What Do We Think About Climate Change

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Boston

its going to be pretty hard to say there is not a strong relationship between CO2 and temp

I never said there is not a strong relationship between temp and CO2.

There is also a strong relationship between the number of bikinis on the beach and temperature, but I'll not claim that bikinis cause the temperature increase.

[wardd]

wow

the more co2 the higher the temp, the more bikinis!

i never looked at it that way

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Boston

but you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas



so what dont you understand

do you understand the answer to your previous question
and why the question has an incorrect premise

Question: Does warming result in an increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?
Answer: Yes as cited and documented in many places including RealClimate.org

It is documented that CO2 levels lag behind temperature.

The question I have is how does one conclude that the increase in greenhouse gas that results from warming cause that warming?

The last two graphs you posted are interesting.



Since present day on this one is the left Y-axis, it clearly shows a decline in polar temperatures? Arctic temperature shows a peak about 3000 years ago followed by a downward trend? Looking closely at the last 200 years I see a .4 degree rise in Arctic temp and a .4 degree drop in Antarctic temp, is that correct? For the last 100 years the graph shows no change? How can that be?



This one shows the CO2 spike over 290ppm happening in the last 100 years ... the time of no change in the other graph? When I look at the data you provide for the 2000yra to 1000yra time frame I see a 1 degree C temperature decrease that corresponds to a 10ppm increase in CO2 level ... what do you see?

How do you come up with "as you can see there is really no disparity" ?

[Boston]

so can I take it you aren't going to admit error in the premise of your initial question nor will you (once that error is removed of course) admit that the question is no longer valid.

you seem to want to skip from question to question rather than learn from your previous

once you are able to look at the graph presented covering the data of the last 5000 years and admit that there is no significant failure of the relationship between CO2 and temp then maybe you will be able move forward but baring that admission I can't really see being able to explain much to you

although for the sake of the readers I will be happy to point out the errors in your logic

Originally Posted by RHough

Question: Does warming result in an increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?
Answer: Yes as cited and documented in many places including RealClimate.org

of course it does, we have long ago established that temp and CO2 have a complex relationship in which one may act as a feedback for the other. In the case of AGW however it is absolutely unequivocal that CO2 is preceding temp and that the additional CO2 is directly the result of the burning of fossil fuels. In the present case we have direct evidence that CO2 is driving temp.

It is documented that CO2 levels lag behind temperature.

inaccurate please see

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

The question I have is how does one conclude that the increase in greenhouse gas that results from warming cause that warming?

once again your premise is wrong clearly you are not understanding the article you present which clearly states that the permeability of ice is highly questionable with aprox a 1000 year period being required to stabilize the atmospheric samples found within it.

The last two graphs you posted are interesting.



Since present day on this one is the left Y-axis, it clearly shows a decline in polar temperatures? Arctic temperature shows a peak about 3000 years ago followed by a downward trend? Looking closely at the last 200 years I see a .4 degree rise in Arctic temp and a .4 degree drop in Antarctic temp, is that correct? For the last 100 years the graph shows no change? How can that be?

the temps displayed in the two graphs would need to be averaged and then added to other temp proxy data from this same time period in order to present a viable question or more detailed analysis, but from what I can see there is no deviation outside of any statistical norm that warrants this question



This one shows the CO2 spike over 290ppm happening in the last 100 years ... the time of no change in the other graph? When I look at the data you provide for the 2000yra to 1000yra time frame I see a 1 degree C temperature decrease that corresponds to a 10ppm increase in CO2 level ... what do you see?

a statistically irrelevant movement which is so small as to be synonymous with other mitigating factors. This is a good representation of how other factors have small impacts while over all the CO2 temp relationship holds quite well

How do you come up with "as you can see there is really no disparity" ?

easily
there isn't one

there simply isn't a disparity to be found
the temp has fluctuated with a number of minor parameters but held true over all to the major parameter of CO2 forcing

cheers
B

ps
and yes I am well aware of which way the graphs read

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by jlayman800

What a shame people don't think and require evidence before they start believing in something so overarching as global warming. There are only two ways to approach global warming; 1) we could use temperature measurements to show a statistically significant trend, or 2) we could use equations and science to prove the theory is true.

The first method requires long periods of accurate temperature measurement. Today we can measure temperatures accurately to within thousands of a degree. Unfortunately, just 40 or 50 years ago, the best we could do is 1/10 of a degree. To show a measured trend, the instruments from long ago would have to be calibrated the same as the instruments from today. There just aren’t long term temperature measurements that can be compared to allow for accurate proof of a trend.

The second method is to put equations on the board. I’ve seen some of these equations. They go on for so many characters that they fill a whole room. Each term in the equation stands for the gain or loss of some heat. Each term has some “constants” to allow for unknowns. Each constant has to be established on some value in order to allow for the equation to come out with a result. Unfortunately, if just a couple of these values are set one way, the equation predicts global warming and if they are set the other way, the equation predicts the next ice age.

That’s why quasi scientists use fake data and photoshoped pictures of glaciers melting to try to prove their point. Is it true? We just don’t know. There are more polar bears today than there were 20 years ago. Maybe they would appreciate a little warmer temperatures (smile).

"What a shame people don't think and require evidence before they start believing in something so overarching as global warming. "
A shame in deed. Yet people "believe" in AGW and they believe in miracles and rub the Buddha statue or Saint Babalook to win the lotto. THat is human nature.
That same human nature is being exploited here for political gain. "Save the planet" is the beach head for more political power, and some of the "believers" go for it.
The "science" behind it is completely irrelevant. Have you ever seen the science behind a so called miracle that made some person a "saint" like our long tooted Mary macsomething in Australia?
Of course not, yet that does not stop people from believing. The reason? Some people have this urge to believe something, anything that fits their preconceived values. If you believe rich is bad and is screwing the planet, you MUST believe AGW and "fight" the bad exploiters of the virtuous poor.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by RHough

You are joking right? Almost no one (not even the Church) denys that evolution exists. There is much more debate on Global Warming. If you had compared Global Climate Change to Evolution you would be correct. Both exist beyond reasonable debate. But warming is debated among credible scientists and among those that believe the earth is still warming, there is debate as to the cause.

No. I'm not joking.

A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. I doubt the numbers have changed significantly since then.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

90% of scientists in general, and 97% of climatologists, believe AGW is real. The biggest dissenters are petroleum geologists, who know which side their bread is buttered on, and meteorologists (weathermen) -- who make their living predicting weather based on very short-term phenomena.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/w...ty?_s=PM:WORLD

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Boston

so can I take it you aren't going to admit error in the premise of your initial question nor will you (once that error is removed of course) admit that the question is no longer valid.

you seem to want to skip from question to question rather than learn from your previous

The question I asked was not answered. I have asked other questions rather than attempt to rephrase the first one. (actually I found the answer in one of the citations you provided)

once you are able to look at the graph presented covering the data of the last 5000 years and admit that there is no significant failure of the relationship between CO2 and temp then maybe you will be able move forward but baring that admission I can't really see being able to explain much to you

Given the data that YOU provided. (the last two graphs) Where the data overlaps (this excludes the last 100 years) the temperature trend is downward and the CO2 trend is upward. Now if you were to say that global temperature and global CO2 levels did not change significantly during the last 5000 years until the last 100 years, no one could argue. But you didn't say that did you?

although for the sake of the readers I will be happy to point out the errors in your logic

You quote this:

On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature.

Nice out of context cherry pick ...

The entire paragraph:

First of all, saying “historically” is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.

One of the problems with climate science is the historic record is very short compared to the normal glacial-interglacial timescale. Climate science relies on proxy data and complex models does it not? Don't these models contain more than one estimated constant that is an unknown unknown and at least a few that are known unknowns?

The reference you cite goes on to say ...

Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, ...
Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years ...
CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years ...
Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don’t really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores ...
The rest of the globe does indeed parallel the polar changes closely, but the global mean temperature changes are smaller. While we don’t know precisely why the CO2 changes occur on long timescales, (the mechanisms are well understood; the details are not), we do know that explaining the magnitude of global temperature change requires including CO2. This is a critical point. We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2. But CO2 does not explain all of the change, and the relationship between temperature and CO2 is therefore by no means linear.

there simply isn't a disparity to be found
the temp has fluctuated with a number of minor parameters but held true over all to the major parameter of CO2 forcing

More:

Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.

So using the same citation that you provided, how do you support your conclusion? Right there in black and white: The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations.

If I have the wrong impression and you are NOT claiming that anthropogenic CO2 is the fundamental driver of climate change please correct me. Arguing that position is not credible according to the reference you cited.

Why should anyone believe either the deniers or the alarmists?

[RHough]

Originally Posted by troy2000

No. I'm not joking.

A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. I doubt the numbers have changed significantly since then.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

90% of scientists in general, and 97% of climatologists, believe AGW is real. The biggest dissenters are petroleum geologists, who know which side their bread is buttered on, and meteorologists (weathermen) -- who make their living predicting weather based on very short-term phenomena.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/w...ty?_s=PM:WORLD

I stand corrected on the extent of accepting evolution as fact. I learn something every day. I honestly thought that after the Pope's statements in 1996 there were very few creationists left. I was wrong.

[Boston]

the 10000 year resolution gives a much better look at the relationship





ones Greenland one is Vostok

now lets look at CO2



and another



and another of temp



the data is pretty clear there is no real disparity

[Boston]

now for a quick 20000 year look

first temp

woops lets find on of actually that 20000 year time frame


then CO2


then both plus a few other parameters


the relationship is unmistakable and the ice permeability issue is well explained here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-temp-and-co2/

were it starts with a clear statement and goes from there

changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

but you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas



so what dont you understand

do you understand the answer to your previous question
and why the question has an incorrect premise

So what if CO2 is a greenhouse gas? It is a natural part of earth's climate.

[Boston]

sure is
or was
and then we dug up and burned a few hundred million metric tons of the stuff and dumped it into the atmosphere

kinda screwed ourselves on that one

I think we established a while ago it was also a pollutant when artificially introduced from its sequestered state into the atmosphere

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

sure is
or was
and then we dug up and burned a few hundred million metric tons of the stuff and dumped it into the atmosphere

kinda screwed ourselves on that one

I think we established a while ago it was also a pollutant when artificially introduced from its sequestered state into the atmosphere

scaremonger!

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

So what if CO2 is a greenhouse gas? It is a natural part of earth's climate.

so are big rocks slamming into the ground, ask the dinosaurs, would you not want one diverted if it was possible at any price?

[hoytedow]

It is ludicrous to compare a small variant in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to an asteroid strike.
I laugh at you, not with you.