What Do We Think About Climate Change

Just in the nail. Thanks.

 

You guys gonna have couple of days off for Christmas?

 

The measured CO2 increase in the air (~100ppm). It's 50cm CO2 in 1atm and nothing missing ..

 

Knut said: "The added CO2 since the start of the industrial times equals something like 0,5 m pure CO2 (20°C/ 1 atm) on each square meter"

If he wanted to mean the 100 ppm I think he should have said the "balance", "increasing" of athmospheric CO2 or the like. Knut?

Anyway I think he's forgetting the proved negative feedback, not positive, as the satelites data show. Earth certainly tends to reach equilibrium, not run away.


More:
I have found this atonishing statement in Real Climate web pages:

"What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming."

More at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

I'm with no words....

Cheers.

 

Thats interesting and I think on the spot.. Thou I'm more intended to believe todays warming being CO2 related, I never believed it ended any of the Ice Ages. It must related to earth orbit and sun influence bcs there's been just too steadily glaciar/interglaciar periods. However as the author said about rest 5/6, we got to remember that all feedbacs etc aren't solved yet..

 

Guillermo,

Remember me arguing with the scarecrow and the cowardly lion about this? I told them that the problem with this approach/reasoning is that we are in this 'lag' period, the 1/6, right now!

That same page says that we would expect to observe the "correct" relationship between CO2 and temperature (the one The Team feels is the correct one, which is CO2 leading temperature) on shorter timescales, even though it is absent in longer timescales.

Jimbo

 

This is not true; 400ppm is 'missing'. By IPCC calcs, we should be at 800ppm right now! They have yet to explain this error. The error arises from their substitution of the true (short) residence time with a contrived (long) one.

Jimbo

 

This 40's blip has been troublesome to the alarmists for years. They have spent considerable time trying to explain it away or hide it. Finally, after years of searching, they may have come up with an explanation. But the only reason they found this problem with the measurement is because they spent years searching for it. And the only reason they spent years searching for it is because the blip was a problem for their theory.

What if there was a real blip in world temperature that is hidden by a mistake just like the one that supposedly caused this blip? No one is ever going to find that mistake and that real blip because they aren't combing through the data looking for it. As long as the data matches their theory, they pretty much let it slide.

In the article, they talk about how researchers have been going over the data for years, trying to find outside factors (like volcanoes) that will let them smooth out all of the blips. So wherever the line doesn't match theory, they are looking for factors to let them adjust the line. And as soon as they get the line to match their theory, they stop looking for factors. There is no investigation going into finding volcanoes to explain parts of the curve that don't have blips.

In a chaotic system like the atmosphere, with so many random and speculative influences, this sort of approach is absolutely guaranteed to give a curve that comes to match the theory closer and closer over time. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the theory is correct, it has to do with poor methodology.

Some professional statistician (I think it was an economist) said that the climatologists don't understand statistics and proper sampling methods. I'm starting to think that he was right. And with the politics so strongly favoring one side of the debate, there is no corrective measure possible. If anyone tries to publish a paper explaining what is wrong with their sampling methods, they will just label him a "denialist", roll their eyes, and throw it in the trash. No need to publish anything from a denialist.

 

Diego, your ability to abuse others whilst talking yourslef up never ceases to amaze me. I suggest you start another thread entitled. Comunism versus capitalism in Chile, and debate at your hearts content. Start it in a low moderated forum so that you can avoid being banned for eternity, and start insulting the rest of the world ad libitum.
You may even find your soul mate that way.
PS
Shouldn't you be posting comunist propaganda in a chilean forum? Or is it illegal?

 

Be careful who you call animal, Amigo, because it isn't civilized and displays very poor manners. This is not a threat, but merely an admonition to adhere to decorum.

 

I'm not missing that 400ppm and by my calcs, I should be sailing to Bora bora but I'm not so thats only theory..
What mostly wrong with the this debate is everybody presenting mostly conclusions, not facts.
Some older statistics just aren't comparable to modern wide-spectrum-satellite-infrared-and whatelsewecanthinkaboutwecanmeasure so we have only short period of global data. Ice cores give excact information but it does tell only certain things, and give us some clues, not answers.
So long we are quessing we have to consider the worst may come true, try to avoid it and hope that things will eventually turn out better than we expected. To try to prove everythings okay and we don't have to do anything is just too risky bet, and it's bet with other peoples lives not ours.

 

well G I gotta give it humor value
and considering Ive been flat on my back with a cold today I needed it so thanks again
this is turning out to be at least friendly this time around and if your getting as many laughs as I am out of it then who am I to be a stick in the mud

go back G and reread what you wrote and what I wrote
it was you who specifically mentioned "indistinguishable effects" and so I commented on same

your dancing around the ring instead of actually throwing any punches
were it an actually boxing match you'd have points taken for stalling or you would be showboating around with your hands in the air, but still loosing

I particularly liked how you plotted the present temp on the history graph in completely the wrong place, again, I got a real bang out of that actually as this is becoming a norm every time you touch a graph

the co2 temp lag is a good example of the conspiracy peoples inability to understand even the rudimentary aspects of science, can any of them explain permeability and how it effects the ice core data without running off to Wikipedia or one of the industry spin sites for help.

I also kinda liked how you threw in a few new qualifiers to my ease in showing that temp has played a significant role in several extinction events in the past

you originally said

now all of a sudden those events needs to happen on Tuesday when Granny is wearing a blue hat sitting on a volcano and not involving an asteroid

now all of a sudden you got a lot of qualifiers in there G old boy
whats up with that
seems like the answers to your questions were easy as pie and now your dancing around trying to say wait a minute that was to easy for him. Sorry Ill try and make answering seem a little harder but it would help if the questions were at least a little bit challenging


pretty sure old Granny was wearing a blue hat 600,000,000 years ago when the entire earth froze killing every singe land form down to microbes
sooooo
you want to try and pass that one off as not temperature related

I noticed also you skipped the simple and effective logic of pointing out that the theory is called Rapid Global Climate Change and the Rapid part is whats the problem with species adaptation.

after all we are loosing species like flies these days
or is that also something your cabal is denying

something else that bears mentioning is this whole e mail thing
some thief breaks in and ilegally steals thousands of personal e mails and then waves them around saying looky what I found
and you believe him
they guy is a crook
a thief you believe but 97% of scientists you dont
now that's telling

love
B

 

and is that why the theory was able to accurately predict temp variations based on co2 concentrations in given parts of the world way back in the 50s or was there some other reason the theory of rapid global climate change was able to so accurately predict these temps we are seeing today, 60 years ago

just curious

 

'Rapid Global Climate Change' scenarios have been rejected as "highly unlikely" by the IPCC. They say AGW via CO2 will be gradual.

Jimbo

 

We don't have to put faith in the word of a thief or 'whistleblower' or whoever did the deed for whatever reason, because the Uni of East Anglia has already admitted the emails are genuine.

I guess you missed that part

Jimbo