My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[engineerdude]

I found a few interesting blog links for those interested:

ClimateScienceWatch

RealClimate

A Few Things Ill Considered

This list on "A Few Things Ill Considered" is super cool

A Few Things Ill Considered : How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic

 

Contains responses to claims about CO2 levels, clouds present in models, greenhouse gases, etc.

 

Thanks for the links - but don't you have anything yourself to say?

[REASON]

Clouds are not part of the "Greenhouse Effect". Clouds are tiny droplets of condensed water, while water vapor is the invisible gaseous form of water that is naturally present in our lower atmosphere.

 

Technically, you are correct. Although clouds are formed from water vapor. My intention was to use the blanket of clouds helping to retain heat concept as an analogy of the greenhouse effect for goku's sake. I've also used the the analogy of the inside of your car getting hot on a sunny afternoon when the windows are rolled up. I should have been more explicit in that regard.

 

 

Clouds are, in fact, a giant unknown regarding global climate - they both reflect solar radiation to space and act as a blanket to slow cooling of the planet. And, there is nothing in the planet's geologic record to show if it was sunnier or cloudier at different times.

 

This is true, and is one example of why your statements that CO2 and temperature are unrelated based on historical data from ice cores is extremely impercise.

 

Volcanic activity is known to release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Say, for instance, that there was a period of intense volcanic activity, maybe a supervocanic eruption. The ash and debris spewed into the atmoshere and spread around the globe could block solar radiation causing the surface temperature to cool, while simultaneously increasing the concentration of CO2. In such a condition, it would be easy for someone to point to such a period and suggest that it served as evidence that temperature and CO2 levels are unrelated.

 

There are so many other combinations such as this at work, including cloud cover. So I ask again, if it is impossible that the highest levels of CO2 concentration in 400,000 years has no effect on the global mean temperature increase because, as you say, the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is still just too small to have a real impact, why is the temperature steadily and rapidly going up? You keep saying CO2 isn't responsible, but offer no better or more reliable explanation for the increase in temperature. Solar activity has already been thoroughly considered by the IPCC, and pretty well debunked in this thread as the primary factor.

 

If there is no better explanation than CO2, then the naysayers of AGW simply appear to be in denial.

[Zythryn]

CO2 is variable, we can, and are adding more of it to the atmosphere.

Water vapor is not, if we somehow add more, we will get more rain. Typically it will fall out of the atmosphere within days if not hours.

Where CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for decades.

This is part of the reason CO2 is something to worry about.

And yes, by volume, CO2 is much much less abundant in our atmosphere than water vapor. However it is also much more effective as a greenhouse gas.

CO2 is currently estimated to be responsible for 9%-26% of the 'greenhouse affect'.

You may find this paper more detailed

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

[Essay]

Being a few days behind, I'll try to catch up real quick.

I did some web surfing last night trying to come up with an argument for Edude; some of which follows...

...but first:

 

The Flying Binghi... Hi! It's nice to know you're reading closely. Yep, not my best work; sort of an awkward double negative, and with a typo too! I'll get rid of the "t." :D

Usually I compose offline and then post, but that one was done on the fly; almost as a stream of....

I think the fact that it was posted at around 3:00 am is a better indication of my level of intoxication, but... ;)

 

Binghi, Nice to see your back....

Any chance I could get you to review post # 864 (and #849, mentioned in 864)?

You had brought up some good points which I tried to "answer." Do you agree with those points of mine,

or do you have more questions?

===

 

Edude...

OISM! C'mon! As I brought up in my post #934, that's a bad site on which to base decisions. Their conclusions are contrary to the data they present.

Edude, you asked something like 'what does it matter if the data is right?'

What does what matter: Their erroneous conclusions: That others might believe and repeat their wack conclusions?

...or just that their data is right... for us to look at, but ignore their editorializing that is meant to look like well thought-out conclusions (rhetorical question?).

 

I'm sounding pretty harsh here as I only looked at their first graph...

...but others (Reason & Chris C) seem to validate this view of OISM, I think.

Do you think we're ganging up on that site simply because you like it?

I have 2-3 examples of sites very similar to that one, where they put a lot of effort into looking and sounding very scientific; but when you look closely, they are always some private site with their personal interpretation of part of the data that is out there. I've noticed that they usually have a lot of unrelated stuff that invariably crosses way over the line of pseudo-science, junk science, or even new-wave mysticism. It almost seems as if the GW stuff is added on to a pre-existing, promote-your-own personalized hobby/science website.

...but I'm wandering....

===

 

Let's leave the stats for a while (though I still think a "correlation coefficient" runs from 0 to 1, and what you have is some sort of "association test," running from -1 to +1).

...hmmmm, never mind.... :)

Statistics 2 - Correlation Coefficient and Coefficient of Determination

...I was thinking of r squared.... :)

===

 

So leaving statistics for a while, you wrote:

"No need to wonder - we did this experiment. Current CO2 is 375, 40% above the last half-million year highs.

Net effect, nothing." -Edude

 

Nothing!?!? (...hey, give it a few decades, or a century)

 

...and, if you don't count an ice-free Arctic Ocean.

Do you think it is only a solar effect that is warming the Arctic so much more rapidly than the rest of the planet?

The role of the Arctic Ocean for the immediate pre-Pleistocene world climate is fairly well understood. Probably, the Arctic Ocean became ice covered in the middle Cenozoic and together with the Antarctic icecap provided significant areas of net heat loss to propel the atmospheric circulation that has led to modern climates.

...

Although the time of development of the pack ice for the central Arctic Ocean is unknown, to date there is no evidence that precludes a Miocene origin (15 Mya).

...

Climate in Earth History: Studies in Geophysics

I would point out that the last time we had very high CO2 levels was back before the Arctic froze over (...a bit of an exaggeration, but look at the records).

 

 

Hey, check out this site!!! It looks like it has lots of good background info.

NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Paleoclimate

...but (they cite) leads to geocraft; so be careful....

 

maybe try:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/CrowleyBernerScience01.pdf

"The first-order agreement between the CO2 record and continental glaciation continues to support the conclusion that CO2 has played an important role in long-term climate change. The Veizer et al. data, if correct, could be considered a Phanerozoic extension of a possible dilemma long known for the early and mid-Cenozoic.

To weigh the merits of the CO2 paradigm, it may be necessary to expand the scope of climate modeling. For factors responsible for the presence or absence of continental ice, the CO2 model works very well. In contrast, there are substantial gaps in our understanding of how climate models distribute heat on the planet in response to CO2 changes on tectonic time scales."

...clear as mud, right? Well, looks like the site has loads of great links.

 

...ooohhh! Here's a good one:

Climate Forcing - Obtaining and Contributing Data

 

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/pearson2000_co2.txt

"Since the early Miocene (about 24Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago."

...and to repeat from above:

"Although the time of development of the pack ice for the central Arctic Ocean is unknown, to date there is no evidence that precludes a Miocene origin (15 Mya)."

 

...see, we're heading for CO2 levels not seen since the continents settled and the mountains and grasses arose.

...and you think after a century or two of that, that something's not gonna give?

===

 

...and let me add an intuitive perspective (creative writing?) on the big picture:

All this stuff about humidity in Florida, clouds, percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2, etc. are (too limited in spatial and temporal scope) so unrelated to the (as you realize) very complex atmosphere....

...which channels heat up to the poles where most of the excess escapes.

 

You mentioned the v. long wavelength IR which CO2 retards as the IR is trying to escape Earth.

That v. long IR is very cold temperature trying to escape from the poles, not the heat we experience here in Florida or Arizona. It is hotter here because the heat escaping from the poles is being restricted. Heat flow is backing up from the tops of the atmosphere and the planet.

 

(down here, CO2 also acts as a flux, increasing heat flow and transfer, as well as back-scatter (local heating); and serves to reduce the unique variability in microclimates which would help moderate our weather)

===

 

...bbl,

...so much for a bito' Lunchtime Little Theatre....

 

~ :)

[CraigD]

CraigD, when you ran your correlation, why did you omit the most recent data? What is actually happening right now is the best data we have - we know more precisely than ever very exact levels of CO2 and temperature.

I used all of the data published in the source I cited in post #970, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/domec_co2.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3deuttemp2007.txt (Valérie Masson-Delmotte). These data don’t include CO2 values after 1515 AD, or before 9003 BC.

 

Engineerdude, please provide the URLs for the data you used to make the chart in post #964, or, if not available via a URL, upload them as attachments.

 

Note, however, that a correctly generated correlation coefficient must sample evenly over the two datasets’ shared variable – in this case, date, so many datapoints from a short interval, such as CO2 concentration and temperatures since 1960, will have less effect than a few datapoints from a long interval, such as the 5 data from dc_co2_hol_fl02.txt for 7982 BC to 7118 BC.

[goku]

Evolutionists? We're talking climatology here, goku. Get with the program.

 

Are you here to tell us that what the top climate scientists in the world have missed all along is the humidity? Maybe you'd be willing, with all of your advanced down-home knowledge, to explain the way in which water vapor is causing a rapid and steady increase in the mean global temperature instead of just saying CO2 can't be a factor.

 

yes evolutionists global warmers, they are all equally stupid. for lack of better word.

 

so your saying there is a detailed and complete weather history that goes back to the begining, of earth? rapid increase that's good stuff

how much has it increased?

when did it start increasing?

 

and sense the earth is EVOLVING it would be un-natural for humans to interfere with EVOLUTION. :doh:

[Qfwfq]

...it would be un-natural for humans to interfere with EVOLUTION.

Great reason to waste less energy and burn less fuel. :evil:

[REASON]

To be honest, I hesitated to dignify your trollesque post with a reply, goku, but......whatever.

 

yes evolutionists global warmers, they are all equally stupid. for lack of better word. :shrug:

 

I think you should seriously reflect on this statement.

 

This is not a good way to represent your cause - whatever it is.

 

 

so your saying there is a detailed and complete weather history that goes back to the begining, of earth?

 

No. No one has said that. Not once, at all, at any point in this discussion, ever.

 

 

rapid increase :) that's good stuff

how much has it increased?

when did it start increasing?

 

There have been nearly a thousand posts made to this thread, many of which have included detailed graphs and links to an enormous amount of research and information examining global warming trends and anomalies as they exist currently, and in the past, as well as models that attempt to make predictions for the future.

 

You have popped in on occasion to toss in your two cents worth of snide comments and criticism, each time making it more obvious that you have not even read or considered the information that has been provided. If you had, you wouldn't have asked the questions above. They have already been discussed many times, in many ways, and backed-up with legitimate scientific research.

 

If you are unwilling look at it, then I'm unwilling to reiterate it.

 

 

and sense the earth is EVOLVING it would be un-natural for humans to interfere with EVOLUTION. :)

 

Humans are part of the Earth, and are continually participating in the evolution of life on this planet. It is unavoidable. In the animal kingdom, we are unique in our ability to shape, control, and affect the environment. Our goal should be to learn to control that ability by working in harmony with nature so that we avoid damaging not only other forms of life, but avoid damaging ourselves.

 

Either way, evolution will run it's course.

[goku]

You have popped in on occasion to toss in your two cents worth of snide comments and criticism, each time making it more obvious that you have not even read or considered the information that has been provided. If you had, you wouldn't have asked the questions above. They have already been discussed many times, in many ways, and backed-up with legitimate scientific research.

 

Humans are part of the Earth, and are continually participating in the evolution of life on this planet. It is unavoidable. In the animal kingdom, we are unique in our ability to shape, control, and affect the environment. Our goal should be to learn to control that ability by working in harmony with nature so that we avoid damaging not only other forms of life, but avoid damaging ourselves.

 

i do appologize for what i said, there's no excuse.

 

your right i haven't carefully looked at any of the graphs, because they don't matter. the planet is changing, always. there are no rules saying planet earth should be this in X many years. where's the owner's mannuel?

 

why should we control that ability?

where does it say humans are suposed to do this?

evolution doesn't say that.

 

what really upsets me is seeing the people you trust to do something about global warming take your money and do absolutely nothing.

[Michaelangelica]

Anti-global warming comments political, not scientific

 

November 18, 2008

 

 

William Gray (Soapbox, Nov. 6) states: “Most people are not aware of how flimsy are the physical arguments behind the human-induced warming scenario.”

Advertisement

 

He may come with the label “scientist,” but his arguments are all political, eschewing the scientific method. He “conveniently” ignores the scientific studies demonstrating human responsibility (1), like the ice core samples from Greenland that go back some 400,000 years showing an approximately 100,000-year recurring natural cycle of CO2 concentration topping out at around 280 ppm, while our current concentration is at 380 ppm and continuing to climb rapidly (2).

 

He tells us computer models are not perfect at reproducing precipitation events, so their predictions can safely be ignored. What he fails to convey are the facts of global environment transformation: ice at the poles is melting far faster than the models predicted; (3) the unfreezing of the arctic permafrost is releasing vast amounts of formerly trapped methane gas (4) (methane is a greenhouse gas 27 times more powerful than CO2); the Greenland ice sheet is melting at a much faster rate than predicted. Computer modeling may not be 100 percent correct, but it does not follow that we can safely ignore their warnings.

 

He resorts to the conservative propagandist’s ploy of pitting “the economy” against “green energy.” This conveniently ignores the societal — and very real financial — costs of continuing to destroy the environ-ment we all depend upon for our very existence. True scientists . . .

Anti-global warming comments political, not scientific | coloradoan.com | The Coloradoan,

[goku]

what if we filled our atics with CO2 instead of fiberglass?

[Zythryn]

Goku, I don't believe that was a serious question, was it?

[CraigD]

what if we filled our atics with CO2 instead of fiberglass?

I’m guessing goku’s speculating that, because CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are believed to increase the average temperature of the Earth’s, filling a house attic with greenhouse gasses would increase the temperature of the air in the house.

 

The flaw with this idea is that the greenhouse effect results from material – greenhouse gasses in the case of an atmosphere, glass or other transparent sheet material in a greenhouse, etc. – allowing visible sunlight to pass through it, but absorbing and reemitting or reflecting the infrared light emitted by the sunlit surfaces below. Since the roof of the usual house is opaque to light well above and below the visible range, the greenhouse effect doesn’t play much of a role with it, regardless of what kind of gasses fill its attic.

 

The purpose of attic insulation is preventing heat escaping the house by heating the roof. Fiberglass blanket insulation is good at this, because it contains many small cells that limits the ability of the gas it contains to transport heat via convection. Though heavier gasses could be used to make slightly more effective insulation, unless encased in a gas-tight envelope (which would make the blanket troublesome to cut), they’d escape the fiberglass mat and be replaced with ordinary air, so it’s easier and cheaper to just increase the thickness of the blanket.

 

If you did have a transparent roofed house, the transparent material itself would likely be a more effective infrared reflector than any greenhouse gas-rich gas with which you could fill a gas-tight attic, so there’d be no point in using a gas other than ordinary air. Keeping such a house warm at night could be tricky – using multiple sheets of transparent material with gas baffles between them might work. Keeping the house from getting too hot during the day would be a challenge.

[Larv]

...The earth is a complex system - maybe in a thousand years we can do math to predict the weather, but not now. I need some basic, easy to understand evidence. Please don't link me a webpage with one side's propoganda - I need some ammo here, as in "The last ice age was caused because there were too many plants which took all the Co2 out of the air, look at this data".

 

So, what am I missing?

Hi engineerdude,

 

I have some evidence for you to consider. It's all about what happens to the oceans when their supply of atmospheric CO2 increases substantially:

 

1. Pacific Coast Lines Turn Acidic - Carbon dioxide increases oceanic water acidity

 

2. Acidic seas threaten coral and mussels

 

3. Puget Sound orcas down to 86

 

The last one has been explained by the declining salmon populations, which have dwindled in recent years, owing to overfishing, of course, but also to the shocking rise of oceanic acidity. It's ten times higher than it's suppose to be. It's altering marine habitats. And it's definitely connected to global warming.

 

—Larv

[Flying Binghi]

This is shaping up to be an interesting conference -

 

...an invitation to register for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which convenes on March 8 in New York City.

 

Among the "climate deniers" lined up to speak are Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT; the University of Alabama's Roy W. Spencer, a pioneer in the monitoring of global temperatures by satellite; Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog; and meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982.

Skepticism on climate change - The Boston Globe

[Michaelangelica]

This is a worring article.

From my reading of it seems we have bugger-all idea about CO2, how much there is , wher it goes, how it is stored etc.

Maybe I need to read it again

What do you get from a reading of it?

The Weekly Carboholic: carbon dioxide lifetime 50-100x longer than generally reported

. . .

Vegetation absorbs CO2 the fastest, but it’s also one of the least well understood

. . .

The result is that a simple “half-life” model doesn’t work for carbon dioxide - the physical system has too many variable and components to claim that CO2 has an single atmospheric lifetime. Or, to borrow an analogy from the paper:

. . .

a simple “half-life” model doesn’t work for carbon dioxide

. . .

the IPCC also shares some of the blame for the confusion about CO2 lifetime.

. . .

a certain percentage of the emitted CO2 will persist effectively forever.

. . .

The third thing to realize is that it may not be possible to return to pre-industrial CO2 concentrations without developing cost-effective absorption technology or radically altering land use to absorb as much CO2 from the atmosphere as possible.

. . .

An article in the NYTimes talks about some of the new systems being implemented that will improve global monitoring of CO2.

. . .

Better data, more geographic coverage, continuous measurements, independent calibration. All are good things for scientists studying CO2.

Scholars and Rogues The Weekly Carboholic: carbon dioxide lifetime 50-100x longer than generally reported

[Eclipse Now]

Surely if we stop emitting as much Co2 and start massively increasing biochar production from agriwaste and forestry waste the charcoal has to come from something. Tim Flannery thinks we can scale up biochar to 6 gigatons a year. What do you think? That's a significant amount of Co2 => charcoal each year.