Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

[xyzer]

I have to differ with this..

I've said this before, and it's such an important point I think it bears repeating. The correlation between temperatures and carbon dioxide levels is not the basis for anthropogenic global warming theory. It is simply a condition of it. Global warming is a physical theory, not a statistical one. Scientists knew that increasing CO2 levels would force the climate before they even knew the climate was warming. So it is completely irrelevant that correlation does not prove causation in this case, because no one ever said it did.

I was of the impression that after the last global cooling period(mid 20th century) the earths climate began to grow warmer and some scientists determined(inexactly I fear) that global temps had warmed about 1 degree overall over the past 100 years. Some hypothosized causes and in the process of exploring these causes detected a correlation between anthropogenic emissions of C02 and the warming trend. Their cautious conclusions were that the correlation indicated the cause as "likely" C02?
In the process of accumulating such data the IPCC ignored most other studies and recorded facts stressing natural causes and put out a crises conclusion that C02 was the cause and likely would continue to increase warming and doom humankind! It was the cause rather than just an ancillary condition?
To posit global warming as a physical theory is correct but it must be limited to real measurements with modern instruments and techniques over a given time rather than computer iterations using proxy data and other assumed facts inserted to verify personal hypotheses? Whats happened is that this theory cobbled together from various studies has become dogma and the foundation of all thinking about climate change? It has only a small shred of certainty.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer OK Pooey so I had a typo? I meant 1 degree which you confirm with your figure of less than 1 degree? Staggering amount of warming, right? Now give us an estimate of the amount that warming will increase in the next century? Remember correlation is not causation?

You're under playing the changes that the temperature increase will bring. Most notably, it'll affect the rainfall globally and this can be very costly. For example, this summer in the UK, freak rain storms have caused flooding leading to billions of dollars worth of damage. All because it rained a bit more than usual, now given that the global warming model predicts even greater rainfall if the warming continues, shouldn't this be a cause for concern?

Quote by: xyzer Just a little reminder for you and the illogical parrot. There are others who question the logical aspects of the C02 theory? You keep asking about studies involving natural influences..I posted this sometime backGlobal warming and cosmic radiation — Spacecenter Henrik Svensmark and his cosmic particles affecting cloud formation which affect climate. There are many more such studies if you would just pull away from the IPCC and Gore you might begin to see the light?

Once again, you're playing the game of general ignorance. I brought up this evidence many weeks ago on multiple occasions but you've ignored them time and time again. I'll cite it once more, Solar activity can not be blamed for the past few decade's warming. So what else do you have for me? I need more than just speculations and anecdotes.

Quote by: xyzer Here is anothe expert closer to you Pooey who is a skeptic? You can enlighten yourself here... Will the sun cool us?

Again, see above.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer In the process of accumulating such data the IPCC ignored most other studies and recorded facts stressing natural causes and put out a crises conclusion that C02 was the cause and likely would continue to increase warming and doom humankind! It was the cause rather than just an ancillary condition?

I want to see details on the studies and recorded facts that the IPCC have ignored. If you make a statement like that, surely you must have the evidence to support it?

[xyzer]

Pooey..come on, cut the juvenile logic!

Once again, you're playing the game of general ignorance. I brought up this evidence many weeks ago on multiple occasions but you've ignored them time and time again. I'll cite it once more, Solar activity can not be blamed for the past few decade's warming. So what else do you have for me? I need more than just speculations and anecdotes.

One site about one factor proves that there are no other causes? I'm inclined to think your lack of logical thinking is undermining your case?
My providing the Svendsmark Study and words of professor Nigel Weis was not definitive proof, just examples of other natural causes and opinions that could explain climate change? These include...cosmic particles, changes in the suns magnetic field(about every dozen years or so), sun spot activity, the oceans currents and saline density,volcanic activity, continental drift, earths orbit around the sun, atmospheric moisture as well as the forcing you hang your dunce cap on so often?

Besides that you imply that the warming in the last few decades could only have been due to the absence of sunlight?

Solar activity can not be blamed for the past few decade's warming.

I'm amazed? The sun doesn't shine it just reflects?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..come on, cut the juvenile logic! One site about one factor proves that there are no other causes?

That is not my claim.

Quote by: xyzer I'm inclined to think your lack of logical thinking is undermining your case? My providing the Svendsmark Study and words of professor Nigel Weis was not definitive proof, just examples of other natural causes and opinions that could explain climate change? These include...cosmic particles, changes in the suns magnetic field(about every dozen years or so), sun spot activity, the oceans currents and saline density,volcanic activity, continental drift, earths orbit around the sun, atmospheric moisture as well as the forcing you hang your dunce cap on so often?

You posted one piece of possible evidence which basically tries to link the recent warming with solar activity. I rebutted those claims and I am now awaiting your other claims listed above. Please provide evidence that any of the above (except Solar activity/cosmic rays which we've cleared off already) for the warming in the last few decades.

Quote by: xyzer Besides that you imply that the warming in the last few decades could only have been due to the absence of sunlight? I'm amazed? The sun doesn't shine it just reflects?

Wow, isn't this juvenile? You know what I meant yet, please don't misconstrue my words just because you don't have a solid case. It's rather sad and pathetic.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer I have to differ with this.. I was of the impression that after the last global cooling period(mid 20th century) the earths climate began to grow warmer and some scientists determined(inexactly I fear) that global temps had warmed about 1 degree overall over the past 100 years. Some hypothosized causes and in the process of exploring these causes detected a correlation between anthropogenic emissions of C02 and the warming trend. Their cautious conclusions were that the correlation indicated the cause as "likely" C02? In the process of accumulating such data the IPCC ignored most other studies and recorded facts stressing natural causes and put out a crises conclusion that C02 was the cause and likely would continue to increase warming and doom humankind! It was the cause rather than just an ancillary condition?

Your impression was wrong. The theory came about after scientists, who were primarily interested in explaining Earth's past ice ages, discovered that CO2 acted as a greenhouse gas. It started in 1896 with Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius calculating the effect a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would have the climate. Arrhenius was convinced that changes in concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were responsible for Earth's past ice ages, although he thought that human contributions would be negligible, since by his rough calculations it should have taken nearly three thousand years for anthropogenic CO2 to reach its current levels. The theory didn't really take off until Eglish Engineer Guy Callender proposed that the recently discovered 20th century warming could be explained by the increase in CO2 seen over the past century. The history of the theory is really quite fascinating. You can read more about here if you'd like.
As you can clearly see, scientists knew both that humans could influence the climate and that CO2 acted as a greenhouse gas long before they elarned that humans actually were influencing the climate.

To posit global warming as a physical theory is correct but it must be limited to real measurements with modern instruments and techniques over a given time rather than computer iterations using proxy data and other assumed facts inserted to verify personal hypotheses? Whats happened is that this theory cobbled together from various studies has become dogma and the foundation of all thinking about climate change? It has only a small shred of certainty.

Climate models have nothing at all to do with proxy data. They are physics based models, not best-fit-to-the-data models. You can read an excellent article describing simple models here, and an excellent article discussing the history of climate modelling here.

[xyzer]

Interesting stuff parrot! This tidbit pretty well describes some of the reason for my skepticism. A conclusion to the piece on climate models
on Real Climate

While this is just a simple model that is not really very Earth-like (no convection, no clouds, only a single layer etc.), it does illustrate some relevant points which are just as qualitatively true for GCMs and the real world. You should think of these kinds of exercises as simple flim-flam detectors - if someone tries to convince you that they can do a simple calculation and prove everyone else wrong, think about what the same calculation would be in this more straightforward system and see whether the idea holds up. If it does, it might work in the real world (no guarantee though) - but if it doesn't, then it's most probably garbage.

The inputs to any model are some function of the author and reflect his/her opinions as to what might be pertinent to the hypothesis? The absence or presence of natural influences is important in any(climate) model as is the validuty of each input.Thats why ,as Pooey points out, scientists couch their conclusions in uncertainty.

It remains for a political entity (IPCC) to add certainty from such models and forecast a gloomy(Malthusian) scenario and the press to inflate the issue to a cause? I have repeatedly asked whether it is prudent to ignore natural factors influencing climate change and focus on one 'strawman' (anthropogenic emissions) as a culprit? Why adaptation isn't the soundest way to address the warming trend? We have plenty of time?
Sure pollution isn't desireable and may in a minor sense influence global climate but correlation is not causation.

I notice scientists talking of colonizing the moon in the next few decades(or more). Their approach to human adaptation in the extreme (unearthlike) conditions is to adapt using modern technology and know how? Is adaptation a more prudent approach to increased warming if it continues?? It wont penalize third world countries need for cheap energy. It wont create the need for the entire industrial world to unite in a joint effort at emissions reduction(pretty unobtainable IMNSHO). It wont raise the world price of our cheapest source of energy. It wont impose staggering economic costs on economies?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I notice scientists talking of colonizing the moon in the next few decades(or more). Their approach to human adaptation in the extreme (unearthlike) conditions is to adapt using modern technology and know how? Is adaptation a more prudent approach to increased warming if it continues?? It wont penalize third world countries need for cheap energy. It wont create the need for the entire industrial world to unite in a joint effort at emissions reduction(pretty unobtainable IMNSHO). It wont raise the world price of our cheapest source of energy. It wont impose staggering economic costs on economies?

What is the cost for adaptation? Though a rise in temperature of just 1 or 2 degrees celsius may not seem impressive to you, it has far reaching consequences such as changing the rain fall (water, being the most important component to life) on a worldwide scale.
Furthermore, even if you don't take global warming into account, we're already doing unprecedented damage to the environment and causing mass extinctions through our industrial and domestic activities. As I've stated already, we can start to combat climate change beginning with just 1% GDP. Is that little bit of extra of profit worth it when weighed with the potential consequences?
So hypothetically, what happens if the sea level does rise by 1 metres? Countries like Holland can and already has the expensive sea defences required to adapt to that. But what about countries like Bangladesh for which a 1 metre rise would potentially submerge 15% of the country? Will you help to pay for the relocation and their sea defences? Or just help their economy will pick up in the decades to come?

[xyzer]

As a follow on to my rant about the need for accuracy and consistency in the recording and use of climate data here is a blog that covers the recently revealed practice(in this case NASA) of adjusting temperature records if they don't fit ones hypothesis?
Watts Up With That?: NASA's Hansen Frees the Code !

Interestingly the blog not only covers NASAs adjustment data but also points out the temperatures are still not very accuratel or completely taken in such large land masses as Africa and South America?

I suggest you read the blog...

And then there is the latest bit of press nonsense about the ice melting in the Northwest Passage? The usual deception is revealed when one looks deeper into the wording used in the claim? Read the article and see if you don't agree?
Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History | NewsBusters.org

Just a couple of more reasons why one should be skeptical!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer As a follow on to my rant about the need for accuracy and consistency in the recording and use of climate data here is a blog that covers the recently revealed practice(in this case NASA) of adjusting temperature records if they don't fit ones hypothesis? Watts Up With That?: NASA's Hansen Frees the Code ! Interestingly the blog not only covers NASAs adjustment data but also points out the temperatures are still not very accuratel or completely taken in such large land masses as Africa and South America?

Manipulation of data to purposely mislead people is a very serious accusation, I will await further information before I remark on this.

Quote by: xyzer I suggest you read the blog... And then there is the latest bit of press nonsense about the ice melting in the Northwest Passage? The usual deception is revealed when one looks deeper into the wording used in the claim? Read the article and see if you don't agree? Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History | NewsBusters.org

So the Press makes a big hoohar and sensationalises a story, what has that got to do with the real science? Nothing at all.

Quote by: xyzer Just a couple of more reasons why one should be skeptical!

APEC has reached an agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Granted, there's no specified numbers yet but at least they're not in denial. So it seems even the most sceptical of nations including the USA have finally come to face the facts of climate change, when will you?

[Pooeypants]

From this blog of yours;

Europe and northern Asia would seem to be plausible candidates for locating Waldo. (BTW we are also told that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon confined to Europe and northern Asia - go figure.]

Ah, looks like they need some lessons (I take it they are being sarcastic there) in climate science history. There was no global MWP, that's quite well established. Of course, you may choose not to accept a government source for information...

[Century 25]

xyzer says:

Just a couple of more reasons why one should be skeptical!

It is always wise to be skeptical with scant data. However.. most of the world's scientists agree we are in a global warming trend..

So.. what's the diff if it is merely an anomaly.. a short-term blip of a few centuries..? Well.. of course it matters to all of us. Then again.. the anomaly could extend for a few millennia..

[Century 25]

World Clock

[xyzer]

Saw this today on News Busters and it is pertinent to our discussion. I realize it is not a scientific study but it is in a book which purports to advise the young on global warming causes.

Will Media Report Error in Laurie David's Global Warming Children’s Book? | NewsBusters.org

This is an example of the non scientific world reversing meaning and falsifying graphs to make a point? You will note that scientific data indicates that warming trends have usually been followed by increased C02 levels rather than the reverse which the authors have displayed?

Century 25, we are agreed that there has been a general warming trend but whats at issue is the human contribution to it? The charts if correctly used would indicate that warming over past times has preceded C02 rises? Doesn't this also indicate that natural causes are the prime drivers of climate change?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Century 25, we are agreed that there has been a general warming trend but whats at issue is the human contribution to it? The charts if correctly used would indicate that warming over past times has preceded C02 rises? Doesn't this also indicate that natural causes are the prime drivers of climate change?

No one has ever disputed those points and all the scientists know that. However, it is a fact that carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, so what would be the logical assumption to increasing its concentration artificially? Where's your evidence to support your suggestion that the recent warming is completely attributable to natural causes?

[Century 25]

It's all about science xyzer. Humanity's contribution produces a synergistic result. It is happening faster than expected:

Arctic Meltdown Opens Fabled Northwest Passage | LiveScience

[xyzer]

Pooey, sometimes I feel I am debating a well informed but immoveable post?

No one has ever disputed those points and all the scientists know that. However, it is a fact that carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, so what would be the logical assumption to increasing its concentration artificially? Where's your evidence to support your suggestion that the recent warming is completely attributable to natural causes?

I don't know what your definition of important is? But less than 1% of the atmospheric gases seems a pretty much less important factor than some other atmospheric influences, e.g water vapor...then we can turn to the fact that anthropogenic creation of C02 is some small fraction of the 1% in the atmosphere and it becomes difficult for me to believe that human influences are anything but miniscule? Admittedly C02 somewhat blankets radiation back into space but is it as important as other natural influences?

I notice you qualify your question...

Where's your evidence to support your suggestion that the recent warming is completely attributable to natural causes?

with the word "completely"? Where did I ever say that? What I have repeatedly said and buttressed with logic and posts is that natural factors(the sun, tectonic drift, ocean currents and salinity,cosmic particles, etc) are the major climate drivers with C02 only a minor factor(notice I have agreed it is a factor!). Correlation is not causation! The C02 theory is based on correlations..which in just one area as the chart showed can be twisted to suit the theory. Which came first the warming or the C02 increases? History shows that as warming grows C02 increases follow? Since that is supported by past climate records how do we really know that the inverse is happening because of human activity?
This is no doubt the thinking that was supported by the famous "Hockey Stick Graph" which exaggerated the effect in modern times? It is admittedly flawed yet remains the corner stone of alarmist thinking?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey, sometimes I feel I am debating a well informed but immovable post? I don't know what your definition of important is? But less than 1% of the atmospheric gases seems a pretty much less important factor than some other atmospheric influences, e.g water vapor...then we can turn to the fact that anthropogenic creation of C02 is some small fraction of the 1% in the atmosphere and it becomes difficult for me to believe that human influences are anything but miniscule? Admittedly C02 somewhat blankets radiation back into space but is it as important as other natural influences?

It seems, Xyzer, that it is not Pooey who is an immovable post.

I thought we had established earlier that just because carbon dioxide makes up a small portion of the atmosphere, it is responsible for a very large portion of the greenhouse effect. As I said before, you may recall, atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for approximately 9-36% of the overall greenhouse effect (the range is due to spectral overlap with the other absorbers).

Water vapor may be a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by virtue of its sheer volume, but since it cannot act as a forcing agent, and only responds as a feedback mechanism, it cannot force the climate. So it is absolutely true that CO2 is the most important factor when discussing changes inthe greenhouse effect.

The science of climate modeling shows that changes in the greenhouse effect are by far the most important factor in the current change. When scientists run models with only natural or only human influences included, they find that the results do not match observed data. it is only when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included do the models match reality. This tells us two things. First, it means that known natural influences alone aren't enough to produce the change we've seen over the past century. And second, and more importantly, it shows that any unknown natural forcings are not enough to overwhelm the human contribution to the change. So no matter how you look at, CO2 is the most important factor in the current warming.

Correlation is not causation! The C02 theory is based on correlations..which in just one area as the chart showed can be twisted to suit the theory. Which came first the warming or the C02 increases? History shows that as warming grows C02 increases follow? Since that is supported by past climate records how do we really know that the inverse is happening because of human activity? This is no doubt the thinking that was supported by the famous "Hockey Stick Graph" which exaggerated the effect in modern times? It is admittedly flawed yet remains the corner stone of alarmist thinking?

Again, we established earlier that anthropogenic global warming theory is not in any way based upon correlation. Why do you continue to ignore this fact? Only someone completely ignorant of even the most fundamental basics of the theory could possibly think this.

And again, as I said before, the fact that historical changes have seen a rise in temperature before a rise in CO2 does not mean that CO2 cannot force the climate. All it means is that carbon dioxide can respond as a feedback as well as a forcing. The fact that past changes were mostly started by variations in Earth's orbit tells us absolutely nothing about the current warming.

Lastly, the Mann graph is not the "cornerstone" of anthropogenic global warming theory. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one pebble in a mountain of evidence supporting the theory.

Why you have chosen to pointedly ignore these facts, when they have been presented to you several times (many of times in this very thread) is simply beyond me. Show some intellectual integrity man.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey, sometimes I feel I am debating a well informed but immoveable post? I don't know what your definition of important is? But less than 1% of the atmospheric gases seems a pretty much less important factor than some other atmospheric influences, e.g water vapor...then we can turn to the fact that anthropogenic creation of C02 is some small fraction of the 1% in the atmosphere and it becomes difficult for me to believe that human influences are anything but miniscule? Admittedly C02 somewhat blankets radiation back into space but is it as important as other natural influences?

We've told you many times about the importance of CO2, for a gas that's only 380ppm it has the thermal absorbance of between 9 to 26%. We've already covered the importance and relevance of water vapour before but of course, you never actually learn from these articles even though you claim to be someone arguing with scientific merit.

Quote by: xyzer I notice you qualify your question... with the word "completely"? Where did I ever say that?

But that is what you demand of the scientific community to show that it is human induced. Ergo, I can demand vice versa. You can't have double standards.

Quote by: xyzer What I have repeatedly said and buttressed with logic and posts is that natural factors(the sun, tectonic drift, ocean currents and salinity,cosmic particles, etc) are the major climate drivers with C02 only a minor factor(notice I have agreed it is a factor!).

Red herrings, you list a lot of potential causes but no relevant backing data. You may as well say that the Aliens are causing it.

Quote by: xyzer Correlation is not causation! The C02 theory is based on correlations..which in just one area as the chart showed can be twisted to suit the theory. Which came first the warming or the C02 increases? History shows that as warming grows C02 increases follow? Since that is supported by past climate records how do we really know that the inverse is happening because of human activity?

Again, you're using lies. Carbon dioxide is a well established important greenhouse gas. What do you think the logical consequence would be if we increased it's concentration? Go on, you claim to be a man of logic, tell us.

<