What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

This is going to be all the rage....

180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. 2006-2008
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

His paper evaluates >90,000 historic chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 conducted between 1812 and 1961. It shows many of those measurements were of high quality and indicated levels much higher than 280 ppmv. It challenges the often claimed (e.g. by IPPC) that stable pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv then existed.

It also shows there is a 5 years lag delay between CO2 and mean temperature, this last being ahead.

To shorten debate, here the rebuttal of the rebuttals :
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180C...r_reply9-2.pdf

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

A few years ago a submarine exploration of the Arctic Ocean under the polar ice cap found some 15 large geothermal vents along the Arctic fracture zone, and evidence of the recent outflow of lava. ‘We found more hydrothermal activity on this cruise than in 20 years of exploration on the mid-Atlantic Ridge’, said Charles Langmuir, scientist from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University’’. Thus, AGW is not needed to explain arctic ice melting. There may be other causes, as this one.

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/story11_28_01.html

Also:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-fut062508.php

[masalai]

May you all remember this Christmas and think carefully on enjoying a simpler life with friends. Blessings to all.....

[Guillermo]

Just updating images:
'Artic Sea Ice Extension' two days ago and 'No Sun Spots Yet' yesterday

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by masalai

May you all remember this Christmas and think carefully on enjoying a simpler life with friends. Blessings to all.....

Thanks Masa. We are enjoying life with friends here.....

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2....htm?list91627

Season's greetings everybody!

[Jimbo1490]

This is going to be all the rage....

180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. 2006-2008

What???!! CO2 at 440 ppm in 1825 and 390 ppm in 1857 ??? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!! EXXON! EXXON! EXXON! The 'hole' thing is a Republican Conspiracy!!! ARRRRGH!!!



Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Jimmy: don't yell....

‘‘All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself’’. ‘‘In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people . . . will more easily fall victim to a great lie than a small one’’ (Hitler, 1933).

Jimmy: don't laugh.....

[Jimbo1490]

Recent proxy data analyses suggest that some aspects of climate change within the Cretaceous appear to be decoupled from CO2 evolution at the geological time scale.

I dare say that you don't need to go all the way back in time to the cretaceous period to witness such 'decoupling; indeed the 20th century will do quite nicely, and with much smaller time scales as well. You know, the shorter time scales Mikey Mann says should show that simple cause and effect relationship.



Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

A very good explanation of the pitfalls of over-attribution of the greenhouse potential of CO2 in the atmosphere can be found here:

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html

Here you will find that using figures as high as 35% attribution, as some have suggested, yields highly anomalous results and are therefore suspect. A parametric calculator is included on the page for your instruction and entertainment.

Excerpted:

There are claims carbon dioxide is responsible for 35%[!] of the global greenhouse effect (therefore returning 13.9% OLR to Earth). Carbon dioxide is believed to have increased from 280 to 385ppmv (37.5%) since the Industrial Revolution. All things being equal that should add 4.9% to net greenhouse effect, right? Except making greenhouse .446 and leaving the rest of the values at default says the earth should have warmed to 294.32 K (21.17 °C).

Best guesses from NCDC and GISTEMP put the 2007 planetary mean temperature around 287.6/7 K or about 14.5 °C.

A quick test of CO2's effect suggests 35% GHE overstates estimated warming by a factor of at least 7 and that S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264 were likely pretty close to the mark when stating "Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor."

Jimbo

[Boston]

funny that nearly every one of the sources provided were industry funded
way to obfuscate guys

given a complete lack of any credible answer to the previous questions
it seems only fare to reiterate Masalai's query along with the others as well

something relevant
just wondering if you were planning on answering Masalai's question about ice melt

if the temp is not rising
why is all this ice melting
(your not seriously going to rely on volcanic activity are you
you might look at how old those vents are before you go much farther)

and Im curious if you were planning on admitting there is plenty of data supporting tropical tropospheric warming
when you had said categorically there was none

or maybe admitting that water vapor makes up only about 50% of the greenhouse effect and not the 96% you tried to pass off
( still clinging with a death grip to phony information provided by those industry funded front groups sources I see )

any ideas on that
cause I think we should stick to the last three questions before we move on to lassitude
or
obfuscate for that matter
as someone pointed out earlier

love
B

and another good one
why do skeptics insist on using energy industry funded research to try and show that the energy industries waste is not harmful
like when someone tried to debate the water vapor question with data from an oil industry front group
isnt that a lot like the tobacco companies trying to tell us that smoking is safe and not proven to cause any ill effects

why do skeptic constantly waffle from one question to another instead of answer one they are having trouble with

why is there a growing consensus among not only the scientific community but also among the public at large that global warming is both caused by man and is a real threat

have a great one
B

I would also point out how blatantly deceitful some of those sources were
climatescience.net is a front group of industry stooges
climatescience.gov is the real scientific body of contributing researchers

oh and that last bit about 35% water vapor
way to go with the low numbers on the science side
and the highest number on the pseudoscience skeptics side
it proves beautifully what I mean when I say dishonest misrepresentation of the evidence at hand
thanks
makes my task a lot easier when folks use such blatant hucksterism and agnotology

another shining example in the crown of crap is the junk science page

The junk science site is run by Steven J. Milloy funded by the oil and gas industry and is sponsored by the swell-sounding Citizens for the Integrity of Science, another front organization located in Potomac, Maryland, whose WWW page directs the websurfer back to Mr. Milloy's Junk Science Page. This is not surprising since Mr. Milloy is the "Administrative Contact" of the front organization.

The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative or libertarian political agenda for businesses and industries that do not like regulations that limit their ability to pollute or poison us or our environment. Milloy uses the term 'junk science' mainly as a political and polemical term. What the majority of scientists call sound science, Milloy usually calls junk science. And what he calls 'sound science', the majority of scientists usually call junk science.

[Boston]

here is a great example of the deceitful nature of the detracting arguments

research and experimentation show water vapor to contribute 36% to 66% depending on temperature of the total atmospheric greenhouse effect
for an average of ~51% with clouds contributing another ~25% and greenhouse gasses ~25%
skeptics claim water vapor contributes as much as ~ 98% negating the need to concern ourselves with co2 emissions

In an effort to debate the issue of water vapor's contribution to the greenhouse effect an essay was recently offered by the skeptics
it contained the following paragraphs concerning water vapor
p 735
( I would note that skeptics are not presenting peer reviewed data supporting there claims )
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf
author Joel Kauffman





lets begin our consideration of this with a review of the cited articles authors

we have
himself ( Kauffman 004 )
published in the journal of scientific exploration
the journal of scientific exploration sounds good at first read but as it turns out its not exactly a peer reviewed publication dealing with hard science

Some observers regard the JSE as a legitimate attempt to explore the frontiers of science,[8][9] while others view it as a forum for scientifically objectionable or dubious ideas.[10] Some academics have noted that JSE publishes on anomalous issues, topics often on the fringe of science.[11]
Of the SSE and JSE, journalist Michael Lemonick writes, "Pretty much anything that might have shown up on The X-Files or in the National Enquirer shows up first here. But what also shows up is a surprising attitude of skepticism." [12]
Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP fellow has criticized JSE and argues that:
The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena.[13]

Kauffman also made Inhofe's climate skeptics debunked list

193. Joel M. Kauffman,
PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia,
U.S. Retired. Doesn't have any discernable climate experience.
http://www.usp.edu/chemistry/faculty...aphy.asp?id=43

we have
Richard Lindzen
[QUOTE professor and agriculture consultant who claims that organic food is bad for you and charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[3][/quote]

and finally in regards to the water vapor issue also noted is one of my favorite charictors in this hole game
Fred Singer

In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct the front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[1]
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a front group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]Sherwood et al
The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations. Several characteristics of this trend indicate that it is an artifact of systematic reductions over time in the uncorrected error due to daytime solar heating of the instrument, and should be absent from accurate climate records. Although other problems may exist, this effect alone is of sufficient magnitude to reconcile radiosonde tropospheric temperature trends and surface trends during the late 20th century.

now if the backgrounds of the players in the game arent already enough
lets move on to what they are saying and how they are saying it

Joel K states that he performed his own study of atmospheric water vapor greenhouse effect one lovely humid Philly day
using a FT-IR and finding
92% obsorbsion was due to water vapor
8% due to CO2
0% due to methane

now a novice might look at this and say wow old Joel really did his homework
but lets look a little closer and ask one simple question that calls into question old Joels methods

how is it he failed to find any contributing factor by any of the other ghg
we know through direct laboratory recreatable experimentation that minority greenhouse gasses ( ghg ) react by reflecting radiant energy
after all reflecting radiant energy is what makes a ghg a ghg
sooooo
if Joel was running a detailed experiment how could he miss something that should account for ~8% of the known reflection by direct experimentation

it goes back to that little bit about how the machine was calibrated
Joel set the device to read the percentage proportional the concentration of the gas present
its far more likely he was reading the humidity at the time
and not the greenhouse gas effect

lets move on to the mean water vapor of the troposphere

first thing he hasnt told us it the humidity at the time the measurements were taken
this ones easy cause he really screwed up when he tried to do some math
he calculates the vapor as volume rather than effect and then adds cloud volume which isnt vapor and proports that total volume as the effect
its not
if you remember from my previous not all molecules are created equal
I could dive into the proportional effects
but a better way to point out the problems with they way Joel calculated his findings is to look at one simple fact
the amount of water vapor held in the tropical troposphere is as much as 500 times greater than at the poles
and he fails to correct for this
so what he is giving us at best is the possible high vapor content ( remember we are talking about effect not content ) of the area with the highest vapor potential and misrepresenting that as the effect
not exactly a fare analysis of water vapor effect on average, globally now is it

lets move on

Joel's claim that Singer Avery both avowed skeptics maintain that water vapor accounts for 60% of the natural greenhouse effect
and that CO2 accounts for about 20%

even though these guys used the high numbers instead of the mean for these agents the article fails to mention that water vapor is a feedback and CO2 is a forcing agent in the system
besides
dont they basically agree with what I said in my previous

now to the nitty gritty
the claim that
Richard Lindzen 1992
reports that water vapor and clouds makes up for 98% of any greenhouse effect

lets take a closer look at that claim and the essay it was made in
( once again I would point out that skeptics are not providing peer reviewed and refered articles as support for there 96% or 98% claim )

the article is published by the Cato institute
who is
you guessed it
funded by Exxon
as well as
the American petroleum institute
Amgen
General Motors
Honda
R J Reynolds tobacco
Toyota
Volkswagen
to name a few
clearly an industry sponsored rag

lets take a look at the research
and lo and behold there isnt any

from Lindzen 1992
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect.

now any reasonable author of any serious scientific paper would have noted either his sources for the information or his methods for deriving this number
not this guy; he goes on to make; no citations, no references, notes no studies supporting his claims, provides no calculations, no modeling information
and basically ripped this number out of thin air so to speak

his claim of 98% is therefor not based on science nor found through the scientific method
instead
represents industry supported spin at its worst

once again the truth will out my friends
the truth will out

next please

[Knut Sand]

Please don't yell.....

It'll only look like you're running out of arguments, and that'll put the load on others, like pretty me....

[Boston]

not sure what you mean by yelling
I thought it was a pretty dam good deconstruction of the offending argument
clearly its based on industry diatribe and not in science
printed in industry rags
and representative of the industry view

oh
I am definitely not running out of deconstructive review
hell these guys are making it easy on me
did you read that last ?

[Meanz Beanz]

[Boston]

I would urge everyone to go read post # 1678 as it poses a difficult review of the skeptics basic sources and style of argument