Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by bntii

Nothing like an unbiased understanding.

Good work with the research. You have found exactly what you were looking for.

If you go back through this thread, I also listed biases I found at both the EPA and NOAA, as well . All I found was what was out there to find. What makes Dr. Jaworowski so compelling is that his findings are independently verifiable - all you have to do is check the original data that was altered, and you've verified for yourself whether he was telling the truth or not. You don't have to have anything interpreted.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by bntii

Yes thank you Stonebreaker. You have in fact listed the most important bias in your argument:

C'mon, bntii, surely you can muster an actual argument instead of that rather weak innuendo?

[Omno]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

Depends on who you believe. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, in a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I.E. in a place he could be charged with purgery if he lied

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=16
The hearing schedule for the Committee does not list a hearing for March 19, 2004, but it does list climate-related hearings on Jan. 8, 2003, on Nov. 16, 2004, on Sept. 15, 2004, on May 6, 2004, and on Mar. 6, 2004.
In these hearings, no mention of Jaworowski is to be found.
The Committee’s transcripts and witness lists are searchable. “Jaworowski” appears nowhere.

So no I don't believe Jaworowski. And I definitely prefer to believe the majority of scientists on the issue rather than someone who prints errors and doesn't risk putting them up for peer review.

The rest of his article is debunked here too: http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Here's where he pointed out that one Dr. Callendar cherrypicked data points to make the outcome match his preconcieved theory, and was later disproved by someone OTHER than Dr. Jaworowski:

Addressed here: http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/

However, if you examine Jaworowski’s graph, it is clear that most of the CO2 measurements shown on the graph are inaccurate. The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million. It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year—the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world. The red line I added shows the measurements of CO2 concentration taken at Mauna Loa since 1958. Notice how there are no huge year-to-year fluctuations.

So given that many of the measurements are wrong, it makes no sense to average them as Jaworowski suggests should be done. The correct procedure is discard the inaccurate measurements. Callendar discarded (Tellus X (1958 p 244):

(a) Period mean values 10% or more different from the general average of the time and region.

(b) Air samples taken in towns, because these often give 5 to 20% more CO2 than uncontaminated air.

(c) Averages depending on only a few samples, or made within a short period, because real fluctuations may exceed 10% in such cases.

(d) Measurements intended for special purposes such as biological, soil air, atmospheric pollution, etc

Jaworowski claims that rather that selecting the most accurate values, Callendar made an arbitrary selection to produce the result (increasing CO2) that he desired. Jaworowski has not a scrap of evidence for his claim and all other data supports Callendar. The green line shows measurements of CO2 concentration from ice cores at Law Dome. Notice how it agrees with the values Callendar chose and the red line of the Mauna Loa measurements. Jaworowski has an answer to this. The ice core measurements are fraudulent, as are the Mauna Loa measurements. Multiple independent ice core measurements agree with those from the Law Dome, so presumably Jaworowski believes that these are the product of a huge conspiracy as well. It should come as no surprise that Jaworowski’s theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche, renowned for his belief in various conspiracy theories.

Simply by showing where the climatologists cooked the data, he effectively disproved the notion that preindustrial CO2 levels were at the claimed 290 ppm, and were in fact at 328 ppm in 1890

He did no such thing though. He distorted the processes of the scientists to make it look that way. This is a classic case of skeptics trying to muddy good science.

Whether or not the global temperature is rising, the fact that the eco nuts are having to LIE to support their claims that humans are responsible, makes me suspicious of the whole concept. Since I've started researching this, I've gone from having no opinion to the belief that this is simply an attempt by ecologists to bypass the legitimate democratic process in order to dictate economic policy.

Since when have climate scientists been eco nuts? Now you know it is the skeptics like Jaworowski who are dishonest. Articles like his are an attempt to muddy the water. They sound impressive, lots of quotes and diagrams, but they the science behind them is flawed and his point is not to reach the truth at all but to hide it.

[Omno]

Originally Posted by Toot

It sure looks like a millenia-long rise to me... occuring over about 20 millenia, it seems.

There was a millenia long rise, but it ended about 10,000 years ago. Since then temperatures have been dropping very slightly.

What is interesting in that graph though is that usually in the warm periods, the increase in temperature outpaces the increase in CO2. For the first time ever, this appears not to be the case.

co2 isn't believed to be the trigger of interglacial warming. There is more than just temperature and co2 at work over long periods of time - astronomical factors like tilt of the earth and orbital variation come into play and solar variation.

Here's something else that just caught my eye. It appears to my eye that temperatures lag CO2 on the upswing, and lead CO2 on the downswing. Does anybody else see that? If that's the case, it appears that the Earth has a self-regulating function built in.

co2 actually lags temperature on the upswing which is very good evidence that the initial temperature rise is not caused by co2 at all. Ie co2 is not that powerful at warming to cause those large upward spikes. So the recent co2 rises are not going to cause anything near a 10C increase. The cyclic nature of it also suggests something more clockwork like some kind of cyclical orbital change.

There is some self-regulation in that the earth has fallen into a stable state. The earth has been in many different climate states in the distant past switching from one state to the other. Only recently in earth's history have we had these 125K glacial cycles for example.

Anyway, you will notice that the peak temperatures of *this* "heatwave" (the last 20k years) is lower than previous peaks. But the CO2 is higher. This suggests to me that the CO2 is having a regulating effect. By not declining, it is preventing the temperatures from going down into another ice age (10,000+ years from now). Further supporting this is the fact that our current "heatwave peak" has lasted about 10,000 years whereas historically they seem to have lasted about half that long. This suggests that the CO2 is actually staving off an inevitable decline in temperatures.

Well co2 only got that high in the past 150 years so I suspect this longer than normal 10,000 year interglacial period is just an anomoly.

[stonebreaker]

Omno,

The problem with your quoted refutation of Jaworowski's points is that the high numbers are simply assumed by climatologists to be wrong, and dismissed out of hand, rather than going to the effort to actually prove it. In other words, the ecologist on your website agrees with Callendar, and sees no problem with his cherry-picking.

You're right, though, after checking the senate website I see that Jaworowski never actually testified before the senate committee, so I stand corrected there. BUT, a climate hearing WAS cancelled/postponed in march of 2004, according to the senate website, and doesn't list the members so it's possible he was on the list.

However, your guy fails to address the 80 year "correction" in the siple ice core data that Jaworowski pointed out, so I'm still suspicious. However, you've convinced me to look further into it.

[yotphix]

I haven't heard anything lately about "heat island effect". Anyone know if there is current thought on it's relevance to the supposed increase in temps?

[Omno]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

Omno,

The problem with your quoted refutation of Jaworowski's points is that the high numbers are simply assumed by climatologists to be wrong, and dismissed out of hand

Clearly they are not. They dismissed for good reason:

First: The green line shows measurements of CO2 concentration from ice cores at Law Dome. Notice how it agrees with the values Callendar chose and the red line of the Mauna Loa measurements.

Second: Multiple independent ice core measurements agree with those from the Law Dome

It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year

However, your guy fails to address the 80 year "correction" in the siple ice core data that Jaworowski pointed out

He does. He points out that Jaworowski's claim that scientists failed to support the time lag experimentally are false. They explain it more here: http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=18

At the time this paper was written, some very good research had been done showing that there is substantial mixing of air down to the firn-ice transition layer (And quite a bit more has been done since then.) Some of the most convincing evidence for this mixing, and thus for an age difference between air and ice, is the gradient in heavier isotope concentration caused by gravitational enrichment right down to the transition layer, where it levels off dramatically. Jaworowski et al. either ignore this research, or try to turn it to their purposes. They dismiss one 1982 article by Craig and Chou, saying that a 1988 article by Craig et al. had “revoked their earlier assumption” regarding the age difference. They then turn around and cite another 1988 article by Craig and a different set of collaborators, saying that the enrichment “strongly indicates that the air in porous firn is protected from convective and other motions.” So, gravitational enrichment is unreliable as an indication of how long the air has been mixing, but it is reliable as an indication that there is not much mixing?

[stonebreaker]

bntii,

Go away and let the big boys play. Omno's a challenging debater. You're just looking for a flame war.

[Toot]

Omno- thanks for the reply! It fun to talk about things when your "opponent" isn't resorting to calling you an idiot for disagreeing.

I openly state that I'm not an expert on this, but am skeptical of ALL things that I do not understand. And Global Warming falls into this category.

So you're saying that CO2 isn't causing a warming trend. You're agreeing that it's holding off another possible "ice age".

So... uhhh... what's the "trigger" for the high temps, in your opinion? Another gas? Sun spots?

[bntii]

Is this a nod to political/public pressure to address a real concern? Or just the clamoring of more eco nuts?:

http://www.climatetechnology.gov/str...inal/index.htm



From the intro:

CCTP constitutes the “technology component” of a
comprehensive U.S. approach to climate change that
includes undertaking short-term actions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions intensity, advancing climate
change science, and promoting international
cooperation. CCTP’s purpose is to accelerate the
development, and reduce the cost of, new and
advanced technologies, as well as promote the
deployment of advanced technologies and best
practices that could avoid, reduce, or capture and
store greenhouse gas emissions. CCTP was
established by President Bush to implement his
National Climate Change Technology Initiative
(NCCTI) and coordinate existing efforts. This
initiative brings to bear America’s strengths in
innovation and technology to address climate change.

[yotphix]

Hey great news everybody! Just read that the arctic ice pack is thicker this year and global temps are down. Keep up the good work! Man you guys can solve any problem!

[BillyDoc]

Hottest Earth in a million years

September 26, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Agence France-Presse

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...15-663,00.html

THE Earth's rapid warming has pushed temperatures to their hottest level in almost 12,000 years and within a hair's breadth of a million years, NASA has reported.

Global warming, which has added 0.2C a decade over the past 30 years, has caused temperatures to reach the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which lasted almost 12,000 years, according to a study led by James Hansen, a leading climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The study, published in the September 26 of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said that Earth was now within about 1C of the maximum estimated temperature of the past million years.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration researcher said that was the most important finding of the team's research.

"That means that further global warming of 1 degree Celsius defines a critical level. If warming is kept less than that, effects of global warming may be relatively manageable. During the warmest interglacial periods the Earth was reasonably similar to today," Hansen said.

"But if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."

Hansen pointed out that the last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about three million years ago, when the sea level is estimated to have been about 25m higher than today.

The researchers recalled that a study published in 2003 by the British science journal Nature showed that 1700 varieties of plants and animal and insect species had migrated toward the North Pole at an average 6km a decade in the second half of the 20th century.

[Toot]

So the article says that in the geologic history of the Earth, there's a precedent for these types of temperatures, we see from the charts that the temps should be rather warm right now- after all, we HAVE emerged from an "ice age", and we see that water levels used to be a lot higher, but aren't at the present moment, for reasons that aren't specified.

I will put this article in my "propoganda" file as it provides no scientific discussion about what global warming is, or how it works.

[BillyDoc]

The most important result found by these researchers is that the warming in recent decades has brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius (1.8°F) of the maximum temperature of the past million years. According to Hansen, "That means that further global warming of 1 degree Celsius defines a critical level. If warming is kept less than that, effects of global warming may be relatively manageable. During the warmest interglacial periods the Earth was reasonably similar to today. But if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know. The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about three million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters (80 feet) higher than today."

Go here for the whole article: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/ne...=1&1=1&2=2&3=3

Go here for the National Academy of Sciences (detailled version) of the same: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/...en_etal_1.html

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by BillyDoc

Hottest Earth in a million years

September 26, 2006 12:00am
Article from: Agence France-Presse

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...15-663,00.html

THE Earth's rapid warming has pushed temperatures to their hottest level in almost 12,000 years and within a hair's breadth of a million years, NASA has reported.

So your best reference is an Australian newspaper report that got its info from a French news agency who got its data from a US organization, that prints an outright lie in the title then retracts it in the first paragraph?
And then goes on to put words in the mouth of NASA's researcher because Hansen's actual words apparently aren't scary enough to make good press? Hansen actually called the 1 deg C hotter than now temp "a sensible upper limit", not a "critical level" as the paper reported.

And the whole report is bogus anyway - since we've been coming out of the last ice age for the last 12,000 years, OF COURSE it's going to get hotter. It would do that regardless of what humans do. Even Hansen was forced to admit that it's been hotter in the past. He tried to wrap it in a Water World scenario, but he was still forced to admit it, nonetheless.

Have to agree with Toot - this is nothing but propaganda.