What Do We Think About Climate Change

[wardd]

Originally Posted by 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.

you're right, co2 takes longer

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

you're right, co2 takes longer

Not if you can hold your breath really well.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Boston

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





ones Greenland one is Vostok

Damn you are easy.

To support the AGW hypothesis you have to show data that shows the time period of anthropogenic CO2 generation. 10,000 year resolution is worse than 5,000 year resolution for this purpose.

The first graph shows a 3 degree decline in temperature over the last 3000 years. The time period of interest, 200 years ago to present, shows a near stable temperature for years -200 to -100 and a .4 degree increase for years -100 to -50. The slope of that .4 degree increase is not significantly steeper than other periods on increase outside the Anthropogenic Era.

The second graph has the x-axis labeled as variation but the 0 reference is not defined. No matter, it also shows a 3 degree decline in temperature years -200 to -100.

Neither graph shows a change in temperature that might be a result of anthropogenic CO2 generation.

now lets look at CO2

Lets do that. Look at years -200 to -100 (1800 to 1900 on the inset). Both temperature data sets show a 3 degree decrease in temp whilst CO2 levels increased about 10ppm. Years -100 to present show the documented rise in CO2, however I cannot see a corresponding upward trend in temperature.

Can we agree that it is pointless to show more renderings of the same data?

Nothing you have presented supports the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the major cause of any warming trend.

Before I spend any more time pointing out that the data you provide does not refute anything I have said. Can you please consider your position and rebut any of the following that you do not agree with? I've added [comments in italics] and bolded others to help you focus.

The contribution of CO2 [from ALL sources] 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 [ice ages includes cooling and warming cycles]. 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.

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2’s warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC’s projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.

So what is it that you are trying to say? I understand your position to be that anthropogenic CO2 is the major cause of any warming trend.

The citation you provided declares that position not credible and I agree.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by RHough

Read what I said again.

Almost no one (not even the Church) denys that evolution exists...

The poll you cite does not ask that question. It asks about belief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

That's a pretty thin hair you're splitting there....

Explain to me the difference between belief in 'evolution', and belief in Darwin's (or anyone else's) theory of evolution.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by troy2000

That's a pretty thin hair you're splitting there....

Explain to me the difference between belief in 'evolution', and belief in Darwin's (or anyone else's) theory of evolution.

Slitting hairs is what internet debates are all about?

I already conceded that my belief that evolution as fact was almost universally accepted was in error.

As far as theory of evolution goes. The two biggest ones I can think of off hand are Darwin's (as modified by the study of genetics) and what I think of as the "Intelligent Design" theory that holds that some intelligent being/force created life on the planet and allowed/guided that life to create humans.

I cannot discuss evolution, I accept and believe the theory based on Darwin's work. Thus I cannot be objective in considering other points of view.

The Wiki article is pretty good dealing with Evolution

Of interest to the thread topic is that after evolution became accepted as fact, there was considerable debate about the mechanism of evolution. Darwin published in 1859. Evolution was generally accepted by the 1900's although there were two main camps; Darwin's (natural selection) and Mendel's (inheritance).

Early geneticists rejected the idea of natural selection but as they learned more the two theories were found to support each other. 1940 saw the discovery of DNA and by the 1950's modern evolution theory includes inheritance from DNA, variance through mutation, and natural selection of those.

A possible parallel is Climate Science. Where acceptance of Climate Change as fact preceded acceptance of global warming. There is debate about the mechanism of climate change now just as there was debate about the mechanism of evolution. In the case of evolution the discovery of DNA and that mechanism helped to advance and unify accepted evolution theory. I don't doubt as we learn more about our planet we will gain a greater understanding just as we did with evolution.

It is my opinion that the breakthrough for climate science that will tie it all together has not happened yet. Darwin could not explain it all, neither could Mendel ... history does not prove either of them wrong, it just shows that their knowledge was incomplete.

[wardd]

I change my beliefs to fit the facts while some change the facts to fit their beliefs

they have inerrant faith so the facts must be wrong

[Boston]

Originally Posted by RHough

Damn you are easy. I try

To support the AGW hypothesis you have to show data that shows the time period of anthropogenic CO2 generation. 10,000 year resolution is worse than 5,000 year resolution for this purpose.

an interesting statement given your previous from post 10478

your taking the realclimate information out of context, In the past natural climate (paleoclimate) ice volume should take a while to catch up to temp fluctuations and given that, then the CO2 trapped in that ice would appear to lag as well. In todays altered climate things are quite a bit different. CO2 and CH4 are no longer both cause and effect as they had acted as both in the past, they are instead in the industrial age artificial drivers of climate change.



It would appear that you are confusing paleoclimatology with climatology, in the ancient record we have examples of the natural process, we dont have a natural process anymore. We added about 1/3 to the total atmospheric CO2 content as well as doubling the levels of CH4 thus altering the atmospheric chemistry which is having a huge impact on climate even as we speak.

now given that you have admitted that these gasses are greenhouse gasses how is it you then suggest that adding such huge quantities of the stuff to the atmosphere will have no effect

The first graph shows a 3 degree decline in temperature over the last 3000 years. The time period of interest, 200 years ago to present, shows a near stable temperature for years -200 to -100 and a .4 degree increase for years -100 to -50. The slope of that .4 degree increase is not significantly steeper than other periods on increase outside the Anthropogenic Era.

well if you want to split hairs then the global averaged temp change over the last 10000 year period is about 1°C with an average variability of ~ +-0.5°C


The second graph has the x-axis labeled as variation but the 0 reference is not defined. No matter, it also shows a 3 degree decline in temperature years -200 to -100.

Neither graph shows a change in temperature that might be a result of anthropogenic CO2 generation.

no but your initial question suggested that the temp/CO2 relationship had somehow not panned out and so I presented multiple graphs all showing a strong relationship. It had seemed for a minute there as if you got the concept but now you seem to have some other problem going on that is left undefined in your latest.

if you would like to stick the the instrument record then the relationship and the fact the A CO2 ( anthropogenic CO2 ) leads temp becomes even easier to show as well as its effects



Lets do that. Look at years -200 to -100 (1800 to 1900 on the inset). Both temperature data sets show a 3 degree decrease in temp whilst CO2 levels increased about 10ppm. Years -100 to present show the documented rise in CO2, however I cannot see a corresponding upward trend in temperature.

once again you are focusing on one data set derived from one sampling area and comparing that to a global average for CO2. My bad, had I realized you wanted to endlessly split hairs rather than admit CO2 is not the only relevant forcing in the paleo system I would have used more complete data.

not a very sound process to base a detailed argument on. how about if we stick to using multiple studies all averaged to provide the most accurate data set we can derive. That way not only does this issue you are having disappear completely but it also becomes easier for the readers to realize that in fact the temp variability over the last interglacial period was well within the natural variability of other mitigating factors. the subject mater being considered "paleoclimatology"

then we can move forward to looking at climatology and whats happening with pollutants in the industrial age CO2 CH4 aerosols sulfur and the like, although CO2 is the major forcing agent in today's altered atmospheric chemistry

Can we agree that it is pointless to show more renderings of the same data?

not at all it is never pointless to look at the data. What we should be doing is looking at more data not less or limiting ourselves to cherrypicked time phrames. We can learn a lot about how the natural climate used to work by studying the paleoclimate record and then apply that to models used to predict what the changes in the atmospheric chemistry are likely to do

Nothing you have presented supports the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the major cause of any warming trend.

actually you have admitted that CO2 at least is a green house gas but now your saying that data showing its radical increase in concentration somehow does not provide for a warming trend which is also clearly shown in much of the data presented

Before I spend any more time pointing out that the data you provide does not refute anything I have said. Can you please consider your position and rebut any of the following that you do not agree with? I've added [comments in italics] and bolded others to help you focus.



So what is it that you are trying to say? I understand your position to be that anthropogenic CO2 is the major cause of any warming trend.

The citation you provided declares that position not credible and I agree.

the simple answer is that you are not drawing a distinction between the paleoclimate and today's climate

a distinction that is handily made in the citation provided

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

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.

with a bit more of a detailed explanation of what I was driving at above

The record of temperature shown in the ice core is not a global record. It is a record of local Antarctic temperature change. 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. That is, a given amount of CO2 increase as measured in the ice cores need not necessarily correspond with a certain amount of temperature increase. Gore shows the strong parallel relationship between the temperature and CO2 data from the ice cores, and then illustrates where the CO2 is now (384 ppm), leaving the viewer’s eye to extrapolate the temperature curve upwards in parallel with the rising CO2. Gore doesn’t actually make the mistake of drawing the temperature curve, but the implication is obvious: temperatures are going to go up a lot. But as illustrated in the figure below, simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the Antarctic temperature in the near future somewhere upwards of 10 degrees Celsius warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here).

Global average temperature is lower during glacial periods for two primary reasons:
1) there was only about 190 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and other major greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O) were also lower
2) the earth surface was more reflective, due to the presence of lots of ice and snow on land, and lots more sea ice than today (that is, the albedo was higher).
As very nicely discussed by Jim Hansen in his recent Scientific American article, the second of these two influences is the larger, accounting for about 2/3 of the total radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases account for the other 1/3. Again, this was all pretty well known in 1990, at the time of the Lorius et al. paper cited above.

hope that helps you understand things a little clearer

the big problem I see you having is your confusing the paleoclimate ( a natural system ) with today's altered climate ( full of A CO2 CH4 sulfur and so on )

cheers
B

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by RHough

I already conceded that my belief that evolution as fact was almost universally accepted was in error.

Then you would be in error of being in error.

No one denies that evolution is a fact, well may be the left handed members over 80 of the exclusive Brethren in northern Scotland do, but in general no one denies the ability of species to adapt by natural selection. If you believe in creation, the animals created by God would have looked a lot different from what they look now. They evolved into what we know today. Well perhaps they de-volved into smaller and simpler species. Even Adam was, going by some 'experts' some 2 to 3 meters high.
So evolution is universally accepted. What is not is the assumption that the process can be modelled backwards and the assumption made that there can be new species springing up from amoebas.
So it is the origin of the species from unicellular life, later modelled further into the "big bang" theory that is rejected by creationist.
To me it looks like both theories need a lot of faith in a lot of unsubstantiated events to hold up to scrutiny. Both are a form of religion.

Just like human induced global warming

[hoytedow]

I believe God created evolution.

[wardd]

i believe man created god

and he created god in man's image

and god so totally agrees with his creators

[hoytedow]

I believe you will be convinced otherwise one day.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Boston

the big problem I see you having is your confusing the paleoclimate ( a natural system ) with today's altered climate ( full of A CO2 CH4 sulfur and so on )

cheers
B

I don't confuse the two in the least.

You say that ACO2 is the major cause of global warming.

I say you don't have enough knowledge to make that statement with certainty.

If there were predictions based on climate science that were in error and the sole cause of the error was the unpredicted addition of ACO2, you would have a better case.

The linear "logic" of CO2 is a greenhouse gas > there is measurable ACO2 > therefore ACO2 is a "problem" does not work for me. Problem for who?

We agree that ACO2 is about 1/3 of the total.
In the past the earth has cooled despite the existence of high CO2 levels. CO2 levels drop as the earth cools and plunges into an ice age. ACO2 may well act as a buffer to reduce the severity of the next ice age.

People are making wild statements about a natural long term (100,000 year +/-) cycle based on a tiny historic record. i.e. predicting weather for the next two months based on 3 hours of data.

There are moderate voices that argue the AGW case. They don't make statements that are easy to challenge and refute. As soon as you made the claim that ACO2 is the *major* cause of Global Warming you were labeled "not credible" by the very site you quoted.

You finally did come up with something that shows the time period of ACO2 production ... but I had to badger you for a week before you did.

Now that you have. Go back and look to see why the upward temperature slope 1910 to 1940 is as steep as the 1980 - 2000 curve while the corresponding (according to you) CO2 curves are NOT equally steep. Why don't two equal slopes in temperature have near equal slopes in CO2 levels?

What caused the change in slope in 1960?

Between 1960 and 1980 is the only time period where CO2 levels are rising faster than temperature. You can point to 20 years to support your claim that CO2 levels drive temperature ... 20 years out of 200 years of ACO2 generation?

1880 to 1910 (30 years) sows a decrease in temperature while CO2 levels are increasing. Do you label that a close correlation? I do not.

You must do better if you expect people that are facing record cold winters to buy the AGW line you are selling.

Its been fun, thanks for all the fish.

R

[Boston]

Originally Posted by RHough

I don't confuse the two in the least.
clearly when you reference the paleoclimate dynamics and try and insist its cyclical dynamic "must" mimic the present you are confusing a natural system with the present artificially altered one

You say that ACO2 is the major cause of global warming.

I say you don't have enough knowledge to make that statement with certainty.
science doesn't offer certainties it merely suggests what is most likely to be true and what is less likely to be true. In the case of Rapid Global Climate Shift there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that A CO2 is directly to blame for the recent rise in temp. While I appreciate your assessment of my knowledge base it would appear obvious that my limited abilities are sufficient to correct whatever errors in logic or comprehension you might present to the group

If there were predictions based on climate science that were in error and the sole cause of the error was the unpredicted addition of ACO2, you would have a better case.
the whole idea of having a working theory is to make predictions, its one of the reasons the science has progressed as well as it has, as there are numerous accurate and well documented predictions. This issue was directly addressed in the citation I provided, and actually one of the most common practices with climate models is to remove various parameters and check the results against the know record, so making pretense as if this is not the case is pretty silly

The linear "logic" of CO2 is a greenhouse gas > there is measurable ACO2 > therefore ACO2 is a "problem" does not work for me. Problem for who?
would you care to entertain us by explaining precisely why this does not work for you and why 97% of climate scientists disagree with you.

We agree that ACO2 is about 1/3 of the total.
In the past the earth has cooled despite the existence of high CO2 levels.
you have not adequately shown what cooling you are referring to nor have you been willing to address other mitigating factors. the slow steady drop of ~ 1°C ( more like 0.5 to 0.75 but no sense in splitting hairs eh ) during the past 10000 or so years is well within the variability of many mitigating factors other than CO2
CO2 levels drop as the earth cools and plunges into an ice age. ACO2 may well act as a buffer to reduce the severity of the next ice age.
you might read the latest on Rapid Global Climate Shift because this last shows a complete ignorance of the theory

People are making wild statements about a natural long term (100,000 year +/-) cycle based on a tiny historic record. i.e. predicting weather for the next two months based on 3 hours of data.

actually they are not, mater of fact the exact opposite is true, predictions are being made a few years into the future based on the records of the last million or so. We have a pretty good paleoclimate record going back about 1 million years from which to calibrate our models. These models are then checked against other data sets and once they prove to be able to predict known events then they are used to predict future events. The error potential is calculated and a time frame is established as to how accurately a particular model can predict at what distance in the future. No one that I know of is making predictions past about the hundred year mark and most are not more than a few years or maybe ten or twenty. Establishing a record of accurate predictions the IPCC has been able to show that its model systems are working sufficiently that although further work is needed the concept is quite sound and the science well on its way. Questioning the accuracy of the models is kinda bread and butter of the deneirs camp but anyone can go look up the predictions and see that the science is settled on this issue, the models are working fine.

There are moderate voices that argue the AGW case. They don't make statements that are easy to challenge and refute. As soon as you made the claim that ACO2 is the *major* cause of Global Warming you were labeled "not credible" by the very site you quoted.
inacurate, once again you are confusing paleoclomate dynamics with modern climate dynamics. The article make a clear distinction between the paleoclimate and the modern one here. Lets quote that again so you our readers can understand this clearly

You finally did come up with something that shows the time period of ACO2 production ... but I had to badger you for a week before you did.

I wasn't aware I was being badgered, given the tone of our previously assigned deniers I kinda felt like we were getting on like pees in a pod. If in the future you get a yerning for some particular bit of data dont be shy, just sing out and I'll see what I can do.

Now that you have. Go back and look to see why the upward temperature slope 1910 to 1940 is as steep as the 1980 - 2000 curve while the corresponding (according to you) CO2 curves are NOT equally steep. Why don't two equal slopes in temperature have near equal slopes in CO2 levels?
you are forgetting the other mitigating factors again, go look into aerosol production at this time and maybe you will begin to understand why the temp/CO2 relationship is not the linear one you seem to imagine it is

What caused the change in slope in 1960?

Between 1960 and 1980 is the only time period where CO2 levels are rising faster than temperature. You can point to 20 years to support your claim that CO2 levels drive temperature ... 20 years out of 200 years of ACO2 generation?
wrong again, models using a variety of parameters are used to show the influence of each over the known record. These models well explain the movement of temp during this time. Once again you are forgetting other mitigating factors and insisting that there be a linear relationship between temp and CO2

1880 to 1910 (30 years) sows a decrease in temperature while CO2 levels are increasing. Do you label that a close correlation? I do not.
Your just making the same error made again and again. you might want to read http://scitation.aip.org/journals/do...ml?bypassSSO=1 in order to gain a little better understanding of climate modeling and its inclusion of numerous critical parameters.

You must do better if you expect people that are facing record cold winters to buy the AGW line you are selling.

who is facing record cold winters ? the first nine months of this year tied for the warmest ever recorded. please see http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-...s-warmest.html

Its been fun, thanks for all the fish.
no worries, deal is your batting zero on this post ( not sure you got a single point correct in this last )

R

pretty much every argument you present is wrong or a misrepresentation of something or other, you might want to read up on a few things before posting again. If, once you have at least read the noted articles you have any other questions please feel free.
when one must answer line by line in order to straighten out all the incorrect premises and misrepresentations its pretty obvious that someone has not done there homework before making a public statement.

you might get a basic climatology text book and do a bit of reading cause by your last its clear that your not grasping many of the basic concepts.
cheers
B

ps
also you are presenting the same few obviously flawed arguments we have seen over and over from various deniers, if you like I could just print up the ten most common and there rebuttals so we might move on to something more interesting than the same old same old.

[wardd]

The National Climate Data Center reported Monday that the January-September period is tied with 1998 for the warmest first nine months on record.

The agency said the average temperature for the period was 1.17 degrees above normal for records going back 131 years. For a full year the warmest on record was 2005.

The agency added that it has been the warmest January-September on record in the Northern Hemisphere and the second warmest in the Southern Hemisphere.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by RHough

Slitting hairs is what internet debates are all about?

I already conceded that my belief that evolution as fact was almost universally accepted was in error.

As far as theory of evolution goes. The two biggest ones I can think of off hand are Darwin's (as modified by the study of genetics) and what I think of as the "Intelligent Design" theory that holds that some intelligent being/force created life on the planet and allowed/guided that life to create humans.

Intelligent design isn't a theory of evolution nor is it really considered a theory at all. Its not even a hypothesis. Its a dogma based on faith, not science. Science is a process of collecting data and collating that data into an idea or an explanation ( referred to as a hypothesis ) that is then developed by other scientists into a theory and then a working theory. Intelligent design enjoys none of those attributes, it was not developed from an ongoing collection of data nor was it ever subject to independent scientific review, there is no working theory nor is are there any supporting data or empirical studies. In a nut shell its simply not science.

I cannot discuss evolution, I accept and believe the theory based on Darwin's work. Thus I cannot be objective in considering other points of view.

The Wiki article is pretty good dealing with Evolution
Wiki is to be avoided except under certain circumstances, its often inaccurate and is subject to public alterations not based on the known science but rather on opinion, its also not peer reviewed nor is it followed by any accredited nonsecular institutions

Of interest to the thread topic is that after evolution became accepted as fact, there was considerable debate about the mechanism of evolution. Darwin published in 1859. Evolution was generally accepted by the 1900's although there were two main camps; Darwin's (natural selection) and Mendel's (inheritance).

evolution has never been accepted as fact, once again you are misunderstanding the process of science, Its a theory, albeit a good one, its not considered fact.

Early geneticists rejected the idea of natural selection but as they learned more the two theories were found to support each other. 1940 saw the discovery of DNA and by the 1950's modern evolution theory includes inheritance from DNA, variance through mutation, and natural selection of those.

A possible parallel is Climate Science. Where acceptance of Climate Change as fact preceded acceptance of global warming. There is debate about the mechanism of climate change ( incorrect, the scientific community is in agreement as to the effects of A CO2, there is no debate ) now just as there was debate about the mechanism of evolution. In the case of evolution the discovery of DNA and that mechanism helped to advance and unify accepted evolution theory. I don't doubt as we learn more about our planet we will gain a greater understanding just as we did with evolution.

It is my opinion that the breakthrough for climate science that will tie it all together has not happened yet. ( Kinda hard to suggest it has nothing to do with doubling A CH4 or adding 1/3 to CO2 and thereby altering the atmospheric chemistry completely wouldn't you say ) Darwin could not explain it all, neither could Mendel ... history does not prove either of them wrong, it just shows that their knowledge was incomplete.

once again you are not understanding the scientific method

science does not seek proof
its after a preponderance of evidence
the vast majority of evidence is in direct support of the theory or Rapid Global Climate Change

cheers
B