mhaze thinks the question is terribly clever. That's the way to approach it. Not the question itself. M'kay :)?

Far too smashed to deal with the repercussions tonight. Please take that into account if I appear condescending :o. I'm old, and we're like that.

[David Rodale]

I wish you hadn't. Look what happened.



If he'd had to keep that pent up for much longer something crucial would have burst.

OK, he makes an idiot of himself in the process, but given time mhaze would have torn himself a new one just to let it out. That would have been much funnier to watch.

A-level Pure Math, Applied Math and Physics, Maths and Computing at University, and I'm math-phobic because I mock his puerile effort from a distance.

mhaze thinks the question is terribly clever. That's the way to approach it. Not the question itself. M'kay :)?

Far too smashed to deal with the repercussions tonight. Please take that into account if I appear condescending :o. I'm old, and we're like that.

Not clever, just pointing out figures like that are statistically meaningless with error bars that large.

You are forgiven, but don't let it happen again unless you're going to share.