Co2 Acquittal

[freeztar]

I'll give you "promoting a riot", but I still don't understand why you are claiming "conspiracy to contribute to global warming"? There's no conspiracy about it, it's guilty.

[Turtle]

I'll give you "promoting a riot", but I still don't understand why you are claiming "conspiracy to contribute to global warming"? There's no conspiracy about it, it's guilty.

 

It's conspiracy because it is only one contributor of many. I note you didn't care to discount any of the other contributors I indicted. A good choice because doing that is a logical fallacy; spitting in the wind so to speak. I do hope you read up on all you can find about heating in the oceans from volcanism and hydrothermal venting. If in fact as I say this is where a lot of the heat is coming from, and not the greenhouse effect, then spending money to reduce CO2 on that premise is a waste. The fact that the effects of these features is largely unknown, is exactly why the current 'best' model is inherently flawed by virtue of bias. Quite simply the argument/consensus goes that 'we are not bothered by any facts we don't use.'.

 

Do read the meteroic dust post above I put up while you were replying. Yet another indictment. Best model yet notwithstanding, to quote Winston quoting Korzybski, the map is NOT the territory. :D

[Zythryn]

Turtle, I do agree with you that there are other contributing factors. I don't think anyone would say that there are no factors other than CO2.

I hold that since we can do something about the co2 more easily and more cheaply than we can prepare ourselves for the consequences, it would behoove us to do so (as Freeztar has also said).

As for the dust. Since the dust can cause heating or cooling based on size of the dust particles, do we know the distribution of dust particle sizes?

If our current estimation of the contribution that CO2 lends to GWing is so off, why is it the models based on what we currently know are relatively close to reality? Sure, we may be of by 10%, but if we are off by magnitudes, wouldn't the models be off by more?

[freeztar]

It's conspiracy because it is only one contributor of many.

If it's a contributer, it is guilty of...er...contributing.

 

I note you didn't care to discount any of the other contributors I indicted. A good choice because doing that is a logical fallacy; spitting in the wind so to speak.

 

Of course I wouldn't discount other contributers.

 

I do hope you read up on all you can find about heating in the oceans from volcanism and hydrothermal venting.

 

I plan to. :)

 

If in fact as I say this is where a lot of the heat is coming from, and not the greenhouse effect, then spending money to reduce CO2 on that premise is a waste.

 

A waste? Look where that money is going, cleaner energy and cleaner air. Sure it would be nice if we pursued these out of virtue, but either way I don't see it as a waste.

 

The fact that the effects of these features is largely unknown, is exactly why the current 'best' model is inherently flawed by virtue of bias. Quite simply the argument/consensus goes that 'we are not bothered by any facts we don't use.'.

 

You can't use facts that aren't there. Since underwater volcanoes seem to be scientifically mysterious at this point, we can't factor them into any model yet, at least not with any reliable certainty.

 

Do read the meteroic dust post above I put up while you were replying. Yet another indictment. Best model yet notwithstanding, to quote Winston quoting Korzybski, the map is NOT the territory. :D

 

I haven't read it yet, but I'll do so.

The map is not the territory, but it's certainly nice having a map.

[Turtle]

If it's a contributer, it is guilty of...er...contributing.

Exactly.

 

Of course I wouldn't discount other contributers.

Standing with you on a windy slope, I would not be concerned with your knowing which way to stand to discharge water. :)

 

A waste? Look where that money is going, cleaner energy and cleaner air. Sure it would be nice if we pursued these out of virtue, but either way I don't see it as a waste.

 

This depends, the economic balance that is, on the specifics of each project. All the 'cleaner' air, alternate fuel, etcetera has been going on for 40 years on the merits of all the other pollutants alone without regard for the carbon. So in my view there is no need to add some other still-debated reason, and so expenditure, to efforts and programs already in place to reduce use of fossil fuel. How many trees are getting killed to send out all the new dire reports with the latest catch phrase?

 

You can't use facts that aren't there. Since underwater volcanoes seem to be scientifically mysterious at this point, we can't factor them into any model yet, at least not with any reliable certainty.

 

Yes...sorta. But pretending they don't exist is perilous ground. Let's not foget that the 'latest-greatest' climate models have to be run on super-computers in order to model even the "well-understood" parameters. Practical decisions based on computer limits get made, such as leaving out as yet discovered (by necessity;duh), or not-yet-understood and quantified parameters.

 

The result can be the answer to Zythrn's insightful question:

... If our current estimation of the contribution that CO2 lends to GWing is so off, why is it the models based on what we currently know are relatively close to reality? Sure, we may be of by 10%, but if we are off by magnitudes, wouldn't the models be off by more?

 

Since the models don't include all the parameters, they cannot produce a result that uses them, that is a result that refers to them or their effects. If you don't count solar variance on compounded cycles for example, the conclusion must attribute whatever that amount is to some parameter that is in use in order for the result to match the observation.

 

Also, the model is constantly tweaked when observations don't meet predictions; this is what makes each new model "better". The modelers set their own threshold of variance so that past a certain point, whether 10% or whatever they choose, when the variance exceeds the threshold it's time to re-tweak. Perfectly acceptable practice...for making models, which are maps, which are not the territory.

 

 

The map is not the territory, but it's certainly nice having a map.

 

Nice as in comforting, until you find it it's wrong when you get into the field with it. Then, not so much. :D :D

[InfiniteNow]

Turtle - You seem to understand what you're talking about.

 

In the spirit of science, and knowing this thread is in a science forum, the onus is on you (as the one making the claims) to tell us precisely which models are faulty, and precisely how significantly the results of those specific models are flawed due to the missing data you reference.

 

You raise valid points, but you have continued to do so with the tone of a denialist. If your intentions are sincerely to enhance a scholarly and accurate approach to global climate then you must show us specifically which study is wrong, erred, or inaccurate.

 

 

Your continued conceptual painting with the broad brush of doubt does little to enhance your claims or deflate those of others. You are a very cunning linguist, but your absence of specifics and lack of references serves to make your stance weaker, as it implies to the rest of us that you haven't even read the works which you are challenging... works specifically regarding natural forcing factors. Surely... that couldn't possibly be the case.

[Turtle]

The simple fact is, that when a general principle is established, all specific examples obey it. No one is going to publish a 'bad' model, that is, one that has a high variance from observed conditions, so what is published is a 'good' or 'best' model. Having a 'best' implies not only there is a 'worst' , but another 'best' to come. The change from 'bad' to 'good' to 'better' is acieved by tweaking, literally changing, either calculations, parameters, or constants.

 

I again point out that one of the main groups of professionals who disagree strongly with the climatologists are the meteorologists, both on the grounds of the modeling errors, as well as the fact that measures of temperature from many stations has risen over time because of urbanization, not global warming. GIGO

 

I am reminded of Ambrose Bearce's comment that a Christian is someone who thinks the Bible is ideally suited to direct the behavior of his neighbor; I submit that the same is true of the Inconvenient Truth. :)

[InfiniteNow]

I again point out that one of the main groups of professionals who disagree strongly with the climatologists are the meteorologists, both on the grounds of the modeling errors, as well as the fact that measures of temperature from many stations has risen over time because of urbanization, not global warming. GIGO

Can you support this with citation, and let us know what percentage of the overall warming trend can be attributed to urban heat sinks?

 

Also, your comment here implies to me that you missed post #40. I've repeated that post below for your convenience.

 

 

 

Meteorologists have this, and other major disagreements with the climatologists. No small part of which is that the best computer weather models simply can't go beyond 7-10 days with useable accuracy, and as climatology is the study of weather patterns this doesn't give a boost of confidence for climatological computer models.

It may not be obvious to you, but it's obvious to me. You're confusing two separate measures.

 

The basic claim you are making is, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead, yet we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future. Isn't this ridiculous?"

 

Let me give an example to show the two measures to which I refer.

 

 

You are at the beach, and the waves coming off the choppy waters hit a wall on the shore at that beach. None of us would be able to place a line on that wall that predicts the exact height or surface level of the next incoming wave at any specific point on the wall 30 seconds in advance. This is akin to predicting the weather of the coming week.

 

However, we could absolutely place a line on the wall that accurately predicts the mean surface level (+/- chop) four hours in advance as long as we knew know the state of the tide when we'd arrived. That is akin to predicting the future state of the climate, and it is based on measurable trends.

 

Here's another.

Just because I cannot tell you the exact outcome of a specific coin flip does not mean I cannot tell you what the average outcome of coin flips will be over 1,000 tosses (and that includes allowing for the possibility that the coin lands on it's edge).

 

 

 

They are two very different measurements, and I hope you realize why.

 

 

 

Also, I've already shown the relative forcing factors... volcanoes included. PLEASE read the previous posts and links if you are serious about this conversation. If you are not serious, then why participate?

 

 

 

 

The same concept applies to proxy data, which is gathered across research modalities. More on that below:

 

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

Proxy data is data that paleoclimatologists gather from natural recorders of climate variability, e.g., tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, coral and historical data. By analyzing records taken from these and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding of climate far beyond the 140 year instrumental record.

 

 

 

 

Speaking of paleoclimatology:

 

Last 2,000 years: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

Before 2,000 years ago: NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

[freeztar]

The simple fact is, that when a general principle is established, all specific examples obey it. No one is going to publish a 'bad' model, that is, one that has a high variance from observed conditions, so what is published is a 'good' or 'best' model. Having a 'best' implies not only there is a 'worst' , but another 'best' to come. The change from 'bad' to 'good' to 'better' is acieved by tweaking, literally changing, either calculations, parameters, or constants.

 

This is how science works though. We will never have a perfect model and we will always be tweaking the ones we have to make them more accurate. As we learn more of the feedback mechanisms, they are incorporated into the model.

 

I again point out that one of the main groups of professionals who disagree strongly with the climatologists are the meteorologists, both on the grounds of the modeling errors, as well as the fact that measures of temperature from many stations has risen over time because of urbanization, not global warming. GIGO

This is a common argument from those that deny a warming trend. Take a look at this:

When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).

 

They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records. More on Urban Heat Island...

Surface temperature records are unreliable

 

I recommend that site in general actually. ;)

 

I am reminded of Ambrose Bearce's comment that a Christian is someone who thinks the Bible is ideally suited to direct the behavior of his neighbor; I submit that the same is true of the Inconvenient Truth. :)

 

I still have not seen Inconvenient Truth, so I'm not qualified to argue either way. Nonetheless, that seems like a very tenuous extrapolation.

[InfiniteNow]

I again point out that one of the main groups of professionals who disagree strongly with the climatologists are the meteorologists, both on the grounds of the modeling errors, as well as the fact that measures of temperature from many stations has risen over time because of urbanization, not global warming. GIGO

 

 

This is a common argument from those that deny a warming trend. Take a look at this:

 

Surface temperature records are unreliable

 

I recommend that site in general actually. :)

 

From that same site, the below quote seems an especially pertinent response to Turtle's post:

 

 

 

It's Urban Heat Island effect

 

This confirms a peer review study by the NCDC (Peterson 2003) that did statistical analysis of urban and rural temperature anomalies and concluded "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures... Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions."

 

Another more recent study (Parker 2006) plotted 50 year records of temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. He concluded "temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development".

[InfiniteNow]

Here's another good site that was shown to me earlier today:

 

 

Met Office: Climate change myths

 

Prof. John Mitchell OBE FRS, Chief Scientist at the Met Office explores some of the common myths about climate change.

 

The Met Office recognises that climate change is a complex subject. There are genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings and myths which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact.

 

Recent coverage has questioned the influence of humans on the climate. While the arguments used might have been regarded as genuine areas of sceptical enquiry 20 years ago, further observed warming and advances in climate science render these out of touch.

 

Myth 1 - Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming

 

Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change

 

Myth 3 - There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming

 

Myth 4 - The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate

 

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change

 

 

Click the link for brief summaries supporting each contention of myth. ;)

[Turtle]

Again, the models do not factor in many of the underwater pehenomena that involve CO2 or heating. This is not so much because they don't want to, it is because they don't have reliable data on the extent of these influencing factors. If powers that be want to make a decision to action based on what data they have, and they can muster the political power to do so, then so it goes. :)

 

Humans “are having a strong effect on global geochemical cycles, but it does not compare at all to the advent of oxygenic photosynthesis,” said Katrina Edwards, a geo-microbiologist at the University of Southern California (USC). “That was a catastrophic environmental change that occurred before 2.2 billion years ago [which] wreaked its full wrath on the Earth system.”

 

Edwards studies another way life impacts the planet in largely unseen ways. She focuses on how microbes living on the murky ocean floor transform minerals through a kind of underwater alchemy. For example, microbes facilitate a chemical process called oxidation, whereby oxygen in sea water combines with magma oozing up from the ocean floor to change, for example, one form of iron into another.

 

“These [microbes] are completely off radar in terms of global biogeochemical cycles,” Edwards told LiveScience. "We don't consider them as part of the Earth system right now in our calculation about what's going on, and we don't consider them in terms of how the Earth system will move forward into the future."

[InfiniteNow]

Again, the models do not factor in many of the underwater pehenomena that involve CO2 or heating. This is not so much because they don't want to, it is because they don't have reliable data on the extent of these influencing factors. If powers that be want to make a decision to action based on what data they have, and they can muster the political power to do so, then so it goes. :)

 

Turtle - You're simply placing doubt on the models themselves. Until you show that the impact of underwater volcanism is a significant contributor to global climate change and warming, your comments above are non-sequitur.

 

 

Btw... This is another classic denialist approach which has been debunked.

 

 

Models are unreliable

There is a notion that we should wait till models are 100% sure and get it perfectly right before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for that, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of improvement as they include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be refinements and subtleties to be included.

 

The main point is we know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long term trends and are always improving on predicting the more chaotic, short term changes. Multiple lines of evidence tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2. The uncertainty is ±1°C degree but this uncertainty is decreasing (and the climate sensitivity of 3°C reaffirmed) as new studies refine our understanding.

 

Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there was a 10% chance you'd be in a car crash, you'd wear a seatbelt. In fact, if there was any possibility, you'd still do it. The IPCC consider it at least 90% sure humans are causing global warming. Considering the negative impacts of global warming, to wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.

[Turtle]

Cracked Fairy Tales

Pandora's Box Opens A Letter,

or What's In A Turtle's Shell Didn't Get There By Itself

 

 

CFP: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is ‘Futile’

Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

 

BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth’s climate was “ultimately futile.”

 

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, released an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN’s so-called “solutions.” ...

 

The Letter: >> CFP: Open Letter to the UN Secretary General Concerning Global Warming

 

Further museables on melting ice and the heat doing it: >>

 

Magma may be melting Greenland ice - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

...In recent years, Greenland’s ice has been melting more and flowing faster into the sea — a record amount of ice melted from the frozen mass this summer, according to recently released data — and Earth’s rising temperatures are suspected to be the main culprit.

 

But clues to a new natural contribution to the melt arose when scientists discovered a thin spot in the Earth’s crust under the northeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet where heat from Earth’s insides could seep through, scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

...

[InfiniteNow]

=

CFP: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is ‘Futile’

 

 

The Letter: >> CFP: Open Letter to the UN Secretary General Concerning Global Warming

 

 

Yep. Interestingly, that SAME week, a letter written by 200 prominent scientists was ALSO submitted to the UN, a letter which urged action to combat global warming by reducing CO₂ emissions.

 

 

Bali Declaration

….The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction.

 

The next round of focused negotiations for a new global climate treaty (within the 1992 UNFCCC process) needs to begin in December 2007 and be completed by 2009. The prime goal of this new regime must be to limit global warming to no more than 2 ºC above the pre-industrial temperature, a limit that has already been formally adopted by the European Union and a number of other countries.

 

Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450 ppm (parts per million; measured in CO2-equivalent concentration). In order to stay below 2 ºC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose…

 

 

 

 

Here's a fair and balanced approach to both letters. I bet you won't find such a fair view of both sides presented in the Canadian Free Press to which you've linked several times. Considering their tone, and their "Christianity" section, I'd suggest they're not as "fair and balanced" as one might presume.

 

 

Climate Change - who is right and we are wrong? | TalkClimateChange

 

Two letters were written by two sets of credible scientists last week and addressed to the UN. One letter urged action to combat global warming by reducing Co2 emissions, and the other urged leaders to ignore the previous letter and focus on more pressing priorities instead. (see below for links and highlights)

 

It is clearly a bizarre situation: the attention of the world is being focused on preventing a global calamity through high profile summit meetings which promise to bring much change, whilst in the background the climate prophets are still arguing over the fundamental existence of a real problem in the first place.

 

Each week we read of new opinion polls, which alternately claim that large numbers of people either are, or are not concerned about global warming depending on who was asked. Our conclusion is that approximately 1 third of the world care deeply about the problem. Another third of the world don’t believe there is a problem, and the remaining third couldn’t care less and are too busy getting on with their lives.

 

So what’s going on? Have the UN together with many of the world’s governments been duped by an unprecedented scam? Have we run out of other challenging problems to deal with? Or is the whole issue becoming confused by honest people with other motives? And more importantly, what will it take to move on?

 

First let’s have a look at the contrasting highlights of each letter:

 

The two letters fundamentally contradict each other: firstly on the cause of climate change - natural vs manmade -, secondly on our ability to influence climate change, and finally on the subsequent causes of human suffering - economic collapse vs environmental disaster.

 

Frankly, its easy for an intelligent person to go with either set of scenarios, depending on what suits you best. We suspect that for many people (our enlightened readers excepted) this is exactly how they choose their position.

 

But since we are talking about dramatically rearranging our world we really should try to straighten this out. We have a few suggestions as a starting point:

 

 

Just the facts, ma'am. :)

[InfiniteNow]

Further museables on melting ice and the heat doing it: >>

 

Magma may be melting Greenland ice - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

This article would only discount global climate change if there were a magma hot spot under EVERY place where the ice is melting, which there's not.

 

Further, your own article concedes global warming, and simply suggests that this particlar finding shows why the ice in this specific region of Greenland may be melting more quickly than ice in other regions.

 

 

Global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland. Scientists have found at least one natural magma hotspot under the Arctic island that could be pitching in.

[Turtle]

More inconvenient facts, if not truths dear readers on the Greenland ice. :) >>

 

 

...In a presentation at the AGU meeting in San Francisco, researchers from KU’s Center for the Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets will show evidence that a weakness in the earth’s crust could be causing underground magma to melt the ice above. If that is in fact happening, the water could be melting and carrying away more ice as it flows away from the “hot spot.”

 

“We think it may be a part of greater geothermal activity beneath the entire ice sheet,” said Kees van der Veen, a KU researcher and professor in the department of geography. ...