Climate change

[Winstonm]

And this is the settled science?

 

If you really believe that then surely you would be keen for scientists to explore the possibility that the theory is incorrect.

 

 

Huh? What exactly is "settled science"?

 

I have no problem with genuine scientific skepticism - but what we have mostly is non-scientific disingenuous skepticism. What part do you not like? Is it the fact that the earth has warmed? Is it the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it the fact that humans have been contributing excesses of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution?

 

Or do you simply not like the conclusion formed from that data set?

[Al_U_Card]

Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm

 

 

Conservatives do not want to take that risk, even if most of the damage will be born by future generations.

But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there's no other way to explain how warm the Earth was then.

 

Exactly the type of statement that exemplifies the Climatescience approach to modelling. Since the experimental evidence doesn't support the calculations, jack-up the water-vapor interaction to create alarm.

 

Getting the result that they want is what it is all about.

 

Reality? Secondary, at best.

 

Politics and advocacy are like that. Science is not supposed to be... :ph34r:

[Winstonm]

But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there's no other way to explain how warm the Earth was then.

 

Exactly the type of statement that exemplifies the Climatescience approach to modelling. Since the experimental evidence doesn't support the calculations, jack-up the water-vapor interaction to create alarm.

 

Getting the result that they want is what it is all about.

 

Reality? Secondary, at best.

 

Politics and advocacy are like that. Science is not supposed to be... :ph34r:

 

 

Clarification?

1) experimental evidence doesn't support the calculations - what experimental evidence from tens of millions of years ago?

 

Kiehl drew on recently published research that, by analyzing molecular structures in fossilized organic materials, showed that carbon dioxide levels likely reached 900 to 1,000 parts per million about 35 million years ago.

 

Do you dispute the analysis? Was this molecular structure faked or simply misunderstood? What is your explanation?

[Al_U_Card]

The PAGES2K "reconstruction" paper is the latest in a long line of bogus CAGW efforts by the alarmist advocates.

 

It exemplifies the tendency of climatescience to do just about anything to get MSM press or IPCC admission based on whatever analysis and review they can get "through" in time. (Notwithstanding the ability to ignore or distort actual scientific uncertainty to create the impression for policy-makers that it is "worse than we thought" and consensus-of-certainty.

 

It is discouraging, to say the least, that journals like Science and Nature allow such shenanigans (and even promote it...) by creating things like "Progress" articles to get shoddy science into the record in time for AR5 deadlines. Climate science is “a developing field that might not yet be mature enough for review”???? Has that stopped them in the past?

 

Such is the nature of that beast that I now refuse to accept anything that promotes alarmism or "unprecedented" results, at least as far as climate research goes.

[Winstonm]

The PAGES2K "reconstruction" paper is the latest in a long line of bogus CAGW efforts by the alarmist advocates.

 

It exemplifies the tendency of climatescience to do just about anything to get MSM press or IPCC admission based on whatever analysis and review they can get "through" in time. (Notwithstanding the ability to ignore or distort actual scientific uncertainty to create the impression for policy-makers that it is "worse than we thought" and consensus-of-certainty.

 

It is discouraging, to say the least, that journals like Science and Nature allow such shenanigans (and even promote it...) by creating things like "Progress" articles to get shoddy science into the record in time for AR5 deadlines. Climate science is “a developing field that might not yet be mature enough for review”???? Has that stopped them in the past?

 

Such is the nature of that beast that I now refuse to accept anything that promotes alarmism or "unprecedented" results, at least as far as climate research goes.

 

You did not answer the questions. You asserted that conclusions were false that early earth had higher CO2 concentrations. What is your basis for denying that the molecular composition of fossilized organic materials shows the earth had higher CO2 levels 35 million years ago?

 

This is not "alarmist" data nor is it "unprecedented". Again, what specifically is your dispute? Are you claiming the data was faked? How does this information (molecular composition of fossilized organic materials) fit your claim that "the experimental evidence doesn't support the calculations..."?

 

It appears to me that the data supports the conclusion. Yet you claim a falsehood. Where is that falsehood?

[Al_U_Card]

Au contraire.

 

I refuse to accept ANY climate-related conclusions without having the time and means to analyze and verify them. Your quoted study as well, no matter what its conclusion(s).

 

The simple fact is that there is so much wrong with climatescience studies that indicate any kind of alarmist conclusions that my approach has become necessary (for me, specifically). If it hinders debate then so be it. Settled science indeed. Should I get around to vetting this particular one, I'll get back to you but don't hold your breath.

[Winstonm]

Au contraire.

 

I refuse to accept ANY climate-related conclusions without having the time and means to analyze and verify them. Your quoted study as well, no matter what its conclusion(s).

 

The simple fact is that there is so much wrong with climatescience studies that indicate any kind of alarmist consclusions that my approach has become necessary (for me, specifically). If it hinders debate then so be it. Settled science indeed. Should I get around to vetting this particular one, I'll get back to you but don't hold your breath.

 

So, you refuse to accept the conclusion that "analyzing molecular structures in fossilized organic materials...showed that carbon dioxide levels likely reached 900 to 1,000 parts per million about 35 million years ago" because you don't have the time or means to verify it?

 

Isn't that basically an admission that you simply shill for the anti-AGW, irrespective of evidence?

[blackshoe]

I don't think he's admitting that at all, or even implying it. I suspect he would equally refuse to accept a study that came to the opposite conclusion until he had vetted it.

[Cascade]

Huh? What exactly is "settled science"?

 

I have no problem with genuine scientific skepticism - but what we have mostly is non-scientific disingenuous skepticism. What part do you not like? Is it the fact that the earth has warmed? Is it the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it the fact that humans have been contributing excesses of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution?

 

Or do you simply not like the conclusion formed from that data set?

 

"Settled science" is the cry of the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

The part I object to is:

 

1. being told that this matter is settled

 

2. being given misleading graphs supporting that statement regarding the number of scientific papers that dispute global warming

 

3. that it is or has been difficult to find the raw data

 

4. that the raw data has been manipulated to fit or make models

 

5. that data has been extropolated from a relatively few measurements to global (or regional conclusions

 

for example in one recent paper, I forget the author and unfortunately dont have the time to look it up now, the author reported on recalibrating a thermometer from one temperature record in Antartica and then drew conclusions about the entire sub-continent of West Antartica

 

6. that almost any natural catastrophic climate event is attributed to Climate Change without any or only tenuous causality links

 

7. that Climate Scientists will often not debate issues with those with a sceptical view

 

8. that more sceptical views are uninvited to global meetings on Climate Change

 

...

 

I am sure I could go on.

 

I am completely unconvinced by these actions that what is promulgated by so-called climate scientists and their political cohorts is a fair and reasonable representation of reality.

[Winstonm]

I don't think he's admitting that at all, or even implying it. I suspect he would equally refuse to accept a study that came to the opposite conclusion until he had vetted it.

 

I guess you haven't noticed all the misleading and cherry-picked graphs and such he has posted. Others have noticed.

[Daniel1960]

Huh? What exactly is "settled science"?

 

I have no problem with genuine scientific skepticism - but what we have mostly is non-scientific disingenuous skepticism. What part do you not like? Is it the fact that the earth has warmed? Is it the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it the fact that humans have been contributing excesses of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution?

 

Or do you simply not like the conclusion formed from that data set?

 

Actually most appears to be genuine scientific skepticism - although I will admit that there are those who have contirbuted to what you call non-scientific disingenous skepticism (going back to my original post concerning both extremes). I have no dispute with your facts, and I suspects very few (if any) scientists would either. However, the observed warming is greater than that experimentally predicted from the excess CO2. The jump from these facts to statements that claim that the additional CO2 will warm the planet excessively due to a series of positive feedbacks is tenuous, at best. That is the conclusion that cannot be made from the data set. To be fair, it cannot be disproven either.

[Al_U_Card]

I guess you haven't noticed all the misleading and cherry-picked graphs and such he has posted. Others have noticed.

 

Hmmmn. Like grafting thermometer records to proxy results? (A climatescience special.)

Or placing trendlines on modern temperatures to imply an increasing rate of warming? (From the IPCC itself.)

Like any hockey stick graph that relies on one lone tree for the modern effect? (Yamal tree-ring in MBH'98)

Like using proxies upside-down so that they "agree" with modern warming? (Tiljander sediments among many others.)

Like pre-selecting proxies that produce the desired effect and discarding those that don't? (Or even when they don't but include them when they do...) (The Gergis paper that was withdrawn yet whose proxies made it into PAGES2K)

 

Those ones? Certainly some have noticed for sure. This is why the whole CO2 scam is losing traction with governments AND tax-payers.

[Daniel1960]

And this is the settled science?

 

If you really believe that then surely you would be keen for scientists to explore the possibility that the theory is incorrect.

 

Very little science is actually settled, although there are some scientific laws that come very close. There are several theories attempting to explain the recent warming of the Earth. None can explain all the temperature changes, and in all likelihood, parts of each will contribute to the whole. Many scientists are blaming the current "warming hiatus" on the predicted grand solar minimum (Landscheidt minimum). Using this as an excuse, without understanding astrophysics, seems rather foolhardy. For those who are unaware of this prinicple, see the following for a brief overview.

 

http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/218

[PassedOut]

A Change in Temperature

 

What’s new is that several recent papers have offered best estimates for climate sensitivity that are below four degrees Fahrenheit, rather than the previous best estimate of just above five degrees, and they have also suggested that the highest estimates are pretty implausible.

 

Notice that these recent calculations fall well within the long-accepted range — just on the lower end of it. But the papers have caused considerable excitement among climate-change contrarians.

 

It is not that they actually agree with the new numbers, mind you. They have long pushed implausibly low estimates of climate sensitivity, below two degrees Fahrenheit in some cases. But they appear to be calculating that any paper with a lowball number is a step in their direction.

 

James Annan, a mainstream climate scientist working at a Japanese institute, offers a best estimate of four and a half degrees Fahrenheit. When he wrote recently that he thought some of the highest temperature projections could be rejected, skeptics could not contain their enthusiasm.

 

“That is what we call a landmark change of course — by one of climatology’s most renowned warmist scientists,” declared a blogger named Pierre L. Gosselin. “If even Annan can see it, then the writing is truly emblazoned on the wall.”

 

But does this sort of claim — that we can all breathe a sigh of relief about climate change — really hold up?

 

Dr. Annan said in an e-mail that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a mainstream body that periodically summarizes climate science, should be bolder about ruling out extreme temperature scenarios, but he still believes global warming is a sufficient threat to warrant changes in human behavior.

 

He noted that climate skeptics “are desperate to claim that the I.P.C.C. is being unreasonably alarmist, but on the other hand they don’t really want to agree with me either, because my views are close enough to the mainstream as to be unacceptable to them.” He added that he finds it “amusing to watch their gyrations as they try to square the circle.”

In a way, it's not surprising that you can find folks who don't accept the plain truth: that our pumping billions of tons of excess heat-trapping CO2 into the atmosphere each year actually traps much extra heat. Not everyone lives in a reality-based world. As we know, many in the US still reject the reality of evolution in the face of even more incontrovertible evidence.

[Winstonm]

"Settled science" is the cry of the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

The part I object to is:

 

1. being told that this matter is settled

 

2. being given misleading graphs supporting that statement regarding the number of scientific papers that dispute global warming

 

3. that it is or has been difficult to find the raw data

 

4. that the raw data has been manipulated to fit or make models

 

5. that data has been extropolated from a relatively few measurements to global (or regional conclusions

 

for example in one recent paper, I forget the author and unfortunately dont have the time to look it up now, the author reported on recalibrating a thermometer from one temperature record in Antartica and then drew conclusions about the entire sub-continent of West Antartica

 

6. that almost any natural catastrophic climate event is attributed to Climate Change without any or only tenuous causality links

 

7. that Climate Scientists will often not debate issues with those with a sceptical view

 

8. that more sceptical views are uninvited to global meetings on Climate Change

 

...

 

I am sure I could go on.

 

I am completely unconvinced by these actions that what is promulgated by so-called climate scientists and their political cohorts is a fair and reasonable representation of reality.

 

Once again you have failed to explain what you understand "settled science" to mean. Science does not deal with guarantees. The science reports: there is a 90% chance that most of the global warming seen in the past century was caused by human actions.

 

Here is an article about a CNN poll concerning AGW.

 

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

 

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role

.

 

 

At what point does the science become settled - 100%? There are still some people who refuse to believe that the U.S. actually landed on the moon. Does that make the moon landing a non-settled issue?

 

Have you asked yourself what type evidence you require?

[Daniel1960]

Once again you have failed to explain what you understand "settled science" to mean. Science does not deal with guarantees. The science reports: there is a 90% chance that most of the global warming seen in the past century was caused by human actions.

 

Here is an article about a CNN poll concerning AGW.

 

.

 

 

At what point does the science become settled - 100%? There are still some people who refuse to believe that the U.S. actually landed on the moon. Does that make the moon landing a non-settled issue?

 

Have you asked yourself what type evidence you require?

 

Most of us scientists would answer yes to both questions. However, that does not mean that we all support the AGW theory. I am surprised that only 90% think it has warmed, as most seem to agree, whether or not they agree with the AGW theory. The second question is a little more vague in that it only mentions significant. Significant could imply anything from 25% to 100%. I happen to think it is significant, but unlikely to be above 50%. These questions do not imply support for the claims that the world will warm catastrophically.

 

The consensus plea fails on two accounts; first science does not operate by consensus, but truth, and second, a general agreement to one part does not equate to agreement of the whole. This is false logic, similar to the false analogy, "Most extremists follow Islam. Therefore, Islam is a religion that propagates extremism."

[Winstonm]

Most of us scientists would answer yes to both questions. However, that does not mean that we all support the AGW theory. I am surprised that only 90% think it has warmed, as most seem to agree, whether or not they agree with the AGW theory. The second question is a little more vague in that it only mentions significant. Significant could imply anything from 25% to 100%. I happen to think it is significant, but unlikely to be above 50%. These questions do not imply support for the claims that the world will warm catastrophically.

 

The consensus plea fails on two accounts; first science does not operate by consensus, but truth, and second, a general agreement to one part does not equate to agreement of the whole. This is false logic, similar to the false analogy, "Most extremists follow Islam. Therefore, Islam is a religion that propagates extremism."

 

It is not meant to support an argument for "catastrophic" warming. But, using a colloquialism, you would concur that it is "scientifically settled" that global warming has occurred and part of the cause is human action of increased CO2 production?

 

Hasn't the range of rise always been rather wide - if memory serves somewhere between 2 and 9C? (edit: Average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100) If we are changing our climate by warming our planet, then it makes sense to stop the action contributing to that warming. That is not an alarmist position.

[Daniel1960]

It is not meant to support an argument for "catastrophic" warming. But, using a colloquialism, you would concur that it is "scientifically settled" that global warming has occurred and part of the cause is human action of increased CO2 production?

 

Hasn't the range of rise always been rather wide - if memory serves somewhere between 2 and 9C? If we are changing our climate by warming our planet, then it makes sense to stop the action contributing to that warming. That is not an alarmist position.

 

Yes, the globe has warmed, and yes, part is most likely caused by increases in CO2.

 

No exactly sure what you mean by the range, but the most common term is climate sensitivity, indicating the temperature increase associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The value is unlikely to be a constant (my opinion, but supported by others). However, the range of values from the literature is 0.5 - 5C (~1 - 9F). A few have speculated that the values are outside this range, but that seems unlikely based on past temperatures. Others like to place the midpoint as the most likely value, but that is not the case, as different calculations use different assumptions, which may not be accurate.

 

Stopping the CO2 production is easier said than done. The actual warming caused by CO2 would dictate the urgency of such actions.

[mike777]

I still predict that the next ten years will bring solar energy into a major source of cheap, reliable energy.

 

Yes there are many problems to overcome.

 

my local paper touts that an inventor has solved the problem via a solar energy trap that is 99% efficient and use sand to trap and control the energy. Cheap super cheap energy.

 

 

At this point no one has even peer reviewed or built a working model of his theory.

One guy..PHD guy said this is a no brainer win.....

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/08/2879434/patent-filing-claims-solar-energy.html

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm,

I see you have added a temperature range since I responded. You have not said who "expects" them to rise in that range, although I find the upper end highly unlikely. Let us compare the recent period of rising temperatures to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Since 1880, global temperatures have risen at an average rate of 0.6C / century. At that rate, global temperatures would rise another 0.5C by 2100. However, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now rising at a higher rate than at the beginning of that time frame. Since 1880, CO2 has risen 37%. At the current rate of rise (1.9 ppm/yr), atmospheric concentrations would rise another 37% in the year 2088. Assuming that the entire rise is due to increasing CO2 levels, then the planet would rise another 0.8C by 2088 (0.9 if extrapolated out to 2100). Of course, CO2 concentrations could increase at a higher rate - the rate from the mid 60s to mid 80s was only 1.3 ppm/yr, but most scientists envision some sort of mitigation between now and then. These values assume that all the observed warming is directly due to rising CO2 levels. Other factors or lower CO2 influence would change these values. Many of the predcited values are model-drive, not observation-driven, hence they arrive at much higher values. This has been pointed out in the recent IPCC AR5 graph, whereby models are predicting much higher temperatures than observed recently.

 

As Yogi Berra once said, "predictions are hard, especially about the future."

[hrothgar]

I still predict that the next ten years will bring solar energy into a major source of cheap, reliable energy.

 

Yes there are many problems to overcome.

 

my local paper touts that an inventor has solved the problem via a solar energy trap that is 99% efficient and use sand to trap and control the energy. Cheap super cheap energy.

 

 

At this point no one has even peer reviewed or built a working model of his theory.

One guy..PHD guy said this is a no brainer win.....

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/08/2879434/patent-filing-claims-solar-energy.html

 

Five years ago the same guy came out with the following:

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/12/21/58124/scientists-doubt-inventors-global.html#.UZIrJ4K_ZYo

 

I'm guessing if I went back another five years, I'd find some other ground breaking grandiose solution...

[Al_U_Card]

Since 1880, global temperatures have risen at an average rate of 0.6C / century. At that rate, global temperatures would rise another 0.5C by 2100. However, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now rising at a higher rate than at the beginning of that time frame. Since 1880, CO2 has risen 37%. At the current rate of rise (1.9 ppm/yr), atmospheric concentrations would rise another 37% in the year 2088. Assuming that the entire rise is due to increasing CO2 levels, then the planet would rise another 0.8C by 2088 (0.9 if extrapolated out to 2100). Of course, CO2 concentrations could increase at a higher rate - the rate from the mid 60s to mid 80s was only 1.3 ppm/yr, but most scientists envision some sort of mitigation between now and then. These values assume that all the observed warming is directly due to rising CO2 levels.

 

Recall that the "greenhouse" effect of [CO2] is not linear but logarithmic. Thus the temperature increase with increasing concentration of the trace gas occurs mainly for the first 200 ppm. Despite this, the models all use positive and multiple synergy between CO2 and water vapor to get the higher values (especially the fat tails of their climate sensitivity (ECS) graphs) that are often quoted.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png?w=640

 

http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/thumbnails/902844-22497527-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1366394975482

[Daniel1960]

Five years ago the same guy came out with the following:

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/12/21/58124/scientists-doubt-inventors-global.html#.UZIrJ4K_ZYo

 

I'm guessing if I went back another five years, I'd find some other ground breaking grandiose solution...

 

Another take on the story:

 

http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/05/solar-traps-world-changer-or-vaporware/

[Winstonm]

Winstonm,

I see you have added a temperature range since I responded. You have not said who "expects" them to rise in that range, although I find the upper end highly unlikely. Let us compare the recent period of rising temperatures to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Since 1880, global temperatures have risen at an average rate of 0.6C / century. At that rate, global temperatures would rise another 0.5C by 2100. However, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now rising at a higher rate than at the beginning of that time frame. Since 1880, CO2 has risen 37%. At the current rate of rise (1.9 ppm/yr), atmospheric concentrations would rise another 37% in the year 2088. Assuming that the entire rise is due to increasing CO2 levels, then the planet would rise another 0.8C by 2088 (0.9 if extrapolated out to 2100). Of course, CO2 concentrations could increase at a higher rate - the rate from the mid 60s to mid 80s was only 1.3 ppm/yr, but most scientists envision some sort of mitigation between now and then. These values assume that all the observed warming is directly due to rising CO2 levels. Other factors or lower CO2 influence would change these values. Many of the predcited values are model-drive, not observation-driven, hence they arrive at much higher values. This has been pointed out in the recent IPCC AR5 graph, whereby models are predicting much higher temperatures than observed recently.

 

As Yogi Berra once said, "predictions are hard, especially about the future."

 

The expected temperature values comes from the EPA. No doubt human knowledge is not exact, but that does not mean we should disregard modeling as the best method of predicting future effects of CO2 on climate.

[Al_U_Card]

An interesting appraisal:

 

[T]he really important question is to know how much warmer it will be and how fast this is likely to happen as this determines a realistic and sensible cause of action. In spite of all research and modelling experimentation we are actually less sure what will happen than what might appear from all reassuring reports that dominates the media. – Lennart Bengtsson

 

bona fides