Climate change

[luke warm]

She gave us a fun little talk regarding how King Crabs have crossed over to the South Pole for the first time in recorded history and the sheer amount of heat that was required to make this happen...

yum!!

 

Could everyone please refrain from provocative language.

good luck with that

 

Science does not work by consensus, but rather by hard research.

or by yelling and screaming profanities when someone disagrees

[hrothgar]

 

or by yelling and screaming profanities when someone disagrees

 

To be clear, I don't direct profanity again people that I disagree with.

 

With this said and done, I do tend to swear a lot when people engage in the following rhetorical style:

 

Commentator 1: "Global warming is a scam. Just look at A!"

Commentator 2: "A is well know to be false. Look at the following."

Commentator 1: "Global warming is a scam. Just look at B!"

Commentator 2: "B is well know to be false. Look at the following.

Commentator 1: "Global warming is a scam. Just look at C!"

Commentator 2: "C is well know to be false. Look at the following."

...

Commentator 1: "Global warming is a scam. Just look at Z!"

Commentator 2: "C is well know to be false. Look at the following."

Commentator 1: Global warming is a scam. Just look at A!

Commentator 1: %@(#&(!!!!

 

I probably should just walk away from this thread.

Almost anyone with any common sense refuses to engage you or Al in any kind of discussion since its - for all intents and purposes - pointless.

 

Guess I still need to grow up some more.

[luke warm]

Almost anyone with any common sense refuses to engage you or Al in any kind of discussion since its - for all intents and purposes - pointless.

rknot

[Al_U_Card]

Canada came to the conclusion that their contribution to Kyoto was money not well-spent nor within a framework that, as the US itself realized initially, was patently absurd.

 

Blame Canada!

[Winstonm]

What makes no sense to me is that chaos theory was born out of noticing how minute changes in weather system computer model input drastically affected the outcome in dynamic systems. Now, here we are with another dynamic system, earth's climate, and because the amount of CO2 produced by man is not that great the skeptic claims it cannot be having an affect, when chaos theory demonstrates unambiguously that small changes (like increased CO2) can have monumental affects.

 

I guess it's always easier to believe the squishy narrative than to believe data.

[Al_U_Card]

What makes no sense to me is that chaos theory was born out of noticing how minute changes in weather system computer model input drastically affected the outcome in dynamic systems. Now, here we are with another dynamic system, earth's climate, and because the amount of CO2 produced by man is not that great the skeptic claims it cannot be having an affect, when chaos theory demonstrates unambiguously that small changes (like increased CO2) can have monumental affects.

 

I guess it's always easier to believe the squishy narrative than to believe data.

 

Well, I have to admit that I have never heard the fraudsters errrr I mean warmist climate scientists delve into the chaos theory effects on climate. Their data and analyses are all so bent out of shape to try and show what they want to present as a narrative (Steig et al and the Antarctic warming comes to mind as a recent example.)

 

Certainly all of the data presented by skeptics is at least as valid as that used by the consensus crowd, but there is less need for illegitimate statistical massaging of the data and more presentation of why the science is not settled, particularly as far as the effect of [CO2] on the climate system is concerned. Take a look at Judith ( a peer-review published, honest-to-goodness climate scientist)Curry's site for an interesting follow-up to her paper on uncertainty in the IPCC numbers and methods.

 

Just another person that can't "believe" that data, Winston.

[Winstonm]

CO2 has risen in concert with the advent of global industrialization. There is no ambiguity about that increase.

 

As chaos theory shows that in dynamic systems minor changes can have dramatic affects on outcomes, why would the increase in CO2 in the dynamic system of the earth's climate not cause major outcome changes? What is there about the industrialization-caused CO2 increase that makes it immune to chaos consequences?

 

The skeptics' assertion has to be that this increase is inconsequential. What is there about the skeptics' narrative that is so compelling that it invalidates any consequence of the rise in CO2?

[Al_U_Card]

CO2 has risen in concert with the advent of global industrialization. There is no ambiguity about that increase.

 

None to speak of. (Unless you are referring to its provenance and cycling in the atmosphere/oceanic system.) Ambient concentration has certainly increased from about 300 to 390 ppm over the last century. Temperature rises in the 30s and 40s were as great as those in the 80s and 90s, but at lower concentrations. There were also no temperature increases in periods between these despite continuing concentration increases.

 

As chaos theory shows that in dynamic systems minor changes can have dramatic affects on outcomes, why would the increase in CO2 in the dynamic system of the earth's climate not cause major outcome changes? What is there about the industrialization-caused CO2 increase that makes it immune to chaos consequences?

 

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing what causes something does not automatically guarantee that something else, that you are aware of, does. The factual data shows that natural variability explains the current and previous measurements. Interesting to note the use, by GISS and Hansen of the following method of ensuring the "hottest year ever" meme:

 

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

 

which when combined with the adjustments that only recent data has required;

 

http://i42.tinypic.com/2luqma8.jpg

 

and all this "adjusting" still does not allow the current temperatures to exceed even that predicted in Hansen's own "Scenario C" from the climate models where stopping CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere at 1990 levels would place global temperatures....despite there being 30 ppm more now than then.

 

 

 

The skeptics' assertion has to be that this increase is inconsequential. What is there about the skeptics' narrative that is so compelling that it invalidates any consequence of the rise in CO2?

 

Aside from the entire body of evidence showing that the warmists are doing every underhanded and dishonest thing to promote their agenda, is the fact that all of the scare-tactics come from the projections of climate models. The same models that predict an upper tropospheric hot-spot that doesn't exist and that cannot duplicate past global temperatures and that require unproven multipliers of CO2 effects (by water vapor, yes clouds will make it hotter!) to get temperature values that are not occurring.

 

CO2 has been much higher in the past and will get much higher in the future. It is not much of a factor, as far as global temperatures are concerned. As far as generating grant money and taxes and carbon credits, it is very, very necessary.

[jdeegan]

 

Aside from the entire body of evidence showing that the warmists are doing every underhanded and dishonest thing to promote their agenda, is the fact that all of the scare-tactics come from the projections of climate models. The same models that predict an upper tropospheric hot-spot that doesn't exist and that cannot duplicate past global temperatures and that require unproven multipliers of CO2 effects (by water vapor, yes clouds will make it hotter!) to get temperature values that are not occurring.

 

CO2 has been much higher in the past and will get much higher in the future. It is not much of a factor, as far as global temperatures are concerned. As far as generating grant money and taxes and carbon credits, it is very, very necessary.

:P It has always been true that most scientific researchers in the field do have a bit of 'Chicken Little' bias. After all, looking for trouble is how they make their living. They are no more inclined to break their own rice bowl than anyone else.

Does it surprise you that the world's second largest oil company has been funding climate research at prestigious universities for almost half a century? They want to be the first to know because they have so much to lose, potentially.

How will it all turn out? O.K. I guess. Most serious disaster scenarios are either very low probability (the Gulf Stream suddenly quits working), or assume that adverse long-term trends do not self-correct or respond to technological progress.

[Cascade]

CO2 has risen in concert with the advent of global industrialization. There is no ambiguity about that increase.

 

As chaos theory shows that in dynamic systems minor changes can have dramatic affects on outcomes, why would the increase in CO2 in the dynamic system of the earth's climate not cause major outcome changes? What is there about the industrialization-caused CO2 increase that makes it immune to chaos consequences?

 

The skeptics' assertion has to be that this increase is inconsequential. What is there about the skeptics' narrative that is so compelling that it invalidates any consequence of the rise in CO2?

 

Just because "minor changes can have dramatic affects" doesn't mean that they will have those affects.

 

You seem to assume that CO2 concentrations will have chaos consequences. There needs to be compelling evidence of this.

 

I don't think the skeptics have anything to prove. "I am not sure if minor changes in CO2 concentrations will have dramatic affects on climate" is a valid position absence compelling evidence to the contrary. The (the skeptics) do not need to provide evidence their argument can be based on the lack of convincing evidence of the proposed theory.

 

My limited understanding of CO2 concentration is that there is not good evidence that small changes in its concentration has causative chaotic affects on our climate.

[hotShot]

My limited understanding of CO2 concentration is that there is not good evidence that small changes in its concentration has causative chaotic affects on our climate.

There is good evidence that even a small increase of the CO2 concentration will enhance the greenhouse effect and by that cause a continuous small rise of the global temperature.

There is nothing chaotic about this part.

 

Earth ecosystem is a complicated system of inter-depending equilibria, even a very small effect can put one of these equilibria out of balance and by that cause chaotic reactions in the other equilibria.

[Cascade]

Earth ecosystem is a complicated system of inter-depending equilibria, even a very small effect can put one of these equilibria out of balance and by that cause chaotic reactions in the other equilibria.

 

Sure they can but is there evidence that they do with regard to C02?

[Winstonm]

As chaos theory shows that in dynamic systems minor changes can have dramatic affects on outcomes, why would the increase in CO2 in the dynamic system of the earth's climate not cause major outcome changes? What is there about the industrialization-caused CO2 increase that makes it immune to chaos consequences?

 

 

 

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing what causes something does not automatically guarantee that something else, that you are aware of, does. The factual data shows that natural variability explains the current and previous measurements. Interesting to note the use, by GISS and Hansen of the following method of ensuring the "hottest year ever" meme:

 

No, it is not an argument from ignorance as that would have been a conclusions that climate change is a result of CO2 increases. This is a question which you have sidestepped - what makes the skeptic believe that rising CO2 due to industrialization is benign?

[Winstonm]

Just because "minor changes can have dramatic affects" doesn't mean that they will have those affects.

 

You seem to assume that CO2 concentrations will have chaos consequences. There needs to be compelling evidence of this.

 

I don't think the skeptics have anything to prove. "I am not sure if minor changes in CO2 concentrations will have dramatic affects on climate" is a valid position absence compelling evidence to the contrary. The (the skeptics) do not need to provide evidence their argument can be based on the lack of convincing evidence of the proposed theory.

 

My limited understanding of CO2 concentration is that there is not good evidence that small changes in its concentration has causative chaotic affects on our climate.

 

No, I'm asking the skeptic to explain why CO2 is immune from chaos theory as it relates to the dynamic system of the global climate.

[Cascade]

No, it is not an argument from ignorance as that would have been a conclusions that climate change is a result of CO2 increases. This is a question which you have sidestepped - what makes the skeptic believe that rising CO2 due to industrialization is benign?

 

I don't think a sceptic necessarily believes that. It might be benign it might not. My understanding is that the sceptic's position is that there is insufficient evidence to make a sensible conclusion.

[Winstonm]

CO2 has been much higher in the past and will get much higher in the future. It is not much of a factor, as far as global temperatures are concerned. As far as generating grant money and taxes and carbon credits, it is very, very necessary.

 

 

This chart is from NASA. It refutes your claim about CO2 levels - historically, we need to go back a little further than 100-200 years.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg

 

That seems to kill the argument that it is all a natural process and has occured in the past. Although it is a correlation, this chart also provides strong evidence of the causative affect of the industrial revolution on global CO2 levels.

 

Again,the question is this - what is there in the skeptic narrative that explains why this increase will not affect climate, given that chaos theory argues that it should?

[Winstonm]

I don't think a sceptic necessarily believes that. It might be benign it might not. My understanding is that the sceptic's position is that there is insufficient evidence to make a sensible conclusion.

 

Well, that may be a genuine skeptic's take, but the skeptics who have presented on this forum have not been so openminded.

[Cascade]

Again,the question is this - what is there in the skeptic narrative that explains why this increase will not affect climate, given that chaos theory argues that is should?

 

You previous posts said "can" rather than "should".

 

Do you have evidence that CO2 concentrations "should" chaotically affect climate?

[Cascade]

Well, that may be a genuine skeptic's take, but the skeptics who have presented on this forum have not been so openminded.

 

A sceptic might also believe that there is contrary evidence.

[Winstonm]

You previous posts said "can" rather than "should".

 

Do you have evidence that CO2 concentrations "should" chaotically affect climate?

 

None specifically. But chaos theory is built on the principle that small (some say minute) changes can have dramatic consequences for the final outcome in dynamic systems like weather systems. If it can be agreed that increased global industrialization has increased CO2, it would seem to me that a climate skeptic would be able to explain why this increase will not cause an affect as chaos theory would seem to indicate.

 

My problem is that one side offers data, while the skeptic side offers narrative explanations. I put more stock in data unless the skeptic can demonstrate his own model or opposing data.

 

So far, major, well-funded skeptics who have challenged the data have found it to be sound.

[Al_U_Card]

None specifically. But chaos theory is built on the principle that small (some same minute) changes can have dramatic consequences for the final outcome in dynamic systems like weather systems. If it can be agreed that increased global industrialization has increased CO2, it would seem to me that a climate skeptic would be able to explain why this increase will not cause an affect as chaos theory would seem to indicate.

 

My problem is that one side offers data, while the skeptic side offers narrative explanations. I put more stock in data unless the skeptic can demonstrate his own model or opposing data.

 

So far, major, well-funded skeptics who have challenged the data have found it to be sound.

 

I have not heard of chaos theory being invoked in the climate change debate (and I have been through a lot of data and explanations from both sides of the fence). I cannot speak to the issue but that does not mean that it may or may not have an effect. Your best bet would be to post that same question at Realclimate to see how they answer. AFAIK they are still supporting the "CO2 causes all the problems" meme (that we have yet to experience nor provide real observational data that they exist). There certainly are a plethora of model projections to indicate doom but the models lack a certain....veracity.

 

Is CO2 increasing? We agreed that it is, as measured at Mauna Loa.

 

Is that increase the result of man's industrial activity? It certainly appears to be a significant factor.

 

Do we quantitatively know any of the effects of increasing CO2 on the planet or biosphere? Theory states that for every doubling of CO2, we should observe a diminishing increase in greenhouse effect. Approximately 1.2 deg. C for the first doubling and diminishing logarithmically thereafter. Actual measurements have yet to show a clear indication of this effect because of natural variation swamping the signal. In the past history of the planet, it has exhibited remarkable changes in climate, none of which appear to correlate to CO2. Since we daily experience global temperature swings in excess of over 20 deg. C (day to night temps) it appears that the climate system is remarkably stable in terms of maintaining equilibrium.

 

The current rise in CO2 is also associated with an increase in biomass which accounts for the approx. 6% improvement in the greening of the planet and improved food supply (despite diversions to biofuel).

 

My problem is that one side offers data, while the skeptic side offers narrative explanations. I put more stock in data unless the skeptic can demonstrate his own model or opposing data.

 

I am glad you clarified which side you meant. All of the data is with the skeptics. All of the model projections (and only the model projections) are with the warmists. All of the available data, to date, refutes the warmist model-generated proposals.

 

Well-funded skeptics? You have to get better informed about where the money goes. 1000 to 1 in favor of the warmist crowd.

[hrothgar]

All of the data is with the skeptics. All of the model projections (and only the model projections) are with the warmists. All of the available data, to date, refutes the warmist model-generated proposals.

 

And we have a winner!!!!!!!!!

The most delusion Al-U-Card post of all time...

 

You have completely detached from reality.

 

Simple question for you all:

 

If I can show a simple fact that supports global warming, will you admit that the following statement is wrong:

"All of the available data, to date, refutes the warmist model-generated proposals"

 

(I want to understand just how how far off into Cloud Cuckoo Land you are...)

 

BTW, Wayne, isn't it embarrassing to be associated with idiots like this? You really might want to distance yourself...

[Winstonm]

Actual measurements have yet to show a clear indication of this effect because of natural variation swamping the signal. In the past history of the planet, it has exhibited remarkable changes in climate, none of which appear to correlate to CO2.

 

I understand that this claim is old and outdated, that climatolagists are getting better and better data as they have learned how to separate fact from the noise.

 

 

The paper, made available Thursday, amounts to the second time that Muller et al have had to back away from a key plank of climate skeptics' argument that Earth is simply on a natural temperature path and man-made greenhouse gases are not warming the atmosphere.

 

Several months ago, when called before a congressional panel that likewise has been skeptical of climate research, Muller acknowledged that his team was finding no smoking gun to indict climate scientists.

 

At the time, Muller told the House Science Committee that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent .... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

[Al_U_Card]

Dr. Muller is not your garden variety skeptic. (google will provide his bona fides) He and his coworkers decided to try to analyze the data provided by GISS and UEA. His findings included no warming over the last decade and agreed with the 0.7 C rise over the last century. Interestingly, his paper has not yet passed peer-review (the conclusions were released into the media prior to submission). His co-author Judith Curry has cautioned that the data, analyses and conclusions must await peer-review before being used for anything else. The method of chopping data series is new and, as yet, unproven.

 

Once again, these numbers do not lead to any correlation with rising [CO2].

 

So, once the claims are refuted, all that is left is the fear-mongering, threats, innuendo and bullying tactics. This is why healthy skepticism is a necessary part of science.

[hotShot]

There is good evidence that even a small increase of the CO2 concentration will enhance the greenhouse effect and by that cause a continuous small rise of the global temperature.

There is nothing chaotic about this part.

 

Earth ecosystem is a complicated system of inter-depending equilibria, even a very small effect can put one of these equilibria out of balance and by that cause chaotic reactions in the other equilibria.

 

 

Sure they can but is there evidence that they do with regard to C02?

 

Can you specify your question a little.

Obviously more CO2 changes the the global temperature, this change in temperature is influencing every temperature depended system (and that is close to all systems that exists on earth).

Are you doubting that this influence results in chaotic behaviour or are you neglecting that there is an effect at all?