Global Warming

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: B1NKS -There is no proof that rising emissions and rising average temperatures are connected. Just because they are happening at the same time is not proof. Assuming that they are connected is a big assumption, and making policies on assumptions is foolish.

True, there isn't any proof as such. But nothing in science is ever proven. What we have is a great deal of evidence suggesting that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas. This simple fact is a very good indicator that at least some of the recent temperature rise is due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. You and I can argue about how much of the warming is due to the increase in CO2, but the fact that humans are having some effect is virtually indisputable.

-Furthermore, those rising temperatures can be caused by many more things than just a simplistic explanation of emissions; the Earth goes through weather cycles, the Earth's orbit can change, there might be solar activity, etc. Again, it is wrong to make policy on big assumptions like the one that emissions are causing temperature increases.

That's true. There are a great many things that can cause global temperatures to change. This doesn't change the fact that a change in the greenhouse effect is one of them.

[B1NKS]

Of course humans have some effect, and of course there is some greenhouse effect. Yet the effect is not great enough, and the science isn't clear enough, to reach a definitive conclusion and to make policy based on that conclusion.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre The one aspect I see argued more and more often lately--one that is pretty well ignored by the pro-AGW proponents including their science gurus--is that many of these models are based on data collected in the USA and other highly developed countries because that's where the instrumentation to collect it is concentrated. What the models do not show, however, is the alterations in the places surrounding the measuring devices. Measurements taken in an area that has been converted from forest or prairie to agricultural purposes will show significant changes in mean temperatures and CO2 levels. Areas that are converted from agricultural or unusued land to residential or commercial or industrial areas will show even more dramatic changes.

Climate models do not rely on any sort of temperature data whatsoever. It's a common misconception that climate models use historic temperature data to extrapolate future trends.

Climate models are actually mathematical expressions of the physical climate system based upon sound and well understood physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy, and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.

As to your concerns about biases introduced into the instrumental record due to land surface and environmental changes, I don't think there's anything to worry about.

First off, climate scientists are every bit as aware of these potential problems as you are, and take great pains to eliminate any bias from the record. In fact, much of the work done by GISS and HADCRU is in detection and elimination of biases to the record, such as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI).

Secondly, it is very unlikely that biases introduced due to, say, ground cover, could possibly account for the whole of observed 20th century warming. It's far more likely that these are systematic errors that could be easily detected and eliminated. If, for example, an asphalt parking lot is installed near a station, the bias introduced would be a sudden jump in average daily temperatures. It wouldn't appear as a gradual warming trend.

Finally, and most importantly, the surface instrumental record isn't the only record of global temperatures available. Satellite data, proxy and model based reconstructions, glacier melt, etc. are also very good indicators of global temperature. And all are in very good agreement with the instrumental record.

Here is an excellent selection of articles about the instrumental record from my favorite Blog, Open mind by Tamino. It explains these issues far more clearly than I can.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: B1NKS Of course humans have some effect, and of course there is some greenhouse effect. Yet the effect is not great enough, and the science isn't clear enough, to reach a definitive conclusion and to make policy based on that conclusion.

What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?

[B1NKS]

You're asking me what evidence I have to support the conclusion that the science isn't conclusive enough?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: B1NKS You're asking me what evidence I have to support the conclusion that the science isn't conclusive enough?

Kind of. I was specifically asking what evidence you had to support the conclusion that humanity's influence on the climate was not significant. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.

[B1NKS]

I'm no scientist, but I realize that there is some debate within the scientific community as to the extent and cause of global warming.

Some people with agendas like to say there is an 'overwhelming consensus', though really this is an attempt to silence opposing views and promote a certain agenda.

In reality there are many views on what's really going on, and all are difficult to prove. I also know that many environmental alarmists have repeatedly been proven wrong in their predictions since the 1960s, and so I wouldn't trust the same crowd easily, especially not with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, resting on a long-term climate prediction on uncertain computer models, when we can't even accurately predict the weekly weather with the best technology available.

[xyzer]

Parrot you are ignoring the latest evidence again. In this blog the graphs reveal the temps have not been rising as predicted since 1998.


ICECAP.

How does that square with the fact that anthropogenic emissions have been rising? What it shows to me is that CO2(admittedly a factor in the climate mix) cannot be the main culprit? Can you or anyone else tell us just what percent of CO2 is causing the (now measured)non exitent increase in warming? No! So how does humankind know whether a drastic effort to limit emissions will prove anything but costly folly?

Binks is right on! This post is the key

Of course humans have some effect, and of course there is some greenhouse effect. Yet the effect is not great enough, and the science isn't clear enough, to reach a definitive conclusion and to make policy based on that conclusion.

Quit trying to depend on the now rather ancient computer models pulled together by a political entity and used to scare the world with now unproven assertions.(Its not getting hotter and CO2 is increasing?) That's illogical 'pap'. Look at the evidence and admit we just don't really know whether CO2 is that big a factor? Nor does it explain why historical evidence shows that warming precedes a rise in CO2 content.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot you are ignoring the latest evidence again. In this blog the graphs reveal the temps have not been rising as predicted since 1998. ICECAP. How does that square with the fact that anthropogenic emissions have been rising? What it shows to me is that CO2(admittedly a factor in the climate mix) cannot be the main culprit? Can you or anyone else tell us just what percent of CO2 is causing the (now measured)non exitent increase in warming? No! So how does humankind know whether a drastic effort to limit emissions will prove anything but costly folly? Binks is right on! This post is the key Quit trying to depend on the now rather ancient computer models pulled together by a political entity and used to scare the world with now unproven assertions.(Its not getting hotter and CO2 is increasing?) That's illogical 'pap'. Look at the evidence and admit we just don't really know whether CO2 is that big a factor? Nor does it explain why historical evidence shows that warming precedes a rise in CO2 content.

That last line: "historical evidence shows that warming precedes a rise in CO2 content" is the single most compelling fact to convince me that the skeptics are correct in being skeptical in this whole AGW schtick. Until the pro-AGW community fesses up and deals with that in any kind of comprehensive way, and also show any indication that they themselves actually believe that AGW is a serious problem, I think it would be pure folly as well as criminal to make radical lifestyle changes and implement costly policy that is likely to greatly intensify human suffering while alleviating it not at all.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: B1NKS I'm no scientist, but I realize that there is some debate within the scientific community as to the extent and cause of global warming. Some people with agendas like to say there is an 'overwhelming consensus', though really this is an attempt to silence opposing views and promote a certain agenda.

That's true. If you define "consensus" to mean, "total unanimity among scientists," then no, there's no consensus at all. But if you take consensus to mean, "overwhelming support for the theory in the scientific community," than a consensus, for all that it means, undoubtedly exists.

However, I strongly doubt that there has been any effort to "silence" opposing views at all. The skeptics have yet to provide me with a single instance of this ever having occurred.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot you are ignoring the latest evidence again. In this blog the graphs reveal the temps have not been rising as predicted since 1998. ICECAP.

His graphs that reveal what temperatures have been doing are the exact same data I provided you with earlier, Xyzer. They quite clearly show that temperatures have been steadily rising since 1998. You should all ready know this, since you were looking at the exact same graph in my earlier post.





Look familiar?

Anyway, here is a much better analysis of what temperatures have been doing over the past nine years.

Quit trying to depend on the now rather ancient computer models pulled together by a political entity and used to scare the world with now unproven assertions.(Its not getting hotter and CO2 is increasing?) That's illogical 'pap'. Look at the evidence and admit we just don't really know whether CO2 is that big a factor? Nor does it explain why historical evidence shows that warming precedes a rise in CO2 content.

Climate models are neither ancient nor pulled together by political entities. And since you have thus far failed to demonstrate any significant flaw in modern climate models, I see no reason why I shouldn't depend on them fully.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre That last line: "historical evidence shows that warming precedes a rise in CO2 content" is the single most compelling fact to convince me that the skeptics are correct in being skeptical in this whole AGW schtick. Until the pro-AGW community fesses up and deals with that in any kind of comprehensive way, and also show any indication that they themselves actually believe that AGW is a serious problem, I think it would be pure folly as well as criminal to make radical lifestyle changes and implement costly policy that is likely to greatly intensify human suffering while alleviating it not at all.

The lag between temperature and CO2

IPCC AR4, Chapter 6: Paleoclimate

Knock yourself out, Foxy.

[B1NKS]

I think most people would agree that the earth has been warming gradually. Yet whether the warming is human-caused is unclear. There is no consensus on the latter, and so I don't think people should jump to conclusions.

For example, John Christy, the head of the IPCC, as well as other scientists from NASA and prominent universities like MIT (including some Nobel prize winners) have all expressed serious doubts about anthropogenic global warming, to add balance to the whole debate. Christy, in particular, has been strongly critical of Al Gore (with whom he shared the Nobel prize). If you want to hear some more critical views for an overall balanced picture, you can visit Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for starters.

Also, if you watch Special Report with Brit Hume on FOX (which plays on weekdays at 6pm Eastern/3pm Pacific), which is all hard news, there is a running theme on the show airing the views of scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. It seems every day, another top scientist or study debunks or at least strongly criticizes the concept of anthropogenic global warming. More recently, I remember how the founder of the Weather Channel (a meteorologist) expressed strong doubts over human-caused warming and about the accuracy of computer models predicting climate over decades and centuries, when it's difficult to predict even the weekly weather accurately.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: EnragedParrot The lag between temperature and CO2 IPCC AR4, Chapter 6: Paleoclimate Knock yourself out, Foxy.

Sorry, I actually do understand the scientific principles explained re the correlation of CO2 and global temperatures and don't dismiss the data in favor of what I'm told to believe. I also understand that there have been periods of higher concentrations of CO2 than we have now when the average mean temperatures were much cooler which also presents a chicken vs egg paradox. I don't depend on pro-AGW advocacy sites, scientific data that has already been shown to be problematic, or blogs written by people even more ignorant than I am for information on this subject. And I do not reject arguments on either side out of hand just because I don't want to believe them.

So you go ahead and knock yourself out by objecting to anything you don't understand. I prefer my way of determing what I am and am not willing to accept.

[xyzer]

Parrot there you go again ignoring the text? I used the word predicted as in the graph right below the one you posted?

Indeed, when comparing this satellite derived temperature trend the last decade with the carbon dioxide increases as seasonally adjusted from Scripps, we find NO CORRELATION (just 0.07 r squared!!!)

The predicted trend line for warming doesn't show what has happened since 1998.Actuality trumps predictions?
Now look here???? Wnen first informed that actual datal did not agree with the data alleged by the models used by the perpetrators of the global warming scare, the original data was said to be erroneous and corrected? No mention of the corrections having been substituted in the original studies that led to the dooms day conclusions? Do you have evidence of the extent of the corrections?
Now when subsequent temp measurements don't agree with the preicted rise(in fact they show no rise(or very little rise in a decade)
you ignore the chart that show the facts? Whats this about ignoring truth and updated data to stick by predictive models that used erroneous data and are outdated? Do I hear the 'corn flakes" crunching?

[xyzer]

Parrot... this quote is from yoyu Real Climate site and is alleged to represent a scientific consensus that warming does not precede CO2 rises.

All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

Are you seriously suggesting this answers the question? Are you seriously suggesting that our current warming in any shape and fashion matches ice core records of several thiousand years of climate change,.How do you know we aren't entering an1,000 year cycle of cooling?

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot... this quote is from yoyu Real Climate site and is alleged to represent a scientific consensus that warming does not precede CO2 rises. Are you seriously suggesting this answers the question? Are you seriously suggesting that our current warming in any shape and fashion matches ice core records of several thiousand years of climate change,.How do you know we aren't entering an1,000 year cycle of cooling?

You can't access the full text of this article without subscribing to Science Magazine, but here's the gist (emphasis mine):

Establishing what caused Earth's largest climatic changes in the past requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the regional responses. We determined the chronology of high- and low-latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by radiocarbon dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and magnesium/calcium records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep-sea temperatures warmed by 2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by 1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming. Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming -- Stott et al. 318 (5849): 435 -- Science

I simply don't understand how anybody interested in the actual facts on this subject can just disregard this kind of information as 'unimportant'.

[Foxfyre]

And I also fret and fume when those well-credentialed scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics aren't getting the same media attention as the pro-AGW group:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...idarticle=9469

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre I also understand that there have been periods of higher concentrations of CO2 than we have now when the average mean temperatures were much cooler which also presents a chicken vs egg paradox.

I don't think that's the case. Assuming you accept that carbon dioxide is not the sole driver of climate, it is perfectly possible for temperatures to change while CO2 levels remains constant. This does not contradict the theory.

For example, during the period from about 1940 to 1975, there was a slight decline in global temperatures, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels were increasing. This slight cooling is believed to have been mostly caused by a decrease in solar output coupled with an increase in atmospheric sulfates. It's quite clear that in this case the warming signal from the CO2 was temporarily overwhelmed by other factors.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Parrot... this quote is from yoyu Real Climate site and is alleged to represent a scientific consensus that warming does not precede CO2 rises.

It is alleged to do no such thing. No one has ever denied that, historically, warming precedes a rise in CO2. You need to go back and read the article more carefully.