World may not be warming, say scientists

[Throckmorton]

Do you have a truly 'global' historical temperature chart you can share with us?

I did. The Vostok ice core global average temperature data based on oxygen isotopes

 

[monovillage]

Some of the warm events are clearly global and well documented, such as the Medieval Warm Period.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

 

[Throckmorton]

Some of the warm events are clearly global and well documented, such as the Medieval Warm Period.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

The MWP was probably driven by the sun, not humans increasing GG concentration. Current climate change isn't driven by the sun.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I did. The Vostok ice core global average temperature data based on oxygen isotopes

Vostok and Greenland proxy temperature data highly correlate with the same periodicity. What was that you were saying again...about Greenland warming being a localized warm weather event?

As you can plainly see below...current temperature levels are NOT unprecedented. Are you sure this is your field?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The MWP was probably driven by the sun, not humans increasing GG concentration. Current climate change isn't driven by the sun.

So you do believe that previous global climate changes were probably driven by the sun. On what basis do you believe that current climate change isn't driven by the sun?

 

[nobodyknows]

World may not be warming, say scientists

So true, but then again it may be warming? What to do, what to do??

 

[Throckmorton]

Vostok and Greenland proxy temperature data highly correlate with the same periodicity. What was that you were saying again...about Greenland warming being a localized warm weather event?

As you can plainly see below...current temperature levels are NOT unprecedented. Are you sure this is your field?

I said the SPIKES on that particular graph were localized. What you just posted is isotope data like the Vostok cores, which doesn't show rates of change faster than the current. In fact, what it shows is that we were on a cooling trend, with a huge spike within the last 100 years or so. Note where 2004 is on the graph.

 

[Throckmorton]

So you do believe that previous global climate changes were probably driven by the sun. On what basis do you believe that current climate change isn't driven by the sun?

Natural climate change occurs because of a lot of factors. One is the orbital cycle called the Milankovitch Cycle . Another is the sun's output. Another is cosmic rays from the sun affecting cloud cover. Another is biology. Another is asteroid impacts. Another is volcanic activity.

None of those is the cause of the current warming. We know that because none of those has changed in a way that would cause the amount of warming we have observed. But greenhouse gas concentration HAS.

 

[bfdd]

Throckmorton, but how do you know? Seems to me like you're guessing.

 

[Munky]

Natural climate change occurs because of a lot of factors. One is the orbital cycle called the Milankovitch Cycle . Another is the sun's output. Another is cosmic rays from the sun affecting cloud cover. Another is biology. Another is asteroid impacts. Another is volcanic activity.

None of those is the cause of the current warming. We know that because none of those has changed in a way that would cause the amount of warming we have observed. But greenhouse gas concentration HAS.

That would only be true if:
1. the earth was still warming, which it isn't
2. you knew all the possible variables which affect climate, and how they all interact. That doesn't seem like it either.
3. Even if what you said was true, that doesn't mean that we humans are responsible for it, or that we can do a damn thing about it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Throckmorton, but how do you know? Seems to me like you're guessing.

I'm not guessing. That's all common knowledge. The NASA website has some good explanations.

But we do know for a fact that we have increased CO2 by 38% or 40% or whatever it is, and we know how much additional heat that retains.

 

[Throckmorton]

That would only be true if:
1. the earth was still warming, which it isn't

The earth is still warming. A couple years of cooling doesn't change the trend any more than a snow storm in march means spring isn't coming.

2. you knew all the possible variables which affect climate, and how they all interact. That doesn't seem like it either.

We do know the major variables. It's pretty simple physics. Think of it this way... If you add insulation to your house and use the same amount of energy heating it, and observe warming without a big change in other factors, it makes no sense to say "I don't know if that warming was because of the insulation or some unknown factor". And if the weather happens to get cooler after you add insulation, you don't say "Well now my house is colder so insulation must not work".

Yes, there are a lot of factors that affect the energy budget of a house, and it's hard to model precisely, but the fact is if you add insulation, you are increasing heat retention relative to if you didn't.

If you are going to apply that "there are too many variables" argument, go ahead and start a campaign against home insulation, or wearing coats, or umbrellas.

3. Even if what you said was true, that doesn't mean that we humans are responsible for it, or that we can do a damn thing about it.

We are responsible for the greenhouse gas increase. We know that because we know how much fossil fuel we've taken out of the ground and burned.

 

[bfdd]

Throck, a decade doesn't change the trend for... how long? 50 years? Why does that 50 years change the trend of the last 100 or 1000 etc? Again we're looking at to small a time frame at something that has been up and down for millions of years.

 

[Throckmorton]

Throck, a decade doesn't change the trend for... how long? 50 years? Why does that 50 years change the trend of the last 100 or 1000 etc? Again we're looking at to small a time frame at something that has been up and down for millions of years.

There hasn't been a decade of cooling. I posted the yearly temperatures earlier in the thread.

100 years of warming that matches the unchangeable physical properties of greenhouse gases, combined with reflection from particulates (global dimming) is a damn good trend.

 

[Munky]

The earth is still warming. A couple years of cooling doesn't change the trend any more than a snow storm in march means spring isn't coming.

That's a big jump to compare spring snow to decade of cooling, especially when the models touted by the climate change proponents say the temperatures will continue rising. If the models aren't inline with reality, then they must be wrong.

We do know the major variables. It's pretty simple physics. Think of it this way... If you add insulation to your house and use the same amount of energy heating it, and observe warming without a big change in other factors, it makes no sense to say "I don't know if that warming was because of the insulation or some unknown factor". And if the weather happens to get cooler after you add insulation, you don't say "Well now my house is colder so insulation must not work".

Yes, there are a lot of factors that affect the energy budget of a house, and it's hard to model precisely, but the fact is if you add insulation, you are increasing heat retention relative to if you didn't.

It's only simple because you chose to simplify it. In reality the earth's climate is much more complex that your simple house model.

We are responsible for the greenhouse gas increase. We know that because we know how much fossil fuel we've taken out of the ground and burned.

That's a really broad generalization and a very simplified view of the earths greenhouse gasses. There are dozens of sources of greenhouse gasses, dozens of natural regulation cycles involving these gasses. Even if you did know how much fuel was burned, which I doubt you do, your theory still ignores dozens of other variables.

 

[Throckmorton]

That's a big jump to compare spring snow to decade of cooling, especially when the models touted by the climate change proponents say the temperatures will continue rising. If the models aren't inline with reality, then they must be wrong.


It's only simple because you chose to simplify it. In reality the earth's climate is much more complex that your simple house model.



That's a really broad generalization and a very simplified view of the earths greenhouse gasses. There are dozens of sources of greenhouse gasses, dozens of natural regulation cycles involving these gasses. Even if you did know how much fuel was burned, which I doubt you do, your theory still ignores dozens of other variables.

Our influence on the climate is just as simple as my insulation analogy. We're pumping a lot of GG into the atmosphere, it's retaining more heat. If we reduce how much change we create, that's a good thing.

There is no other major cause of a net greenhouse gas increase. You might be thinking of forest fires or decay, but those only release CO2 that was recently taken out of the atmospehre.

We know how much fussil fuel we drilled and burned last year, and we know how much we mined and burned in 1900. No part of the industrial era is prehistory.

 

[werepossum]

Our influence on the climate is just as simple as my insulation analogy. We're pumping a lot of GG into the atmosphere, it's retaining more heat. If we reduce how much change we create, that's a good thing.

There is no other major cause of a net greenhouse gas increase. You might be thinking of forest fires or decay, but those only release CO2 that was recently taken out of the atmospehre.

We know how much fussil fuel we drilled and burned last year, and we know how much we mined and burned in 1900. No part of the industrial era is prehistory.

Four things. First, there is some question about the role of CO2 in heat adsorption. In order to retain the heat, radiation of the proper wave length must strike a CO2 molecule. Even with CO2 making up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, there is a valid possibility that we are at or past saturation.

Second, we also emit particulates and compounds that increase the albedo and have a net cooling effect. That was the justification behind stretching the cooling temperatures of the seventies into the coming manmade ice age that has since been canceled. Those compounds too have an affect on temperature.

Third, both temperatures and CO2 have been higher than at present. The Earth is an incredibly complicated piece of machinery, with numerous feedback mechanisms, that is still quite poorly understood, as is witnessed by the very poor record for predictions of climatologists. Predicting a catastrophe from present and projected CO2 concentrations assumes that the Earth somehow knows what humans emit and cannot or will not adjust for that.

Fourth, the CAGW crowd has been repeatedly caught in numerous scandals and behavior that would be outright criminal fraud in ANY other line of science. If the physics community held the same standards as do CAGW climatologists we would be spending all our money on cold fusion and perpetual motion. Personally I am to the point that ANYTHING that comes from these people is to be automatically doubted.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Our influence on the climate is just as simple as my insulation analogy. We're pumping a lot of GG into the atmosphere, it's retaining more heat. If we reduce how much change we create, that's a good thing.

There is no other major cause of a net greenhouse gas increase. You might be thinking of forest fires or decay, but those only release CO2 that was recently taken out of the atmospehre.

We know how much fussil fuel we drilled and burned last year, and we know how much we mined and burned in 1900. No part of the industrial era is prehistory.

So why does every solution the progressives suggest involve somehow taxing us more?

 

[Munky]

Our influence on the climate is just as simple as my insulation analogy. We're pumping a lot of GG into the atmosphere, it's retaining more heat. If we reduce how much change we create, that's a good thing.

There is no other major cause of a net greenhouse gas increase. You might be thinking of forest fires or decay, but those only release CO2 that was recently taken out of the atmospehre.

Again, that is a gross simplification of the real situation. You are working under the assumption that increased GG emission from man-made sources is automatically responsible for changes in climate. That's like saying "If I piss in the ocean, the water level will rise and the global temperature will go up."

We know how much fussil fuel we drilled and burned last year, and we know how much we mined and burned in 1900. No part of the industrial era is prehistory.

Who is WE? You know how much fossil fuel China or India burned since 1900? Do you know what kind of plants they use and how their plants operate in regard to the gasses emitted? Sounds like more generalizations to me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Four things. First, there is some question about the role of CO2 in heat adsorption. In order to retain the heat, radiation of the proper wave length must strike a CO2 molecule. Even with CO2 making up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, there is a valid possibility that we are at or past saturation.

There is no question at all about any of it, the word you are looking for is retention and it's what makes CO2 a greenhouse gas.

Second, we also emit particulates and compounds that increase the albedo and have a net cooling effect. That was the justification behind stretching the cooling temperatures of the seventies into the coming manmade ice age that has since been canceled. Those compounds too have an affect on temperature.

well, that would be bloody helpful if those particles would STAY up there, unfortunantly, they do not.

Third, both temperatures and CO2 have been higher than at present. The Earth is an incredibly complicated piece of machinery, with numerous feedback mechanisms, that is still quite poorly understood, as is witnessed by the very poor record for predictions of climatologists. Predicting a catastrophe from present and projected CO2 concentrations assumes that the Earth somehow knows what humans emit and cannot or will not adjust for that.

You are arguing for catastrophic followings of man induced differentiation and you don't even get it.

EVERYTHING in nature has a balance, every bloody thing, now we march in and fuck with it and you actually think, disregarding all proof to the contrary, that it won't matter?

Get this straight, the earth has gone through a lot and it has worked out fine, it will go through the same thing but this time, it is PLUS what we do, you know, us, humanity, get it? and you don't think the delicate balance will be affected?

Fourth, the CAGW crowd has been repeatedly caught in numerous scandals and behavior that would be outright criminal fraud in ANY other line of science. If the physics community held the same standards as do CAGW climatologists we would be spending all our money on cold fusion and perpetual motion. Personally I am to the point that ANYTHING that comes from these people is to be automatically doubted.

That is so fucking irrelevant to the main point, YES, there have been discoveries on stupidity presented as facts regarding GW, does it really matter on the whole? No.

I just wish people would falsify it instead of running around screaming, the more it's falsified the more accurate it gets, that is how science works.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I wonder how much CO2 JoS puts out spewing his daft twatness?

 

[werepossum]

There is no question at all about any of it, the word you are looking for is retention and it's what makes CO2 a greenhouse gas.



well, that would be bloody helpful if those particles would STAY up there, unfortunantly, they do not.



You are arguing for catastrophic followings of man induced differentiation and you don't even get it.

EVERYTHING in nature has a balance, every bloody thing, now we march in and fuck with it and you actually think, disregarding all proof to the contrary, that it won't matter?

Get this straight, the earth has gone through a lot and it has worked out fine, it will go through the same thing but this time, it is PLUS what we do, you know, us, humanity, get it? and you don't think the delicate balance will be affected?



That is so fucking irrelevant to the main point, YES, there have been discoveries on stupidity presented as facts regarding GW, does it really matter on the whole? No.

I just wish people would falsify it instead of running around screaming, the more it's falsified the more accurate it gets, that is how science works.

Um, no, the word I was looking for was saturation. The Earth radiates back a given amount of energy (expressed as an incredibly complicated function of the energy spectra it receives as well as atmospheric and surface conditions) in different spectra. Some of that energy is absorbed by CO2, some is not, but at some point it matters not how much CO2 is in the atmosphere because all available radiation in that spectrum has been absorbed. Once saturation has be achieved then the increase in CO2 has relatively little affect on overall temperatures - the only affect is that more CO2 means the energy is absorbed and thus re-radiated at lower altitude where molecules are more densely distributed and solid objects subtend a greater portion of the re-radiation arc, making it slightly more likely that the energy re-radiated by CO2 is captured again before ultimately escaping.

 

[monovillage]

I think this is the article you were looking for werepossum.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

 

[werepossum]

I think this is the article you were looking for werepossum.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

Interesting site, thanks! I'd never heard of a "Skeptic's Handbook" but the science on CO2 saturation is pretty well understood and there are no doubt oodles of articles on it. I'll have to check out that site.

I think all this "fragile Earth" shite began with the butterfly effect and people's fundamental misunderstanding about Chaos Theory.

 

[NeoV]

werepossum, you have all the right words, but you don't even understand the science you are talking about

look at the conclusions in all of the recent papers/studies on your topic, and come here with a straight face and say 'the only affect is that more CO2 means the energy is absorbed and thus re-radiated at lower altitude'

it's simply the wrong conclusion, period