What Do We Think About Climate Change

Jimbo, as I already pointed out, the graphs were not even showing the same thing. One set of graphs was showing the difference between different types of model calculations. The other was showing the difference between different kinds of forcing inputs. Don't believe me? Then go look at the headings on the panels as well as the accompanying text in the document.

The graphs were not even from the same source, and yet you passed them off as if they were.

Furthermore, this is not the first time that you have misrepresented the work of others.

So you tell me what I am supposed to think when confronted with this kind of thing? If not deception then what we are seeing is, to put it in the kindest possible terms, a rather extreme level of carelessness.

 

Let me clarify that when I say the "same source" I am talking about from the link under discussion.

 

Dang, kid. You don't handle yourself too well when you have to deal with real scientists instead of just other internet instant experts, do you?

 

That's the problem with you lefty elitists, you always want to tell folks what to think and how they feel. The fact that you are almost universally wrong never fazes you.

 

I don't have to tell you (or anyone else) what you are, Eddy. You might as well be screaming it from the rooftops.

It's obvious you have little or no understanding of the genuine scientific issues involved in AGW, on either side of the debate. Instead, you're just a foot soldier on the front line of the culture wars. You're out there grimly opposing anything that might remotely be considered left-wing.

Your dedication to the cause is in some ways admirable. You keep bravely fighting against a world you don't understand and don't want, in defiance of the obvious fact that you can't win because change is inevitable. You aren't swayed by the lessons of history, which teach us that yesterday's liberals are today's mainstream, and tomorrow's conservatives.

It's also kind of cute, watching you gird up your loins to sally forth against the left-wing radical foe. Sort of like watching Calvin unsheathing his toy sword and clutching his stuffed tiger Hobbes, as he follows his mom and dad into the museum's dinosaur exhibit.

 

We weren't discussing a "different chapter", yet the way you presented the figures you were passing them off as the as the ones in the link under discussion.

As I already noted, the figures you posted were not even discussing the same topic. Your figures were discussing the effect of different forcing factors on the temperature profiles using a single model. The figures in the link under discussion were comparing the results from different models. Furthermore, none of the discussion in relation to either set of figures said that the results invalidated the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, so your original posting of the link with the suggestion that it proved that anthropogenic global warming was false was, in and of itself, deceptive.

You are free to take those graphs and apply your own interpretation to them. But that is outside of what the document says. You are free to say something like "My interpretation of the graphs in that paper is...", but you must not make statements that the document disproves antropogenic global warming because making such a statement is directly contradictory to what the authors themselves said.

I went to the other link (the one that includes page 25). I can confirm that the figures on that page (not the original link under discussion) are similar to the ones you posted, but to repeat the point again, the figure on p. 25 is not equivalent to the figure in the link that was under discussion.

By the way, here is a quote from the text in the http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap1.pdf link. It is from page 24 and it discusses the figures on page 25.

"Note that these simulations may
not provide a full accounting of all factors
that could affect the temperature structure,
e.g., black carbon aerosols, land use change
(Ramaswamy et al., 2001; Hansen et al., 1997;
2002; Pielke, 2001; NRC, 2005; Ramanathan
et al., 2005)."

Thus, these figures are not even intended to give a complete description of the temperature profile, and therefore these figures should not be used in arguments that depend on a full modeling of the climate. Consequently, based on this fact alone it is not a correct argument to say that these figures disprove man-made global warming.

As an additional point, let me go back to chapter 5 of the report (the original link you posted) and quote an interesting comment from the last page of the link:

"In summary, the behavior of complementary
variables enhances our confidence in the reality
of large-scale warming of the Earth’s surface,
and tells us that the signature of this warming
is manifest in many different aspects of the
climate system. Pattern-based fingerprint detection
work performed with ocean heat content
(Barnett et al., 2001; Reichert et al., 2002; Barnett
et al., 2005; Pierce et al., 2006), sea-level
pressure (Gillett et al., 2003), and tropopause
height (Santer et al., 2003a, 2004)75 suggests
that anthropogenic forcing is necessary in order
to explain observed changes in these variables.
This supports the findings of the surface- and
atmospheric temperature studies described in
Section 4.4."

Therefore, to state, as you did originally, that this document disproves anthropomorphic global warming is directly contradictory to what the document itself says, and your post was therefore a serious misrepresentation of the work.

 

You're just being facetious because I've showed you the best tabulated data on anthropogenic emissions available from CDIAC, the very same data that you accepted when your buddy Wonder B posted it, which shows the numbers are EXACTLY as I've stated.


I can't help it if you've been misled by others all these years; others who have intentionally mischaracterized the nature and amounts of anthropogenic emissions for whatever reason. That's not my fault, nor is it yours. But it is your fault if you go on believing ******** after you've been shown it to be ********.

Whenever you hear the green loons say that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions that started with the industrial revolution in 1850, you should now understand that statement to be misleading, deliberately so or otherwise, but misleading nonetheless.

Significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions did not begin before the end of WWII, and the numbers back me up on this point. But atmospheric CO2 levels were already climbing, at a time when our CO2 emissions could not plausibly be attributed as causative.

Jimbo

 

Just for sake of discussion I have posted a graph of world wide anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I believe I got the raw data from the source Jimbo posted. I made the plot myself from the raw data.

I won't comment here, other than to say that the point at which one considers anthropogenic emissions to be "significant" will depend on what threshold is selected as being "significant".

 

In the end it's still a matter of what you consider to be the most important point to take away from the paper. If you take Roy Spencer's point on the hotspot as fact and apply it to this paper as you seem to be suggesting we do, then the paper tacitly admits that the GCM's have been exaggerating the influence of CO2 on climate all this time (gee, who'da thunk it ), just as skeptics have been saying all along. The skeptics have NEVER said that humans have NO influence on climate, just that our influence is tiny. The Skeptics have NEVER said that CO2 cannot be expected to cause warming, just that it is incapable of causing significant, let alone DANGEROUS warming.
The only way you can get from the universally accepted 1.7-1.9 watts/M^2 for a doubling of CO2 (corresponds to ~.4C warming) all the way to ~17 watts/M^2 (corresponds to ~3C warming) is with a strongly positive feedback with water vapor. The feedback coefficient needed to get there makes the system nearly unstable, and is anyway quite easily refuted on the basis of everyday observations about the normal temperature changes that the earth undergoes every day, and every change of season.

So the paper is admitting to the fallacy of the strongly positive feedback that are used in all the IPCC models. They are all wrong.

Jimbo

 

Thank you, Alan. This is what I've been asking for for YEARS on this thread:

Please select a threshold of significance.

When you do so, then compare that threshold to the point in history when anthropogenic emissions were at this level. Finally, have a look at the historical CO2 concentration and see what was happening then. The result of this little analysis, which anyone can do for themselves, is not supportive of one of the key assertions of the AGW narrative, which is that humans have caused all or most of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 level.


Jimbo

 

Wow, that's some funny stuff. Actually if you look back in history you will find that the greatest turmoil was always present when people turned to government for solutions instead of their own ingenuity. Go to Churchills History of the English people and you will find example after example of the failure of government to impose a social order. My understanding of the science is quite adequate to understand when one side is trying to use science to impose an agenda. The various conferences on since Kyoto have focused more on financing to be extorted from the developed nations than on remediation of AGW. Why? Because while the climate may indeed be changing, it is not changing in a manner that is out of line with historical trends. Further, even the most draconian proposals for remediation would have an immeasurable impact because of the virtually immeasurable impact of human activity. It is the alarmists who have hurt the cause of environmentalism by blowing the issue out of proportion and using questionable ethics to promote their agenda. The lies, fraud and distortion of some of the scientists, along with the pure propaganda of the political wing of the AGW movement have caused a credibility crisis for all enviromental efforts.

Cap & Trade is nothing but a tax scheme that will do nothing to reduce anthropogenic C02 but will cost the average homeowner about $3000.00 per year just for starters. The European carbon credit scheme is already overwhelmed with just the speculators having anything to show for it.

Instead what we see is proposals for wind and solar that can never be a primary energy source for both reasons of reliability and cost. Yet the left refuses to even talk about nuclear or hydrogen because that does not entail controls on economic growth and redistribution of resources.

The intransigence of the left on this issue and others is why they do not gain a permanent foothold in power and the democracies always turn back to the right to clean up the refuse of enconomic foolishness and foreign policy naivete. Folks like you and Boston remind me of Wesley Mouche from Atlas Shrugged who just kept looking for another scapegoat and more money when their doomed to fail initiatives blew up in their faces.

But thats just how I see it.

 

To summarize your outlook, 'how you see it' is based on the social, economic and political ramifications of AGW, not on the scientific evidence for or against it. You really don't give a **** whether the actual science involved is valid or not. Why do you waste our time and yours pretending otherwise?

For example: despite what you claim, there's a sizable contingent out there seriously arguing that we need more nuclear power. But you're never going to admit they even exist, because they don't fit into your narrow-minded, petty, political us-vs-them mentality.

 

Well that was certainly a misinterpretation of my position and statements if I ever saw one but considering the source not suprising.


Actually I'm fully satisfied that the AGW hypothesis has been adequately challenged and disproven and the debate is being carried forward so that the political agenda behind the social engineers dreams can be accomplished in spite of the bad science.

As far as nuclear goes I don't think you will see a lot of folks of your ilk backing expansion of nuclear power here despite the fact that the French(who don't do anything right) supply close to 80% of their electricity with nuclear. Here Il Duce Obama announces loan guarantees for one plant like it is a revelation and will solve all our problems. In five years time we could build enough nuclear plants in this country to remove tens of million of homes from oil heat and substitute electric heat that could be subsidized easily if needed. Economies of scale would dramaticly lower the price of building the needed plants to supply enough energy to accomplish this. As nuclear is virtually ghg free the environmental impact would be negligible. The disposal issue is a political issue going back to the zero growth nuts more than a technical one. In fact the technology to store is fairly simple and the footprint of regional storage facilities need not be the monolithic scale of Yucca Mountain where we have wasted tens of billions with zero results. In fact the used fuel could be stored on site in perpetuity as a fraction of the cost of Yucca Mountain and would not even require any land acquistition as most plants have ample unused land that could work just fine. No one even attempts to talk about the potential of HTE hydogen technology using solar collectors. That is a far more promising avenue to explore as it will actually produce a storable fuel that can be transported and stockpiled and would burn a great deal cleaner than gasoline. Both the nuclear and hydrogen options along with supplemental use of wind and solar would end our dependency on imports and extend our own domestic petroleum supplies for the foreseeable future. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any serious initiatives from this administration or congress as they are focused on the moronic cap & trade and the controls that go with carbon regulations.

Like most on the left you see an all or nothing approach to issues and while you decry any personal attacks on you,you feel free to heap ridicule and disdain on any who dare to disagree with any of your myopic visions. If you go back to the beginning of this thread you will find that Boston was the cause of most of the acrimony as he is in most of the threads he participates in. Then other elitists insist on insulting those who disagree by questioning their scholarship, sanity, etc and then have the gaul to get angry when the favor is returned in kind. I will admit to posting some stuff just in the knowledge that it will piss some folks off. Just the thought of irritating a liberal to the point of profanities makes me smile.


But the bottom line is you can call me all the names you want but it still will not make a lie the truth, turn fiction into fact or make ******** smell like roses. Nor will it make anthropogenic C02 the cause of warming.

 

Some interesting reading from our Canadian friends...........



http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3290

 

How about :hitwithhammer: Close enough?



Jimbo