The vicious lie behind the global warming scare
The environmentalist movement believes that unless immediate and drastic measures are taken to combat global warming, "disease, desolation and famine" are "inevitable" on a scale that might spell the end of life on earth, making earth "as hot as Venus." Surely, such an apocalyptic threat demands immediate action. Given the resistance to curtailing industrial production (not to mention the economic destruction and mass death that such a curtailment would entail), environmentalists should eagerly supports experiments that attempt to compensate rather than eliminate the impact of industry on the environment.
In fact, a number of relatively simple, low-cost measures have been proposed by scientists and entrepreneurs, one of which is documented in the June 2008 issue of Popular Science (PDF). As early as 1988, oceanographers proposed seeding the oceans with iron, which would cause an algae bloom that could rapidly compensate for the entire effect of industrial civilization for far less money that it would cost to eliminate CO2 emissions. Seeding experiments by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution have demonstrated that the technique works, although further experimentation is required. A number of entrepreneurs, such as Russ George of Planktos Corp (TED video) stepped forward to carry out the required work.
How would you expect environmental groups to react to such an opportunity? If you guessed outright or even cautious optimism, you would be dead wrong. "I don't think any quick geo-engineering fixes are going to work," said one Greenpeace scientist. "There are only two ways that we're going to solve climate change: reduce the amount of energy that we use and dramatically change the methods we use to generate it." According to Scientific American, environmental groups were essentially united in the belief that "if society relies on quick techno-fixes to ameliorate global warming ... people will stop putting in the hard work necessary to cut carbon emissions."
Think about what that statement means. "Hard work" means government coercion to destroy the industrial production that feeds (sometimes barely) a rapidly growing human population. "Quick engineering fix" means a fast, cheap, technological solution that allows us to have our cake (the wealthy, healthy life that industry makes possible) and eat it too (literally, algae eating CO2). Notice that their objection is not that iron seeding won't work, but that it eliminates the incentive to destroy industrial civilization.
As the article make clear, environmentalists are violently opposed to even exploring any measure that attempts to neutralize the "threat" of global warming rather than deal with the cause. Lies and intimidation are integral to the movement: the terrorist group Sea Shepherd, which has sunk nine ships since 1979, threatened any future seeding experiments, their PR machine used fear of nanotechnology to claim that iron ore (plain rust) is "engineered nanoparticles," while their political branch got the Spanish government to ban seeding on the grounds that it constitutes "toxic waste" dumping.
As should be clear by now, environmentalism is not actually opposed to global warming - ending the "threat" posed by global warming is the last thing on their agenda. Their real goal is to use the global warming scare to bully the developed world into reverting into the pre-industrial, pre-civilized age. They oppose viable alternative energy sources for the same reason that they oppose viable fixes to the crises they invent - they oppose nuclear energy, hydro power, and they are organizing to oppose wind power just as it has become viable. If solar panels ever become viable, they will certainly invent reasons to oppose them too.
(Note that I am not actually advocating iron ore seeding. I am not convinced that the climate is warming as rapidly as claimed, or that CO2 is the cause, and even it is, it is likely that higher CO2 levels and a warmer climate offer tremendous benefits to both plant and animal life. If anything, we should be encouraging measures that make our world greener and more comfortable.)
Comments (153)
fundamentalist
Interesting! Thanks! I was listening to Ben Stein on Glenn Beck the other day and Stein claimed that humans contribute just 2% of all greenhouse gasses. Anyone heard that before or know where he got that figure?
Published: June 25, 2008 1:12 PM
Matthew Lee
Yes and no. Humans release a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is only one of many gasses. I'm not sure how much water vapor we emit, or other gasses, but when it comes to CO2, we have got nothing on the earth itself.
Published: June 25, 2008 1:51 PM
Dale
It's not good form to paint with such a broad brush. When you cherry pick a few environmentalist groups to represent all environmentalists, of course you'll get an easy win within your own echo chamber, but in the larger world such tactics just won't cut it.
Even your headline smacks of Rovian tactics, "vicious lie" indeed. But then, Mr. Rove always did have good success among his target audience - why tinker with success?
Published: June 25, 2008 10:45 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
I must agree with Dale. You paint too broad a brush, lumping all environmentalists in with the worst specimens.
Published: June 26, 2008 12:22 AM
Kevin Carson
What Dale said. Last I heard, there's not a unified "environmental movement" with membership cards and a pope. You don't paint quite as cartoonish a picture as Reisman, though--I'll give you that.
Published: June 26, 2008 12:23 AM
Paulo
First of all, I am opposed to the global warming doomsday scenario that is posed by "the scientific consensus" because I think we know very little about a very complicated problem and any "political action" based on such preliminary science might lead to disastrous measures.
Having said that, your article incurs the same error of proposing "easy" solutions to problems that we do not fully understand (and your disclaimer at the bottom does not fully disavow your claims).
"oceanographers proposed seeding the oceans with iron, which would cause an algae bloom that could rapidly compensate for the entire effect of industrial civilization for far less money that it would cost to eliminate CO2 emissions"
1) "the oceans" do not respond equally to iron fertilization. There are regions where iron is the limiting nutrient (i.e. the Southern Ocean and the so-called high nutrient low chlorophyll zones), but most of it is not. Modeling studies show that fertilizing the ocean outside those areas have a negligible effect in carbon sequestration (some studies show the effect is limited EVEN when only these areas are "fertilized").
2) "algae bloom that could rapidly compensate for the entire effect of industrial civilization"
This is the inverse of the apocalyptic threats that you criticize in the beginning, and it is as useless and naive.
3) For "far less money" ? I'd really like to see that. The "cheapest" proposal I've seen so far was around 60 million dollars/year. Also, how "rapidly" would CO2 be sequestered? We just don't know.
More importantly, we propose to pump CO2 into the ocean as if there would be no consequences (ever heard about ocean acidification?) , desired or not. We just don't know.
I've recently attended a talk of a gentleman who was pushing this agenda and asked what would be the consequences of pumping CO2 into the ocean. He replied, in a defying style, "what would be the consequences of driving your car?". To which, for politeness, I refrained to re-reply, but I could have said : "I don't know and neither do you".
Published: June 26, 2008 6:43 AM
David Veksler
"When you cherry pick a few environmentalist groups to represent all environmentalists, of course you'll get an easy win within your own echo chamber, but in the larger world such tactics just won't cut it."
When I say "environmental groups" I am quoting Scientific American, which did not deem any dissenting opinions significant. Obviously, some environmentalists advocate geo-engineering, or we would not reading about such efforts. However, in terms of the intellectual leadership of the environmentalist movement, the anti-industry lobby is not only dominant in practical terms, but is the only logically consistent position. It has a near-universal domination in the educational system, and control of environment-related state budgets (for example, the Climate Investment Fund), C02-reduction has 100% dominance relative to the CO2 compensation position. This is to be expected, because the environmentalist movement as such is inherently anti-man in its philosophy.
Published: June 26, 2008 8:50 AM
David Veksler
>"This is the inverse of the apocalyptic threats that you criticize in the beginning, and it is as useless and naive. "
I should have been more clear -I meant only in terms of the climate impact of higher CO2 levels.
>"The "cheapest" proposal I've seen so far was around 60 million dollars/year."
That would be very cheap compared to the trillions of dollars I have read mentioned of the impact on the U.S. economy alone of CO2 output reduction.
>"Also, how "rapidly" would CO2 be sequestered? We just don't know."
All the more reason for investigation, rather than terrorist and legal threats against geo-engineering entrepreneurs.
Published: June 26, 2008 8:55 AM
Paulo
"terrorist threats"?
Sir, your rhetoric seems very similar to the proponents of the "scientific consensus".
As for the "legal" threats, provided they do not become illegal, that's alright by me.
I like the term "geo-engineering", it gives a kind of exactness to some very speculative science. I wish our "geo-engineers" had the same accountability as our civil engineers....
"That would be very cheap compared to the trillions of dollars I have read mentioned of the impact on the U.S. economy alone of CO2 output reduction."
assuming that iron fertilization would pump into the oceans ALL emissions (and they would stay IN the oceans) and that those emissions would continue to be the same. That's taking a lot of things for granted.
What's funny is that you claim you do not believe CO2 is the cause for the warming but you buy into the solutions of people who do...
Published: June 26, 2008 9:26 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
David Veksler wrote: "This is to be expected, because the environmentalist movement as such is inherently anti-man in its philosophy."
That's also a spurious generalization - true of some, and some more than others, but not of all.
Published: June 26, 2008 10:06 AM
Ron
Um...I may be off base here, but I wouldn't assume that the algae bloom consuming CO2 would be the equivalent of "pumping CO2 into the oceans." That statement assumes that the algae do nothing with it, but rather just soak it up like a sponge and then release it into the water. I'm no marine biologist, but I would assume that the algae would metabolize the CO2 and release some other by-product...most likely oxygen. Algae are plants, after all, and most plants metabolize CO2 and release oxygen.
Of course, there could be other by-products released, and the impact of those should certainly be considered, but I see no reason to get spun up about "pumping CO2 into the oceans" per se.
Published: June 26, 2008 10:44 AM
Jason Ditz
Pretty sure Al Gore is the pope of environmentalism. In all seriousness though, here is a letter from a grade schooler published in the Tuesday edition of the Saginaw News:
Can the City Council please make a recycling stop in our city? We need to recycle.
I always want to recycle but there is no recycling program in Saginaw. Can we use our tax dollars on it? I know it should be used on other stuff but please hear me out. The Earth needs us badly. We need Earth. So if Earth dies, where are we going to live? Our carbon footprint is hurting the Earth badly?
Our job as people who live in Saginaw is to help the world and recycle. Please. We need your help and the world does too.
Just think about what the global warming scare is doing emotionally to the young generation. Its at least as damaging to them as the threat of nuclear annihilation was to us. In fact, I'd argue its worse, because unlike the threat of an impending nuclear holocaust, these kids are being told its up to them to save the world. Much like if you don't clap loud enough at a middle school production of Peter Pan, Tinkerbell is going to die, and its all going to be your fault.
Isn't that an awful lot of pressure to put on a kid?
Published: June 26, 2008 10:47 AM
Cosmin
It seems some people missed the point of the article.
It's not about whether seeding the oceans with iron will work or not. It's about how environmentalists respond to this and other proposed solutions to the problem they claim to be concerned with.
Published: June 26, 2008 10:59 AM
David Cramer
Interestingly enough, if one looks at the quotes in the link that David Veksler provides regarding the "anti-man" philosophy, it is fairly evident that at the core of many environmentalist groups, this is the case. True, any time we say that everyone from some group or demographic believes exactly the same thing, we run into problems, but since we can't deal with every environmentalist on a case to case basis in this arena, it will have to work.
I have not seen the evidence that global warming is actually occurring. That there is a "scientific consensus" is simply untrue, as there are quite a few leading scientists (MIT professors, former Presidents of the American Meteorological Association, as well as prominent members from the international community) who whole-heartedly reject the fashionable "global-warming" idea. Back in the 1970s the major concern was that we were heading towards a new ice age, and so suddenly we're getting too warm? Temperatures haven't increased in the way that was initially predicted by Al Gore's crew ("An Inconvenient Truth" featured a video of an ice floe breaking off of a glacier, which turned out to be styrofoam, which ironically enough, isn't environmentally friendly), so the language has changed to "climate change" and not "global warming."
I agree with Veksler's statement: "I am not convinced that the climate is warming as rapidly as claimed, or that CO2 is the cause..." I am not convinced of this. And passing legislation that damages the economic viability of the free market is heinous if it is based on shoddy research and spurious claims which have been foisted upon the American people.
Published: June 26, 2008 11:12 AM
Ron
While I certainly agree that sweeping generalizations about groups of people are troublesome, I think there is truth to the notion that environmentalism is anti-human at its core. There may be different types of environmentalists, but one need only follow the principle to its logical conclusion to see this. Likewise, I believe that most people are more libertarian than they think they are, but that they simply haven't put in the effort of thought required to understand exactly what that means.
Published: June 26, 2008 11:40 AM
Paulo
Cosmin,
I don't care how environmentalists respond to whatever action. But I do care if we take specifically dubious solutions, treat them as "easy", "rapidly compensate for the entire effect of industrial civilization for far less money" , then choose a rhetorical enemy who may be a Greenpeace, SF lunatic and treat it as if all the critics to the "easy" and rapid solution were alike.
This is, in essence, bad policy-making, bad science, bad rhetoric, and it has nothing to do with
"how environmentalists respond to" whatever actiob.
Published: June 26, 2008 3:38 PM
Walt D.
David
Is this not an example the free market at work?
There is a market for junk science. Are not the junk scientists providing exactly what people consume? In the past, people bought the junk science, because there was no cost involved. Now that they are seeing the costs associated - high gas prices they are re-evaluating their choices. The junk scientists are now having to work harder to sell their product.
Published: June 26, 2008 4:03 PM
David Veksler
Walt:
No, this is not a "free" market. Environmentalists like Al Gore are still driving their Hummers and living in mansions. They are not volunteering to limit their own "carbon footprint," but are using the State to limit the productive capacity of everyone else - and using the process to get rich by extracting bribes from industry.
Published: June 26, 2008 4:34 PM
measles
You do make a good point in that many global warming scare tactics are used to further an anti-industrial agenda, but countering their apocalyptic rhetoric with the sensational accusation that they want to "bully the developed world into reverting into the pre-industrial, pre-civilized age" is no less of an exaggeration. It just seems a bit...propagandistic. I admire the use of reason and logic often used in Mises blogs to rebut mainstream arguments, but this as well as the too-broad-of-a-brush approach are fatal fallacies in this piece.
Published: June 26, 2008 5:33 PM
John Petrie
One reason I don't really object to Veksler's "painting with too broad a brush" and lumping all environmentalists into one category is that there is one thing shared in common by all organizations that call themselves "environmentalist": they want to use State aggression to achieve their ends, however unjustified and spurious, and they all want to enhance the power, scope, and funding of all governments to various (usually quite large) degrees. Any increase or continuance of State activity is immoral, and it is also counterproductive because governments will make things worse, as they always do. Every "environmentalist" group that I know of wants this, and regardless of the moderateness of their proposals, the State actions they propose will lead to more and worse State activities, until they reach their logical conclusion of socialist misery.
They don't all want to cut the human population in half or refuse to even listen to technological solutions, but their calls for even more State aggression are all evil to me.
Published: June 26, 2008 6:33 PM
John Petrie
Ron
Algae are plants, after all, and most plants metabolize CO2 and release oxygen.
Btw, algae are protists (whatever that word means anymore), and most of them are photosynthetic, but that doesn't make them plants.
But you are correct: The CO2 wouldn't just stay there, floating around dissolved in water; it would be metabolized by photosynthetic algae and plants.
Published: June 26, 2008 6:38 PM
TLWP Sam
How do you all environmentalists lobby to the governments J. Petrie? Perhaps you might find it more sinister if they directly lobbied to children in a way that if these children grew became environmentalists who would buy up tracts of land to keep it in its 'pristine state' when it should've been bought by developers who'd turn the land into homes or business complexes thereby make life harder for non-environmentalists?
Published: June 26, 2008 7:50 PM
YourMawm
CO2 is nice, but whatcha gonna do about methane? Methane is far worse than CO2. Doesn't matter anyway, eventually the planet will show us short-sighted human-doings who is boss.
Published: June 26, 2008 8:26 PM
John Petrie
TLWP Sam:
Assuming the word "suggest" was left out of the first sentence, I would suggest that they lobby to governments to abolish federal programs, abolish state programs, lower taxes, end restrictive regulation of many industries, rescind legislation that created the energy monopolies that we have, and abolish all corporate welfare, special favors, and union-inspired legislation that exist to benefit large businesses at the expense of small ones and the general public. Such as automotive companies and energy companies.
I would suggest that environmentalists renounce coercion as an acceptable means of effecting positive change in society, and embrace capitalism and voluntarism, which tend to make societies healthier, wealthier, and more technologically advanced.
Regarding your second sentence, to the extent that it was comprehensible: I'll go out on a limb and say buying land with your own money is somewhat preferable to empowering the Imperial Federal Government to take money from people who earned it and do things with it that are directly opposed to what those people would have chosen to do with it.
Published: June 26, 2008 10:42 PM
Phil
Fundamentalist and Matthew Lee
Water is the most important greenhouse gas, but it is a constant. Any additional water vapour added to the atmosphere by industrial processes is soon removed as rain, and is a tiny fraction of the water vapour put into the atmosphere by evaporation from the oceans. But for the greenhouse effect contribution by water vapour, the Earth would be too cold to support life.
CO2 however accumulates in the atmosphere. It is the additional greenhouse effect contributed by the additional CO2 in the atmosphere that is said to be the problem. There is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising steadily in recent decades as CO2 concentration has been measured with reliable scientific instruments for decades.
Published: June 26, 2008 11:26 PM
Kakugo
What is always astounding me about Americans is how the dogma of "we-must-do-something-about-Global-Warming" is deeply ingrained in very layer of their society. Even persons with a very reasonable and sound ideas fear to speak their mind.
The European medias are copying this attitude: they censor dissent (even by serious enviromentalists concerned that this is taking away attention from more pressing issues), run multiple horror stories and keep pounding us every time the temperature reaches 75°F.
The problem is, let me say that again, we do not know enough. What if we spend countless billions, ruin our lives and starve to death half of the world only to find out that we cannot control the Sun? What if we cause more damages than the ones we are supposed to avert? Didn't the DDT horror story teach us anything?
The great Chopin suffered from a form of tubercolosis. Yet the physicians that cured him were absolutely sure that he needed to be "purged from malignant humours" so prescribed a therapy of edemas and leeches.
The only effect was hastening the great composer's demise.
Published: June 27, 2008 5:56 AM
Paulo
It is understandable that scientists, particularly environmental scientists, perceive global warming as the most challenging problem humanity ever faced. After all, such scientists deal with the nuts and bolts of model outputs, model parameterizations, predictions, different scenarios and what have you. So, global warming is, in fact, the most challenging problem…. of environmental science. And it is indeed a fascinating and complex problem.
However, extrapolating the issue into “practical measures” might not be a very intelligent thing to do. And a very dangerous one if such measures are taken based on “our current scientific knowledge”(i.e. model results) or simply backed by prominent scientists.
Policy decisions should be taken by policy-makers (sound obvious, doesn’t it?) who are accountable for their actions. A scientist does not hold accountability (other than intellectual) for what he publishes. What is true today might not be so tomorrow. We learn something and go on.
It is interesting that many of the proposed “practical actions” are long-term, extremely expensive measures, such as iron fertilization or global dimming, whose long-term consequences (and even short-term ones) are largely unknown.
When we look at things in perspective, though, we notice that there are more pressing issues for humanity than global warming. The Copenhagen Consensus has just released a rank of the most challenging problems (and solutions) we are facing today. Global warming, except for its link with low-carbon energy development, is not of the them.
This could serve as sanity-check for some scientists. A warning sign that there are other relevant issues for humanity and that they would do better by focusing on good science rather than extrapolating the discussion to political/ideological issues that can serve to opportunists to push their own agendas.
Published: June 27, 2008 9:07 AM
David V
"If solar panels ever become viable, they will certainly invent reasons to oppose them too."
Almost as if on cue, "US halts solar energy projects over environment fears"
Published: June 28, 2008 8:24 PM
TokyoTom
David, I read your post with interest, but came away disappointed, for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, you didn`t identify the "vicious lie" behind the global warming scare. What`s the lie, what`s vicious about it, and who`s behind it?
Second, even if THERE BE VICIOUS LIARS behind the AGW scare (the monolithic movement of envirofascist/commie/watermelon man-haters), you really haven`t helped me figure out why it`s so important that we should focus our attention and energies on the vicious liars:
Do they occupy the entire universe of people who have announced their concern over climate change, man`s likely role in it and what if anything we should do on a organized basis about it? Or do they so predominantly provide the driving power and strategy for such concerns that we should simply ignore everyone else as mere puppets of the All Powerful Enviros - that is, all of the prestigious National Academies of Science (East, West and South), other scientific associations, the period internationally reviewed digests of ongoing scientific work regarding climate change, all of the world leaders who have backed study and action for the past twenty years, corporate leaders (including captains of insurance, finance, industry, power and fossil fuels), leaders of established religions, and defense and intelligence heads?
Third, assuming again that there are vicious enviro-liars, you clearly overstate their views on geo-engineering, which run the gamut from reflexive opposition to a nuanced recognition that, given the long-lasting effects of GHGs and the continued ramp up in emissions worldwide, some degree of geo-engineering may be desirable.
Fourth, you paint, without support or discussion, a rosy picture of how cheap and effective geo-engineering is likely to be. I`m not very well-read in this, but from what I`ve seen, they are not cheap or certain and offer potential negative consequences as well.
Fifth, you ignore the fact that the institutional settings in which geo-engineering will occur are clearly statist. The firms that have started to explore "ocean fertilization" have done so in the expectation that carbon capture and sequestration efforts would be compensated under incentives created by carbon-trading schemes. While your tacit approval of use by states of tax dollars to cure problems that our industries have created for us seems hardly libertarian - in the face of adamant opposition to the decades-old arguments (by vicious liars like Stephen Hawking, Joe Stiglitz, Kenneth Arrow, Thomas Schelling, Robert Mendelsohn, William Nordhaus, Martin Weitzman and Gregg Mankiw) that governments introduce disincentives to GHG releasing activities - it certainly seems rather prevalent.
Dr. Reisman, for example, has thought long and hard and come up with a number of brilliant statist ideas, for which he longs for a good old-fashioned heavy industry-loving left to spearhead, including the following:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.aspSixth, you fail to explain to your readers on the basis of Austrian understandings - from von Mises through Block and Cordato - why we should not take seriously the expressed concerns of the vicious enviro-liars (or others) about AGW. Are there no problems that arise when property rights are not in place for open-access resources or are not clearly aligned to external costs, or if homesteading and private transactions are not practical? Or when resources are "owned", but mismanaged by governments and fought over by rent-seekers in political battles? In such cases, do Austrian insights tell us to ignore the preferences and frustrations of particular groups of people, in favor of other groups that apparently have done a better job of purchasing political influence?
Seventh, as a tactical matter, are essays like this the best approach to productively engaging the all-powerful enviro-liars?
Shall we ignore any underlying commons problems simply because we hate the vicious enviro-liars? Or is it your view that, in hating the enviro-liars, we most effectively resolve commons issues - by clarifying that powerful industries (those few not controlled by enviro-liars, that is) have first dibs on them, and that those with other preferences need to pay off industry (and their political handlers)?
I could go on, but as you can see, I`m simply puzzled and lack your clear views about whom we should hate and what we should do.
Sadly, my confusion seems to be shared by a number of others here, who also seem confused about the principled basis and efficacy of hating enviro-liars, whomever and wherever they may be.
In fact, the responses by others here are almost enough to make a good Austrian wonder whether even the Mises board has been infiltrated and infected by vicious enviro-liars!
You might consider asking the blog administrators to take close note of those who are clear sympathizers of the enviro-liars, and where appropriate to suspend commenting or blogging privileges, such as for particularly vicious and unprincipled man-haters. Watermelons should be roasted whenever and wherever found, I say! Enviro-haters, unite! http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/16/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx
Or maybe you`re way ahead of me on that?
Regards,
TT
Published: June 29, 2008 3:08 AM
O.V.
I'm sure that some of the environmentalists are nothing more than anti capitalists in disguise, but I refuse to believe that all of them are that way. After all, we are seeing TV commercials with Newt Gingrich and Nancy Peloci advocating support for our environment. So, it appears that this issue is just like every other issue in which there are both honest people and dishonest people who are involved. When we speak negatively towards a movement, we should speak negatively towards individuals who have shown themselves to be insincere, instead of attempting to pass judgment against the entire movement as a whole.
Published: June 29, 2008 11:19 AM
Walt D.
David
Here is an example of the point I was trying to make.
'Global Warming Tax' means fewer travellers at main Dutch airport...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080628184554.yhsfzix8&show_article=1
Shakespeare said "a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". Similarly "a tax by any other name still smells as bad".
Published: June 29, 2008 11:30 AM
nick gray
Whilst I am fascinated by all this bitchy infighting, what will you say when the whole of the ice at the North Pole melts, as predicted by the people at the pole? "Oh, goody, now we can sail from Canada to Archangel, directly, which I've always wanted to do!"?
Here in Australia, the Ski season is in a dismal state, because of the lack of snow. I know what you're going to say- they should switch to ecstacy. NOT that kind of snow!
The weather really is warming up! You won't do yourselves any credit by ignoring the evidence.
Published: June 30, 2008 2:07 AM
newson
to nick gray,
too early to write off the ski season downunder. and the antarctic ice-cap has been growing for years.
which weather system are you referring to anyway? and how could you possibly arrive at some average figure - how would you weight the inputs?
everest is cold, death valley hot, and the average of the two is probably copenhagen. aggregates are useless.
Published: June 30, 2008 10:28 AM
newson
and who lives at the pole anyway, to be making predictions, the yeti?
Published: June 30, 2008 10:33 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
"aggregates are useless"
If that's true, how should we compute GDP and GNP? I suppose we can revert to just guessing and base economic decisions on that... it could work, right?
Should we abandon scientific process thus ending the industrial revolution. Exactly what are you suggesting?
Published: August 23, 2008 2:39 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
David Veksler:
I knew that Al Gore lives in a large house, not sure I'd call in a mansion but that is a subjective perspective. But I did not know he drives a hummer.
What color is it I wonder?
Published: August 23, 2008 3:33 PM
newson
the other reisman, george, makes the damning case against gdp in this article: http://mises.org/daily/2878
if the bureau of statistics ceased to exist, would that lead to impoverishment? i don't think so. less meddling would occur.
hong kong got rich with a deliberate policy of not gathering statistical data, thanks to sir john cowperthwaite, enlightened financial secretary to the colony from 1961 on.
Published: August 23, 2008 9:49 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
GDP may have been a bad example regarding your context, but in my context of the point I am illustrating, it is still pertinent. I could of said how do you measure wheat or barley production, or barrels of oil, or bars of gold.
I agree with George on many things. My thoughts on the Keynesian model is that it was the beginning of the end. john Maynard Keynes was a brilliant man at figuring out how to exploit the future with a slight of hand that has resulted in the rape of the natural world, artificial inflation and an even more corrupt government if that is possible, than prior to the adoption.
The consumption economy is doomed to fail by the very nature of its premise.
In the context of my use of GDP and GNP I am not denying George's argument in the least but rather making an example. Point of fact in a non objectively based economy that is based on the fiat, these numbers do need to be measured and quite carefully. Hence the Basel Convention.
Without such careful handling the house of cards might fall.
My point was not to hail the virtues of GDP however but to question your statement "aggregates are useless".
Of course they are not useless. If you own a business, you have to do accounting. Your total sales or expenditures are aggregate numbers. It is strange to say such measurements are useless.
I would suggest, regarding the general subject of the article above, that at least in part and possibly in large part, the Keynesian model is what got us into the environmental situation we are currently in. It allowed for egregious over-consumption and overuse based on fiat dollars with little value orientation.
However, I should point out that correlation is not causation, so making an example of Hong Kong in this context does not prove anything. I have been to Hong Kong many times and they count everything. There are a multitude of factors involved in the economic success in Hong Kong.
Published: August 24, 2008 1:23 AM
newson
to john reisman:
i didn't say accounting was useless, just aggregates like commenting on "the climate", without stating which climate system you're refering to.
likewise, collating national account figures is worse than useless. the incorrect premises of the gdp model means that policies are implemented that are damaging to long-term growth.
here's a bit about sir john cowperthwaite, whose 10 years as financial secretary set hong kong on a very different course from the uk at that time. maria tupy writes:
Of all the policies that we discussed, one stands out in my mind -- if for no other reason than because it is so thoroughly counterintuitive. I asked him to name the one reform that he was most proud of. "I abolished the collection of statistics," he replied. Sir John believed that statistics are dangerous, because they enable social engineers of all stripes to justify state intervention in the economy.
of course nowadays hk collects statistical data about all sorts of things, but the hand of government is still comparatively light.
Published: August 24, 2008 5:23 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
Thank you for the clarification. But if aggregates are good for accounting but not for climate then you are contradicting yourself. aggregates pertaining to climate are merely accounting.
I'm not disagreeing with you regarding Cowperthwaites job performance. But I try to avoid oversimplifying a relationship between a complex system and what a few people or even a lot of people say about a person or said persons performance as a definitive measure to determine cause and effect.
As to which climate system I was referring to, 'Earth'.
I find it interesting that I have attempted three times to respond to the original article and each time I get a message saying
"Thank you for commenting. Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."
None have been posted. Is there a problem with free open debate on this thread? Or is the blog owner on vacation?
Published: August 24, 2008 11:03 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Since the problem may be a filter on length I will attempt to address subjects one at a time.
The author is "not convinced that the climate is warming as rapidly as claimed".
On what basis? I'm not even sure that the basis of the point is as relevant as others, such as the GHG change rate in comparison to natural cycle variability, or the degree of change in the atmospheric composition compared to natural changes (minus asteroid impacts of course).
---Regarding the issue of rapidity of change:
http://uscentrist.org/news/2008/target-atmospheric-co2-350ppm/
150 years is a very short period of time for the amount of forcing imposed on the system, short of an asteroid impact. It is important to understand that thermal inertia slows the imposition of the forcing levels being imposed on the system by the industrial based forcings.
Published: August 24, 2008 11:07 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
---The author is not sure "that CO2 is the cause".
On what basis? Again, not a completely relevant statement based on context as it excludes other GHG's such as methane, nitrous oxide and flourins which are high GWP gases.
---Regarding "not sure that CO2 is the cause":
http://www.scienceinschool.org/2008/issue8/climate/
The isotopic signature of the atmospheric Co2 tell us without a doubt that we have increased Co2 concentrations from around 280ppm to over 385ppm about 37% increase. And that's just the Co2 increase.
Published: August 24, 2008 11:12 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
The author states: "it is likely that higher CO2 levels and a warmer climate offer tremendous benefits to both plant and animal life".
On what basis? The FACE experiments have shown that increased Co2 increases biomass but not food productivity according the the USDA.
---Regarding higher Co2 helping plants
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=140355
Without considering the actual results, one misses the point of actual effects of a given solution (even though there are other problems with the assumptions that have contextual dilemmas)
Published: August 24, 2008 12:41 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Regarding seeding the oceans with iron:
http://progressive.atl.playstream.com/nakfi/progressive/Sackler/sackler_12_07_07/jeremy_jackson/jeremy_jackson.html
Without considering the aggregate system economy you are missing the point of the potential dangers.
Published: August 24, 2008 12:45 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
regarding the 2% number. It would have to be a fantasy number of some sort. The major natural greenhouse gases are C02 and Methane.
Industrial processes have added GHG's as such
Nitrous Oxide up 18%
Co2 up 37%
Methane up 148%
That means that 15% of the Nitrous oxide is produced by man or manmade processes
27% of the Co2 is produced by man or manmade processes
and 60% of the methane is produced by man or manmade processes
Of course that is not counting the High GWP gases. and the H2o which increases due to induced global warming by virtue of the climate forcing imposed.
I also would like to know where they got the number?
Published: August 24, 2008 3:10 PM
fundamentalist
John,
Thanks for the input, but your figures don't match other research I have seen. For example, several researchers have said that cattle emit more methane than all human activity. NPR report recently that Argentine scientists are looking for ways to reduce cow flatulance by changing their diets, and they have invented a bag to place over the tails of cattle to catch the methane cows emit so it can be stored.
In addition, the planet has been as hot, or hotter in the past without human emissions of GHG's. The medieval warming period is the most recent example. That makes me think that nature has more to do with warming than mankind.
Nevertheless, let's say that your numbers are correct. For the huge increases in GHG's, we have seen very little warming over the past century. With human population expected to peak in about 2025, we should reach a peak of GHG emissions by then, too. So nothing to worry about. We should give more weight to the Copenhagen Consensus that agrees that global warming is manmade, but assigns it a very low priority among more pressing problems.
Published: August 25, 2008 8:11 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
re. methane
That's one of the problems, there is a lot of research and a lot of data and as it gets filtered through interpreters, including scientists that are not in climate day to day, it can be easily taken out of context, sometimes intentionally.
We used to have a hell of a lot more buffalo and I'm confident they produced a lot of methane also. But they were here before mankind so that methane should be considered part of the natural cycle. I don't have the pre-mass-buffalo-hunt numbers but that would be interesting to compare to the industrial cow, pig, chicken, etc. numbers.
The main problem with understanding anthropogenic global warming and the facts (and sometimes lies) that are presented is relevance and context of the data presented.
What you have read does not take into consideration most of the methane produced by man actually comes from landfills, natural gas systems, enteric fermentation, coal mining, manure management, wastewater treatment petroleum systems etc. If you were to calculate the methane from industrial ranching compared to methane from pre-hunt buffalo and other species then you could calculate the difference.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
It is likely that since the industrial processes are designed to feed a lot more humans than pre-hunt natural buffalo (and moose) populations that the pre-hunt methane levels from those animals were less. That is, we were less than a billion people 200 years ago and now we are 5.7 billion with about a billion cows and a billion pigs feeding the population these days.
The researchers you are referring to obviously have not read the data known on the subject. Please let me know who they are and I will contact them.
Published: August 25, 2008 10:14 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
re. the medieval warm period (MWP)
The MWP is a result of the Arctic Amplification effect. Just because Greenland was warmer does not mean that temperature represents the GMT (global mean temperature). The GMT during the MWP was lower than it is today.
http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman
search the page for MWP
There are some links to other discussions of the MWP also.
google realclimate and medieval warm period and english wine.
I wold give you the links but the filters on this blog might be blocking multiple links. I have not figured it out yet. but I have gotten a lot of blocked posts saying the blog owner has to review my post first?
Remember correlation is not necessarily causation and what one thinks is not necessarily fact. A broader knowledge of the scope of understanding, observations and modeling is important to understanding the context and relevance of what you have seen from 'other research'.
Published: August 25, 2008 10:35 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
re.
Your last point regarding, we have seen very little warming over the past century is due to oceanic thermal inertia. Think of it this way as an example:
If you turn on the heaters in your house and your swimming pool simultaneously, which one warms up first (assuming both heaters are functioning)?
The house warms up first. The GHG forcing is in the system and the oceans will slowly absorb the forcing energy. What you don't understand is that Co2, unlike methane and nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, centuries. So the oceans will keep absorbing the energy and the planet will continue warming for a long time, centuries.
You also don't seem to have studied the positive feedback mechanisms associated with the warming, and their consequent potentials as understood. The likely hood for these feedbacks are now considered strong, that is more likely than not, and most models indicates they are either quite likely or most likely at this time.
There are multiple feedback mechanisms that are positive and some that are negative. The paleo record indicates that positives can outweigh the negatives and warming of 5-8 C GMT are possible. The current forcing levels in the system which will result in continued warming beyond the human population peak you mentioned will push us across the tipping points of the positive feedbacks depending on human actions.
If we continue business as usual, we ensure multiple positive feedbacks. If we begin to address this rapidly in order to mitigate the addition of increased forcing components, we can alleviate possibly some of the future feedbacks.
I you are really curious about what the granddaddy feed back is you have to study the end-P. That is the end of the permian period. I am still studying it myself and have been examining it for 3 years. I have a meeting with a professor on Sep. 8 so maybe will have an even clearer picture then.
Basically, the end of the Permian period was caused by a lot of Co2 in the atmosphere probably caused by an asteroid impact that released Co2 that was stored underground, there was enough Co2 in the atmosphere to raise the ocean temps over time that eventually allowed them to give up their methane hydrates. This caused additional warming and 95% of all life on earth essentially ended. microbial in the oceans, trilobites and such and a large rat that lived underground survived.
So your assertion that there is nothing to worry about, might be premature to your understanding all the mechanisms in play. I posted a link above regarding seeding the oceans with iron. I highly recommend you watch it. That will help you at least begin to understand some of the ecosystem feedbacks that are already occurring.
I understand it's not easy to understand this global warming event, there is a lot of data and context. But without actually studying it, your assertions are inadequate. The fact is, most people don't understand it. That's an educational and media problem, as well as a group-think problem.
Published: August 25, 2008 11:02 AM
fundamentalist
John, the comparison of “industrial cattle” with pre-industrial bison is kind of silly. Humans need food. The increase in “industrial” cattle is a result of civilization and increased population. Had people domesticated bison instead of cattle, you would end up with the same results. You could include population growth and civilization as part of the problem, but the solution would put you on the lunatic fringe of the debate. You can’t include the cattle industry under industrialization just because corporations grow cattle. People domesticated cattle millennia ago. It’s as much a part of the natural environment as humanity.
The debate over GHG’s is, for the most part, about industrialization through mechanization and burning of fossil fuels.
The medieval warming, MWP, wasn’t just for Greenland. It was for all of Europe. Proponents of man-made global warming have been doing everything they can to get rid of the MWP because it shoots such a big hole in their theory. The MWP matches well with sunspot data which has a 250-yr cycle superimposed on the 11-yr cycle. More research is being devoted to the sun as the source of cycles in global warming and I expect it will replace man-made theories in the near future.
There is also the issue of the fact that global warming precedes rises in GHG’s in the historical data, which under the normal rules for determining cause and effect prove that GHG’s can’t cause GW. Proponents of man-made GW have explanations for why that doesn’t prove that GHG’s cause GW, but I find their arguments are more obfuscation than refutation.
Don’t worry about posting links to research. Those of us who have read this web site for several years have already gone through the battle of the links several times. Don’t assume that we have had no debate on the subject before. We have seen most of the evidence on both sides. One side posts links to support its theory. The other posts similar links. Then both sides trash the evidence of the other. Eventually, the debate degenerates into a count of who has the most scientists on their side and the proponents of man-made GW insist they win because they have the majority whereas the opponents assert that truth is not a popularity contest and the majority is often wrong, even in science. My personal opinion is that the proponents of natural causes for GW (such as the sun) are more honest with the data than are the proponents of man-made GW.
Published: August 25, 2008 11:28 AM
fundamentalist
John: “The likely hood for these feedbacks are now considered strong, that is more likely than not, and most models indicates they are either quite likely or most likely at this time.”
We have already discussed the GW models and their many problems in past discussions. I don’t think you’ll find them very convincing support for man-made GW for people on this web site. They have too many flaws in them.
John: “I understand it's not easy to understand this global warming event, there is a lot of data and context.”
I don’t think it’s difficult at all. I began studying it in the late 1980’s when it was a scientific issue instead of a political one. I haven’t seen much progress in the scientific area, but a lot of hysteria caused by politicizing the issue. Most of the research research I have seen aims at obfuscation. The main issue is whether GHG’s cause GW or are an effect. Proponents of man-made GW refuse to consider the excellent research that demonstrates that the sun is the major cause of GW. GHG’s are a proxy for the effects of solar cycles on climate, that’s why they lag behind temperature increases in the data.
Published: August 25, 2008 11:48 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
The comparison of industrial v. pre-industrial bison is hardly silly when in context scientifically. You are using red herring arguments to avoid the science of understanding the methane question. You mentioned in your first post that you heard humans only contribute 2% of all greenhouse gases, which is incorrect.
You stated several researchers state that cattle emit more methane that all human activity. That of course is wrong. Just because you simply choose to believe what someone says over the empirical data does not make you right.
The simple fact is that according to the EPA and hundreds of other research institutions human processes and increased methane production by 148% accounting for 60% of all methane in the system. of course that will be a moot point in the event of a methane hydrate release scenario.
You are the one that brought up the subject of cattle emitting more methane. So your use of the red herring argument to avoid the rebuttal to your point is silly, not to mention illogical not to mention a non sequitur.
That is the way most skeptics argue. They avoid the science in favor of one liners and distractions that have nothing to do with the science.
You should post your real name in my opinion. It shows integrity and that you as an individual stand be hind your words. Or are you not a fan of Ayn Rand and the principles of the Austrian School? Besides, I would prefer to address you by your real name rather that some ad hoc pseudonym.
Yes, humans need food but now you are taking about something entirely different than the science of anthropogenic global warming.
including human population and resource and energy consumption in the equation is not lunacy it is science as those are factors. It merely boils down to accounting and economy. One could more easily scientifically argue that being ignorant to all the relevant data, such as you seem to be advocating, is lunacy. Sort of like not accounting your payables and receivables between your supply chain and production orders when you are operating in teh negative on the payables due to poor accounting. Thus you end up paying additional interest on your late payments which is a positive feed back that if not addressed will put you out of business.
So if you really want to discuss lunacy, I would have to say I would never let someone that advocates not accounting all relevant factors to a business in my a position of responsibility.
Re the MWP. you are quite correct. The Arctic Amplification effect effects the entire norther hemisphere. I don't know any proponents of AGW that are trying to get rid of the MWP. It is a scientifically quantifiable, well modeled, piece of science. You cant get rid of something that exists, that is silly.
There is no known 250 year solar cycle? There is a known observed Schwabe cycle. We do not have enough data to gauge the Maunder and Daulton minimums in a cycle.
The sun sends us 1366.5 W/m2 on average and we receive on the planets surface around 240 W/m2. the sun in the Schwabe cycle adds and takes away .3 w/m2 on the surface. The current forcing is 1.6 w/m2 so adding or taking away .3 w/m2 is not the reason we are warming outside of the natural cycle.
You are also correct that in the natural cycle GHG's precede warming, since the initial warming is caused by the Milankovitch cycles. After eccentricity cycle reaches perihelion and obliquity cycle reaches perihelion with accidents of forcing form the precession cycle, we come out of an ice age. the Co2 that has been trapped increases as biodiversity in the cycle becomes more active in the various ecosystems. In fact, that is what helps us understand the anthropogenic factors of increased GHG levels in the atmosphere. It's not obfuscation its the basis from which you start accounting the atmospheric composition.
I'm sure you have had lots of debate but I doubt you have read and understood the relevance and context of what you read. It's not about who has the most scientists, it's about relevance and context of the data being examined. If you get into rhetorical or counting battles rather than concentrate on the data, you will never get it. Again it is a red herring. Stick to the science not the rhetoric.
On the link issue. If the link takes you to vetted, peer reviewed, peer responded well understood science on the matter, ignoring it is merely arrogant and ignorant by definition. It is possible, even likely, that you were not looking at the right links or that you did not understand the relevance of what you were looking at.
Published: August 25, 2008 12:56 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
The primary misunderstanding of models is that people say that models can be wrong. That is the wrong way to look at it. The fact is that models are always wrong.
The more appropriate way to examine models is to examine them, test them improve them so that they can model which ever reality one is trying to model in a more realistic fashion considering all the components involved.
Since we don't have a control planet, the only way to understand climate is by modeling.
I understand your perspectives on the hysteria and the obfuscation. It is a real problem. Most of this is stuck in group-think or media hype, not unlike the silly stories the media blew up in the 70's talking about going into an ice age. They took only pieces of the report that would make good headlines and then blew everything out of proportion.
On the issue of whether GHG's cause GW or are an effect. You have made two points that are out of context in the sense that you have presented a false dichotomy.
You say the excellent research that demonstrates that the sun is the major cause of GW. Of course you are correct. If there was no sun we would be a frozen ball in space.
Your second statement is more confusing though. GHG's and solar combined keep us warm on this planet. As with the solar argument, without GHG's we would be a frozen ball in space.
As to your presentation again that GHG's follow climate change, see above re Milankovitch cycles.
Published: August 25, 2008 1:11 PM
fundamentalist
John: “Just because you simply choose to believe what someone says over the empirical data does not make you right.”
You’re confused. The global hysteria crowd refuses to use empirical research. And they obfuscate what they use. The twisting and torturing of data by they hysteria crowd is shameful.
John: “The simple fact is that according to the EPA and hundreds of other research institutions human processes….”
There you go with appeals to authority and the consensus argument. They hysterical crowd always falls back on those when defeated in rational argument.
John: “That is the way most skeptics argue. They avoid the science in favor of one liners and distractions that have nothing to do with the science.”
And the GW hysteria crowd muddies the waters and tortures the data when their pet theory is disproven.
John: “…including human population and resource and energy consumption in the equation is not lunacy it is science as those are factors.”
Yes, but it changes the parameters dramatically. If you include just industrialization (as most people understand the term and not as hysterical people want to define it), then the answer to global warming is reductions in industrialization. If you include the human population in the equation and its food resources, the response has to be elimination of large parts of the human population. Are you suggesting that?
John: “There is no known 250 year solar cycle?”
Yes there is. I have seen it myself. Anyone can get a data set of sunspots and run it through a Fast Fourier transformation and see it. And it correlates well with the global temperature cycles.
John: “You are also correct that in the natural cycle GHG's precede warming, since the initial warming is caused by the Milankovitch cycles.”
That’s one theory among many. The 250-year sunsport cycle correlates with the data better. You simply don’t like the data so you ignore it.
John: “After eccentricity cycle reaches perihelion and obliquity cycle reaches perihelion with accidents of forcing form the precession cycle, we come out of an ice age.”
That’s very poor meteorology. Ice ages require much more than shifts in the earth’s orbit. They require very active volcanic acitivity which blocks the sun so that summers are cooler. The pollution and CO2 emitted by the volcanoes trap heat so that winters are warmer.
John: “I'm sure you have had lots of debate but I doubt you have read and understood the relevance and context of what you read.”
That could be, or it could be that you refuse to read anything that contradicts your pet theory.
John: “If the link takes you to vetted, peer reviewed, peer responded well understood science on the matter, ignoring it is merely arrogant and ignorant by definition.”
You leave out the issue of the political motivation of peer reviewed journals. Some of us understand the issues well enough to think for ourselves. Others have to rely on peer reviewed journals, which is nothing but the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. Austrian econ is a good example. No peer reviewed economic journal will publish articles about Austrian econ, not because its bad science, but because they want to protect mainstream econ from critics. Politics trumps science in peer reviewed journals.
John: “Since we don't have a control planet, the only way to understand climate is by modeling.”
What happen to the empirical evidence you were so proud of? The truth is that most of the hysteria about GW comes from the models. Back in the late 1980’s, when GW was real science, the modelers validated their models against historical data and found them to be extremely poor predictors. Then the issue became political and the modelers refused to validate their models against temperature data and they still haven’t. Those models are incredibly bad, but those with a political agenda try to convince people that they’re good enough.
John: “GHG's and solar combined keep us warm on this planet. As with the solar argument, without GHG's we would be a frozen ball in space.”
That’s a good example of the obfuscation I was complaining about. We were discussing the cycles in GW, not the fact that we need both GHG’s and the sun to keep warm. Remember the cycles? GW hysteria claims that only man-made GHG’s, not the sun, are responsible for the cycles.
Published: August 25, 2008 1:55 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
correction to my text
with accidents of forcing form the precession cycle,
should read
accents to forcing from the precession cycle
Published: August 25, 2008 2:02 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
fundamentalist - "You’re confused. The global hysteria crowd refuses to use empirical research. And they obfuscate what they use. The twisting and torturing of data by they hysteria crowd is shameful."
I don't associate with hysterical people but prefer the empirical research, well modeled contextually with relevance. I only seem confused from your perspective, but from my perspective, which is based on the well vetted peer reviewed data and modeling that has survived peer response, you not only appear confused, you are presenting arguments that are outright incorrect with regard to the quantitative data and observations. If you can prove me wrong with contextually relevant science I would be very happy. Then I can move on to other interesting topics like education and economics.
fundamentalist - "There you go with appeals to authority and the consensus argument. They hysterical crowd always falls back on those when defeated in rational argument."
That is not an appeal to authority argument and Mussolini is not involved in the science. You are again throwing out red herrings. This is an appeal to the quantifiable data modeled and vetted through peer review and peer response in accord with the scientific method. Your argument is essentially based on opinion from all that I can see at the moment. Again please do prove me wrong. Climate is very well understood in its major mechanisms at this point in time.
fundamentalist - "And the GW hysteria crowd muddies the waters and tortures the data when their pet theory is disproven."
GW is part of the natural cycle. I believe you mean 'the AGW hysteria crowd'. I don't know anyone torturing the data, so you must be listening to a different crowd.
fundamentalist - "Yes, but it changes the parameters dramatically. If you include just industrialization (as most people understand the term and not as hysterical people want to define it), then the answer to global warming is reductions in industrialization. If you include the human population in the equation and its food resources, the response has to be elimination of large parts of the human population. Are you suggesting that?"
It follows that industrial process are connected to human population and such factors have relevance in a quantifiable sense pertaining to per capita energy consumption, the type of energy used, the GHG production and other factors. And I am not arguing against industry per se, merely the processes that are deleterious. We can convert industry in safer and productive ways. We've done it in the past. We will do it in the future. When you get right to it, and we put our minds to something, we are quite capable of fixing things.
Your suggestion of eliminating large parts of the human population is typical of the hysterical crowd argument. Not sure why you are bringing that up unless you are trying to introduce hysteria?. Maybe the reason you won't use your real name is that you are a politician? I've heard such arguments before, but that is a solid red herring. Elevating the argument to some sort of emotional or hysterical point only further distracts from the science. Guys like Bjorn Lomborg use emotional appeals to distract from the science as well.
fundamentalist - "Yes there is. I have seen it myself. Anyone can get a data set of sunspots and run it through a Fast Fourier transformation and see it. And it correlates well with the global temperature cycles."
I'd love to see that. can you point me to a link so I can have some solar experts take a look at it? That way I can see if the context and modeling you are using are relevant. By the way, I thought you don't like models?
fundamentalist - "That’s one theory among many. The 250-year sunsport cycle correlates with the data better. You simply don’t like the data so you ignore it."
I have not seen your data so I can not yet ignore it. Please send it to me. You can reach me through the contact link on my web site.
fundamentalist - "That’s very poor meteorology. Ice ages require much more than shifts in the earth’s orbit. They require very active volcanic activity which blocks the sun so that summers are cooler. The pollution and CO2 emitted by the volcanoes trap heat so that winters are warmer."
You are incorrect. High ejecta mass volcanic eruptions Like Pinitubo are well known and well modeled as well as well observed. A typical high ejecta mass eruption will produce enough aerosols to cool the planet for about 3 years. Then the emitted Co2, which is part of the natural cycle, adds a fraction of forcing to the warming i.e. When the particulate matter falls back to earth and the natural forcings imposed on the system (Milankovitch cycles) imposed their influence. Also, volcanoes are not considered polluters, pollution is especially a manmade phenomena (check webster). I would concede that an eruption at a particular time during the Milankovitch could have some effect on possibly speeding up an entry to an ice age. That sounds reasonable but I would like to see it modeled and reviewed/argued. Another point is that you don't 'need' volcanoes to get in to or out of an ice age, they don't have enough forcing to override the Milankovitch forcings (eccentricity, obliquity, precession). The fact that an eruption might be able to expedite an entry to an ice age does not override the negative forcing of the cycle itself.
fundamentalist - "That could be, or it could be that you refuse to read anything that contradicts your pet theory."
It's not my 'pet theory'. I read lots of arguments on lots of web sites. But I always check the relevance and context of the information to see if it is relevant. I tend not to believe media or non scientific sources. Most of the data I review comes form government science and research institutions, not a bunch of guys that started a web site that are weathermen, or a group of misc. scientists that have less relevance since they don't live eat and breathe climatology or relevant aspects of the science on a regular basis (but I do review their arguments for relevance). However, good ideas can come even from outside a field of science as well, so I review a lot of info and then weigh it in context to see how relevant it is. One should not ignore potentials.
fundamentalist - "You leave out the issue of the political motivation of peer reviewed journals. Some of us understand the issues well enough to think for ourselves. Others have to rely on peer reviewed journals, which is nothing but the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. Austrian econ is a good example. No peer reviewed economic journal will publish articles about Austrian econ, not because its bad science, but because they want to protect mainstream econ from critics. Politics trumps science in peer reviewed journals."
I did leave that out. Because I said 'peer reviewed", and 'peer responded'. A paper can sneak its way though peer review, but if it is not good science, it will not survive peer response. You are mixing issues rendering your point less relevant. The issue is not whether you can think for your self, the issue is do you understand the data in context of its relevance. From what I have read so far, it does not appear that you do. Furthermore it is not about an appeal to authority, it is as I pointed out above an appeal to scientific methodology. If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it. I know a lot of scientists that would like to see it. Plus, that would help us all move on to other interesting scientific topics of study. Do us a favor and show us your model so we can all move on.
You are incorrect on the validation of the models though. Please do prove us all wrong on that. that would be helpful as well. Politics may trump science in some scientific journals but not the good ones. You might be reading some of the others I suppose.
We may yet see the Austrian school revived as the fiat system strains against degrees of inevitability.
fundamentalist - "What happen to the empirical evidence you were so proud of? The truth is that most of the hysteria about GW comes from the models. Back in the late 1980’s, when GW was real science, the modelers validated their models against historical data and found them to be extremely poor predictors. Then the issue became political and the modelers refused to validate their models against temperature data and they still haven’t. Those models are incredibly bad, but those with a political agenda try to convince people that they’re good enough."
This of course is avery silly point. You need the empirical evidence modeled if you don't have a control planet. Then you combine the observations with the models and then fine tune the models. Not to hard to understand. Of course you bring up hysteria again, which makes me wonder if you are in love with that word, of one of those hysterical types? You seem to be stuck in the 80's; and since you have not pointed me to or given me any links to examine, I suppose we should all just trust you, right? The Hansen model done in 1988 is tracking within 10% at this time. Not as poor as you seem to indicate. So which models are you referring to? Please do provide me with links, I'm not afraid of a few links.
fundamentalist - "That’s a good example of the obfuscation I was complaining about. We were discussing the cycles in GW, not the fact that we need both GHG’s and the sun to keep warm. Remember the cycles? GW hysteria claims that only man-made GHG’s, not the sun, are responsible for the cycles."
You stated "GHG’s are a proxy for the effects of solar cycles on climate, that’s why they lag behind temperature increases in the data."
That is a very confused sentence. I'm sure you did not mean to be confusing or obfuscating though, right? Maybe if you explain what you meant by that, it would be less confusing. How can GHG's be a proxy for the effects of solar cycles? One has not authority or power over the other. Or did you mean that GHG's are only relevant when there is a sun? I don't know what you mean?
I was trying to estimate whatever relevance you intended. Maybe you don't know the contextual relevance of the relationships, which might explain the construct of the sentence.
Otherwise, your point is using a non sequitur in circular unreasoning. We are talking about GW and AGW, id est global warming in the natural cycle, and anthropogenic, and you are saying it's all solar.
Your original statement: "The main issue is whether GHG’s cause GW or are an effect. Proponents of man-made GW refuse to consider the excellent research that demonstrates that the sun is the major cause of GW. GHG’s are a proxy for the effects of solar cycles on climate, that’s why they lag behind temperature increases in the data."
Maybe this will help: Solar and GHG's combined with the Milankovitch cycle give us the natural cycle of GW. Added GHG's alter the path of climate outside of natural variability thus fomenting AGW.
You also stated that proponents of AGW refuse to consider the sun, and then in your more recent post you say "We were discussing the cycles in GW, not the fact that we need both GHG’s and the sun to keep warm. Remember the cycles?"
You seem to be neglecting the fact that all of these factors are inter-dynamic. You also seem to be neglecting your own statements. The reason we are warm, in fact the reason we are here, are solar, natural cycles, and GHG's. Again, context and relevance are critical to understanding the science.
Generally speaking, since you have said you don't want to review any more scientific links you have admitted that you are not really interested in the science but rather you seem to want to keep the argument in the rhetorical; That reduces my faith in your ability to learning more about the relevant contextual science. I imagine that you are quite tired of the argument and have decided that it's all solar so no further learning is needed. But that too is highly unscientific.
Really, please send me your solar model, or a link to it. Or send me the science you say supports your theories? I'm not afraid to look things up and check their relevance.
Published: August 25, 2008 6:20 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
I would like to expound on the previous point in response to your argument as presented, regarding your comments on 'appeals to authority' and 'consensus'.
You seem to want to pigeon hole things. By saying I am relying on 'appeals to authority' in my argument, in the manner in which you connoted the argument, you are attempting to say I am incorrect for listening to authorities in the filed in question.
Then, are you saying we should not listen to those that know what they are talking about. id est we should then listen to those that don't know what they are talking about?
You also mentioned the consensus argument. Consensus can be good and it can be bad. Group-think is not what makes something true, but that argument can be applied to either side of a debate and therefore is rhetorical thus rendering the argument both political and also irrelevant.
We should concentrate on the strength of the science of course but essentially you are presenting another false dichotomy here. This is also somewhat of a political tactic in argument. Are you a politician?
Let's try to discuss the science. Cluttering the argument with red herrings and false dichotomies is a disservice to reason itself.
Published: August 25, 2008 9:11 PM
fundamentalist
John: “I'd love to see that. can you point me to a link so I can have some solar experts take a look at it? That way I can see if the context and modeling you are using are relevant. By the way, I thought you don't like models?”
No you wouldn’t. It would never get into a peer reviewed journal so you would ignore it. Beside, there are plenty of articles by scientists in the field about it. You just don’t care enough to search for yourself. And I never claimed I don’t like models. You’re putting words in my mouth. I happen to make a living creating statistical models. I wrote that the existing climate models are very, very poor models.
John: “You are incorrect. High ejecta mass volcanic eruptions Like Pinitubo are well known and well modeled as well as well observed.”
I never wrote that one volcano can cause an ice age. If you’re not going to be honest about what I write, what is the point in discussing anything? Glacier experts say that extensive volcanic activity over many years is required to create glaciers. Milankovitch cycles simply cannot cause ice ages. For glaciers to form, the differences between summer and winter temperatures have to fall dramatically. Summers must be cooler and winters warmer. If the summers are too warm the snow will melt. If the winters are too cold the air won’t hold enough moisture to produce the volume of snow necessary. All that the Milankovitch cycle does is shift both summer and winter temperatures up and down together. It does not reduce the variance.
John: “You are incorrect on the validation of the models though. Please do prove us all wrong on that. that would be helpful as well.”
I don’t need to prove you wrong. Do the googling. You won’t find any validation on temperature except what was done in the 1980’s in which the models failed miserably. In 2005, modelers validated their models against some obscure phenomena in which the models did well, but they still refuse to validate them against temperatures. I wonder why that might be?
John: “You need the empirical evidence modeled if you don't have a control planet. Then you combine the observations with the models and then fine tune the models. Not to hard to understand.”
It would be nice if the scientists worked that way, but they don’t. Like you, they hold up the data until proven wrong then jump to the models because few people know enough about modeling to question what they’re doing.
John: “Added GHG's alter the path of climate outside of natural variability thus fomenting AGW.”
Or not. That’s what we’re debating. The sun goes through cycles of producing greater and less amouts of energy. GHG’s are a proxy for solar cycles because as the sun heats up the earth during its cycle of producing greater energy output CO2 increases in the atmosphere. I have had many years of experience creating statistical models. The deterministic models of the climate use different math, but the principles of modeling are still the same. Cause and effect are very difficult to prove in modeling, but the absolute required element is time lags. Without time lags you can’t definitively assert cause and effect. In the climate data, CO2 formation lags behind temperature, which proves that CO2 cannot possibly cause temperature increases unless someone has changed the rules of modeling without telling anyone. The likely source of CO2 increase is increased energy coming from the sun which eventually causes an increase in GHG’s.
John: “Let's try to discuss the science. Cluttering the argument with red herrings and false dichotomies is a disservice to reason itself.”
I’m trying to discuss the science. You call every point I make a red herring or a false dichotomy, so what is the point discussing anything with you?
Let’s cut to the chase. You will not consider any evidence outside of a peer reviewed journal. I think your faith in peer review is irrational but that’s your choice. I look at peer reviewed evidence and evidence from scientists outside who can’t get into peer reviewed journals. Then I decide for myself what the best evidence is. You probably don’t think I have the expertise to this, but I don’t care. I haven’t found anything in the climate debate that I have been unable to understand. Since you won’t accept anything outside of peer reviewed journals, there is really nothing to discuss. If you believe peer reviewed articles are infallible, then by all means continue to worship at their church.
Published: August 26, 2008 8:55 AM
newson
...to which i'll add, even if you don't have a firm scientific opinion on global warming, just look at who's spruiking it.
climate change is such a yawn. if it gets hot, buy a panama and sunblock. if it gets cold, leg warmers and a scarf.
the unfolding global recession marks the hightide of the environmental brigade, and not before time.
Published: August 26, 2008 10:48 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
John: “I'd love to see that. can you point me to a link so I can have some solar experts take a look at it? That way I can see if the context and modeling you are using are relevant. By the way, I thought you don't like models?”
fundamentalist - "No you wouldn’t. It would never get into a peer reviewed journal so you would ignore it. Beside, there are plenty of articles by scientists in the field about it. You just don’t care enough to search for yourself."
Now, your putting words in my mouth. Let me repeat what I actually meant by my above statement.
"I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT. CAN YOU POINT ME TO A LINK SO I CAN HAVE SOME SOLAR EXPERTS TAKE A LOOK AT IT."
I weigh data that is peer reviewed and not peer reviewed on its merits. I know there's a lot of data out there, but until you get the forcing component and contexts, and compare such in context, you can't identify the relevance of the forcing component of one system over the other in relation to the aggregate climate influence.
fundamentalist - "And I never claimed I don’t like models. You’re putting words in my mouth. I happen to make a living creating statistical models. I wrote that the existing climate models are very, very poor models."
You are correct. My apologies. But I asked you to point me to the model you were referring to, and you come back with things like google it, or go look it up. You may make a living at doing statistical models, but why can't you send me a link to the model you are referring to. Do you think I have magical powers and can actually find in the millions of web sites the precise data you are referring to? I'm really not omniscient, nor am I omnipotent, though you may think so, based on your projected assessment of my ability to read your mind and find the one link to the data you keep referring to. I'm sorry, I don't read minds.
I can not formulate an opinion on the merits of your supposition, support or refute your claim, because you don't want to back up your claim. You refuse to show me the data link you are referring to. It may very well be that you are referring to a poor climate model but how am I to know? Just give me the link.
If you don't want to give me the link, stop spouting your opinion about such things. You are only proving that you are a king (or pawn) of obfuscation. Anyone who holds opinion above scientific method without substance is making themselves irrelevant in the debate.
You have even gone so far as to indicate you choose to be ignorant by saying you don't want to look at more science because apparently you already know all that needs to be known on the subject. I've never met anyone that knows that much, especially not scientists.
Published: August 27, 2008 12:02 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
John: “You are incorrect. High ejecta mass volcanic eruptions Like Pinitubo are well known and well modeled as well as well observed.”
fundamentalist - "I never wrote that one volcano can cause an ice age. If you’re not going to be honest about what I write, what is the point in discussing anything?"
You are right, that is not what you said. However, what I was pointing out was that it may very well be possible for a single volcanic eruption at the right latitude, at the right time in the Milankovitch cycles, to kick in enough negative forcing to expedite entry to an ice age.
fundamentalist - "Glacier experts say that extensive volcanic activity over many years is required to create glaciers. Milankovitch cycles simply cannot cause ice ages. For glaciers to form, the differences between summer and winter temperatures have to fall dramatically. Summers must be cooler and winters warmer. If the summers are too warm the snow will melt. If the winters are too cold the air won’t hold enough moisture to produce the volume of snow necessary. All that the Milankovitch cycle does is shift both summer and winter temperatures up and down together. It does not reduce the variance."
You're wrong about Milankovitch cycles not causing ice ages and I'd be somewhat amazed if a scientist refuted that with any relevant evidence. If you know where the links are to these glacier experts provide the links. Remember, context and relevance combined with evidence is what climate models are built on. Show us your data fundamentalist, or are you fundamentally incapable of providing substance?
To review, you stated:
fundamentalist - "That’s very poor meteorology. Ice ages require much more than shifts in the earth’s orbit. They require very active volcanic activity which blocks the sun so that summers are cooler. The pollution and CO2 emitted by the volcanoes trap heat so that winters are warmer."
But there is nothing in the paleo record that indicates that every 100,000 years a series of volcanoes goes off on cue. Or do you have a link to this bit of science you are referring to? If so please share it. I would love to read it (yes, I really mean that).
Published: August 27, 2008 12:06 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
John: “You are incorrect on the validation of the models though. Please do prove us all wrong on that. that would be helpful as well.”
I don’t need to prove you wrong. Do the googling. You won’t find any validation on temperature except what was done in the 1980’s in which the models failed miserably. In 2005, modelers validated their models against some obscure phenomena in which the models did well, but they still refuse to validate them against temperatures. I wonder why that might be?
Prove it. Show me the failed models. And then we can take a look at the relevance and look at existing models.
I googled: model validation temperature
I received 419,000 hits. Do you expect me to read all 419,000 in order to find the one, or several, you are referring to? How will I know I am reading the ones you read? Your a statistical guy, try factoring the degree of your lack of logic and the amount of your impracticality.
You are also assuming that miscellaneous pages on the internet are correct. That is ridiculous of course. The internet has valid and less valid information on it, relevant and less relevant, and even sometimes, relevant or irrelevant. Your method of argument is apparently based on random information and assumption as you have still not presented any evidence to support your view.
How can I check to see if what you saw is valid or cherry picked data, or completely off base or maybe even false? I've reviewed more that one web sites that actually showed climate charts that were cartoons and claimed that the cartoon was real. Show me what you are looking at please.
I know solar is a significant factor in global warming, but again context and relevance is critical when comparing GW to AGW events. It's just not as simple as saying its solar, there are too many other factors imposing on the system. Remember the Great Global Warming Swindle movie. They deliberately omitted data as soon as the correlation ended so they could make a false claim out of context with the observations.
Published: August 27, 2008 12:12 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
John: “You need the empirical evidence modeled if you don't have a control planet. Then you combine the observations with the models and then fine tune the models. Not to hard to understand.”
It would be nice if the scientists worked that way, but they don’t. Like you, they hold up the data until proven wrong then jump to the models because few people know enough about modeling to question what they’re doing.
You seem to be confused in your bias. When a model does not correlate to observations, scientists investigate to find a problem. For example NASA recently realized that certain measurements from a satellite had anomalies regarding the MSU readings and have since been fixed; and UAH is Christy and Spencers territory and they don't like the AGW theory, but their analysis is no longer fitting their views prior to the correction. Scientists do this crazy think when the find a problem with analysis, they correct it.
Published: August 27, 2008 12:17 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
John: “Added GHG's alter the path of climate outside of natural variability thus fomenting AGW.”
fundamentalist - "Or not. That’s what we’re debating. The sun goes through cycles of producing greater and less amouts of energy. GHG’s are a proxy for solar cycles because as the sun heats up the earth during its cycle of producing greater energy output CO2 increases in the atmosphere. I have had many years of experience creating statistical models. The deterministic models of the climate use different math, but the principles of modeling are still the same. Cause and effect are very difficult to prove in modeling, but the absolute required element is time lags. Without time lags you can’t definitively assert cause and effect. In the climate data, CO2 formation lags behind temperature, which proves that CO2 cannot possibly cause temperature increases unless someone has changed the rules of modeling without telling anyone. The likely source of CO2 increase is increased energy coming from the sun which eventually causes an increase in GHG’s."
No were not debating that at all. You have already said you don't want to debate science by saying you don't want to see links to the science. You prefer to keep things rhetorical so that nothing can be proven either way:
fundamentalist - "Don’t worry about posting links to research. Those of us who have read this web site for several years have already gone through the battle of the links several times."
One derives from the logic of your argument that you do not want to debate at all. You have decided based on what you have seen... That is not a debate. Your just preaching your point from your own version of the bible.
I do agree with you though about cause and effect being difficult to prove in modeling. It's more about degrees of confidence. You simply have not made your case and you don't want to hear anyone else's case as you have indicated.
No one is disputing the Co2 lag in the natural cycle as I mentioned above, in a previous post... or did you miss that? But that does not prove "that CO2 cannot possibly cause temperature increases".
In the natural cycle Co2 is naturally outgassed as biomass increases coming out of an ice age which is regulated by the Milankovitch cycles. Added Co2 and other GHG's from industrial processes increase the forcing thus increasing the heat trapping capacity of the climate system. It's really that simple. There are plenty of unanswered questions, but the main forcing components are well understood.
It becomes increasing obvious with each of your posts that your statistical analytic background is irrelevant. As you propone that rhetoric trumps science you incapacitate your argument. To ignore the debate on the relevant pieces of science pertaining to your argument is to accept that rhetoric is science, which is a type of absurdity that is bathing in naivete and ignorance of the scientific method.
Published: August 27, 2008 12:24 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
John: “Let's try to discuss the science. Cluttering the argument with red herrings and false dichotomies is a disservice to reason itself.”
fundamentalist - "I’m trying to discuss the science. You call every point I make a red herring or a false dichotomy, so what is the point discussing anything with you?"
You can't prove science with rhetoric. Most of your posts are about what people think, or something you say proves your point to yourself. Those are red herrings. You have also used false dichotomies, not sequiturs and straw man arguments, and those are not scientific either. They are political arguments and methods of distraction.
If you want to discuss science then your going to have to bring some science to the table. Otherwise, you are merely relegating your argument to the realm of opinion. One can not prove anything in the realm of opinion beyond reasonable doubt. So either present your case with science, acquiesce, or admit that you do not want to participate in a debate regarding the science of climate because you don't want to look at any new discoveries in science or anything that goes against your religious beliefs.
fundamentalist - "Let’s cut to the chase. You will not consider any evidence outside of a peer reviewed journal.
Let's cut to the chase I will consider every piece of evidence you present... if you ever present evidence. I do look at evidence that is not peer reviewed and I weigh it on its merits.
"I think your faith in peer review is irrational but that’s your choice. I look at peer reviewed evidence and evidence from scientists outside who can’t get into peer reviewed journals. Then I decide for myself what the best evidence is."
I don't have as much 'faith' in peer review as you suppose. I have more faith in peer response well vetted, especially when it goes though multiple iterations. I've seen some silly things make it through peer review for various reasons. But it did not survive peer response and died on the vine. That's the way the process works. If it does survive peer response then it gets refined and further researched. It's a process.
If someone can't get their work into peer reviewed publications there can be many reasons for that. lack of credibility or lack of a case are the two most likely suspects. If the work is solid and relevant in context of the field or subject in question, I doubt it would be ignored, but I suppose if could happen, but is probably rare. Give me a good example of a paper you think deserves peer review that can't get in. I'll take a look at it and maybe even share it with some other scientists if it has relevant context.
fundamentalist - "You probably don’t think I have the expertise to this, but I don’t care. I haven’t found anything in the climate debate that I have been unable to understand. Since you won’t accept anything outside of peer reviewed journals, there is really nothing to discuss. If you believe peer reviewed articles are infallible, then by all means continue to worship at their church."
I already know you don't care, you have made that abundantly clear in your contexts. As to your ability to understand everything, apparently that is not true. Again, I do read a lot of material that is not peer reviewed and I examine its' merits. Again, I do not believe peer reviewed articles are infallible, they most certainly are and to varying degrees, It's science. each new surface you scratch leads to new questions. You don't seem to understand the difference between what is well known and understood, and the new context and relevance of that against what is yet to be known.
You are really putting a lot of words in my mouth. I always admit when I am wrong. Do you?
Published: August 27, 2008 12:33 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
What an incredible remark. You must be so smart, you no longer need to think. It reminds me of the phrase, there are none so blind as those who choose not to see.
Do you really think science or facts change depending on whom is promoting it?
Post your name and stand by your words.
This is the Mises blog. I find it very strange that you and fundamentalist are not using your real names. Or are you rock stars or something blogging incognito?
If Ludwig von Mises were alive, I personally doubt he would approve of people hiding in such a manner. But for those that chose to hide, that also is a statement.
Published: August 27, 2008 12:56 AM
TokyoTom
John, allow me to make a few comments:
1. The blog apparently has certain filters designed to limit spam. My experience is that too many links and failing to provide a working email address may trigger a filter. If a post is held up, you should contact the particular contributor to see if he can make sure it posts, who in this case
happens to be our webmaster: webmaster@Mises.org.
It's a good idea to make a copy of longer comments before you post.
2. Good one you for apparently using your very own name, but actually that means little to most of us online - most of us have little or no ability to verify whether some is using their "real name" . A commenter's arguments are what really matter, not his name, and writing anonymously or pseudonymously has a venerable tradition. Even vicious enviro-fascists like me are allowed to comment here, so please put that aspersion down.
3. Fundamentalist is a tough nut to crack; good luck. While I respect his views on other issues and his dedicaton on this one, it is clear that his position is based on a Biblical view of truth, and not a scientific one. You might find this blog thread instructive: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/29/climate-science-a-fundamentalist-creation-science-approach-update.aspx.
That said, he asks good questions, even as he's an artful Roger himself - and there's nobody under the whole sky who isn't bedevilled by problems of self-deception. Even all of the enviro-fascists, vicious liars and other "hysterics" who populate the rest of the non-Fundamentalist universe.
TT
Published: August 27, 2008 4:58 AM
fundamentalist
John: “No one is disputing the Co2 lag in the natural cycle as I mentioned above, in a previous post... or did you miss that? But that does not prove "that CO2 cannot possibly cause temperature increases". In the natural cycle Co2 is naturally outgassed as biomass increases coming out of an ice age which is regulated by the Milankovitch cycles…”
Let me get this straight. CO2 naturally lags temperature, but that doesn’t disprove that CO2 is the cause of temperature increases? What does? Are you saying that other GHG’s, such as maybe methane, precede and therefore cause the temperature increases, and then CO2 makes its appearance? Or are you saying that CO2 causes temperature rises without even appearing and then makes its appearance later just to fool everyone? Still the standard measure for cause and effect in modeling is lag. CO2 lags temperatures in time series data and therefore cannot cause temperature increases.
John: “If you want to discuss science then your going to have to bring some science to the table.”
I’ve brought plenty of science to the table, which you refuse to discuss.
John: “I googled: model validation temperature.”
Why don’t you go to the main web sites on climate change? I don’t have the links to the ones I found last year and I don’t care to do the work for someone who calls everything I write a red herring and all other sorts of fallacies, which only shows that you don’t know the definitions of those fallacies. What you’ll find is something from 2005 when all of the major climate models were validated against obscure climate events, but no validation on temperature. You’ll have to search real hard to find the validations from the late 1980’s because they have buried them.
John: “You're wrong about Milankovitch cycles not causing ice ages and I'd be somewhat amazed if a scientist refuted that with any relevant evidence.”
I’m not wrong. It wasn’t my theory or research. I was quoting a Canadian expert in glaciers and he did say that the current thinking on how glaciers form is wrong. Instead of foaming at the mouth, why don’t you show me where his model of glacier building is wrong? Will the Milankovitch cycle reduce the variance between summer and winter temperatures? If so how? If not, then how will the colder winter temperatures retain enough moisture to create the necessary snowfall?
TokyoTom: “…it is clear that his position is based on a Biblical view of truth, and not a scientific one.”
Can you show me where I mentioned the Bible, TT, because I can’t find any reference to it in these discussions? At first, I thought John was TT using a different name because their styles of argument are so similar. Any time their “science” is proven wrong or their irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults.
Published: August 27, 2008 8:18 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
TokyoTom
Thank you for the posting advice. My email works so it may have been the links, but even when I went down to single link it would sometimes trigger. I thought maybe it didn't like some links?
I wrote to David he did not offer any advice on the filtering I had inquired about, but said it should work fine after the first post. I also asked him to participate in blogging on his article but apparently he is not interested in defending his article, which quite frankly is hardly defensible as you have already pointed out.
I still think everyone should use their real names. But that is my opinion. It's a matter of integrity. Unless someone might be fired, then it should not be an issue. While the use of pseudonyms has a tradition, venerable or not, I think individuals that believe in individuality should not hide unless they really have a reason to be afraid. Just my thoughts on the matter, but certainly those I work and associate with believe this to be true.
For some reason, the link you provided did not work?
As to fundamentalist and his/her questions: From a students point of view one might consider the questions good, but only if he were willing to be educated from relevant science. But that seems not to be the case as he has rather adamantly espoused his position of reviewing any new science or understanding that does not come from his mysterious sources that he will not reveal.
Can you check the link and repost maybe, I would love to read it.
Thanks again,
John
Published: August 27, 2008 11:51 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
fundamentalist - "Let me get this straight. CO2 naturally lags temperature, but that doesn’t disprove that CO2 is the cause of temperature increases? What does?
The Milankovitch cycles add and remove 3.5W/m2 from the climate forcing on each 100 year cycle. When eccentricity reaches aphelion along with obliquity, that is the initiator for entering an ice age, of course precession has a part as well. After that thermal inertia keeps us cold until we reach perihelion sufficient to add enough solar energy to warm the planet.
As the planet warms, the biodiversity increases and Co2 that was sequestered in the ice age is released into the atmosphere. This add to greenhouse trapping and we reach equilibrium in the interglacial warm period as the Milankovitch cycles move back toward aphelion.
fundamentalist - "Are you saying that other GHG’s, such as maybe methane, precede and therefore cause the temperature increases, and then CO2 makes its appearance?"
No.
fundamentalist - "Or are you saying that CO2 causes temperature rises without even appearing and then makes its appearance later just to fool everyone?"
No.
fundamentalist - "Still the standard measure for cause and effect in modeling is lag. CO2 lags temperatures in time series data and therefore cannot cause temperature increases."
No. The Co2 lag is not remotely close to a standard measure for cause and effect in this case. You are speaking of the natural cycles of climate. The cycles are 100k yrs., in the current range, for the past 1 million years.
Co2 lags temperature in the natural cycle for the reasons I have previously stated in posts above. That is as we reach perihelion and warm and ice retreats biodiversity increases as the planet warms and the natural system Co2 is released from its sequestered state.
In our current interglacial, Co2 returned to its natural state at 280ppm (prior to the industrial age).
Published: August 27, 2008 11:57 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
fundamentalist - "Why don’t you go to the main web sites on climate change? I don’t have the links to the ones I found last year and I don’t care to do the work for someone who calls everything I write a red herring and all other sorts of fallacies, which only shows that you don’t know the definitions of those fallacies. What you’ll find is something from 2005 when all of the major climate models were validated against obscure climate events, but no validation on temperature. You’ll have to search real hard to find the validations from the late 1980’s because they have buried them."
First, why would the denialist sites bury the validations that support their case.
Second, I'm still not a mind reader. Which sites do you personally believe are the 'main' ones. climateaudit? icecap.us? heartland?
Third, your to lazy to back up your claims? And you ask me to go off and magically find something for you. You don't want to do the work? Why don't you join the Democrats or the Republicans and pass some more government regulations so you can justify your laziness (I'm not trying to insult you, I'm describing what I see in your responses).
I understand why you might think I don't know the definitions of certain things, but then again, the emperor thought he was wearing a suit.
fundamentalist - "I’m not wrong. It wasn’t my theory or research. I was quoting a Canadian expert in glaciers and he did say that the current thinking on how glaciers form is wrong. Instead of foaming at the mouth, why don’t you show me where his model of glacier building is wrong?"
But you are spruiking the idea. And again with the magic? I am not a magician or a mind reader. Provide at least one link to this 'Canadian expert'. Or are you assuming that if I google 'Canadian expert', there is only one of those and I will get one hit and it will be him?
Canadian expert how glaciers form wrong - returned 111,000 results.
Published: August 27, 2008 12:05 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
fundamentalist
fundamentalist - "Will the Milankovitch cycle reduce the variance between summer and winter temperatures? If so how? If not, then how will the colder winter temperatures retain enough moisture to create the necessary snowfall?"
This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. It's understandable for someone that does not know the contexts and relevant factors though.
First, there are three Milankovitch cycles, not one. The 100kyr eccentricity which regulates the ellipse; the obliquity, or axial tilt 41kyrs (increased obliquity can cause summer to be warmer and winters to be colder, inversely decreased obliquity can cause cooler summers that in combination with other factors can help push the climate system into ice ages); precession, or wobble, occurs every 26kyrs driven by tidal forces. This causes variance in types of season in north/south hemispheres.
Second, you are trying to match things up that are not quite in context regarding the relevance you may be trying to place on them?
It's not that certain pieces of the question don't have relevance, it's that there are not enough pieces to get to what you might be asking or saying. A common mistake when not enough of the pieces are understood. It's also a bit of a straw man argument.
fundamentalist - "Can you show me where I mentioned the Bible, TT, because I can’t find any reference to it in these discussions? At first, I thought John was TT using a different name because their styles of argument are so similar. Any time their “science” is proven wrong or their irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults."
First, I would never misrepresent myself unless I was under direct threat. That is my integrity. Maybe you are accustomed to people misrepresenting themselves thus believing that all are of such ilk? Whatever traditions may exist on the internet giving people a new way to misrepresent themselves... well those traditions are about 15 years old now... hard to call them traditions.
Second, you are wrong about 'irrational faith in peer reviewed journals'. I read everything with skepticism and consideration (as I have now pointed out in multiple posts for you).
Third, as to foaming at the mouth insults... seems somewhat Freudian. I believe I have been realistic in my considerations of your posts. Saying you are using red herrings and false dichotomy or non sequitur arguments are not insults, they are descriptive to point out the logical fallacies of your arguments. No need to be upset by an academic debate.
Lastly, I wont' speak for Tom, but it is rather clear he is speaking about your faith in the data you have reviewed. A bible does not have to be Roman Catholic or Hindi. I believe he is referring to that which you are having 'faith' in.
Published: August 27, 2008 12:17 PM
fundamentalist
First, there are three Milankovitch cycles, not one…inversely decreased obliquity can cause cooler summers that in combination with other factors can help push the climate system into ice ages…”
What other factors? The Canadian glacier expert I was reading said the variance between summer and winter temperatures must decrease for decades in order for glaciers to form. I have repeatedly asked you if the Milankovitch cycles can do this. I don’t understand why you can’t answer a simple question. Do you not understand the Milankovitch cycles well enough to answer? Or are you saying that glacier formation does not require a decrease in the variance between winter and summer temperatures?
John: “Saying you are using red herrings and false dichotomy or non sequitur arguments are not insults…”
They’re insulting if they’re not true, which they aren’t. You don’t seem to know how to discuss science, so let me give you some tips. When I relate a scientific theory, such as that variations in the sun’s energy output causes global temperature increases which then causes increases in CO2, you should respond with logical reasons why that theory cannot be true or data that indicates the theory is not true. And don’t post a bunch of links; summarize the information in those links. We’ll trust that you summarized appropriately.
If I have committed a logical fallacy, point out why my statements were fallacious.
Don’t just toss in a list of your all the fallacies you’re familiar with. If I have committed a logical fallacy (and I’m pretty sure I haven’t) point out why my statements were fallacious.
We have good, intense discussions with disagreements about economics on this site all of the time. But when the topic changes to climate, some posters fall back on insults and groundless charges of fallacies. If you see someone commit a fallacy explain why you think it is a fallacy.
John: “I wont' speak for Tom, but it is rather clear he is speaking about your faith in the data you have reviewed.”
Well I have made the same claim about you and TT, but what’s the point? What does it accomplish. In fact, the charge is more deadly for you and TT because any time someone brings up research or theories from the skeptics, you guys fall back on peer reviewed authority. And by the way, claiming greater authority for peer reviewed work is the fallacy of an appeal to authority, and that’s an actual fallacy.
Usually what TT wants to do by mentioning my religious beliefs is to commit an ad hominem attack, which again, is another real logical fallacy.
Published: August 27, 2008 2:29 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Tom,
I found the links.
Thanks again.
Your comments referring to 'Bible' are now more clear.
Published: August 27, 2008 2:51 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "They’re insulting if they’re not true, which they aren’t."
I trust you are not doing it intentionally. It is merely a matter of understanding the contextual relevance of the components you are mentioning. If you were presenting your suppositions in context of what is known in the science, then they would not necessarily be red herrings or false dichotomies, or less likely.
Roger/fundamentalist - "You don’t seem to know how to discuss science, so let me give you some tips. When I relate a scientific theory, such as that variations in the sun’s energy output causes global temperature increases which then causes increases in CO2, you should respond with logical reasons why that theory cannot be true or data that indicates the theory is not true. And don’t post a bunch of links; summarize the information in those links. We’ll trust that you summarized appropriately."
First. what you are describing is not scientific discussion, but academic discussion, and is largely based on rhetoric to imply an appeal to authority without providing substance to back up the implication. Your simply asking me to trust what you are saying as empirical and relevant and not showing me anything that would back up your argument. I am not saying an appeal to authority is bad or good as even such should be weighed on its merits in context.
Second, you are saying that I should respond with argument and data? You told me before you don't want to see data when you said no links. As far as trusting my summaries, I don't even trust my summaries and after review I find I sometimes have to correct my summaries. Don't forget Plato's cave and the shadows on the wall. I will of course endeavor to summarize as best I can but I would not trust it entirely, I endeavor to look at the source from multiple perspectives and then continue towards a more aggregated and argued summary based on the evidence and models as understood by scientific method.
The proper way to discuss science is using scientific methodology, in a holistic manner, by placing the argument in relation to data and the context and therefore relevance of the data in the larger (aggregated) picture of understanding. Rhetorical, political, or religious arguments are not scientific and contain less fundamental substance therefore have less chance of leading to enhanced understanding in relation to science as understood with relevant context.
Published: August 27, 2008 3:55 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist - "We have good, intense discussions with disagreements about economics on this site all of the time. But when the topic changes to climate, some posters fall back on insults and groundless charges of fallacies. If you see someone commit a fallacy explain why you think it is a fallacy."
I have already done that (see multiple posts above)
"Well I have made the same claim about you and TT, but what’s the point? What does it accomplish. In fact, the charge is more deadly for you and TT because any time someone brings up research or theories from the skeptics,"
This both an excellent point and, of course, a red herring argument as well as a straw man, because it is not addressing the core argument and is a constructed argument beyond the core subject. You are still obfuscating.
"you guys fall back on peer reviewed authority. And by the way, claiming greater authority for peer reviewed work is the fallacy of an appeal to authority, and that’s an actual fallacy."
I'm beginning to wonder why you did not understand my previous posts on the matter, so, I will repeat again:
"I WEIGH DATA THAT IS PEER REVIEWED AND NOT PEER REVIEWED ON ITS MERITS"
and
"I DO LOOK AT EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEWED AND I WEIGH IT ON ITS MERITS"
and
"AGAIN, I DO READ A LOT OF MATERIAL THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEWED AND I EXAMINE ITS MERITS."
and
I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH 'FAITH' IN PEER REVIEW AS YOU SUPPOSE. I HAVE MORE FAITH IN PEER RESPONSE WELL VETTED, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS.
and
SECOND, YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT 'IRRATIONAL FAITH IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS'. I READ EVERYTHING WITH SKEPTICISM AND CONSIDERATION 9AS I HAVE NOW POINTED OUT IN MULTIPLE POSTS FOR YOU).
There you have multiple examples of my statements from previous posts in this thread. I'm using all caps so that you can read it more clearly as it seems you missed or ignored those statements in earlier posts.
Finally, generally speaking science that has survived peer review and peer response has a very good record of being more correct rather than less correct.
Published: August 27, 2008 4:02 PM
newson
to john reisman:
newson is my surname. ok? i'm not a politician like you, so i don't have to include anymore personal information in the public domain. i'm not looking for votes.
mises, one imagines, would have more problems with the climate-changers and their speculative models than the odd nom de plume, in any case.
as for who's trucking these ideas... i have one word for you - al gore. i remember the seventies and the club of rome, and their august statements.
good luck with the elections.
Published: August 27, 2008 6:51 PM
fundamentalist
John, so I guess you refuse to answer my simple question?
Published: August 27, 2008 7:56 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
Thank you for the clarification.
I was involved in climate research long before Al Gore made a movie about it and the sciences was well understood then and more-so now. So in this sense, Al Gore is the red herring you are through out there i.e. invalidity by association.
Mises was quite pragmatic from what I can tell. I imagine he would weigh the evidence on its merits. The evidence is not only compelling, it is now overwhelming. The north pole will likely be ice free by around 2013, only 5 years from now. We are now seeing dramatic increases in the jellyfish populations and toxic algal blooms as well as dead zones of hypoxic oceans and now the UN is reporting that we will be running out of fish by 2027. Forest fires are increasing in frequency and intensity, Hurricanes are increasing in intensity though not frequency. The oceans are acidifying due to the extra Co2 absorption and sea level rise, according to the Jet Propulsion laboratory summary form satellite data says the rise rate has increased in from 2mm per year to 3.4 mm per year. As that acceleration continues sea level will become more of a problem.
Then there are the pentagon reports from the think tanks they contracted:
Case 1 - Expected Climate Change
An average global temperature increase of 1.3°C by 2040.
National security implications include: heightened internal and cross-border tensions caused by large-scale migrations; conflict sparked by resource scarcity, particularly in the weak and failing states of Africa; increased disease proliferation, which will have economic consequences; and some geopolitical reordering as nations adjust to shifts in resources and prevalence of disease. Across the board, the ways in which societies react to climate change will refract through underlying social, political, and economic factors.
Case 2 - Severe Climate Change
An average increase in global temperature of 2.6°C by 2040
Massive nonlinear events in the global environment give rise to massive nonlinear societal events. Nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social consequences range from increased religious fervor to outright chaos. In this scenario, climate change provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature.
Case 3 - The Catastrophic Scenario
Average global temperatures increasing by 5.6°C by 2100
This catastrophic scenario would pose almost inconceivable challenges as human society struggled to adapt. It is by far the most difficult future to visualize without straining credulity. The scenario notes that understanding climate change in light of the other great threat of our age, terrorism, can be illuminating. Although distinct in nature, both threats are linked to energy use in the industrialized world, and, indeed, the solutions to both depend on transforming the world’s energy economy—America’s energy economy in particular. The security community must come to grips with these linkages, because dealing with only one of these threats in isolation is likely to exacerbate the other, while dealing with them together can provide important synergies.
By the way, I'm not a politician. I just research things like economics, political policy, education, energy, foreign policy, healthcare and security.
Lastly, I read the NAS report that mentioned global cooling. From what I recall, only 5 scientists were in the report, so there was no consensus at all and in the report they were merely confirming what had been learned about the Milankovitch cycles and that the earth would go back into an ice age, they did not say when and they did say they needed to examine a lot more evidence before they understood the major processes.
Published: August 27, 2008 8:15 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
My apologies Roger,
I accidentally neglected to post the answer prior to the other posts in order.
I have been keeping track of the posts though so here it is:
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "What other factors? The Canadian glacier expert I was reading said the variance between summer and winter temperatures must decrease for decades in order for glaciers to form. I have repeatedly asked you if the Milankovitch cycles can do this. I don’t understand why you can’t answer a simple question. Do you not understand the Milankovitch cycles well enough to answer? Or are you saying that glacier formation does not require a decrease in the variance between winter and summer temperatures?
All three factors are involved as well as solar. I apologize, I thought that was quite clear. Then you can add natural variability and albedo along with the bio system responses.
So to be more direct. Yes, The Milankovitch cycles can do this, along with the other factors mentioned. If you still don't understand the answer I will be happy to reword and illustrate again. I understand it is hard to understand something one is not familiar with. It is not out of the ordinary at all to not get it right away.
Published: August 27, 2008 8:27 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
For the record, it was the media that blew everything out of proportion in the 70's with the ice age thing.
Not the scientists.
Published: August 27, 2008 8:33 PM
fundamentalist
John: "I DO LOOK AT EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEWED AND I WEIGH IT ON ITS MERITS"
What's the deal with the all caps? Are you getting hysterical? Don't hurt yourself.
If you are so well read, why are you so ignorant of the skeptics arguments? And why won't you answer simple questions with a straight answer?
I have asked multiple times about the Milankovitch cycles and the variance in winter/summer temperatures. And I have asked several times how you can see that CO2 lags behind temperature in the historical data and still claim that CO2 increases cause temperature increases. I mentioned several times that research shows that variations in the sun's energy output causes variations in global temperatures and the long term variations match well with the historical data from the medieval warming period until now. I still don't have an answer. All I get in return is hysteria.
Published: August 27, 2008 9:06 PM
fundamentalist
John: "Yes, The Milankovitch cycles can do this, along with the other factors mentioned."
I didn't ask if it could. You already said that. I asked how? Milankovitch cycles do nothing but change the distance of the earth from the sun and the angle of the earth relative to the sun. These changes would affect both winter/summer temperatures in the same direction to the same degree without reducing the variation in them. Albedo would have no effect on this variation either. How does the Milankovitch cycles reduce the differences between summer/winter temperatures? I understood completely what you wrote. You just didn't say anything.
Published: August 27, 2008 9:28 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
I explained quite clearly why I used the caps. because you ignored all of those statements.
You didn't ask how.
Here is what you asked:
"What other factors? The Canadian glacier expert I was reading said the variance between summer and winter temperatures must decrease for decades in order for glaciers to form. I have repeatedly asked you if the Milankovitch cycles can do this."
That is not a 'how' question it is an 'if' question, which I answered.
However, the major influences for variance are obliquity and precession, here's how:
The Axial Tilt, or obliquity, varies to the plane of the earth orbit. This tilt, typically around 23 1/2 degrees can vary between 22 and 24 1/2 degrees. That means it can change up to 2.5 degrees over a period of 41,000 years. Increased obliquity can cause summers to be warmer and winters to be colder.
So when our orbit is elliptical and our northern hemisphere, which is mostly land mass is tilted toward the sun, we can melt our way out of an ice age pretty fast, in fact it only takes a few thousand years. As we attain a more circular orbit and the combined effects of the tilt and wobble work together in their natural cycles the earth has a chance to cool again and we go back into an ice age.
Inversely, decreased obliquity can cause cooler summers that in combination with other factors can help push the climate system into ice ages, when the this cycle is favorable for that condition.
Next is precession, or wobble. This cycle occurs every 26,000 years. This gyroscopic wobble of the earths axis is driven by tidal forces which are influenced by our sun and moon. The earth is actually not perfectly round so the gravitational pull tugs the axis over time creating the wobble cycle.
This wobble can cause a difference in the types of seasons one polar hemisphere will experience over the other. The hemisphere at perihelion (closest to the sun) will enjoy an increase in summer solar radiation but a cooler winter, while the opposite hemisphere will have a warmer winter and a cooler summer.
Currently the southern hemisphere is at perihelion, so they are enjoying warmer summers, but cooler winters, which likely contributes to snowfall in the hemisphere.
The eccentricity cycle is a major forcing cycle but seems to have less to do with seasonal hemispheric variation.
Again, you did not ask how. All these questions you did ask have been answered. Maybe you have some sort of selective vision, or selective thinking problem caused by your bias of perspective?
Your constant return to the word hysteria reveals your religious bias. And I'm not talking about God. But your religiously devout dedication and myopia that prevents you from understanding the words I have clearly written, as you are making abundantly clear.
You mentioned above that you were quite capable of understanding all this but I am having serious doubts about the validity of that statement. Maybe you should reread the above responses to your questions in my posts.
Roger/fundamentalist - "I have asked multiple times about the Milankovitch cycles and the variance in winter/summer temperatures."
Again: Yes, Milankovitch cycles do regulate variances in wither/summer temperatures to the extent of their influence within the scope of natural variability and their forcing imposed on the climate system.
Roger/fundamentalist - "And I have asked several times how you can see that CO2 lags behind temperature in the historical data and still claim that CO2 increases cause temperature increases."
Again: Yes, in the natural cycle Co2 lags behind temperature. Yes, it is a greenhouse gas. Yes, industrial processes have added Co2 above the natural cycle (280ppm pre to 387ppm post/current). Yes, this increases warming potential via forcing potential (also known as heat trapping capacity). Yes, this combined with other GHG's are working together in increasing the temperature of the climate system. Yes, this is slowed down by thermal inertia. Yes Co2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries and is therefore a more dangerous GHG compared to others that come out of the atmosphere more quickly.
Roger/fundamentalist - "I mentioned several times that research shows that variations in the sun's energy output causes variations in global temperatures and the long term variations match well with the historical data from the medieval warming period until now."
Again: You still have not shown me the data in question. However. Yes, solar is an influence on the surface of the earth in the Schwabe cycle by adding .3 W/m2 at peak and less that amount at minimum 'on the earths surface'. No, that is not enough to account for the current forcing and temperature increase as observed, conservatively estimated at 1.6 W/m2. About 1.7 W/m2 above where they probably would have been with out the added industrial GHG's.
All of this is mentioned above though? So I don't understand why you keep asking the same questions over and over again?
There is much wisdom in the bible, such as: There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.
Published: August 27, 2008 10:01 PM
newson
to john reisman:
so you're not a politician, and yet your calling card is "the centrist party"...right.
global sea levels are about to rise dramatically... yeah, right. and show me where i can buy some cheap waterfront property, as the rich and intelligent flee for the hills.
the club of rome spun by the media? give me a break,
i had to learn all the "new ice age" crap in secondary school geography! from textbooks!
mises wasn't a climatologist, but the austrians are wary of fitting highly complex systems to reductive mathematical models. your comments have got me wondering how much you've actually read mises and hayek. the economics of "global climate change" are even more abysmal. the stern report is a joke: start with the desired conclusion, and work back.
apparently, even in south africa, coastal properties still trade at a premium, notwithstanding imminent submersion. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4648 this article also has harsh words about the ipcc, and their models.
Published: August 27, 2008 10:07 PM
Walt D.
The reason why the Global Warming theory is wrong has nothing to do with peer review. It's that the predictions made by the Global warming MODELS don't agree with what is actually happening to the planet.
Currently there are very few sunspots. In the past, when there have been few sunspots, we have had cold weather. Guess what? were having it now.
I say a "scientist" claim that the Greenland glaciers were melting at an alarming rate. (If this took place sea levels would in fact rise 20 feet.). Needless to say this was blamed on Co2. However, the reason that this would happen is a precipitation problem.
CO2 rarely gets produced on its own. It is usually accompanied by water vapor and particulates. The particulates from the coal fired power plants in India actually block the Sun and produce a cooling effect. The same is true for volcanoes.
Economics has its own share of these futile scientistic models. However, don't expect me to get all excited because someone with one of these models predicts that the Dow Jones is headed towards 40,000.
Published: August 27, 2008 10:43 PM
newson
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits". -(Matthew 7:15-20)
just to prove even agnostics can trade biblical quotes with gay abandon.
Published: August 27, 2008 10:47 PM
newson
i'd actually like to hear people desist from calling c02 a pollutant. can't accuse john reisman of that, but many of the media insist on that language.
Published: August 27, 2008 10:57 PM
TokyoTom
Roger, thanks for your comment.
1. "Can you show me where I mentioned the Bible, TT, because I can’t find any reference to it in these discussions?"
I'm pretty sure that I was informing John of a different thread where we discussed "creation science" and its relevance to climate science at some depth. Here's that thread again (without a period at the end, which is what apparently screwed up the first link):
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/29/climate-science-a-fundamentalist-creation-science-approach-update.aspx
2. "At first, I thought John was TT using a different name because their styles of argument are so similar. Any time their “science” is proven wrong or their irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults."
Roger, did you really think John was me? If so, I'm surprised. I have consistently addressed Austrian principles and politics, as well discussing science with those inclined. My only prior comment on this thread focussed on Austrian principles and politics, and since nobody contested any of my points I left the thread way back then:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008228.asp#comment-374040
And as a matter of style, isn't John easier to read than me, since he doesn't have the bad habit I do of rather longer paragraphs and doesn't fill his posts full of links?
3. "Any time their “science” is proven wrong or their irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults."
Roger, I may be mistaken - but this sure looks like an insult dressed up as a mass of grossly unfair strawmen. First, when have I ever made any "foaming at the mouth insults", for any reason, directed to you or anyone else? When people have argued with me about climate science I have diligently endeavored to respond to them on the science (so exhaustively, in fact, that I wonder if Jeffrey Tucker and David didn't have commenters like me in mind when they set up their spam filters!).
In this context, I believe that what I said to John about you - that "While I respect [your] views on other issues and [your] dedication on this one, it is clear that [your] position is based on a Biblical view of truth, and not a scientific one" - is demonstrable from our discussion and the links you provided on our prior thread. In any case, my statement is an assertion that I think is fair and defendable; accordingly, it is NOT an insult, and certainly not a "foaming at the mouth" one.
I may be mistaken as to the relationship between your religious views and your approach to science - in which case you are welcome to continue here the dicussed that you dropped out of on our previous thread.
Second, when have I shown an "irrational faith" in peer-reviewed journals? I think that I have always indicated that the progress of science is full of errors; errors that, fortunately, an active market for ideas helps to catch, even with respect to works that made it through "peer review". Our rapid and continuing technological progress is ample evidence of that.
It seems that it is you who is being insulting and unfair, and that I am right to feel wronged. Will you apologize?
4. "any time someone brings up research or theories from the skeptics, you guys fall back on peer reviewed authority"
This is an exaggeration (a logical fallacy). Further, when I refer to any scientific work, it is to provide a resource to those with whom I am discussing (they remain free to review it and see if it is flawed and/or challenged by others) - not as Gospel truth.
5. "Usually what TT wants to do by mentioning my religious beliefs is to commit an ad hominem attack, which again, is another real logical fallacy."
First, let me commend you on your gift of mind-reading powers, that apparently lets you know my motivations.
Second, I am always happy to argue with you on science, as you know from any number of occasions. But when YOU appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) by citing the writings of "creation scientists" for support for your positions, it is a direct argument to the merits and not an "ad hominem" argument to note that the positions taken are more or less explicitly based on a religious view of truth (here a Biblical one). I certainly am not attacking your religious beliefs, which I respect.
If I were to argue, in response to any assertion by you regarding science, that you are a religious fundamentalist (and therefore must be wrong), that would be an ad hom. But I certainly haven't done that. Rather, I am explicitly noting that we have differing views as to what is science and truth, and referring another commenter to another thread where we discussed such things.
Your religious beliefs ARE relevant to issues of motivation and logic; you put them in evidence previously, not me. I simply remember.
Regards,
Tom
Published: August 28, 2008 12:00 AM
TokyoTom
Roger:
A few other points.
1. You noted upthread that "The medieval warming, MWP, wasn’t just for Greenland. It was for all of Europe." But it looks like the MWP was not global.
2. "There is also the issue of the fact that global warming precedes rises in GHG’s in the historical data, which under the normal rules for determining cause and effect prove that GHG’s can’t cause GW."
"In the climate data, CO2 formation lags behind temperature, which proves that CO2 cannot possibly cause temperature increases."
Wrong; the paleo-data just show that GHG increases trailed warming initiated in other ways. It is not disputed that GHGs have a forcing effect, so it seems apparent that increases in GHGs produced by warming would have reinforced the natural warming.
We can't look to the paleo record for proof that marked increases in GHGs cannot cause a warming, (or more generally than man, whose activities were not significant until several thousand years ago but now are leading to sharp changes in GHG levels, forest burning and particulate and albedo chages, can have no influence on climate.
3. "GW hysteria claims that only man-made GHG’s, not the sun, are responsible for the cycles."
This may be true for some tiny sliver of "hysterics", but it's certainly not true for scientists and most of the other hysterics, who recognize man's activities as simply an overlay to natural factors including cycles affecting insolation (including but not limited to Milankovich cycles)(BTW, can you share the name of your Canadian scientist? I'd like to read more - hysterically, of course).
4. "The likely source of CO2 increase is increased energy coming from the sun which eventually causes an increase in GHG’s."
This is a real head-scratcher, Roger - unless you are ignoring the modern period and only talking about periods before man came along (in which case I'd agree, as warming oceans release CO2 (seas and oceans also release methane))
I haven't seen a serious argument that the contemporary sharp increase in GHGs is NOT due to man. Is that what you are asserting? If so, where is all of the CO2 released by our combustion of fossil fuels going?
My understanding is that we are no longer in "normal" times, as clearly our industrial and agricultural activities are responsible for increases in GHG levels - though we certainly are worrying about feedbacks in the form of methane releases from thawing tundra.
5. I note that the discussion at "creationscience.com", where you directed us last year, similarly confuses the past with the present:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ26.html#wp3205544
The ocean is a massive CO2 sink. If the increased atmospheric CO2 levels were being caused by the release of CO2 from the oceans due to ocean warming, then CO2 levels in the oceans would be FALLING, not RISING as they are now. In other words, rather than scientists worrying about ocean acidification, they'd have the opposite worry. Clearly, this "authority" is wrong, and it doesn't take a peer review or resort to authority to figure it out.
6. Finally, on the topic of how religious beliefs affect the climate science debate, I quote again from the creationinst author I cited at the end of our last thread (from the "answersingenesis.org"; motto: "believing it. defending it. proclaiming it"):
"In my articles on ice cores, I reinterpreted the annual layers in the middle and lower portions of the GISP2 core as subannual layers, based on a Flood–Ice Age model, incorporating warm oceans, cooling continents and high levels of atmospheric particulates from volcanic activity.2,3,4 Thus, my starting assumptions assume significant climate instability post-Flood and rapid accumulation of snow and ice. In this scenario, annual ice layers would be on the order of metres.
"On the other hand, uniformitarians start with an assumption of great age, generally stable conditions and Milankovitch orbital cycles to create ice ages. As a result, uniformitarians are looking for very thin annual layers on the order of centimetres and even millimetres near the bottom of the ice sheet.
"The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see. ...
"If one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating. However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start. The Bible claims to be a reliable historical record and this history from the very beginning was attested to by Christ and the Apostles. Thus, it is a logical starting position from which to create our worldview. On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right.
"It is unfortunate that Seely and others in the American Scientific Affiliation accept man’s fallible, continually changing stories about the past rather than God’s clear Word." (emphasis added)
This shows clearly that creation scientists start with a Biblical premise and are engaged in the process of defending those premises.
TT
Published: August 28, 2008 2:34 AM
fundamentalist
John: “. Increased obliquity can cause summers to be warmer and winters to be colder.”
Thanks for the better explanation of the Milankovich cycles. I can see why less of a tilt toward the sun would reduce the variance in winter/summer temps; no tilt would elimiate the difference all together; greater tilt would maximize the differences. The glacier expert I was reading didn’t think that would be sufficient to start an ice age and emphasized the need for volcanic activity. I can see where the two could work together.
John: “Yes, in the natural cycle Co2 lags behind temperature.”
So you’re saying that increases in CO2 don’t cause global warming, but the greenhouse effect of CO2 can reinforce it and make the warming last longer. That’s reasonable. The record shows that when temps decline, so does CO2. You may be arguing that CO2 won’t decline when temps start to decline because mankind has added so much CO2. That’s possible, but we don’t know that. However, as the sun is entering a dormant phase that is supposed to last about 11 years, I guess we’ll have a chance to test it.
John: “You still have not shown me the data in question. However. Yes, solar is an influence on the surface of the earth in the Schwabe cycle by adding .3 W/m2 at peak and less that amount at minimum 'on the earths surface'.”
The data on sun spot activity is available in many places. It’s used by every college to teach spectrum analysis. You could find it easily if you wanted to. Those scientists who study solar energy levels think the contribution of the sun to climate cycles is much greater than the figures you presented. And the data on sun spot activity correlates well with the data on temperatures.
TT: “I believe that what I said to John about you - that "While I respect [your] views on other issues and [your] dedication on this one, it is clear that [your] position is based on a Biblical view of truth, and not a scientific one" - is demonstrable from our discussion and the links you provided on our prior thread.”
There is no difference between a Biblical view of truth and a scientific one. The scientific method is inappropriate for theology, just as it is inappropriate for economics. But with regard to the natural world, there is no conflict between the Bible and the scientific method or science in general. The conflict is between scientists. But my position on climate change has nothing at all to do with my religious beliefs or the Bible. That’s why I asked you to show me where my earlier posts mentioned either.
TT: “It is not disputed that GHGs have a forcing effect, so it seems apparent that increases in GHGs produced by warming would have reinforced the natural warming.”
So GHG’s don’t cause warming but reinforce it. I have no problem with that. But the historical record shows major declines in CO2 after temps fall. So the reinforcement isn’t permanent. Why would we think it would be permanent this time?
TT: “We can't look to the paleo record for proof that marked increases in GHGs cannot cause a warming, (or more generally than man, whose activities were not significant until several thousand years ago but now are leading to sharp changes in GHG levels, forest burning and particulate and albedo chages, can have no influence on climate.”
The lag proves that GHG’s don’t initiate temperature increases. I agree that they can reinforce them. And no one is arguing that man has no impact at all on the climate. The debate is over how much of an effect. Once that is decided, then we can decide what the cost-benefit ratio is of trying to address it. The Copenhagen Consensus takes the view that man is a major cause of climate change but still insists that the cost-benefit ratio is too poor for us to do anything about it.
TT: “The ocean is a massive CO2 sink. If the increased atmospheric CO2 levels were being caused by the release of CO2 from the oceans due to ocean warming, then CO2 levels in the oceans would be FALLING, not RISING as they are now.”
If CO2 in oceans is rising, then what is causing the increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you attribute it exclusively to man?
TT: “This shows clearly that creation scientists start with a Biblical premise and are engaged in the process of defending those premises.”
Yes, you’re right. And non-creationist scientists start with an unfounded premise of uniformitarianism, although they are backing away from it recently because they need some sort of catastrophe to explain several events. As the writer wrote "The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see. ...” This is exactly what Mises meant when he wrote that you have to have a sound theory before you approach historical data in order to make sense of historical data. Creationists and Evolutionists use exactly the same data. Evolutionists interpret the data the way they do because of their unfounded premise of uniformitarianism. Evolutionary scientists pretend that the data speaks for itself, but as Mises and Hayek demonstrate in economics, that’s impossible. All data must be interpreted and all scientists interpet data through the lenses of their presuppositions.
The way you test premises is to construct a model from each premise that predicts how the data should look today and compare the prediction with the data. That’s called validation in statistics. The creationist model fits the data better than the evolutionary/ uniformitarian model.
Concerning the ice core data, creationists have more than premises on their side. A few years ago two P-38 fighters were discovered under the ice in Greenland. Using conventional techniques for dating ice layers, the WWII P-38’s were several thousand years old. Using the adjusted technique of creationists dates the ice properly.
Published: August 28, 2008 10:09 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
"so you're not a politician, and yet your calling card is "the centrist party"...right."
Right.
"the club of rome spun by the media? give me a break,
i had to learn all the "new ice age" crap in secondary school geography! from textbooks!"
Yes, it was the media. And if the club of rome (I don't know the reference, bought into it, then they should not have) It's amazing how far a rumor can go. I'm sure you would argue the same for AGW. If you can find the original NAS report and read the summary, you will see what I mean. I'm sorry, that was a few years ago when I read it, so not sure where to find it at the moment.
"mises wasn't a climatologist, but the austrians are wary of fitting highly complex systems to reductive mathematical models. your comments have got me wondering how much you've actually read mises and hayek. the economics of "global climate change" are even more abysmal. the stern report is a joke: start with the desired conclusion, and work back."
I have not read a lot as yet, but what I have read I find very impressive. Your statement however is somewhat of a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. fitting highly complex systems to mathematical models does not alter or determine the climate.
So if one were to interpret your general opinion in previous posts that AGW is not human caused and nothing to worry about, then the connotation insinuated that AGW is determined by mathematical models becomes more of a red herring argument.
You identify the complexity but ignore the reality in the sense of Mises and Hayek may have been "wary of fitting highly complex systems to reductive mathematical models" but that just means we have to keep improving the models to understand the complexities better.
As far as the Canada Free Press goes and one scientists opinion... Dr. Alexander is presenting his opinion. But the facts and understanding of climate forcings along with the observations are hardly opinion, they are science.
ht
tp://data.gi
ss.na
sa.gov/gis
temp/
The models are tracking very accurately theses days. If however you have a model that includes all the data available from the records and can disprove the current models at NASA, I would love to take a look at it.
Published: August 28, 2008 10:58 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
Sorry about the broken link above. But it would not go through without breaking it up. I don't think the filters here like NASA.
By the way, here is a tiny fraction of the data you would need to include in your model to address teh GCM's:
Borehole Data
• U. of Michigan's Global Database
Climate Forcing Data Sets
• Orbital Variations
• Solar Variability
• Volcanic Aerosols
• Tropospheric Aerosols
• Atmospheric Trace Gases
• Forcing/Model, 1000k Years
• Hypothesized Forcing 500 Yrs.
• Volcanic Eruptions & Aerosol Optical Depth, 40k Years
• Volcanic & Solar Forcing, Tropical Pacific, 1k Years
Coral Data - Stable Isotope & Trace Metal, Upper Ocean Environment
Faunal Data - Fossilized Animal Remains
Historical Documentary Data - Harvest, Waterway Freeze Dates
Ice Core Data - Stable Isotopes, Gas Concentrations, Dust Content
Fossil Insect Data
• British Coleoptera
• British Columbia Chironomid
• North American Beetles
• Alaska Fossil Faunal Data
Lake Level Databases - Geomorphic Reconstructions, Precipitation/Evaporation
• Caspian & Aral Seas
• Europe, Russia & Mongolia
• Oxford Global Lake Level Db
• Global Lake Status Grids
• Owens Lake California
• Peace-Athabasca
Loess Data - Windblown Glacial Dust Deposits Global Eolian Flux Db, LGM, Late Holocene, Modern
• China Loess
• Mid-continent USA Peoria Loess
• Ice Core Tropospheric Aerosols
Paleoclimate Modeling Output
Paleofire - Fire history
Paleolimnology Data - Lake Sediment Including Stable Isotopes & Microfauna
Paleoceanography Data - Sediment Chemistry & Fossil Plankton
• CLIMAP/SPECMAP
• Relative Sea Level
• Calcium Carbonate Concentration
• Planktonic Foraminifera Counts
• Paleoceanographic Data
• Holocene subtropical Atlantic SST
• Cariaco Basin trace metal data & Holocene ITCZ migration.
• NADW variability & benthic foraminifera isotope data.
• Tropical Atlantic glacial hydrologic cycle changes & trace element data.
• Arabian Sea stable isotope & TOC data & N. Atlantic teleconnections.
Plant Macrofossil Data - Plant Fragments - Cones, Twigs, Seeds
• North American
• New England Lakes
Pollen Data - Fossil Pollen Grains
Phytolith Data - Opal-Silica Fossilized Plants
• Mercader African Phytolith Data
Radiocarbon Data
Dating Tool for Organic Deposits
• Great Lakes Region Radiocarbon
• Sahara Region Radiocarbon
• Cariaco Basin Radiocarbon Calibration
• Cariaco Basin 50K Yrs.
Reconstructed Climate Parameters
Speleothem (Cave Deposit) Data
Layered Cave Deposits
Treering Data - Tree Ring Width/Density, Tree Growth Rates
Other Paleo Data
• Late Pleistocene Australian Glaciation
• IAEA/WMO Isotopes in Precipitation
• Correlated Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scales
• Late Quaternary Ice Extent & Topography
• Peruvian Amazonia Miocene Freshwater Bivalve Data
• MIS 5 French Alps Land Snails
• N. American Lilac Phenology
• Paleoenvironmental ARCtic Sciences (PARCS)
• Circumpolar Arctic PaleoEnvironments (CAPE)
Published: August 28, 2008 11:03 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Walt D.
What are you talking about? The models are tracking the trends with in 10%. Last years reading on GMT wat within 2% but that is not significant because it is a cherry pick of the data. The models are getting better all the time.
Currently there are not sunspots. We are in a solar minimum phase of the Schwabe cycle
ht
tp://sohowww.nascom.na
sa.g
ov/data/realtime-images.html
"I say a "scientist" claim that the Greenland glaciers were melting at an alarming rate. (If this took place sea levels would in fact rise 20 feet.). Needless to say this was blamed on Co2. However, the reason that this would happen is a precipitation problem."
This is a highly confused statement and has not context of it's individual components. Building strawman arguments so you can burn them down with out of context opinions means nothing.
"CO2 rarely gets produced on its own. It is usually accompanied by water vapor and particulates. The particulates from the coal fired power plants in India actually block the Sun and produce a cooling effect. The same is true for volcanoes."
Where do you get this stuff? Is it a requirement that most of you use false dichotomy, strawman and red herring arguments. Try bringing a little science to the table.
Published: August 28, 2008 11:15 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
"i'd actually like to hear people desist from calling c02 a pollutant. can't accuse john reisman of that, but many of the media insist on that language."
Unfortunately, you will not get your wish.
By definition, once Co2 is produced by man, it becomes a pollutant.
2 a: to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty b: to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste
By definition, prior to man-made waste in relation to burning fossil fuels, Co2 was not a pollutant.
I would very much appreciate it if people in this thread would use English as defined in the dictionary. Especially on the really simple words.
Published: August 28, 2008 11:21 AM
Walt D.
John P. Reisman said:
By definition, once Co2 is produced by man, it becomes a pollutant.
In that case, I suggest you hold your breath!
Published: August 28, 2008 11:50 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "Thanks for the better explanation of the Milankovich cycles. I can see why less of a tilt toward the sun would reduce the variance in winter/summer temps; no tilt would elimiate the difference all together; greater tilt would maximize the differences. The glacier expert I was reading didn’t think that would be sufficient to start an ice age and emphasized the need for volcanic activity. I can see where the two could work together."
The total forcing variance is around 3.4 W/m2. That is a lot of forcing to the negative form interglacial to glacial. I do think it is possible for a well timed volcano to tip us into an ice age but it would have to be very well timed and the cycles would already have to be in negative phase (heading toward aphelion) and at sufficient negative forcing to allow a high ejecta mass eruption to tip the system into a stronger cooling i.e. negative thermal inertia.
I agree with Tom. If you can provide the name of the glaciologist in Canada, then I can look that up to get a better idea of what he was saying.
Roger/fundamentalist - "So you’re saying that increases in CO2 don’t cause global warming, but the greenhouse effect of CO2 can reinforce it and make the warming last longer. That’s reasonable. The record shows that when temps decline, so does CO2. You may be arguing that CO2 won’t decline when temps start to decline because mankind has added so much CO2. That’s possible, but we don’t know that."
I'm arguing that temps will have less capacity to decline due to the increased GHG's combined, of course including Co2. But since Co2 is a long lived GHG and stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and a lesser percentage over thousands of years on a declining scale. That gives us the predicable forcing. So actually we do know that.
Actually, the math is very simple. According to NASA: Glacial is around -3.4 W/m2. We are currently imposing 3.9 W/m2 and we have increased aerosol pollutants which impose a negative forcing of around 2 W/m2.
That gives us a total forcing of around 1.9W/m2. So if we fast forward to 40 thousand years from now when the Milankovitch cycles are around -1.9 W/m2 we would still be interglacial because we have canceled out the negative forcing of the cycle. In other words we have prevented the earth from going into an ice age.
Now, return back to the present. Since we don't have the negative forcing of the Milankovitch cycles, we are 1.9 W/m2 above natural cycle. Hence we are warming above the natural cycle. Rapidly when you consider the geologic time scale.
Roger/fundamentalist - "However, as the sun is entering a dormant phase that is supposed to last about 11 years, I guess we’ll have a chance to test it."
Actually, the total Schwabe cycle averages 11.1 years ranging between 9-14 years. So we won't have to wait 11 years. The cycle should give us sunspots with 0-3 years.
But again, relevance and context. The solar minimum only takes away .3 W/m2 and 2007 tied as second warmest year in modern history. As they say... not a good sign.
The peak of the Schwabe cycle adds .3 W/m2. That will bring us to 2.2 W/m2 (in about 4-7 years).
Mind you, IPCC only reports we are at 1.6 W/m2. But keep in mind, they are international but based in Switzerland. I live in California and Switzerland and can attest to the fact that the Swiss are the most conservative people I have ever met. So it will take some time for their numbers to catch up with leading edge science at NASA.
Published: August 28, 2008 12:01 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "The data on sun spot activity is available in many places. It’s used by every college to teach spectrum analysis. You could find it easily if you wanted to. Those scientists who study solar energy levels think the contribution of the sun to climate cycles is much greater than the figures you presented."
I monitor sunspot activity almost daily. I was more interested in the data you were looking at. If you can give me their names, I can look them up and see what they are looking at.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html
Roger/fundamentalist - "And the data on sun spot activity correlates well with the data on temperatures."
Actually it tracks the pattern sometimes and certainly is one of the influences, but like GCR's (Galactic Cosmic Rays) it does not correlate to the forcing levels (remember it only adds and takes away .3 W/m2. We are supposed to be at around -.1 W/m2 in the natural cycle and the current total neg/pos is 1.9 W/m2). Therefore it can not be the primary driver of the current global warming we are experiencing.
Published: August 28, 2008 12:07 PM
Walt D.
John P. Reisman wrote
(Walt D. wrote) "CO2 rarely gets produced on its own. It is usually accompanied by water vapor and particulates. The particulates from the coal fired power plants in India actually block the Sun and produce a cooling effect. The same is true for volcanoes."
Where do you get this stuff? Is it a requirement that most of you use false dichotomy, strawman and red herring arguments. Try bringing a little science to the table.
Google "Organic Chemistry 101 Natural Gas Combustion"
CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 +2H2O
Google "Pan Evaporation Rates"
To chuck in my 6 eggs worth on Fundamentalists contention that when the ocean warms CO2 is released, get a bottle of Coca Cola from the fridge and open it. Fundamentalists contention is that as the Coca Cola warms, CO2 will be released. I agree. If you understand Le Chatelier's Principle, you will be able to understand why this would be true (without needing a peer review!)
Fundamentalist claims that increased solar output warms the earth. You disagree???
If burning coal does not produce particulates and other undesirable pollution, why does the EPA impose fines on old Coal Fire Burning plants in Texas? Why a fish caught off the coast of California polluted with mercury.
Plus or minus 10% and plus or minus 2% when looking for an effect of 2% (the percentage of CO2 produced by human industrial activity). Surely, you would not be able to reject the alternative hypothesis that the change you are looking at is random.
Published: August 28, 2008 12:20 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "The lag proves that GHG’s don’t initiate temperature increases. I agree that they can reinforce them. And no one is arguing that man has no impact at all on the climate. The debate is over how much of an effect. Once that is decided, then we can decide what the cost-benefit ratio is of trying to address it."
Since we know the forcing, and we know the amount of time each GHG stays in the atmosphere it's already quantifiable.
Roger/fundamentalist - The Copenhagen Consensus takes the view that man is a major cause of climate change but still insists that the cost-benefit ratio is too poor for us to do anything about it."
Rasmus Benestad - Norwegian Meteorological Institute "I personally find the name 'The Copenhagen Consensus' a misnomer because it does not reflect what it is all about - I think that 'The Lomborg exercise' would be a more appropriate name."
(imo) Lomborg should not be a part of any discussion on climate. Denmark’s Ministry of Science found him guilty of ‘Scientific Dishonesty’.
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.
Published: August 28, 2008 12:29 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "If CO2 in oceans is rising, then what is causing the increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you attribute it exclusively to man?"
Industrial process currently are pumping between 7 and 9 Gt of Co2 into the atmosphere. The oceans have been absorbing around 2 Gt but there are recent signs that is slowing down, possibly due to saturation. Not good, no matter how you look at it.
Summary: atmospheric Co2 is increasing because oceans have only been taking in 2Gt of the total industrial output.
Published: August 28, 2008 12:33 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Walt D.
Thanks for the chemistry lesson.
However, knowing a piece of data in an ocean of data does not explain the whole ocean. As I have stated before, it's all about the context and relevance of any particular argument or piece of data. You are arguing outside of the context.
The particulates from coal plants in India do block the sun (for a short time) and the Co2 stays in the atmosphere much longer, producing warming. This is all well known. Cherry picking pieces of data out of the total data set is deceiving. Your arguments are not well founded in aggregate understanding of the climate system or the known quantitative data.
In order for your argument to have relevance, you need to take into account all major forcings, negative and positive, and then start adding the minor forcings.
My statement stands on its merits of context and relevance.
Maybe reread all the posts above again, and stop building straw men, false dichotomies and try fishing for cod or tuna instead of red herring.
Remember, well rounded education and an open mind can add up to well rounded wisdom depending on your possession of well rounded reason.
"when looking for an effect of 2% (the percentage of CO2 produced by human industrial activity). Surely, you would not be able to reject the alternative hypothesis that the change you are looking at is random."
As posted upthread:
regarding the 2% number. It would have to be a fantasy number of some sort. The major natural greenhouse gases are C02 and Methane.
Industrial processes have added GHG's as such
Nitrous Oxide up 18%
Co2 up 37%
Methane up 148%
That means that 15% of the Nitrous oxide is produced by man or manmade processes
27% of the Co2 is produced by man or manmade processes
and 60% of the methane is produced by man or manmade processes
Of course that is not counting the High GWP gases. and the H2o which increases due to induced global warming by virtue of the climate forcing imposed.
Published: August 28, 2008 3:29 PM
Walt D.
The particulates from coal plants in India do block the sun (for a short time)
No you are wrong - since the coal plants in India run everyday, the effect is continuous and ongoing.
Published: August 28, 2008 3:53 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Walt D.
Actually, you are wrong, for the same reasons stated above. It's all about context and relevance.
The aerosol pollutants are less significant because even though they are being produced daily, the Co2 has a longer term forcing component due to longevity in the atmosphere. In this case the Co2 positive forcing outweighs the aerosol particulate pollution (negative forcing) in terms of total forcing in the climate system.
You need to add the forcing components as well as the time factors together. Then you can understand the forcing of each component over time.
Published: August 28, 2008 4:52 PM
fundamentalist
John: “Actually it tracks the pattern sometimes and certainly is one of the influences, but like GCR's (Galactic Cosmic Rays) it does not correlate to the forcing levels (remember it only adds and takes away .3 W/m2. We are supposed to be at around -.1 W/m2 in the natural cycle and the current total neg/pos is 1.9 W/m2). Therefore it can not be the primary driver of the current global warming we are experiencing.”
“We live in a unique time in history, because this period has the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years, and maybe even in 8,000 years. And we know that changes in solar activity have made significant changes in climate. For instance, we had the little ice age about 300 years ago. You had very few sunspots [markings on the face of the sun that indicate heightened solar activity] between 1650 and 1715, and for example, in Sweden in 1696, it caused the harvest to go wrong. People were starving—100,000 people died—and it was very desperate times, all coinciding with this very low solar activity. The last time we had high solar activity was during the medieval warming, which was when all of the cathedrals were built in Europe. And if you go 1,000 years back, you also had high solar activity, and that was when Rome was at its height. So I think there’s good evidence that these are significant changes that are happening naturally. If we are talking about the next century, there might be a human effect on climate change on top of that, but the natural effect from solar effect will be important. This should be recognized in the models and calculations that are being used to make predictions.” Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, quoted in Discover June 2007.
The amount of forcing from solar activity is based only on the Schwabe cycle (11 yr). The Wikipedia article “Solar Variation” has some good graphs and info on all of the cycles. Scroll down the article to the image “Carbon14 with activity labels.svg.” There you can see variations in the sun’s output that are far, far greater than those in the Schwabe cycle. Notice where the Medieval Maximum is at the time of the medieval warming period, and the low point near 1700 that corresponds with the Little Ice Age.
Main stream climate research has focused too much on GHG’s and refused to look at anything else seriously. It will take them a while to catch up to the cutting-edge scientists studying solar activity.
John: “I was more interested in the data you were looking at. If you can give me their names, I can look them up and see what they are looking at.”
I was using a sample data set that came with a statistical software package. It’s the standard sun spot data set used in all statistics classes to teach FFT and spectrum analysis. I don’t know where to find it on the internet.
John: “Industrial process currently are pumping between 7 and 9 Gt of Co2 into the atmosphere. The oceans have been absorbing around 2 Gt but there are recent signs that is slowing down, possibly due to saturation.”
Something doesn’t add up. In the pre-industrial past, temp increases warmed the oceans and caused them to give up CO2. Today, we are supposedly at the peak of a warming cycle, but the oceans are still absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it? How does that happen? Historical data doesn’t show as long a lag between temp peaks and CO2 peaks as that suggests. Global temps are already cooling and have been since about a decade. As NASA has said, we’re entering period of solar dormancy that will cause temps to fall even more. If the oceans haven’t warmed enough to release CO2 yet, that suggests that temps and CO2 peaks are close to 180 degrees out of phase. That doesn’t jibe with the paleo data at all.
The Copenhagen Consensus does not disagree with the mainstream view. It accepts the consensus that AGHG’s are causing all of the warming and that the results will be serious. The panel is a group of economists, not climate scientists, who do cost/benefit analysis of a variety of problems. They still think climate change should have a very low priority. As for Denmark’s Ministry of Science and its opinion of Lomberg, I have seen similar accusations against the mainstream climate scientists. Remember the hockey stick hoax? Name calling, even by someone as prestigious as the Denmark Ministry of Science, doesn’t mean anything to me.
Published: August 28, 2008 7:29 PM
newson
to john reisman:
so let's be clear: the co2 molecule from a banyan tree is a clean, natural substance. the c02 that comes from some industrial process is a pollutant. and the c02 that comes from my lungs, though manmade, is not a pollutant because not a result of some industrial product. and yet they are identical molecules.
please, no more torture of the english language.
Published: August 28, 2008 7:49 PM
fundamentalist
Speaking of Bjorn Lomberg, it's ironic that the Denmark Ministry of Science would accuse him of 1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.
Lomberg was a rabid environmentalist until he realized that many of the scientists behind it were guilty of
1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.
Published: August 28, 2008 7:57 PM
fundamentalist
John: “If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it.”
I think the sun spot graph on Wikipedia does a much better job of modeling climate than any climate model in existence today, even NASA’s.
John: “The models are tracking very accurately theses days.”
And that is what is wrong with them. It’s very easy, almost trivial, to make a model fit the data. First year statistics students can do it easily. In its simplest form it’s just curve fitting, that is, creating curves that match the data. That’s why validation is so important. With validation, you divide your data set in two sections, train the model on the first and then try to predict the second set. Climate models are little more than curve fitting and worthless for predictions. TokyoTom and I had a long discussion about this months ago and he decided that the existing climate models were good enough for him. Apparently they’re good for a lot of people. But in the private world, a modeler would be fired for such simplicity and sloppiness as is exhibited by the climate models.
Published: August 28, 2008 9:14 PM
newson
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters:
"The following is the sequence that drives climate alarmism at both international and national levels.
1.Undesirable emissions (principally carbon dioxide) are discharged into the atmosphere.
2.The emissions create the greenhouse effect.
3.The globe warms as a consequence.
4.The warming results in a number of undesirable effects, including increases in floods, droughts, desertification, and threats to our unique plant and animal species.
5.These pose threats to the habitability of our planet.
Our concern is in Step 5. The direct causes are in Step 4. Where then, should we concentrate our search for evidence? The obvious answer lies in Step 4. Therein lies the proof of the pudding.
If no evidence of adverse consequences can be found in Step 4 then the whole IPCC edifice must collapse. This investigation requires a sound knowledge of the natural, multiyear variability of these processes before changes can be attributed to human activities. This is where I concentrated my efforts during the past 30 years. Despite a diligent study I could find no such evidence.
Unexpected confirmation is in Step 3. Global warming ceased 10 years ago. The globe is now starting to cool.
The vultures are already feasting on the IPCC carcass. At present they are concentrating on Step 2 - the greenhouse effect. The IPCC scientists obviously made a serious mistake when linking increasing carbon dioxide emissions with increasing global temperatures. What is it? What is interesting, is that just as in the real world, these vultures are already squabbling over several alternative reasons for the failure. The alarmists no longer have a case.
Climate is a regional (1), multiyear (2), multi-process (3) phenomenon. Also, in the case of environmental processes, causality (4), has to be demonstrated (5), by concurrent changes (6) in the driving processes (7), typically rainfall (8) and to a lesser extent, temperature (9).
Claims based on observations over a period of less than 30 years, that a single plant or animal species is under stress in a single district, without numerical evidence of concurrent changes in rainfall and temperature, is altogether inadequate proof of climate changes in the wider region. Yet this is the basis for the alarmist claims in the IPCC reports. I have not seen a single report on regional, concurrent, multiyear, multi-process analyses. Our joint paper on this subject is a world first."
Published: August 28, 2008 11:13 PM
Walt D.
John: “If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it.”
http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-815-7
Unlike AGW theory, they are actually trying to verify this theory at Cern. Presently, all they can say is that they have a model that fits the data. Their model does a much better job of explaining the data than AGW. However, they still have one step to go - actually proving that cosmic rays cause clouds. John: “If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it.”
http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-815-7
Unlike AGW theory, they are actually trying to verify this theory at Cern. Presently, all they can say is that they have a model that fits the data. Their model does a much better job of explaining the data than AGW. However, they still have one step to go - actually proving that cosmic rays cause clouds.
Published: August 28, 2008 11:40 PM
Walt D.
The aerosol pollutants are less significant because even though they are being produced daily, the Co2 has a longer term forcing component due to longevity in the atmosphere. In this case the Co2 positive forcing outweighs the aerosol particulate pollution (negative forcing) in terms of total forcing in the climate system.
The particulate pollutants produce an immediate, tangible and measurable effect, and also negative economic consequences such as lower yields for citrus fruits. What you are taking about is an effect that may or may not take place based on a computer model.
Take your 7 to 9 Gt of CO2 and assume that it was cyanide gas.
How long would it take before you could smell almonds? How long would it take before got a headache? How long would it take before you started to froth at the mouth?
Published: August 28, 2008 11:53 PM
TokyoTom
Walt:
1. "To chuck in my 6 eggs worth on Fundamentalists contention that when the ocean warms CO2 is released, get a bottle of Coca Cola from the fridge and open it. Fundamentalists contention is that as the Coca Cola warms, CO2 will be released. I agree.
Walt, no one disagrees with the behavior of gases in solution when the temperature rises; as John and I have noted, that in fact is what climate scientists recognize as the usual reason why GHG levels start to rise once a natural forcing (solar/John Malkovich cycles) begins to warm the oceans.
But that isn't really what's at work in increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 now, is it? As I already commented to Roger, "If the increased atmospheric CO2 levels were being caused by the release of CO2 from the oceans due to ocean warming, then CO2 levels in the oceans would be FALLING, not RISING as they are now.”
As John noted, the oceans continue for the time being to be a sink (with CO2 concentrations rising so that the oceans are becomeing more acidic) rather than a source, because the increase in atmospheric GHGs due to human activities is pushing CO2 into the oceans (read about "vapor pressure"). This increasing acidity and ocean warming have started to degrade the efficiency of the ocean sink, so less and less CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere.
2. As for particulates, I think we all share a view that they are rather nasty and also can exert a significant cooling influence. The question is whether they fully offset the forcing made by GHGs; the rather clear answer seems to be that they don't: particulates fall out of the atmospere rather quickly, while something on the order of 30-40% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere after a century.
As China and India move up the Kuznets Curve and start to clear their skies, the GHG effect will have even less of a particulate counter-balance.
3. "Fundamentalist claims that increased solar output warms the earth. You disagree???"
No one disagrees with this, or that there are ongoing solar cycles. It's just that the changes induced by solar cycle changes are small relative to measurable GHG forcings, and nobody sees any general increase or decrease in solar cycle trends.
4. While I disagree with John that all human generated GHGs are "pollutants", you are obviously misinterpreting him. No one's arguing that human respiration is a pollutant; moreover, it clearly doesn't add on a net basis to GHG levels (as we simply recycle biosphere carbon and supplant the respiration of other animals that we elbow out of the food chain).
As for what's a "pollutant", life requires all manners of things in trace amounts, but over certain levels, they do physical damage. Obviously the measure of what is undesirable is a human one based on preferences, so what may be one man's "pollution" might be another's valued industrial/commercial input.
People fight over these things because they have differing preferences, and the fights heat up and become more political when there are no clear or defendable property rights involved (or other information/transaction costs are too high) to allow people of differing preferences to express them via market transactions.
Published: August 29, 2008 2:40 AM
TokyoTom
Roger:
1. "There is no difference between a Biblical view of truth and a scientific one."
Can you explain?
"The scientific method is inappropriate for theology, just as it is inappropriate for economics."
My own view is that economics IS a branch of scince; one that focusses on human behavior.
"But my position on climate change has nothing at all to do with my religious beliefs or the Bible. That’s why I asked you to show me where my earlier posts mentioned either."
The post that I linked to documents that you have offered as authority tracts written by "creation scientists" whose express purpose is to defend their religious beliefs and to use a faith in the literal truth of the Bible as the basis for interpreting climate-related data.
2. You stated that as for me and John, "Any time their “science” is proven wrong or their irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults."
I demonstrated that, for me at least, this is itself a grossly unfair insult. I have asked if you will apologize, and am waiting for your response.
3. "So GHG’s don’t cause warming but reinforce it. I have no problem with that. But the historical record shows major declines in CO2 after temps fall. So the reinforcement isn’t permanent. Why would we think it would be permanent this time?"
Roger, don't the paleo records of natural declines in CO2 show time scales of centuries? Just as there are century lags before climate forcings show equilibrium effects (viz., there is still alot of warming in the pipeline for our EXISTING forcing), natural declines (as CO2 is removed by cooling oceans and the like) take significant time.
On top of this, we are still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, in steadily increasing amounts.
No one argues that increasing atmospheric levels are "permanent", they worry our continuing ratching up of the forcing and about the long time scales to reach equilibrium effects and for removal to occur and be felt.
4. "And no one is arguing that man has no impact at all on the climate. The debate is over how much of an effect."
Progress, it seems! But there are many "skeptics" out there that will contest that puny man with his mighty machines and technology can have any effect on climate - though if he does, he can of course easily reverse it through geo-engineering.
"Once that is decided, then we can decide what the cost-benefit ratio is of trying to address it."
This is a bit puzzling Roger, and decidedly non-Austrian. Can you explain why you see a need for and a utility of cost-benefit analysis in decisions that relate to matters of preference?
5. TT: “This shows clearly that creation scientists start with a Biblical premise and are engaged in the process of defending those premises.”
Yes, you’re right."
Thanks for the admission - and the implicit acknowledgment that raising this subject was NOT and ad hominem.
"And non-creationist scientists start with an unfounded premise of uniformitarianism, although they are backing away from it recently because they need some sort of catastrophe to explain several events."
Roger, while there are some grains of truth here, as there are examples where scientists preferred NOT to accept obvious signs of occasional massive events in the geologic record, the pursuit of science and the weight of evidence forced them to accept that yes, indeed, there have been various catastrophes in the past - such as massive water releases/floods from melting ice sheets, large asteroid impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, etc. Certainly now there are MANY scientists do not generally start from a position of (or "belief" in) "uniformitarianism", and they let EVIDENCE change their minds. That doesn't seem to happen too much with the creation scientists, with their fierce belief in the literal Truth of the BIble.
"Evolutionary scientists pretend that the data speaks for itself, but as Mises and Hayek demonstrate in economics, that’s impossible. All data must be interpreted and all scientists interpet data through the lenses of their presuppositions."
You, Mises and Hayek are of course right that data doesn't speak for itself - and you are just as clearly wrong in asserting that "Evolutionary scientists pretend that the data speaks for itself". Evolutionary scientists, operating from the simple premise that the operation of physical "laws" and dynamics gradually understood, tested and improved, have similarly been developing the mechanisms of the evolutionary hypothesis to explain the diversity and abundance of nature and changes in life forms -- not only without a "uniformitarian" premise, but without the constant/intermittent miracles of a caring/vindictive God/Blind Watchmaker.
(But we digress from the topic at hand, which might arouse the ire of our patient, non-vindictive and largely disinterested post author.)
6. "Concerning the ice core data, creationists have more than premises on their side. A few years ago two P-38 fighters were discovered under the ice in Greenland. Using conventional techniques for dating ice layers, the WWII P-38’s were several thousand years old. Using the adjusted technique of creationists dates the ice properly."
Roger, don't you remember our previous conversations, which in this case I actually klinked to? The assertion you make is simply unsupportable - other than by more "creation science" "authorities" upon whose "work" you rely, and which kicked off our previous discussion.
Ice cores are not taken from the edges of rapidly moving glaciers that experience heavy precipitation.
7. "Something doesn’t add up. In the pre-industrial past, temp increases warmed the oceans and caused them to give up CO2. Today, we are supposedly at the peak of a warming cycle, but the oceans are still absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it? How does that happen?"
It happens because pushing more CO2 into the atmosphere requires that more CO2 be absorbed by the oceans in order to maintain equilibrium (an equilibrium concentration that also changes with temperature).
"Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide", http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539
8. "Climate models are little more than curve fitting and worthless for predictions. TokyoTom and I had a long discussion about this months ago and he decided that the existing climate models were good enough for him."
Really? Can you provide a quote or something that I said?
9. "The Copenhagen Consensus does not disagree with the mainstream view. It accepts the consensus that AGHG’s are causing all of the warming and that the results will be serious. The panel is a group of economists, not climate scientists, who do cost/benefit analysis of a variety of problems. They still think climate change should have a very low priority."
Your conclusion is a misunderstanding of the Copenhagen Consensus and misplaces its worth. Pielke Jr has just hosted an interesting dicussion on this, with some comments by yours truly: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/yohe-vs-lomborg-4526
10. Are you going to give us the name of your Canadian glaciologist friend?
***********************************
Regards,
Tom
Published: August 29, 2008 4:23 AM
fundamentalist
TT: “My own view is that economics IS a branch of scince; one that focusses on human behavior.”
I agree with Mises and Hayek that economics is a science that requires a different epistemology because of the differences in natural science and economics.
TT: “The post that I linked to documents that you have offered as authority tracts written by "creation scientists" whose express purpose is to defend their religious beliefs and to use a faith in the literal truth of the Bible as the basis for interpreting climate-related data.”
Your framing of the methodology of creation scientists is false and dishonest. Their express purpose is to discover the truth. The truth leads them to the Bible. They find that certain events in the Bible, such as the flood, agree with the data far better, and do a far better job of prediction, than does the premise of uniformitarianism. Creation scientists have found many examples of poor scientific practices that result from the premise of uniformitarianism that most scientists hold to but won’t admit it. In the 1970’s they corrected the math used for Carbon-14 data. The originators of the technique had assumed that the Carbon-14 was in balance, not because they had measured the creation and destruction of C-14, but because they assumed that with the age of the earth it should be in balance. Creationists pointed out that the balanced had not been achieved and when the math was adjusted it became more accurate. Creationists have had to correct the potassium-argon method because it regularly dated newly formed rock as if it were millions of years old. And as I mentioned above they have had to correct the methods for dating ice cores because the original methods produced ridiculous results.
TT: “No one argues that increasing atmospheric levels are "permanent", they worry our continuing ratching up of the forcing and about the long time scales to reach equilibrium effects and for removal to occur and be felt.”
However, if the natural forcing stops because we have reached the peak of a cycle, as the solar data indicates, then warming won’t get much worse than it is.
TT: “This is a bit puzzling Roger, and decidedly non-Austrian. Can you explain why you see a need for and a utility of cost-benefit analysis in decisions that relate to matters of preference?”
You’re right. That was very un-Austrian of me. But the reality is that Austrians have very little influence over the state. States will decide what will be done. I had taken off my Austrian hat and put on my practical hat, which is necessary when dealing with a world full of socialists.
TT: “…the weight of evidence forced them to accept that yes,.. Certainly now there are MANY scientists do not generally start from a position of (or "belief" in) "uniformitarianism", and they let EVIDENCE change their minds. That doesn't seem to happen too much with the creation scientists, with their fierce belief in the literal Truth of the Bible.”
I can see that you’ll never accept that all scientists have presuppositions that they use to interpret data and are defending. Every scientist claims that they let the evidence speak for itself, but any scientist who refuses to acknowledge his presuppositions is not only dangerous, but a liar. There are no scientists who are not creationists who do not adhere to the premise of uniformitarianism. They may not admit it, but their work demonstrates it. How do you know that creation scientists don’t change their minds? Can you name any? Have you followed their work for any period of time? You’re speaking out of complete ignorance on the subject.
TT: “…you are just as clearly wrong in asserting that "Evolutionary scientists pretend that the data speaks for itself".
Yes, I know your irrational faith in scientists. They aren’t like other human beings. They don’t suffer from our failings. Getting their PhD in science makes them immune from all that afflicts us mere mortals. I repeat that anyone who claims not to operate under a presupposition is a liar.
TT: “It happens because pushing more CO2 into the atmosphere requires that more CO2 be absorbed by the oceans in order to maintain equilibrium (an equilibrium concentration that also changes with temperature).
High ocean temperatures should force the oceans to release CO2. The amount of CO2 they can hold is mostly determined by temperature. As Walt mentioned, just look at a bottle of a soft drink. The oceans can only hold more CO2 because they haven’t warmed sufficiently.
Published: August 29, 2008 8:47 AM
TokyoTom
Roger, before I respond to this (or anything else):
"Your framing of the methodology of creation scientists is false and dishonest",
can you kindly respond to this?
"You stated that as for me and John, "Any time their “science” is proven wrong or their irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults."
"I demonstrated that, for me at least, this is itself a grossly unfair insult. I have asked if you will apologize, and am waiting for your response."
Hopefully,
Tom
Published: August 30, 2008 3:33 AM
fundamentalist
TT: "I demonstrated that, for me at least, this is itself a grossly unfair insult. I have asked if you will apologize, and am waiting for your response."
You did not demonstrate it and I'm not interested in spending the time to go back and find the relevant posts to prove it. Of course you think you do no wrong. Everyone thinks highly of themselves.
Published: August 30, 2008 7:44 AM
fundamentalist
TT: "No one disagrees with this, or that there are ongoing solar cycles. It's just that the changes induced by solar cycle changes are small relative to measurable GHG forcings, and nobody sees any general increase or decrease in solar cycle trends."
As I pointed out to John, the solar forcing included in climate models covers just the minor fluctuations in the sun's energy output during the 11-year cycles because they only have been able to measure solar output with satellites for the past two decades. To claim that this measures the total variance in solar output is just plain dishonest. Sun spot records also measure the sun's energy output and go back 2,000 years. The variations in large cycles, 300-500 years are so large as to make the 11-year cycle insignificant. As the graph on Wikipedia demonstrates, solar activity correlates well with the high temps in the medieval warm period, with the mini ice age and with today's warming.
The interesting thing to me about this correlation is that scientists have known about it for close to a century. Why have mainstream climate scientists chosen to ignore it and not let the public know about it? Could the reason be political?
Published: August 30, 2008 7:54 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "We live in a unique time in history, because this period has the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years, and maybe even in 8,000 years."
Actually, solar irradiance has been increasing for 4.57 billion years. But the amount of increase is statistically insignificant when compared to our current global warming event due to the amount of forcing it imposes on a geologic time scale.
Again, it's all about context and relevance of what you are looking at. People in general (such as you and others in this thread), the media, and even some scientists still don't fully understand this.
Prior to the industrial age we were generally hovering around equilibrium. The Stephan Bozeman law has us right around 240 W/m2 received and 240 W/m2 radiated. Thus equilibrium around 0 W/m2.
In that situation solar is much more of an influence than now due to context/relevance. In other words if I have a Daulton or Maunder minimum and take away .3 W/m2 from 0, then we will get an extended cool spell, hence the LIA. In other words, when the system is at or near equilibrium, you can get a little ice age by removing sunspots and tipping the forcing below equilibrium for an extended period of time.
Likewise If the climate system is around 0 and we run the Schwabe cycles we are adding and taking away .3 W/m2. so still maintaining a dynamic equilibrium. Add a few more sunspots in a period and you will get additional warming. Maybe that is what happened in the MWP? I don't know, but whatever happened triggered the Arctic Amplification effect which operates within natural variability. Again, this is pre-industrial so normal operations with natural variability.
Now we have a forcing that conservative estimates place at 1.6 (IPCC), and leading estimates place at 1.9 W/m2. So at this time, taking away .3 W/m2 has significantly less meaning because even if you take it away, you still can't cool the planet.
Henrik Svensmark is speaking out of context. He concentrates of limited data and does not look at the big picture. He has argued the GCR's are responsible also, but there is no correlation. He will come around eventually, but at this point he has not extended his research scope to a large enough view to understand the earth climate system.
I looked at the chart you were referring to “Carbon14 with activity labels.svg.”. It is a model and as far as I know that particular model is not well accepted yet but it is being examined. It may very well have some credence. But again, relevance and context. -.3 does not overide the effect of +1.9 W/m2
As I have mentioned previously, peer review combined with peer response has stronger capacity and a stronger record of adding to the compendium of scientific knowledge. The peer response one the C14 cycle seems to center around this:
---
"In a recent article (A&G 44 5.20) we discussed likely solar activity levels a century from now using a superposed epoch analysis of Hallstatt cycles evident in the 14C cosmogenic isotope series. In this issue Tobias et al. have quite reasonably indicated that it is a process fraught with uncertainties as evidence suggests that predicting stellar magnetic cycles will always pose a challenge. This reply allows us the opportunity to clarify a few points in the process we have undertaken in order to make the prediction.
The analysis we undertook on the 14C series was based on the presence of the 2300-year Hallstatt cycle in the data. This cycle can be clearly seen in the series, as well as determined by frequency analysis. However, the Hallstatt cycle itself is not used solely to predict the minimum in solar activity in 2100. The principal role of the Hallstatt cycle analysis in our paper was to determine which parts of the 14C data were influenced by solar activity and which were not. Damon and Jirikowic (1992) showed that the effect of “Hallstatt gating” results in a period of time every 2300 years or so where 14C shows century-scale oscillations associated with solar activity. At other times solar activity variations in 14C are suppressed. The window of the “gate” is about 1000 years and roughly centred on the time of the Maunder Minimum-like features. Thus we used the Hallstatt cycle principally to select the sections of the 14C series that were relevant for solar activity analysis, and superposed the Maunder Minimum-like features to provide a consistent time frame.
In this way we have not ignored the shorter-length cycles such as the de Vries cycle as suggested by Tobias et al., they are intrinsically included in the 14C data that was selected for the analysis. Interestingly the superposition of four sections of 14C data shows that little of the de Vries cycle survives the averaging process, suggesting that either these cycles are not strongly phase-locked to the Grand Minimum or that the period is variable enough to average the cycles out. The cycle that does survive the superposition process is the 420-year cycle, which is why we predict a minimum 400 years or so after the Maunder Minimum. The 420-year cycle has been postulated to be associated with oscillations in the solar convective zone (Stuiver and Braziunas 1989).
In summary, we recognize that predicting solar activity is a difficult task and one that is likely to generate as many questions as answers. If we are in a period of cyclic solar activity behaviour at present, as is possible even in chaotic datasets, then our expectation that solar activity will not increase in the same way as it has in the last 100 years or so is a message to take away. Like Tobias et al. we would be very satisfied if a minimum does arrive soon."
---
The current long range solar forecast goes a whopping 17 years in to the future and is based on the a slowing of the solar conveyer from 1 meter per second to .75m per second. Based on this NASA reports "Hathaway's prediction should not be confused with another recent forecast: A team led by physicist Mausumi Dikpata of NCAR has predicted that Cycle 24, peaking in 2011 or 2012, will be intense. Hathaway agrees: "Cycle 24 will be strong. Cycle 25 will be weak. Both of these predictions are based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt."" This s expected to reduce solar flares but increase cosmic rays.
If you notice on the wiki page on solar variation it discusses solar changing the energy level 1 w/m2. Based on that you would say I am wrong because I said it was .3 w/m2. Again though, you would be wrong. And again, its about context and relevance. In this case the context is that they are talking about a measurement occurring outside of our atmosphere, whereas I am talking about the energy received at the earth surface after filtering through the atmosphere.
If you scroll further down the page to the global warming page you can see a graph called "Temp-sunspot-co2.svg". This graph clearly shows that the sunspot correlation is broken most recently.
In the Solar variation section you find another graph called "Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg". Here you have an excellent example of how climate sometimes tracks sunspots and sometimes doesn't. But again it is a model, and I did not look up its basis, so I can't say i know its contexts.
Generally speaking, and as I have mentioned. solar certainly influences climate to the degree of its capacity in relation to its forcing combined with other forcing elements.
Important to remember that adding or taking away .3 W/m2 can not override 1.6 or 1.9 W/m2.
Again though, the statements and arguments you are presenting are out of context and therefore red herrings and strawman arguments as well as false dichotomy. You simply can't compare the natural forcing to the anthropogenic and expect it to explain what is going on.
Published: August 30, 2008 9:18 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
John: “Industrial process currently are pumping between 7 and 9 Gt of Co2 into the atmosphere. The oceans have been absorbing around 2 Gt but there are recent signs that is slowing down, possibly due to saturation.”
Roger/fundamentalist - "Something doesn’t add up. In the pre-industrial past, temp increases warmed the oceans and caused them to give up CO2. Today, we are supposedly at the peak of a warming cycle, but the oceans are still absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it? How does that happen?"
Not all naturally sequestered Co2 is from the ocean. When a forest is buried in ice it's CO2 does not go to the ocean. bioactivity in certain ocean strata increases with temperature. So, much is regulated by the added temperature provided by the Milankovitch cycles. But, this is still a gross oversimplification of process.
The question itself does not seem to have relevant context though. Added Co2 really is a plant food. But there are many other chemical processes occurring here that even I don't want to go into for lack of time. I suggest yo spend some time on the Scripps (and others) web site to understand the chemical processes occurring there. The problem is that if you don't at least have awareness of all the processes, things will not add up for you. And it takes a hello of a lot of studying to get even close to understanding the major processes. But then you have to start studying the minor processes too... Just don't think yo know everything after you've read a few papers. I know I don't know everything. It's a very complicated puzzle and I am trying to grapple with the major forcings and minor influences. The oceanography side of the puzzle is quite telling.
Roger/fundamentalist - "Historical data doesn’t show as long a lag between temp peaks and CO2 peaks as that suggests."
Don't expect it to be simple, you need to know a lot of context before it starts to make holistic sense. it doesn't make sense to you now because you simply don't know the relevant contexts.
Roger/fundamentalist - "Global temps are already cooling and have been since about a decade."
The unusually warm el Nino event riding on top of a warming trend set us up for a short term down trend. That of course does not override the 30 yr trend. Solar 24, oceanic absorption of the forcing, and positive feed backs will cause further warming. The arctic ice disappearing is exposing darker ocean which will absorb more heat, plus of course we lose the summertime albedo. it's all acceleration from here if BAU continues.
Roger/fundamentalist - "As NASA has said, we’re entering period of solar dormancy that will cause temps to fall even more."
As far as I know, NASA has not predicted past solar cycle 25 as noted above (previous post).
Roger/fundamentalist - "If the oceans haven’t warmed enough to release CO2 yet, that suggests that temps and CO2 peaks are close to 180 degrees out of phase. That doesn’t jibe with the paleo data at all."
Same as above, you simply don't have enough knowledge yet to frame the questions properly and understand the contexts. That results in false dichotomies. I highly recommend you study what is happening in the oceans, this will take you a few months probably, but it's worth the effort. Although I have a general understanding of the interactions, I don't feel qualified to instruct on the processes at this time.
Published: August 30, 2008 9:27 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "The Copenhagen Consensus does not disagree with the mainstream view. It accepts the consensus that AGHG’s are causing all of the warming and that the results will be serious. The panel is a group of economists, not climate scientists, who do cost/benefit analysis of a variety of problems. They still think climate change should have a very low priority."
In my opinion,
First, you can't call in a real consensus until al the economists weigh into something similar to the IPCC. Lomborg called it a consensus because he knows the power of marketing, and in my view he has misused it in a deceitful manner.
Second, He produced and espoused the opinion and that is his style. He is arrogant in the sense that he cannot warranty what he is saying. But he certainly can say it... that does not make it relevant though.
Generally, they took a look at a few out of context reports on climate, like Co2 helps produce more food etc and drew a conclusion which is merely an opinion based on incomplete data. The consensus presented seemed to be more an exercise in myopia that has with in it a degree of bias that renders or reduces such opinion to lean toward less relevant if not irrelevant. Just not enough economies involved in the consideration.
In other words they are not weighing all the economic factors. That is not the way you set economic policy, even in a Keynesian fiat world. But he did play to the crowd because he knew all the really nice things to say to make people feel warm and fuzzy, even though he did not understand the realities, which include the fact that they/he ignored a tremendous amount of relevant data. As you well know, consensus may help sometimes but it is not proof. Somewhere along the line we found out that the world is not flat.
Roger/fundamentalist - "As for Denmark’s Ministry of Science and its opinion of Lomberg, I have seen similar accusations against the mainstream climate scientists. Remember the hockey stick hoax?"
Mckintyre and McKitrick were correct that there was a flaw in the hockey stick. But after 263 peer responses, making it the most reviewed paper in the history of science, they determined it was not a 'hoax', as you put it.
When you added the MM correction only changed the model by a few hundredths of a degree. The reviewing bodies concluded however that adding the MM correction weakened the overall model and therefore the corrections were not appropriate. Of course MM got a lot of airplay saying they were right. But in the end... Again... it's all about relevance and context. changing the hockey stick a few hundredths of a degree is statistically insignificant regarding the scale of the changes observed in the data set.
In other words, the hockey stick still looks like a hockey stick.
Roger/fundamentalist - "Name calling, even by someone as prestigious as the Denmark Ministry of Science, doesn’t mean anything to me."
That was not name calling, he was found guilty and those were the charges.
As far as your next post regarding Bjorn Lomberg.
No relevant context and likely a fabrication on your part, I I am to believe your previous statement and since you said already he believes in AGW and this is evidenced in his own speeches and writings.
I think it is rather immature of you to post in such a manner.
Published: August 30, 2008 9:39 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
John: “If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it.”
Roger/fundamentalist - "I think the sun spot graph on Wikipedia does a much better job of modeling climate than any climate model in existence today, even NASA’s."
No.
For all the reasons stated above. Just not enough forcing energy.
John: “The models are tracking very accurately theses days.”
Roger/fundamentalist - "And that is what is wrong with them. It’s very easy, almost trivial, to make a model fit the data. First year statistics students can do it easily. In its simplest form it’s just curve fitting, that is, creating curves that match the data. That’s why validation is so important. With validation, you divide your data set in two sections, train the model on the first and then try to predict the second set. Climate models are little more than curve fitting and worthless for predictions. TokyoTom and I had a long discussion about this months ago and he decided that the existing climate models were good enough for him. Apparently they’re good for a lot of people. But in the private world, a modeler would be fired for such simplicity and sloppiness as is exhibited by the climate models."
Actually your not using proper context again. It's pretty easy to say something, but you have nothing other than opinion on your side on this one. Essentially you are accusing a tremendous number of scientists of scientific dishonesty. The only way you or anyone else can prove it is to explain AGW with a different model that can survive peer response. No one has done that as yet.
Of course you have newson upthread saying professor Alexander can explain all this with a false dichotomy strawman and a couple red herrings, topped with logical fallacy, in the form of a non sequitur, and a direct lie. Hogwash. If Alexander has not seen a single paper on the subjects of his inquisition, that is because he doesn't read enough. There are thousands of papers confirming everything he is saying is not confirmed.
Study, learn, figure out the context and the relevance of the components, then bring relevant questions or statements to the table. Otherwise your just noise trying to drown out the signal. But you should already understand that, as you say you are a statistician.
Published: August 30, 2008 9:52 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
newson
re. #4
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hazards/index.php
I am assuming that this entire post is a quote form him?
The states "Claims based on observations over a period of less than 30 years"
He also states "Global warming ceased 10 years ago"
His lack of logic as well as lack of adherence to his own principles is mind numbing.
Dr. Alexander clearly has no idea what he is talking about, if those are really his words.
Published: August 30, 2008 9:59 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Walt D.
I've reviewed Svensmarks work and his view is far to limited in scope to understand AGW.
GCR's do not correlate with our current warming event, but again, context and relevance. His models do not explain the current level of forcing. He for some reason just refuses to look at the rest of the data. He seems to be stuck in confirmation bias. Hey, it's helping him sell books. If he did not refute AGW no one would by his stuff.
Feel free to blow a few bucks on him though, I'm sure he will appreciate it.
Published: August 30, 2008 10:02 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Walt D.
Walt D. - "The particulate pollutants produce an immediate, tangible and measurable effect, and also negative economic consequences such as lower yields for citrus fruits. What you are taking about is an effect that may or may not take place based on a computer model."
Yes, but you are still ignoring the timer and total forcing levels attached to each.
Walt D. - "Take your 7 to 9 Gt of CO2 and assume that it was cyanide gas."
Walt D. - "How long would it take before you could smell almonds? How long would it take before got a headache? How long would it take before you started to froth at the mouth?"
Wow! That's not a Red Herring, that's a Red Whale.
Published: August 30, 2008 10:03 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist - "However, if the natural forcing stops because we have reached the peak of a cycle, as the solar data indicates, then warming won’t get much worse than it is."
This is am amazingly naive assumption. You need to study... a lot. Study climate feedbacks especially.
Try a simple experiment.
Go to Death Valley in mid summer. Eat the same food for three days, and drink the same amount of water. Wear all white clothing and a white hat. Make sure you walk at a time of day when the temperature is the same. For this experiment, our target temperature is 130F.
Walk across the valley without drinking water (have someone with you as a back up of course).
See how far you can go in distance.
Now, do the same thing, three days, same food, same amount of water but change your clothing to all black and a black hat, all same type of fabric though.
Walk across the valley without drinking water (have someone with you as a back up of course).
See how far you can go in distance.
That will give you an idea of what a positive feedback is.
Google NASA Black Soot
Google NASA albedo ice
That will get you to relevant links.
Published: August 30, 2008 10:19 AM
newson
"The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
* "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
* "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
* "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
wall st journal 12 june 1996
Published: August 30, 2008 10:37 AM
newson
to john reisman:
actually i forgot to ask, what's the centrist party's policy prescription for climate change? cap-and-trade? carbon tax?
if yes, where are you getting your economic projections from?
Published: August 30, 2008 10:43 AM
Walt D.
Newson wrote
to john reisman:
actually i forgot to ask, what's the centrist party's policy prescription for climate change? cap-and-trade? carbon tax?
if yes, where are you getting your economic projections from?
Paris Hilton!
I did a google and found http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/economy
What a load of bollux.
Published: August 30, 2008 11:15 AM
TokyoTom
Roger, for the record, you said "Any time their [TT`s] “science” is proven wrong or their [TT`s] irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults."
After protesting and asking you specifically to defend or apologize for your accusation, you respond that "You did not demonstrate it and I'm not interested in spending the time to go back and find the relevant posts to prove it. Of course you think you do no wrong. Everyone thinks highly of themselves."
Hardly gentlemanly of you, Roger, to make gross accusations such as this while evidencing so little interest in either defending your position or demonstrating your honor. I had expected more; paint me as a fool.
Whether I do wrong is irrelevant when it`s your honor in question. But since you bring it up, even though you are unwilling to support your own tiring accusations of hysteria, foaming at the mouth insults and deliberate falsity, please feel free to let me know whenever you think I`ve done you or someone else wrong.
Tom
Published: August 31, 2008 4:40 AM
TokyoTom
I am copying here a post by clijmate blogger Eli Rabett - http://rabett.blogspot.com/ - that seems to have been misposted on another thread:
"Let us start with small things. Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans (or your soda) is not a simple process of the gas being dissolved in the water, but rather a series of chemical reactions. In chemspeak the equal sign means there are forward and reverse reactions and an equilibrium between them. Rising temperature shifts the equilibrium
CO2 (gas) = CO2 (dissolved)
CO2(dissolved) + H2O = H2CO3 (an acid)
H2CO3 (an acid) + H20 = H3O+ (an ion) + HCO3- (you know this as bicarb
HCO3- + H2O = CO3 (2-) + H3O+
"It's really not that simple as other dissolved ions in the ocean affect the equilibrium. One of the big problems with adding CO2 to the atmosphere is that this results in the ocean becoming more acidic (more H3O+) which makes for a whole series of problems with sea life (for example it becomes harder for corals to form).
"Of course, the holding capacity of the upper ocean for CO2 decreases, the fizzy coke effect, and when this additional CO2 enters the atmosphere you have a positive feedback. This is what happens as the Earth comes out of an ice age when the earth first warns due to changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the extra CO2 that this forced out of the oceans lead to additional warming.
"There is a linguistic ambiguity between CO2 acting as a forcing (from burning fossil fuels which have been buried for millions of years) and as a feedback (from rising global temperatures). The analogy which might appeal to those who do economic models is that the former is similar to a tax cut, a change which does not naturally occur without external action, and the later is an internal response governed by the natural working of the system."
#
Published: August 30, 2008 4:38 PM
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007529.asp#comment-440122
Published: August 31, 2008 4:46 AM
fundamentalist
John: “Important to remember that adding or taking away .3 W/m2 can not override 1.6 or 1.9 W/m2.”
You’re fixated on the satellite measurements of the variation in solar activity over a 20 year period. That’s ridiculous and dishonest. The sunspot and C14 data clearly show that the variations have been much greater in the past. Maybe the C14 and sun spot models aren’t perfect, but I’d bet on them against the computer climate models in a true validation any day. It’s dishonest to compare the sun spot and C14 models with perfection and use their lack of perfection as an excuse to accept the severely flawed computer models.
John: “Don't expect it to be simple, you need to know a lot of context before it starts to make holistic sense. it doesn't make sense to you now because you simply don't know the relevant contexts.”
Could be. Or it could be that since you drank the kool-aid, anything the mainstream says makes sense to you. A tiny bit of skepticism on you part might help you see the truth better.
John: “It's a very complicated puzzle and I am trying to grapple with the major forcings and minor influences.”
I think when you succeed in that you’ll understand the situation better. In statistics, we would call the major forcings the trend and the minor influences noise. Separating the trend from the noise is the most important step in understanding data. Keep in mind that a typical tactic for thwarting an attack on a theory about a trend is to throw in tons of noise, trivia stats that are true but irrelevant, in order to confuse everyone. If the oceans are the major sinks and sources of CO2, then focus on them. Why aren’t they behaving according to the model’s prediction? Is there something wrong with the model?
John: “…it doesn't make sense to you now because you simply don't know the relevant contexts.”
Is that going to be your response to everything? I know the relevant contexts and it does make sense to me. The models are wrong.
John: “No relevant context and likely a fabrication on your part…”
I don’t think you want to start calling people fabricators of data. I could easily place the same charge against you. I have read interviews with Lomberg and I he tells in his book why he became the skeptical environmentalist after years of radical pro-environmental work. You’re always challenging me to read more, why don’t you take your own advise?
John: “Essentially you are accusing a tremendous number of scientists of scientific dishonesty. The only way you or anyone else can prove it is to explain AGW with a different model that can survive peer response. No one has done that as yet.”
Yes, I am accusing them of dishonesty. It’s dishonest to claim to have a model that predicts anything and refuse to validate that model. That is patently dishonest. Any honest modeler knows it. Many scientists have suggested alternative models, but political correctness on the part of journals will not let them be published. You can hide behind the peer review process all you want, but it’s the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. See, that’s what happens every time we discuss climate on the site. After a bunch of name calling and insults from the GW hysterical guys, we discuss the science for a few posts. Then when you guys find you don’t know as much as you thought, you fall back on the appeal to authority. This dance is getting a little bit old.
Published: August 31, 2008 9:32 AM
fundamentalist
John: “Important to remember that adding or taking away .3 W/m2 can not override 1.6 or 1.9 W/m2.”
You’re fixated on the satellite measurements of the variation in solar activity over a 20 year period. That’s ridiculous and dishonest. The sunspot and C14 data clearly show that the variations have been much greater in the past. Maybe the C14 and sun spot models aren’t perfect, but I’d bet on them against the computer climate models in a true validation any day. It’s dishonest to compare the sun spot and C14 models with perfection and use their lack of perfection as an excuse to accept the severely flawed computer models.
John: “Don't expect it to be simple, you need to know a lot of context before it starts to make holistic sense. it doesn't make sense to you now because you simply don't know the relevant contexts.”
Could be. Or it could be that since you drank the kool-aid, anything the mainstream says makes sense to you. A tiny bit of skepticism on you part might help you see the truth better.
John: “It's a very complicated puzzle and I am trying to grapple with the major forcings and minor influences.”
I think when you succeed in that you’ll understand the situation better. In statistics, we would call the major forcings the trend and the minor influences noise. Separating the trend from the noise is the most important step in understanding data. Keep in mind that a typical tactic for thwarting an attack on a theory about a trend is to throw in tons of noise, trivia stats that are true but irrelevant, in order to confuse everyone. If the oceans are the major sinks and sources of CO2, then focus on them. Why aren’t they behaving according to the model’s prediction? Is there something wrong with the model?
John: “…it doesn't make sense to you now because you simply don't know the relevant contexts.”
Is that going to be your response to everything? I know the relevant contexts and it does make sense to me. The models are wrong.
John: “No relevant context and likely a fabrication on your part…”
I don’t think you want to start calling people fabricators of data. I could easily place the same charge against you. I have read interviews with Lomberg and I he tells in his book why he became the skeptical environmentalist after years of radical pro-environmental work. You’re always challenging me to read more, why don’t you take your own advise?
John: “Essentially you are accusing a tremendous number of scientists of scientific dishonesty. The only way you or anyone else can prove it is to explain AGW with a different model that can survive peer response. No one has done that as yet.”
Yes, I am accusing them of dishonesty. It’s dishonest to claim to have a model that predicts anything and refuse to validate that model. That is patently dishonest. Any honest modeler knows it. Many scientists have suggested alternative models, but political correctness on the part of journals will not let them be published. You can hide behind the peer review process all you want, but it’s the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. See, that’s what happens every time we discuss climate on the site. After a bunch of name calling and insults from the GW hysterical guys, we discuss the science for a few posts. Then when you guys find you don’t know as much as you thought, you fall back on the appeal to authority. This dance is getting a little bit old.
Published: August 31, 2008 9:32 AM
fundamentalist
TT, blogger Eli Rabett's post is a good example of obfuscation. The chemical formulas, and most of what he writes, has very little bearing on the question. The question was why the oceans are stink absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it. He doesn't answer that question.
Published: August 31, 2008 9:41 AM
TokyoTom
Roger, sorry, but I've lost my appetite for "conversation" with someone who - by peppering his posts with accusations of hysteria, foaming at the mouth insults and deliberate falsity and then refusing either to pony up or to apologize - betrays a fundamental lack of interest in discourse.
Feel free to consider it a failing on my part.
Published: August 31, 2008 10:14 PM
TokyoTom
Roger/fundamentalist, I have to say that the contrast between the alacrity with which you resort to accusations and insults and your extreme reluctance to defend or apologize for such ad hominem behavior is both quite sharp and disappointing.
Why is it that, if there is to be any progress on this thread, those who are the targets of ad hominem attacks are the ones who are expected to turn the other cheek and to soldier on?
Published: September 4, 2008 7:02 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Tokyo Tom
Sorry, but I have been on the road for the past week.
I would like to speak with you. Could you contact me through the Centrist site. It is clear that you are looking at the bigger picture and others remain myopic.
However, I would like to discuss some ideas with you if you have time.
Best,
John
Published: September 5, 2008 12:32 PM
fundamentalist
There's a good story on yahoo news (via AFP) about melting glaciers revealing Neolithic life. They have found Roman coins and a hunter from 6,500 years ago. Here's a quote:
"Scientists have long known there were periods of warmer weather in the region but the artefacts allowed them to identify the exact years, when the site would have been passable on foot."
"According to Grosjean, such data could help sharpen forecasts for the future by taking into account patterns of natural temperature fluctuation."
The important point is that the planet has been as hot as it is today on several occasions in the distant past, at least around 4,000 BC and during the Roman Empire. Otherwise, these artifacts would not have been frozen in the glaciers. Ancient people survived the heat wave; I guess we will, too.
Published: September 5, 2008 4:06 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist,
Again you display a complete lack of understanding and context. We came out of the last ice age about 15k yrs ago. It's been warmer. You are not presenting anything new here.
Published: September 5, 2008 9:20 PM
fundamentalist
John: "Again you display a complete lack of understanding and context."
I agree completely with the context part, but not the understanding. I understand the standard model well enough. You are right that my comments don't fit into the context of the standard model. What I have been trying to say is that the standard model is wrong.
John: "It's been warmer."
And it has been cooler. The planet goes naturally goes through cycles of warm and cold. It has been as warm in the past as it is today. In the past it warmed as much as it has today without any human forcing. That suggests that the human-caused explanations for GW are wrong. If climate modelers would be honest enough to include the real, long term contributions of solar heating and cooling to their models, they would see it.
John: "You are not presenting anything new here."
I'm not trying to present anything new. I'm trying to get some people who are open to reason to face the obvious facts that have been staring people in the face for centuries.
Published: September 6, 2008 9:19 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist,
Actually you are wrong on both points. It does not matter in this case that it has been warmer, and cooler. Again I repeat context and relevance. AGW is a different animal than GW.
It continues to be apparent that you do not understand forcing levels, which I have explained in previous posts.
You just don't understand, or you are ignoring the obvious. You can not compare the natural cycle of interglacial forcing around equilibrium (0 W/m2) and glacial around (-3.4 W/m2) with the AGW forcing of around 4 W/m2 plus the industrial aerosols for the negative.
Really, it is remedial math. Just do the math.
What you are questioning has already been considered in the models. You have nothing relevant in your post.
Published: September 6, 2008 1:50 PM
fundamentalist
John: "AGW is a different animal than GW."
No it is not, because there is not AGW, only GW.
John: "It continues to be apparent that you do not understand forcing levels, which I have explained in previous posts."
I understand them completely. They're just irrelevant. They have very little to do with GW.
John: "What you are questioning has already been considered in the models."
That's simply not true. The models consider only the minor contribution of the 11-year cycle of the sun, not the major variations in solar activity over centuries.
Published: September 6, 2008 5:24 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
How many times do you need to prove you have no clue?
Over the centuries of solar observation the solar forcing is still about .3 W/m2.
The scientists all know this. The current forcings and past forcings are all well considered in the models.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is human (in case you don't know that word), and the connotation of GW as you have used it is natural cycle. They are fundamentally different.
Do the math. 3.9 W/m2 - .3 W/m2 for solar, then - 2 W/m2 for aerosols and albedo.
If your answer is not below zero, then you can't look at the usual suspects, you have to look at the evidence and where that points, and that is anthropogenic/industrial output of GHG's.
Your simply being ignorant of the facts and the science.
Published: September 7, 2008 12:19 AM
fundamentalist
John: "Over the centuries of solar observation the solar forcing is still about .3 W/m2."
And what data do climate scientists use to determine that solar forcing? Are they using the carbon 14 or sunspot data?
John: "The current forcings and past forcings are all well considered in the models."
Then why won't they validate their models against temperatures as every other modeller in the world has to do before his model is taken seriously by anyone?
John: "Do the math."
Don't be so condescending. Do you really think I'm so stupid that I can't add the simple figures you keep throwing out? I disagree with the numbers that the mainstream science supplies. Of course I would have to reach the same conclusion as you do if I accepted all of the data and conclusions of mainstream climate science and did not consider the arguments of the skeptics. I'm arguing that the science is wrong because it doesn't sufficiently take into account solar forcings.
Obviously, you can't think beyond the mainstream science. It's the gospel to you and you won't consider any option. I happen to be able to think for myself and think the skeptics have good arguments that the mainstream refuses to consider.
Published: September 7, 2008 11:28 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Roger/fundamentalist
Roger/fundamentalist: "And what data do climate scientists use to determine that solar forcing? Are they using the carbon 14 or sunspot data?"
.3 W/m2 is the solar forcing from sunspots, added or taken away, it's still just .3 W/m2
Do you have actual science that says it is not .3 W/m2? Please do share. Or is this one of the magic moments where you think I can read your mind and find the exact piece of data you are referring to? You have presented in this entire thread not one piece of contextually relevant evidence in regard to your argument you are literally standing on opinion and claiming its science.
Roger/fundamentalist: "Don't be so condescending. Do you really think I'm so stupid that I can't add the simple figures you keep throwing out? ... I'm arguing that the science is wrong because it doesn't sufficiently take into account solar forcings."
I am saying literally that you are ignorant in that you are ignoring the known solar forcings. The forcing variance on the surface of the planet between a high sunspot cycle and a solar minimum is .3 W/m2.
Roger/fundamentalist: "Obviously, you can't think beyond the mainstream science. It's the gospel to you and you won't consider any option. I happen to be able to think for myself and think the skeptics have good arguments that the mainstream refuses to consider."
As I have explained numerous times, apparently to a deaf ear, I look beyond mainstream science, a lot. What is more obvious is that you can't support your argument with any science, let alone mainstream science and you are ignorant of the actual forcings. What is also obvious is that you religiously believe in your own, or others opinions rather than science in general.
Published: September 7, 2008 12:59 PM
Walt D.
"The forcing variance on the surface of the planet between a high sunspot cycle and a solar minimum is .3 W/m2."
This is true for the total flux.(Given no other info, you would expect the total flux difference to be negative, since there is no visible flux from the black spots.) However, it is not true for the high ultra-violet and x-ray (line spectra) part of the spectra. The flux in these regions doubles between the minimum and the maximum in the 11-year solar cycle. This leads to large changes in the gaseous composition of the stratosphere above 25km.
Published: September 7, 2008 7:03 PM
TokyoTom
John, you can get my email address by going to my Mises page and clicking on the "send email" link in the left column: http://mises.org/Community/members/TokyoTom/default.aspx
For those with inquiring minds, here is an article pending for publication (with authors` email addresses) in The Annual Review of Marine Science on "Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem": http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834?cookieSet=1
Summary points are as follows:
"1. The surface ocean currently absorbs approximately one-third of the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) injected into the atmosphere from human fossil fuel use and deforestation, which leads to a reduction in pH and wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry.
"2. The resulting lowering of seawater carbonate ion concentrations and the saturation state for calcium carbonate are well documented in field data, and the rate of change is projected to increase over the 21st century unless predicted future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically.
"3. Acidification will directly impact a wide range of marine organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate, from planktonic coccolithophores and pteropods and other molluscs, to echinoderms, corals, and coralline algae. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions, whereas some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying) have higher carbon fixation rates under high CO2.
"4. Our present understanding of potential ocean acidification impacts on marine organisms stems largely from short-term laboratory and mesocosm experiments; consequently, the response of individual organisms, populations, and communities to more realistic gradual changes is largely unknown (Boyd et al. 2008).
5. The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and the broader implications
for ocean ecosystems are not well known; an emerging body of evidence suggests
that the impact of risingCO2 on marine biota will be more varied than previously thought,
with both ecological winners and losers.
"6. Ocean acidification likely will affect the biogeochemical dynamics of calcium carbonate, organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the ocean as well as the seawater chemical speciation of trace metals, trace elements, and dissolved organic matter.
"7. Acidification impacts on processes so fundamental to the overall structure and function of marine ecosystems that any significant changes could have far-reaching consequences for the oceans of the future and the millions of people that depend on its food and other resources for their livelihoods.
"8. Geo-engineering solutions that attempt to slow global warming without reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as injection of stratospheric aerosols (Crutzen 2006), will not reduce ocean acidification."
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834?cookieSet=1
Published: September 8, 2008 10:24 AM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Walt D.
I tried to look up what you are talking about via google but did not find anything that seemed to relate to your post.
Can you clarify with cites or web links I can read please. I'm also unsure what you mean by "large changes in the gaseous composition of the atmosphere".
Large is a relative term and you have not provided a frame of reference, i.e. do you mean quantity and if so in relation to what? ... non GHG trace gases or total atmosphere? ... or do you mean relative to reflective aerosols; or do you mean changes in the forcing in general of the changes in aerosols or GHG's?
Published: September 10, 2008 2:30 PM
Walt D.
John
Here is an article - it is more recent than the one I was referring. Also, beware - although it is published in a reputable journal, these results are also based on a model. I suggest you do a literature search with the keywords. I will also get you a copy of the 1974 paper that deals only with solar spectrum variation. (I think this was done by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory).
Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 5, 00528, 2003
c
European Geophysical Society 2003
VARIATIONS OF COMPOSITION AND
TEMPERATURE OF THE STRATOSPHERE
CAUSED BY SOLAR UV RADIATION
Dyominov, I. G. (1), A. M. Zadorozhny (1)
(1) Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia (dyominov@phys.nsu.ru)
We examine changes in composition and temperature of the stratosphere caused by
solar UV radiation varying in the course of the 11-year cycle. The examination is
based on a two-dimensional self-consistent radiative photochemical model of the troposphere
and stratosphere. The model calculates diabatic circulation, temperature, distributions
of 45 minor gas constituents, the polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) of type
I and type II, and condensed particles of sulphuric acid hydrate with radii 6.4 nm r
5200 nm.
We found that the 11-year solar UV flux variations, when moving toward the solar
activity maximum, lead to a significant increase in oxygen and hydrogen constituents
in the stratosphere above 25 km. For example, the solar UV variations lead to about
14%, 12%, 6% 10%, 8%, 7%, and 4% changes for O(1D), O(3P), O3, H2O2, HO2,
OH, and H2O, respectively, in winter in middle latitudes at a 35 km altitude. Changes
of nitrogen and chlorine constituents are comparatively less in the 11-year solar activity
cycle. The only exception is nitrous oxide which variation above 45 km is
greater than 20-30%. Ozone increase, when moving toward the solar activity maximum,
leads to a significant temperature increase for all latitudes at altitudes above
30 km. We found that the 11-year temperature variations at a 35 km altitude almost
everywhere practically follow the solar UV variations. In the springtime, in middle
latitudes at a 25 km altitude the 11-year maximums in O3, N2O and HNO3 fall behind
the solar UV maximums by about 2, 14, and 29 months. Total ozone variations
mainly coincide with the solar UV variations.We have compared all these results with
available experimental data.
Published: September 10, 2008 4:39 PM
TokyoTom
Roger, there's no "obfuscation" on Eli's part; he's simply provided information. Maybe if you actually asked him a question and he was off-point then you could complain.
"The question was why the oceans are stink absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it. He doesn't answer that question."
If take "stink" as a creative hybrid for "still" and "sink" then I get your drift.
First, let me commend you on accepting that on a net basis the oceans are absorbing rather than releasing CO2, so the oceans are not presently the cause of climbing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Presumably that means you acknowledge that man is largely responsible for that fact (I note, BTW, that tropical deforestation is considered a substantial cause - roughly a fifth to a third of annual contributions)?
As for your question the simple (and tautological response) is that ocean concentrations of CO2 (as carbonic acid/H2CO3 fizz) are climbing simply because the atmsophere and oceans move towards equilibrium, so that climbing atmospheric concentrations means more CO2 must be dissolved into the oceans - this is the "put the fizz in the Coke" effect. There are opposite equilibrium pushes from the "already full of fizz" effect and from the "warming Coke" effect that gradually will erode the ocean as a sink by offsetting the "fizz in" effect. That clearly hasn't happened yet partly because our push from the atmospheric CO2 side hasn't ended and is rather scaling up.
Anything else?
Your humble, hysterical and lying correspondent,
Tom
Published: September 12, 2008 12:20 AM
TokyoTom
Roger, there's no "obfuscation" on Eli's part; he's simply provided information. Maybe if you actually asked him a question and he was off-point then you could complain.
"The question was why the oceans are stink absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it. He doesn't answer that question."
If take "stink" as a creative hybrid for "still" and "sink" then I get your drift.
First, let me commend you on accepting that on a net basis the oceans are absorbing rather than releasing CO2, so the oceans are not presently the cause of climbing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Presumably that means you acknowledge that man is largely responsible for that fact (I note, BTW, that tropical deforestation is considered a substantial cause - roughly a fifth to a third of annual contributions)?
As for your question the simple (and tautological response) is that ocean concentrations of CO2 (as carbonic acid/H2CO3 fizz) are climbing simply because the atmsophere and oceans move towards equilibrium, so that climbing atmospheric concentrations means more CO2 must be dissolved into the oceans - this is the "put the fizz in the Coke" effect. There are opposite equilibrium pushes from the "already full of fizz" effect and from the "warming Coke" effect that gradually will erode the ocean as a sink by offsetting the "fizz in" effect. That clearly hasn't happened yet partly because our push from the atmospheric CO2 side hasn't ended and is rather scaling up.
Anything else?
Your humble (and hysterical and lying) correspondent,
Tom
Published: September 12, 2008 2:13 AM
Walt D.
John
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Here is the NASA article I was referring to. Note that this was done on a previous solar cycle. You will note that the solar flux is lower than in was in the current cycle.
Title:
Solar flux and its variations
Authors:
Smith, E. V. P.; Gottlieb, D. M.
Affiliation:
AA(Maryland, University, College Park, Md.), AB(Maryland, University, College Park, Md.)
Publication:
Space Science Reviews, vol. 16, Nov.-Dec. 1974, p. 771-802. (SSRv Homepage)
Publication Date:
12/1974
Category:
Solar Physics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
PERIODIC VARIATIONS, SOLAR ACTIVITY EFFECTS, SOLAR CONSTANT, SOLAR FLUX, ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS, FAR ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION, IRRADIANCE, SOLAR CYCLES, SOLAR FLARES, SOLAR ROTATION, SOLAR X-RAYS, TABLES (DATA)
Comment:
A&AA ID. AAA012.080.042
Bibliographic Code:
1974SSRv...16..771S
Abstract
Data on the solar irradiance as derived from a number of sources are presented. An attempt was made to bring these data onto a uniform scale. Summation of fluxes at all wavelengths yields a figure of 1357.826 per sq m for the solar constant. Estimates are made of the solar flux variations due to flares, active regions (slowly varying component), solar rotation and the 11-year cycle. Solar activity does not produce a significant variation in the value of the solar constant. Nevertheless, variations in the X-ray and extreme ultraviolet portions of the solar flux may be several orders of magnitude during solar activity, especially at times of major flares. It is well established that these short wavelength flux enhancements cause significant changes in the terrestrial ionosphere.
Regards, Walt
Published: September 13, 2008 12:13 PM
Walt D.
TokyoTom
Based on your last post, I thought you might find this article interesting. I have included the abstract. You will probably want to read the full article in Japanese!
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 19, GB4013, doi:10.1029/2004GB002257, 2005
Interannual and decadal changes in the sea-air CO2 flux from atmospheric CO2 inverse modeling
Prabir K. Patra
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan
Shamil Maksyutov
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan
Misa Ishizawa
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan
Takakiyo Nakazawa
Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan
Taro Takahashi
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA
Jinro Ukita
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA
Abstract
The atmosphere-land-ocean fluxes of CO2 were derived for 64 partitioned areas of the globe (22 over the ocean and 42 over the land) using a time-dependent inverse (TDI) model for the period of January 1988 to December 2001. The model calculation partially follow the TransCom-3 protocol, and is constrained by atmospheric CO2 concentration data from 87 stations and fully time-dependent atmospheric transport model simulations. The air-to-land and air-to-sea fluxes averaged over the 1990s are estimated at 1.15 ± 0.74 and 1.88 ± 0.53 Pg-C yr−1, respectively. These estimates, however, remain uncertain owing to sampling biases arising from the sparse distribution of atmospheric CO2 data, are compared with other estimates by various methods. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the differences in fluxes and flux variability caused by the choices of initial conditions for the TDI model are smaller compared to those due to the selection of measurement networks. Our model results capture interannual variations in global and regional CO2 fluxes realistically. The estimated oceanic CO2 flux anomalies appear to be closely related to prominent climate modes such as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The results from the correlation analyses show that the oceanic CO2 flux in the tropics is strongly influenced by the ENSO dynamical cycle, and that in the sub-polar regions by upwelling of sub-surface waters in the winter and plankton blooms in the spring.
Received 14 March 2004; accepted 26 August 2005; published 15 November 2005.
I enjoy reading your interesting posts, even if I don't necessarily agree with all your points of view -Walt
Published: September 13, 2008 12:45 PM
John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party)
Walt D.
I've examined the concepts from "European Geophysical Society 2003 VARIATIONS OF COMPOSITION AND TEMPERATURE OF THE STRATOSPHERE CAUSED BY SOLAR UV RADIATION'
I find no relevance however, pertaining to this global warming event. It would be helpful if you are going to offer up random papers that don't seem to be relevant, if you could explain the scientific basis for the reason you are presenting the information. Otherwise it becomes less meaningful to respond to you.
I've said this ad infinitum in this blog, context and relevance is key.
The other paper you presented from 1974 "Solar flux and its variations" is outdated. We have much better data now.
The abstract you presented on
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 19, GB4013, doi:10.1029/2004GB002257, 2005
is a study between 1988 - 2001 (13 years) does not qualify as a long term climate study as it is not mature enough. It is mostly studying the NAO, PDO and ENSO. That does not mean that it does not add to the aggregate knowledge pertaining to NAO, PDO and ENSO as it does, but again 'relevance' and 'context' are critical. It is not germane to the AGW argument.
You are not presenting any relevant information and you are still apparently taking things out of context. If you can't bring relevant information to the argument, or proper context, then your argument and perspective is or should be considered irrelevant, ie.e not germane to the present knowledge and understanding of AGW.
Published: September 20, 2008 8:06 AM