What Do We Think About Climate Change

To say there's some feedback in the system when increased CO2 levels lead to warming, and that the rising temperatures can reinforce the increase of CO2, is one thing.

But to claim that 'increased CO2 levels cause a rise in global temperatures' and 'rising temperatures increase CO2 levels' are the exact same thing makes no sense whatsoever.

And again: Guillermo isn't saying that anthropogenic CO2 is a smaller contributor to global warming than scientists believe. He's saying it's more than insignificant; it's irrelevant.

 

It is nice for me to realize that my rough estimative on CO2 lagging 7 months temperature for the short cycles, coincides quite well with Dr. Roy Spencer more precise one. He states a 6 months lag doing a correlation analysis.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/

 

well at least we can find some middle ground

next question is since you seem to have a grip on the type of analysis that Levenson did to derive his odds for CO2/temp how might you explain the incredibly high likely hood that CO2 accounts for ~75% of the cause

seems maybe I should go reread the post to which I am referring so I get the language exact but you get the gist

the odds are spectacular no mater how you slice it and Levinson isn't the only one who has come up with similarly extraordinary odds

cheers
B

 

ya but we have been over old Roys kissing up to the oil and gas industry as well as his having lied about taking industry money in return for his support of a given position on climate science

sorta a classic shill in most peoples book

after all wasn't this the guy who wrote pro smoking articles for philip moris

PS
G
you have to know I'm going to expose this type of thing every time so why do you persist
its gotta get old being caught out time after time with your hand in the cookie jar

 

Well, CO2 concentrations are said to have remained quite constant (and low!) for the last hundreds of thousands of years, varying only between 180 and 300 ppm (not thousands of ppm as in previous eras), although such concentrations are under discussion due the CO2 solubility in trapped water in the ice cores. But I am not going to debate such allegued relative constancy as an initial point of this discussion.

And concentration is also said to have been even less variable for the last thousands of years, with a variability of a few tenths of ppm, rising significantly only after around 1850, particularly after 1900 when it begins to do it more steeply, rise attributed by the IPCC and others mainly to anthropogenic causes. All this is well known.

Of course there is an strong correlation between CO2 and temperature (at an scale in which lag is not evident), but such correlation does not imply CO2 precedes temperatures. As a matter of fact paleorecords clearly show evident lags of CO2 vs temperature increases, varying on the range of hundreds of years for the very long term fluctuations, to dozens of years as in events such as the coming out of the Young Dryas, per example. Such lags are specifically recognized by the IPCC (please read carefully: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf)

And in the very short term (yearly cycles and quasi-11 years semi-cycles) it is clear a several months lag, as I (and others before me, as Dr. Spencer - who has much more knowledge and credibility than his idiotic critics here) have recently shown.

IPCC does not deny the precedency of temperature at the beginning of the long and medium term warm periods, but defends that the CO2 emmited to atmosphere -precisely because of the rising temperatures- acts as a strong feedback thus driving temperatures even higher and keeping them high for extended periods. This has some merit as the period of cooling after a warm peak use to be much longer than the initial warming period.

But the problem, from my point of view, is to find a mechanism satisfactorily explaining such a feedback, because the allegued sensitivity of the climate (mean temperature) to CO2 increases is under serious doubt, as I have been discussing.

I hope to have been able to explain myself.

Cheers.

 

I am a pretty busy guy right now. But ~75% of what exactly?

Example (fictional numbers):
~75% of total climate ?
~75% of deviation from the pre-industrial model ?
~75% of X number of degrees increase in temperature over Y period of time ?
etc etc.

Atmospheric science isn't really my bag. But I have done some work on dissolved gasses in fluids and separately some CFD work so I like to think of myself as not a complete idiot.

It seems to me that most debates on this subject are very one sided and lack any respect for the nuanced and highly complex "organic" feedback mechanics in atmospheric science (even among atmospheric scientists).

There is absolutely quite a bit of correlation between tropospheric CO2 concentration and tropospheric temperature, I don't think anyone of any reasonableness would deny that. So I suppose the real question is, how much is CO2 a driver or indicator?

 

Sukker i drivstoff ruins the day.

 

How many times are you going to repeat this tripe?

Don't be too hard on Boston, though. At least he never sends us trying to find a dictionary, just spellcheck.

 

what is a nasa scientist?

 

NASA and the Navajo

When NASA was preparing for the Apollo Project, it took the astronauts to a Navajo reservation in Arizona for training.

One day, a Navajo elder and his son came across the space crew walking among the rocks.

The elder, who spoke only Navajo, asked a question.

His son translated for the NASA people: "What are these guys in the big suits doing?"

One of the astronauts said that they were practicing for a trip to the moon.

When his son relayed this comment the Navajo elder got all excited and asked if it would be possible to give
to the astronauts a message to deliver to the moon.

Recognizing a promotional opportunity when he saw one, a NASA official accompanying the astronauts
said, "Why certainly!" and told an underling to get a tape recorder.

The Navajo elder's comments into the microphone were brief. The NASA official asked the son if he would translate what his father had said.

The son listened to the recording and laughed uproariously. But he refused to translate. So the NASA people took the tape to a nearby Navajo village and played it for other members of the tribe. They too laughed long and loudly but also refused to translate the elder's message to the moon.

Finally, an official government translator was summoned. After he finally stopped laughing
the translator relayed the message:

"Watch out for these *******s. They have come to steal your land."

 

not sure if you missed the post were I noted Levensons work but this is it in a nut shell

its not perfect and there are always nuances in the numbers that might not reflect well in this kind of analysis but its basically correct and I've yet to find any study of this type that refutes the findings from a conceptual point of view. IE the numbers may not be quantitative but they are qualitative, as all studies of this kind should be viewed. I know someone will come along and tell me I have it backwards but just cause we're dealing with numbers doesn't necessarily mean its a quantitative analysis.

 

Maybe until Guillermo stops quoting a professional propagandist (Spencer) as though he's a reputable source?

By the way, Dr. Spencer is also a proponent of creative design, which is an article of faith trying to masquerade as a scientific theory to sneak creationism into science classes:

In The Evolution Crisis, a compilation of five scientists who reject evolution, Spencer states: "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world..."

Penfold, Michael (2007). The Evolution Crisis.

Frankly, that doesn't give me a whole lot of faith in him as a scientist to begin with.

Spencer also hucksters his scientific beliefs for political purposes, as shown by his appearance on the Rush Limbaugh Show. Rush seldom books guests, and when he does it's always for partisan political purposes.

More evidence that Spencer mingles religion, politics, economics and science, while claiming to be an impartial scientist:

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."

In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Frankly, I wouldn't trust the man to count whiskers on a cat, much less listen to his take on complex scientific issues.

 

I am also a proponent of creative design. The same engineer/architect designed allliving things, and He is very creative.

 

the only thing creative about it is the illogical hoops the people that come up with it have to jump through

 

You make the climate hostile.