My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Biochemist]

Biochemist, I do apologize, but in the last few pages I couldn't find the link. Could you either post the link again, or tell me which post number it is in?

Posting here again, from post 288:

 

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/So...NY_Mar2_08.pdf

 

Or, in short, can you tell me if it predicts a change in the long term trend, or is it predicting a temp change to lower than average by 2013?

Both.

[Biochemist]

It does seem somewhat telling though, that you felt I was speaking to you personally.

Well, not really. But I did feel you were not taking on the argument.

Does his research suggest it is important to develop clean, environmentally conscious energy production and usage practices?

John Christy is a climate researcher, was on the IPCC panel, and is best known (I think) for his work in interpreting satellite temperature data. I don't know if he has taken any positions on remediation of anthropogenic effects. I think he believes that climate is complex, and that the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature is not firmly established. Could someone correct me on this if I am incorrect?

Not once have I ever grouped you with "mindless reactionaries." I find you anything but mindless, Bio.

I apologize humbly for taking umbrage.

What is curious to me is...you to find credibility in scientists...such as Richard Lindzen...and to be so suspicious of the motives of the IPCC who has conducted far more research and accumulated far more data.

I am aware of the perception of bias on Lindzen's part. I don' t know if the bias is true, or whether that affects the interpretation of his data. I share many folks perception of the bias in the IPCC report. The document posted earlier from Chris Landsea, (who left the IPCC because of his perception of their lack of willingness to review relevenat data) is a famous case. Lindzen critique of Gore's movie (published in the Wall Street Journal) struck me as factual, not political. And he is chair of the department at MIT. He has credible credentials; I think stronger than James Hansen at NASA, who has even more biases and adverse incentives that Lindzen. Yet Hansen gets international applaud. Even after he was caught with several significant data errors.

While there may be some examples of informed scientific critiques such as Christy's, how are his findings received by his peers?

To my knowledge, Christy is highly regarded

If they are discounted or rejected outright by a preponderance of his counterparts, would you feel it was an unjust reaction by the scientific community?

It takes the scientific community decades to come to true consensus on complex issues. It was probably 30 years on the basics of particle physics. 30-40 years on eugenics. A decade or two on relativity (and that was simpler). 35 years (and counting) on the postion/weight of Punctuated equilibrium. In all cases, there were years of the leading authorities shouting down the opposition.

What do you feel are the underlying political or conspiratorial motives, if any, of the IPCC?

Heavens, this is like asking why people are Democrats. It is basically the same reason people (with the same fact base) are Republicans. People don't like to change once they take a position.

[InfiniteNow]

Appeals to authority and continued speculations of someone's motivation have no place in a discussion of this nature.

[goku]

i have just recieved new evidence that there is no global warming.

 

barak anouced that when he becomes president al gore will be his advisor on global warming.

 

amazing isn't it! :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

i have just recieved new evidence that there is no global warming.

 

barak anouced that when he becomes president al gore will be his advisor on global warming.

 

amazing isn't it! :hihi:

 

Actually:

 

Asked at a town hall meeting if he [barack Obama] would look at Gore for a possible Cabinet position, Obama said, "I would."

<...>

I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem," Obama said.

 

"He's someone I talk to on a regular basis," Obama said. "I'm already consulting with him on these issues. Climate change is real. It's something we have to deal with now."

 

 

Obama says would consider Gore for a Cabinet post | Politics | Reuters

[Zythryn]

Bio, that you for reposting that link.

Archibald has some very interesting ideas. Unfortunately more research needs do be done on on the relationship between galactic gama rays and cloud formation and temperature. His reasoning (that more clouds cause lower temps and more galactic rays cause more cloud formation) and it is definately worthy of more study.

 

Unfortunately Mr/Dr Archibald seems to have used very small datasets. For example, his 'Rural temp trends' graph. It shows quite clearly that the 2nd half of the 20th century has cooler temps than the first half. While this is completely accurate, it is still just an average of 5 stations, all in the SE region of the United states.

If more data points are included, that trend disappears.

 

If you are truly interested in the science, I would recommend the second half of this page: Nexus 6: The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere.

The first section is really just a bunch of name calling, the next section though sticks to numbers and logic.

 

I am happy to see his conclusion and willingness to list predictions. Seems we are currently in a slight cooling trend which is supposed to increase dramatically a month after the next solar minimum (did this actually just happen??).

 

In summary, I would encourage more research along the lines that Mr./Dr. Archibald's conclusions so that those conclusions can be borne out, or discarded. However, I do not feel that his suppositions are strong enough to overturn the studies, data, and evidence that currently exists.

[InfiniteNow]

Unfortunately more research needs do be done on on the relationship between galactic gama rays and cloud formation and temperature. His reasoning (that more clouds cause lower temps and more galactic rays cause more cloud formation) and it is definately worthy of more study.

<...>

In summary, I would encourage more research along the lines that Mr./Dr. Archibald's conclusions so that those conclusions can be borne out, or discarded. However, I do not feel that his suppositions are strong enough to overturn the studies, data, and evidence that currently exists.

 

Not to mention the data which we DO have regarding cosmic rays and clouds. Here's a brief sampling below of a few of the issues. I encourage all readers to actually launch these links and read them in their entirety. :hihi:

 

 

Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

 

Sun not to blame for global warming.

 

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays

 

 

NATURE article in .pdf --> http://www.auger.org.ar/Auger_Sur/PDF/Nature%20July%202007.pdf

 

This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

RealClimate - Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays

 

FIGURE 1. GCR counts from Climax (red) and the aa-index (blue). The straight lines show the best linear-fit against time estimated through linear regression. The GCR measurements are shown in solid black line, from which a trend of -180 +/- 253 counts/decade is estimated, and this is associated with a p-value (the probability of this being different to the null-hypothesis: zero trend) of 0.477 (not statistically significant at the 5% level).

 

The aa-index is represented by the blue line, and the corresponding trend of 1.5 +/- 0.4/decade is associated with a p-value of 0.0002 (highly statistically significant). A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa-index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p-value= 0. The yellow line shows the global mean temperature from CRU for comparison.

 

[Data source: http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html" , "http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" and "ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA'].

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

RealClimate - A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver

 

Fig.1: A comparison between CO2 and CRF indices with temperature proxy. Superimposed is the Beryllium-10 (blue). All curves are standardised. (paleaoproxy.R).

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

RealClimate - Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin

 

First, the particles observed in these experiments are orders of magnitude too small to be Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). In the press release, this is why they talk about the 'building blocks' of CCN, however, aggrandisation of these small particles is in no sense guaranteed (Missing step #1).

 

Secondly, the focus is on low clouds over the ocean. However, over the ocean, there are huge numbers of condensation nuclei related to sea salt particles. Thus to show that the cosmic ray mechanism is important, you need to show that it increases CCN even in the presence of lots of other CCN (Missing step #2).

 

Next, even if more CCN were made, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud cover (or optical thickness etc.) (Missing step #3).

 

And given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing - which despite their hand waving, is not at all well quantified (even the sign!) (Missing step #4).

 

Finally, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades - which is tricky, because there hasn't been (see the figure) (Missing step #5).

 

All of this will require significant work and there are certainly no guarantees that all the steps can be verified (which they have been for the greenhouse gas hypothesis) - especially the last!

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

RealClimate - ‘Cosmoclimatology’ - tired old arguments in new clothes

 

Another newer puzzle is the surprisingly good correlation between low clouds and GCR (se figure below), since higher clouds (global mean cover ~13%) or middle clouds (~20%) which are not influenced by GCR, mask the lower ones (which represents between 28% and 30% of the globe). It's indeed a surprisingly good fit between the two curves in the A&G article (reproduced below), considering the time structure of both the high-cloud, middle-cloud, and low-cloud curves, and the satellites cannot see the low-level clouds where there are higher clouds above blocking the view.

 

The fact that the variations are small (~1% amplitude!) compared to the total area, suggest that the overlap/masking effect by the higher cloud must be very small for a high correlation to shine through the upper clouds. Even if the clouds hypothetically were completely determined by GCR, one would expect to see deterioration of the correlation if viewed from above due to the presence of higher clouds not influenced by GCR. Another issue is that the cloud data used in this analysis was only based on the infra-red (IR) channel, and a better analysis would include the visible observations too, but if the visible data are included, then the correlation is lower.

 

 

 

Data Analysis to Understand Climate

 

 

[These articles have] been criticised for cherry picking references to make mere speculation appear as more solidly founded. To ignore aspects that don't fit the hypothesis is definitely not science. Neither is adjusting data so to provide a good fit without a solid and convincing justification. Science, however, means objectivity, transparency, repeatability, and in principle the possibility of falsification.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

RealClimate - Cosmic rays don’t die so easily

 

 

In addition, there is no evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover (IPCC AR4), and the GCR-hypothesis has a problem with explaining the trend in the diurnal cycle, enhanced warming in the Arctic and a cooling in the stratosphere. The only explanation we can offer is an enhanced greenhouse effect.

 

[T]he chapter on the connection between GCR and clouds is not yet closed, but all the evidence goes against the notion that GCR are the cause of the present global warming.

[Zythryn]

Great level of detail and data!

I wasn't aware that much research had been done yet. This should keep me busy for quite some time:)

[InfiniteNow]

I added one more to the top. Be sure to refresh your page. :)

 

:hihi:

[Erasmus00]

Well, not really. But I did feel you were not taking on the argument.John Christy is a climate researcher...I think he believes that climate is complex, and that the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature is not firmly established..

 

It was my impression from a radio interview that I heard that Christy certainly believes that humans are changing the climate- what he takes issue with are the catastrophic predictions he sees as unwarranted.

-Will

[Biochemist]

It was my impression from a radio interview that I heard that Christy certainly believes that humans are changing the climate- what he takes issue with are the catastrophic predictions he sees as unwarranted.

Agreed. I think he is also more circumspect about accepting any causal connection between CO2 and future temperature increases.

[Biochemist]

If you are truly interested in the science, I would recommend the second half of this page: Nexus 6: The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere.

The first section is really just a bunch of name calling, the next section though sticks to numbers and logic.

Thanks, Z. This is a great critique of the paper.

 

I didn't see any response to the assertion in the source paper that CO2 forcing decreases with incremental rises. Specifically, that a doubling in CO2 would have a trivial incremental effect on temperature. Any comment on that element?

[InfiniteNow]

I didn't see any response to the assertion in the source paper that CO2 forcing decreases with incremental rises. Specifically, that a doubling in CO2 would have a trivial incremental effect on temperature. Any comment on that element?

 

Four hundred and six thousand scientific paper results from a search on CO2 and temperature. I'm sure one or more will have the data you seek.

 

co2 temperature - Google Scholar

[Zythryn]

Thanks, Z. This is a great critique of the paper.

 

I didn't see any response to the assertion in the source paper that CO2 forcing decreases with incremental rises. Specifically, that a doubling in CO2 would have a trivial incremental effect on temperature. Any comment on that element?

 

I have seen and read papers on plant growth increasing less as co2 levels increase. As I recall, that doesn't start happening until the co2 reaches levels much higher than today.

 

I don't recall reading anything on co2 and temperature relationships, although as Infi pointed out, I am sure there are a bunch of them.

 

The physics seems pretty straight forward. CO2 molecules don't absorb the incoming sunlight, but they do absorb some of the lower wavelength radiation that is reflected from the earth's surface.

 

We pour more CO2 into the atmosphere than the carbon sinks can absorb.

 

More CO2 captures more low wavelength radiation (heat).

 

As you add more heat to the climate, you get a more active climate.

That is the bottom line basics.

[InfiniteNow]

The physics seems pretty straight forward. CO2 molecules don't absorb the incoming sunlight, but they do absorb some of the lower wavelength radiation that is reflected from the earth's surface.

 

We pour more CO2 into the atmosphere than the carbon sinks can absorb.

 

More CO2 captures more low wavelength radiation (heat).

 

As you add more heat to the climate, you get a more active climate.

That is the bottom line basics.

 

Excellent summary, Zythryn. :confused:

 

 

Here's some supplemental information as well. While much of it has already been covered in this (now over) 300 post thread, it never hurts to have a refresher.

 

 

 

8/31/94 - How does carbon dioxide cause global warming?

 

Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.

 

So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.

 

 

 

WikiAnswers - How does carbon dioxide cause global warming

 

CO2 or Carbon Dioxide causes global warming by trapping atmospheric radiation within earth's atmosphere, a phenomena known as Green House Effect.

 

You can think of it this way. Have you ever parked your car, outside, under the sun on a real hot day? Once you get inside your car, its almost boiling, makes you wonder why the temperature inside the car is so high as compared with the ambient temperature. The reason is that the glass windows and windshield in our cars act similar to the CO2 in atmosphere. Glass acts transparent to the high frequency atmospheric radiation, whereas it acts opaque to the low frequency ambient radition, emanating within the car. This trapped radiation and the incoming radiation increases the temperature of the car. In a similar fashion, CO2 acts like a giant glass cover, enveloping our planet and heating it up.

 

 

Your Questions: Carbon Power : NPR

 

First, the sun bathes the Earth in radiation. Some of that radiation we can see – visible light — and some of it we can't, like ultraviolet light.

 

When solar radiation strikes Earth, the atmosphere reflects some of it back into space. The rest is absorbed by the atmosphere or penetrates through to the surface, where it is absorbed by land and water. Think of how a paved parking lot or puddle of water warms on a sunny day.

 

Then — and this is key — the Earth beams part of that heat back up to space — in the form of infrared energy. But while the transparent gases in the atmosphere let incoming sunlight pass through (that's where the name "transparent" comes from) they absorb or trap some of the infrared radiation sent up by the Earth. This infrared energy heats up the gas molecules, which then release some of that heat, helping warm the Earth. (In a real greenhouse, this "re-radiation" doesn't play a big role — the glass simply traps the warm air in the greenhouse.)

[CraigD]

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/So...NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Bio, that you for reposting that link.

…

Unfortunately Mr/Dr Archibald seems to have used very small datasets. For example, his 'Rural temp trends' graph. It shows quite clearly that the 2nd half of the 20th century has cooler temps than the first half. While this is completely accurate, it is still just an average of 5 stations, all in the SE region of the United states.

If more data points are included, that trend disappears.

 

If you are truly interested in the science, I would recommend the second half of this page: Nexus 6: The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere.

After (with some difficulty - the GISTEMP webpages perform some strange redirection that causes my spider to get 404 Not Found unless a normal browser visits a stations main page first :shrug:) some number crunching, I confirm Nexus 6’s suspicions that the 5 stations David Archibald chose to argue for a 1.5 C decrease from the 1920s to present in the rural US show an effect that isn’t present if you take a random selection of other stations. For example, the following random choices of stations from the rectangle roughly defined by Archibald’s 5 stations (Lat 31 to 36, Lon -90 to -83), give:

 

Stations (see Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data): 1920s average, 1990s average, change

42572217002 42572233006 42572234006 42572312007 42574777006 : 17.8, 17.4, -0.4

42572233006 42572234006 42572334003 42574769005 42574777006 : 17.7, 17.2, -0.5

42572225004 42572311004 42572323004 42572332002 42574769006 : 15.9, 15.9, +0.1

42572215001 42572311004 42572315001 42572334002 42572334004 : 15.6, 15.1, -0.5

42572215001 42572320003 42572326002 42574769005 42574769007 : 15.7, 15.7, +0.0

 

It’s possible to select 5 stations such as these to show a cooling trend:

42572234002 42572234003 42572315001 42572334004 42574777006; 17.0, 16.0, -1.0

 

Or select 5 such as these to show a warming trend:

42572229001 42572311004 42572324001 42572326002 42574769007 : 15.3, 15.9, +0.6

 

It’s important when doing statistics of this sort not to select only sample points that support a pre-determined conclusion, but rather to sample randomly. In attempting to demonstrate that average temperatures are not increasing, as most climate scientists believe, but rather dramatically decreasing, Archibald appears to make this serious mistakes.

[Biochemist]

Four hundred and six thousand scientific paper results from a search on CO2 and temperature. I'm sure one or more will have the data you seek.

Gee, thanks for the help IN.

 

I suggest that you go to the Library of Congress (I think you can Google the address for yourself). I am pretty sure that you can find a reference in there that will confirm my assertion above.

 

Is this kind of post helpful to you?