“The amount of energy humans generate annually is equivalent to that received by Earth from the Sun every hour." (Prof. Ian Plimer, 2009)

I'm interested to see if anyone actually understands why it is not relevant.

muso wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 12:35pm:

“The amount of energy humans generate annually is equivalent to that received by Earth from the Sun every hour." (Prof. Ian Plimer, 2009) I'm interested to see if anyone actually understands why it is not relevant.

we cant/dont/wont harness it?

Not quite Skippy.

For me, that statement of Plimer's is a very stupid statement for a person with any scientific training to  make in relation to Global Warming. I'll explain after somebody else has a chance to answer. I just want to gauge whether or not I'm wasting my time trying to give reasoned scientific explanations on this forum or not.

:o

Plimer's statement is only partially correct anyway: mankind's population and energy usage is growing every day.

Anyway, global warming is to do with greenhouse gas emissions.

Plimer is a fraud who has decided to jump onto the denialist platform so he could sell a book.

A lot of the suns energy is reradiated back into space: reflected by clouds or radiated back out into space at night, etc.

But the question is relevance not correctness.

muso wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 12:35pm:

“The amount of energy humans generate annually is equivalent to that received by Earth from the Sun every hour." (Prof. Ian Plimer, 2009) I'm interested to see if anyone actually understands why it is not relevant.

The statement appears to be an illustration of how it is the sun that drives the Earth's climate. That is certainly not irrelevant to a discussion on climate change.

Maybe---if he can prove solar activity has been increasing. It hasn't and so the statement is irrelevant.

But it IS increasing now. Prepare for a HOT summer--think about very young and very old relatives--any preparations you can make for them?

And a constant amount of solar energy--and constant is implied in Plimer's statement--has no effect on global warming.

Darwin wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 3:48pm:

Maybe---if he can prove solar activity has been increasing. It hasn't and so the statement is irrelevant.

Well there are several counter arguments to that. Eg why has the Earth been steadily warming since the LIA, ie before industrialisation and the consequent emissions of CO2?

pjb05 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 3:51pm:

Darwin wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 3:48pm: Maybe---if he can prove solar activity has been increasing. It hasn't and so the statement is irrelevant. Well there are several counter arguments to that. Eg why has the Earth been steadily warming since the LIA, ie before industrialisation and the consequent emissions of CO2?

It hasn't been steadilly warming since the last Ice Age. It warms after an ice age or the ice age would still be going on. the last ice age ended 15,000 years ago

Darwin wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 4:06pm:

pjb05 wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 3:51pm: Darwin wrote on Nov 7th, 2009 at 3:48pm: Maybe---if he can prove solar activity has been increasing. It hasn't and so the statement is irrelevant. Well there are several counter arguments to that. Eg why has the Earth been steadily warming since the LIA, ie before industrialisation and the consequent emissions of CO2? It hasn't been steadilly warming since the last Ice Age. It warms after an ice age or the ice age would still be going on. the last ice age ended 15,000 years ago

I meant the Little Ice Age, when people were ice skating on the Thames.

Darwin wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 3:04pm:

Anyway, global warming is to do with greenhouse gas emissions.

You've sort of got it there Darwin. Global warming has to do with increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The energy that warms the atmosphere comes from the sun, and the Earth's heat is currently increasing as a result of the enhanced Greenhouse effect. With increasing CO2 levels, an increasing amount ofthe sun's heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere.

Comparing total energy generation to Energy from the Sun is a total red herring. It's almost like claiming that the argument is about heat from energy usage on Earth as compared to heat from the Sun.

The statement is therefore true, but irrelevant.

What is relevant is the greenhouse gas production. I find it impossible to believe that Plimer doesn't know that already.

Energy calculations are not usually part of the Geology curriculum, but at the time when he graduated in Geology at UNSW in the late 60's, his first year subjects must have included other science subjects.

Bituminous Coal (picking the worst case) has an Energy value of about 27 GJ/ tonne(1), but a tonne of coal when combusted emits about 90kg of CO2 per GJ (2).

The first figure relates to the heat given off when it's burnt. That is irrelevant for Global Warming because it's insignificant. The second figure is all that counts.

The total coal burnt last year was around 6 billion tonnes. The  heat given off by that was about 160billion GJ. (4)

The heat produced might sound like a lot, but it's less than 0.5% of the energy produced from the CO2 trapping extra heat from the sun in the lower atmosphere, so it's not relevant to Global Warming.

Just for entertainment, I'll include a profile of another denialist  ;D

Apart from telling furfies about Global Warming, he loves to tell people about his seat in the House of Lords. As a Viscount, he doesn't actually have one, but his personal crest is a nice shade of pink and it looks like the House of Lords Crest. He clearly has impeccable dress sense, and his qualifications in Classical Studies  means that he knows all about Mars and Jupiter.

I'd say he knows a fair bit about the social habits of Ancient Greek (men) too.  

---

pjb05 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 4:09pm:

I meant the Little Ice Age, when people were ice skating on the Thames.

That is not confirmed by the data from Central England kindly provided by Soren recently. (Talking about the cooling, not the ice skating)  It shows fairly level temperatures up until the 20th Century. I'll repost the graph if you like.

What mechanism would you propose for such a cooling?

muso wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 5:46pm:

The statement is therefore true, but irrelevant.

In any discussion about the Earth's climate, every true statement that includes the word 'Sun' is relevant.

Soren wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 8:27pm:

In any discussion about the Earth's climate, every true statement that includes the word 'Sun' is relevant.

The Sun is located in the Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy.
The Sun orbits around the Galactic centre every 250 million years
The nearest Star to the Sun is Proxima Centauri
The Sun is not shining today.
Light from the Sun takes approximately 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach the Earth.

Yawn  - OK Soren,  You didn't follow the technical part of the discussion. I realise that.

looking at your reply I can see that you realise that your argument is in trouble.

Soren,  Let me put it in diagram form for you. That's the Greenhouse effect in a nutshell. Do you see anything about generated energy there? No. Generated energy is irrelevant because it's less than Solar energy by a factor of about 200. (edit - that figure is wrong. I'll recalculate it some time, but it doesn't alter the fact that heat from energy generation is insignificant in the scheme of things)

The Greenhouse effect basically reroutes some of the solar energy so that less of it is re-radiated back to space. Understand that basic fact and you'll understand the initial post in this thread.

NB - You do not need a Geology professorship to understand that very basic principle.

---

muso wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 9:59pm:

Soren,  Let me put it in diagram form for you. That's the Greenhouse effect in a nutshell. Do you see anything about generated energy there? No. Generated energy is irrelevant because it's less than Solar energy by a factor of about 200. The Greenhouse effect basically reroutes some of the solar energy so that less of it is re-radiated back to space. Understand that basic fact and you'll understand the initial post in this thread.

Understand all that.

But cop this: "The Greenhouse effect basically reroutes some of the solar energy" - that means you have to have some solar energy to reroute, to start with. No solar energy, means nothing to be trapped by the greenhouse gases. So far, so good.

Now, all those denialist coves banging on about the sun are saying that there has been increased solar activity because of sun spots or whatnot. More solar energy to reroute. More oming in, more getting trapped, blanket being the same.
You follow?

So complexity is the argument, not the sun or the moon, or mah baby's shapely arse. The sceptics, denialists, evil horsemen of the apocalypse - call them what you like -  are revolting NOT againt science, not against reason but againt simplistic reductionism. Against reductionism in the name of science.

Soren wrote on Nov 7^th, 2009 at 11:06pm:

Understand all that. But cop this: "The Greenhouse effect basically reroutes some of the solar energy" - that means you have to have some solar energy to reroute, to start with. No solar energy, means nothing to be trapped by the greenhouse gases. So far, so good. Now, all those denialist coves banging on about the sun are saying that there has been increased solar activity because of sun spots or whatnot. More solar energy to reroute. More oming in, more getting trapped, blanket being the same. You follow?

Good! You are finally starting to understand. If the Solar energy is reduced for some reason then the heating effect reduces as well. So far so good.

Now it comes down to a discussion of what the Sun has actually been doing for the last 50 years.

There are a large number of people actually studying the Sun and Solar output, and they have been studying it for many years.

If you want the best measurement of Solar Input, the best place to measure that is outside the atmosphere - right?

If we can show that for the last 50 years (the bulk of the warming trend observed since 1850) that the temperature trend is positive, yet the Solar output was relatively flat, do you think that might just ring some alarm bells? I've posted this graph before. Before I start to explain how these measurements are derived, just look at the Solar  irradiance since about 1975, then look at what temperatures have done.

Let's keep it simple for the moment, then I'll talk about Solar activity (related to Sunspot numbers). That correlates quite well with temperature too, up until about 50 years ago.  

---

DING, DING, DING.
It looks like soren has thrown in the towel.
Muso wins by a Technical Knock Out, in the second round. >:(
;)

Soren,

If it suddenly clicks at any time that you were wrong, don't worry about it. Smarter people than you have been taken in by the nonsense that's written in the blogosphere.  When it comes to this particular issue, there are no winners. Only losers.

Again, this is not a political issue. Even if your leanings are Right Wing,  that's an even better reason to think this issue out as an individual and not one of the 'comrades'.

Much as I hate to quote Sir Joh, democracy comes down to 'feeding the chooks'. In most cases that amounts to feeding their suspicions and prejudices (carefully).  Most people do not understand the real issues and just revert to Football-like allegiances where they call the opposite side 'Leftards' or 'Thatcherites' and they repeat their own side's mantras parrot fashion.

To take another analogy, if you can steer the flock into the pen by getting dogs to bark at the right time,  then you can engineer the desired result.  The sheep think they have a say in it, but they really don't, and if they did, the station would go to ruin.

That was probably a summary of what many people know but no politician is game to utter.  

This whole 'issue' is more slippery than eels on skates. First it was global cooling, then global warming, then antropogenic global warming, then climate change, now it's climate justice!

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/tick_tick_tick/

And anyone not buying it is a denialist, an idiot, a fascist, a naive drone, etc, etc. Well, I am not signing up to whatever this guy, for example, is pushing. Or the rest of the propagandists.

I think it's a farce.

Re sun graph - reconstructed solar irradiance? Now modelling some other variant is proof?

These graphs are from blogs, warmerist blogs. Being condescending about blogs that don't buy the whole idea of man made climate change/warming/justice is part and parcel of the 'scientific' argument mounted. the whole issue is NOT about science but politicised science. It is not impartial, it is about vested interests, prestige, vanity, political convictions, resistance and attack.


For my part, the weather is so complex, and CO2 is so miniscule in the atmosphere (itself just one of the variants in climate) that any unblinking declaration to camera, like the above clip, makes me think that believing in 'climate justice' IS the domain of lunatics.

And I am not calling you a looney, Muso, but the science is a long way off from being conclusive. Slicing and dicing CO2 measurements to death is not a scientific conclusion about the weather. Plotting them against some other guesswork about some other climate element is not conclusive either.

I mean, can anyone claim that there is a scientific consensus on what all the global and galactic influences on climate are and what their  respective importance is, and what the mechanism is for all their local and global interactions over time? Of course not. It is lunacy to pretend that there is an understanding of how it works, let alone to predict not only how it will turn out, but that we can influence it by simply reducing the emission of our precious bodily fluids, er, I mean CO2. To pin it all on CO2 is hubristic lunacy (and that's the benevolent madness).  The only point of it is to drive political action. By loonies.
The non-blinking 'climate justice' militants show just what a dangerous nonsense it all is.

Today, 'climate justice' - tomorrow, fish lincence. And it will be no use saying that there is no such thing as a fish licence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnq96W9jtuw

Here's another believer in fish licences.

http://media.causes.com/ribbon/607605

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 3:05pm:

This whole 'issue' is more slippery than eels on skates. First it was global cooling, then global warming, then antropogenic global warming, then climate change, now it's climate justice!

Slippery is crawling away from an argument when you think you'll be confronted with the truth. We were talking about Solar output?

So let's take a look at what the measurements (not reconstructions) actually say. We have a pretty good set of Solar irradiance measurements from satellite measurements.

And by the way - thanks for the fish.

Let's take a look at the data we have available.  Anybody can throw their hands in the air and say "It's all too difficult", but let's see what the data actually shows.

We have pretty reliable satellite data from about 1975. The world authorities for Solar irradiance are the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos" (PMOD). If you look on their website, they are based in a very picturesque part of Switzerland.

The graph shows Solar Irradiance. It's measured directly by a number of satellites over that period. Solar irradiance is a measure of how the Solar output has varied. There are few interferences, unlike measurements taken at ground level. It's a good measure of what is being presented to the Earth.

Notice the peaks? If you look at the scale, it's not that significant. It varies about 2-3 Watts per square metre peak to peak over approximately 11 year solar cycles.

The main thing is that there is no actual increasing trend here.  This is during a period where there was a very pronounced warming trend.

OK, hold that thought, because we're not done yet.

---

Ok, If we want to go back in time before the satellite data was available, the data is not as accurate, but it's not totally worthless either. We can determine Solar output from the cosmogenic isotopes produced during periods of high solar flux. Notably Beryllium 10 is used as a proxy.

And hey, when we plot a graph of temperature (Deuterium proxy and others) against Solar output, we find that generally, there is a good correlation between solar output and temperature.

Let's take a look at the graph. It's the sun! you say. Well it is to some extent. Notice the crossover around 10,000 years before present? Obviously something else is going on there (Milankovich effects - obliquity , tilt etc)

Ah but look at the slope near the present. Doesn't that show increased solar activity leading up to the present day?

On the face of it, yes, but let's take a look at the recent detail.

---

I should tell you where all this data is coming from. It's mainly work by the Planck Institute, as in Max - not thick as (Sorry about the Irish joke )

You might recall us talking about Sami Solanki? He's the Director for the Sun-Heliosphere Department of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

He has been quoted as saying:


Quote:

The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

If you look at the previous graph, you can see how that is true. If you look at the graph below, you can see clearly how Sunspot numbers  peaked around 1955 or so with another small peak around 1982, but since about 1982, it has been following a downward trend. (notice the thick yellow line?)

Also plotted on that graph is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

That is relevant because while sunspot numbers have been decreasing, the global temperatures have been rising.

Again from Sami Solanki:


Quote:

according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide

If anybody in the world is acquainted with what the sun is doing, it's Sami Solanki.

(That's not the core argument, but it's the easiest one to relate in non technical terms. )

---

Before about 1970, it wasn't really clear that Greenhouse gases were resulting in an increase in temperature.  The Greenhouse gas signature was in the noise of natural effects such as volcanic eruptions,  ENSO and Solar variation.

While it was certainly predicted that greenhouse gases would result in global warming long before, it was only in the 1980's that a clear warming signal was observed that could not be attributed to other effects.

LOL - By the way, you can do a cut and paste audit on any of my posts. I type them in - I don't usually cut and paste, except sometimes from my own posts elsewhere in the vast blogosphere.

So you are saying that


1. the causal relation between CO2 measurements and temperature measurements has been established.  
2. the absence of causal relationship between solar output measurements and temperature measuremnts has also been established.
3. therefore, having established the causal relationship of 1. above, reduction in the human component of CO2 measurements will reduce, halt or reverse (depending on the reduction) the temperature measurements over a knowable period of time.



My position is that none of these causal relationhips have been established and are unlikely to be within our ken to be established for a very very long time to come with the kind of accuracy assumed under 3. above.



Your take?

I loved that chart about the global cooling! Crazy man! Throw in an outlier, 1998 and ignore the long La Nina and produce a graph of--global cooling, ta ra! Primary school science that!

From a letter to the editor of the Oz on Monday:

Many of today’s sceptics and deniers started out as agnostics ready to be convinced. But what did they get? They got bullied. They got hectored. They got abused. And they got lied to.





Oh, but it's not political! It's about the science!! And anyway,  they were lied to for their own good, 'cos otherwise they wouldn't get it, don't you know.


Or something.

So how did that poster on the Oz support his argument about the agnostics? Just made a bald statement I suppose?

It is about the science!

Darwin wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 7:46pm:

So how did that poster on the Oz support his argument about the agnostics? Just made a bald statement I suppose? It is about the science!

The letter in full:





KEVIN Rudd’s hysterical outburst against the sceptics and deniers ("Rudd dares Turnbull on ETS”, 7-8/11) cuts no ice with me. Many of today’s sceptics and deniers started out as agnostics ready to be convinced. But what did they get? They got bullied. They got hectored. They got abused. And they got lied to.

The fraud of the hockey stick and the air-brushing of the medieval warm period from the record turned many an agnostic into a sceptic and many a sceptic into a denier.

Then we had Peter Garrett’s fatuous warning of a six- metre rise in sea level and the bodgied photos of the polar bears. On top of that, we have the silencing of scientists who don’t go along with the scam and we have seen peer review corrupted to the point that the words “peer review” are synonymous with scientific incest.

Kevin Rudd would be better employed in telling us what is in the Copenhagen draft treaty about which he is so coy. Why should we have to rely on Britain’s Lord Monckton to tell us what out politicians have in store for us?
Frank Pulsford, Aspley, Qld

There are already whisperings of what is in the Copenhagen Treaty - .7% of our GDP will be distributed to developing countries. Of course there will also be a supply of cash from the ETS to top it up, but who knows what other surprises are in store for us.

"Global warming" was a decoy, but the name has now been officially changed to "climate change" since the head scientist of the IPCC decided that global warming was no longer imminent. The UN had to have a good reason to redistribute the wealth of first world to third world countries. The IMF, World Bank and UN have stuffed up over the last couple of decades and poverty has increased in poor countries.  This is a new scheme dreamed up to con the masses under the guise of "climate change".

The heaviest polluting industries will be subsidised generously by us in order to continue spurting their toxins into the atmosphere. Emissions will keep increasing while our bank balances and standard of living decrease.

Ding Ding Ding, Soren was already counted out, but jumped back in the ring, and started to demand they have a thumb wrestlr to decide the championship, as he could not cope with the earlier bouts criteria.

Hmm, make a point, have that point clearly challenged, have evidence provided to show why the point was in eroor, so the next move of any good denialist, is ignore the facts presented, that nullify his previous point, and go onto the next facile argument.

Is it any wonder denialists are held in contempt by thinking people.

mozzaok - you are losing it.

brainwashed leftards believe what the media tells them about global warming.
when someone looks at the facts, they are branded denialists and "held in contempt"
much more of kommander kevin and it'll be illegal to disagree with him.
Who cares that the sun is enlarging and artificial causes are virtually immaterial.

lie in the sun from 12 pm to 3 pm tomorrow, see what i mean.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 11:22pm:

Who cares that the sun is enlarging and artificial causes are virtually immaterial.

;D

Eating too much hydrogen, you reckon? ;D

It was George Bush coined the term climate change, Mantra, sounds less worrying than global warming you see.

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 5:04pm:

So you are saying that 1. the causal relation between CO2 measurements and temperature measurements has been established.   2. the absence of causal relationship between solar output measurements and temperature measuremnts has also been established. 3. therefore, having established the causal relationship of 1. above, reduction in the human component of CO2 measurements will reduce, halt or reverse (depending on the reduction) the temperature measurements over a knowable period of time. My position is that none of these causal relationhips have been established and are unlikely to be within our ken to be established for a very very long time to come with the kind of accuracy assumed under 3. above. Your take?

Good,  I'm glad that you understand so far, at least partially. I like your style. What I have presented first was the evidence, but not the causal relationship.

For your point 2, you obviously didn't have my full attention. What I said was that there was a very good causal relationship between the sun's output and temperature, at least for about the last 6000 years. The sun's output is what largely determines the global temperature - but it's complicated by changes in the Earth's atmospheric composition.  The departure from the good correlation has been in recent times, and also prior to 10,000 years before present. I didn't really explain Milankovich cycles, but I can do at some future stage.

Point 3 -  A minor point- For measurements, substitute concentration. You are right in saying that not all CO2 comes from human activity. Nobody is claiming that.

This is going to be fun. At last we have a denialist who appears to understand logic.

I think the next logical step will be to look at the carbon balance.

At this stage, just relax. I will be making my points in subsequent posts.

We are currently burning an immense quantity of fossil fuels. I'll expand on that statement in subsequent posts, but to illustrate my point, I have a picture of a coal train below. They are a very common sight in my part of the world. The photograph shows about 1/8 of the entire train.

The rollingstock on QR varies, but typically we're looking at 104 tonnes of coal per wagon, with typically 94 wagons (sometimes 86)  with approximately 10,000 tonnes of coal.  Typically sub-butuminous coal contains 40% carbon, so we're looking at about 4000 tonnes of carbon per coal train, or 14,700 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Although all our carbon emissions are not in the form of coal, this is a useful exercise to visualise the total annual emissions to atmosphere.

Currently, we are emitting 7.1 **8.8 Gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere each year as a result of human activities. Please challenge that figure if you like.

There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year. You can do this calculation for yourself.

Just imagine the contents of one of these coal trains being burnt (all 94 wagons) - vaporised to the atmosphere.

At our current rate of global CO2 emissions, that happens every 1.7 **1.3 seconds.

I'll go on to look at the carbon balance and carbon cycle in subsequent posts.  

**edited in line with latest figures.

---

Darwin wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 8:14am:

It was George Bush coined the term climate change, Mantra, sounds less worrying than global warming you see.

I don't mind which term you use. It's irrelevant. There are other processes at work which are much more insidious than mere warming.  When you have Anthropogenic Global Warming, you get ocean acidification thrown in for free. Is that a bargain or what ?  ;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 11:22pm:

mozzaok - you are losing it. brainwashed leftards believe what the media tells them about global warming. when someone looks at the facts, they are branded denialists and "held in contempt" much more of kommander kevin and it'll be illegal to disagree with him. Who cares that the sun is enlarging and artificial causes are virtually immaterial. lie in the sun from 12 pm to 3 pm tomorrow, see what i mean.

Sprint mate - let's just talk about the facts.  I'm not too keen on Kevin07 either, or politicians in general, except for our local independent MLA who is a lovely person and very genuine.  

If you think that the sun is enlarging, I'm not going to argue with your perception.  Just keep an eye on it for us, will you, and let us know if it grows any bigger today?   ;)  Make sure you wear good Aussie Standard shades though.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 10^th, 2009 at 9:26pm:

Ding Ding Ding, Soren was already counted out, but jumped back in the ring, and started to demand they have a thumb wrestlr to decide the championship, as he could not cope with the earlier bouts criteria. Hmm, make a point, have that point clearly challenged, have evidence provided to show why the point was in eroor, so the next move of any good denialist, is ignore the facts presented, that nullify his previous point, and go onto the next facile argument. Is it any wonder denialists are held in contempt by thinking people.

Excellent! Thanks, Mozz, this is the sort of thing that confirms for the vacillating sceptic that he must indeed remain a sceptic (or in my case, an evil denialist and enemy of the people, especially of children and grandchildren).

You do your bit to popularise 'climate justice' along the same policy lines Abu is following in his work of popularising Islam. Both of you, carry on in your own fields, you are doing far more good than either of you realise.
:)

muso wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 8:21am:

Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2009 at 5:04pm: So you are saying that 1. the causal relation between CO2 measurements and temperature measurements has been established.   2. the absence of causal relationship between solar output measurements and temperature measuremnts has also been established. 3. therefore, having established the causal relationship of 1. above, reduction in the human component of CO2 measurements will reduce, halt or reverse (depending on the reduction) the temperature measurements over a knowable period of time. My position is that none of these causal relationhips have been established and are unlikely to be within our ken to be established for a very very long time to come with the kind of accuracy assumed under 3. above. Your take? Good,  I'm glad that you understand so far, at least partially. I like your style. What I have presented first was the evidence, but not the causal relationship. For your point 2, you obviously didn't have my full attention. What I said was that there was a very good causal relationship between the sun's output and temperature, at least for about the last 6000 years. The sun's output is what largely determines the global temperature - but it's complicated by changes in the Earth's atmospheric composition.  The departure from the good correlation has been in recent times, and also prior to 10,000 years before present. I didn't really explain Milankovich cycles, but I can do at some future stage. Point 3 -  A minor point- For measurements, substitute concentration. You are right in saying that not all CO2 comes from human activity. Nobody is claiming that. This is going to be fun. At last we have a denialist who appears to understand logic. I think the next logical step will be to look at the carbon balance. At this stage, just relax. I will be making my points in subsequent posts. We are currently burning an immense quantity of fossil fuels. I'll expand on that statement in subsequent posts, but to illustrate my point, I have a picture of a coal train below. They are a very common sight in my part of the world. The photograph shows about 1/8 of the entire train. The rollingstock on QR varies, but typically we're looking at 104 tonnes of coal per wagon, with typically 94 wagons (sometimes 86)  with approximately 10,000 tonnes of coal.  Typically sub-butuminous coal contains 40% carbon, so we're looking at about 4000 tonnes of carbon per coal train, or 14,700 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Although all our carbon emissions are not in the form of coal, this is a useful exercise to visualise the total annual emissions to atmosphere. Currently, we are emitting 7.1 **8.8 Gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere each year as a result of human activities. Please challenge that figure if you like. There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year. You can do this calculation for yourself. Just imagine the contents of one of these coal trains being burnt (all 94 wagons) - vaporised to the atmosphere. At our current rate of global CO2 emissions, that happens every 1.7 **1.3 seconds. I'll go on to look at the carbon balance and carbon cycle in subsequent posts.   **edited in line with latest figures.

Thank Muso for the scary figures and the pic. And thanks for letting us know the number of seconds in a year. Frightening.

And that we burn the equivalent of a whole coal train every 1.7 seconds. But as always, context is everything. How much diffrence does all that CO2 make to the atmosphere? Very little.

There is a fixation on CO2 because it can be easily linked to human activity and that human activiy can be measured after a fashion. But we know very, very little about all the other, natural contributors to the weather or how they all interact. So they are ignored in preference to modelling the variable that we understand. (That is not enough to elevate it into  cause, mind you.)  

As I asked earlier, apart from Mozz who is game enough to say that we understand all the stuff that goes into making our climate and how they all interact and work and come up with a lovely day? Unlike Pilate, I was waiting for the anwer but it never came.

Also, I could not help noticing that you did not touch on axion Numero Uno in my post: that establishing the causal relationship between CO2 levels and climate justice (warming/cooling/changing) is the first step in ay further discussion about man-made global waddayacallit

We seem to have glided over that one, too. Am I inviting a thumb wrestle by noticing this? Was this all settled, ding-dong-wise,  while I ducked out for a leak?


:)







Love the graphs, too. The colour are pretty.

Of course I don't believe you for a second when you feign surprise at denialists being held in contempt, and you perfectly well can understand how following an argument through, where every point you raised is addressed, and corrected, and then you totally ignore that, and just reply with a facile opinion piece about global warming being some quasi political conspiracy.
That is the tactic of a deceiver, and a denier, without a shred of honest enquiry about it, and to pretend otherwise is why it is contemptible.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 8:59pm:

Of course I don't believe you for a second when you feign surprise at denialists being held in contempt, and you perfectly well can understand how following an argument through, where every point you raised is addressed, and corrected, and then you totally ignore that, and just reply with a facile opinion piece about global warming being some quasi political conspiracy. That is the tactic of a deceiver, and a denier, without a shred of honest enquiry about it, and to pretend otherwise is why it is contemptible.

I am not surprised at all by the contempt. But it matters to a man's pride who holds him in contempt. Being held in contempt by, say, Clive Hamilton is an honourable thing. A proud thing.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 8:59pm:

That is the tactic of a deceiver, and a denier ...

Go on, say it, "of the Great Satan".

lol, that is funny.
Do not misunderstand me, I like you, and respect your intellect, and most of your opinions, Soren, but when you engage in a debate, such as you did with Muso, and do so under the guise of it being honest questioning, in search of facts, but then willfully ignore facts that are presented, and just jump to a totally different subject, when the facts do not suit your argument, then the question of just how honest, or open, you really are being, arises.

As far as the issue being politicised, well that is not in question, it has become totally politicised, and many will use it for their own political goals.
You also see a pretty clear divide between old left/right attitudes as well, with the denialists predominantly right, and the alarmists predominantly left, and the majority take up those positions wiyth little thought, or care, about the actual science involved.

The fact that we are fortunate enough to have someone of Muso's calibre, willing to patiently inform us of scientific aspects we do not follow, is one that I appreciate greatly, and I have learned a lot from hearing his arguments.

Ultimately it all boils down to trust, for laymen like myself, and while I have a profound mistrust of all politicians, I do trust the opinions of the plethora of independent, reputable scientists, who put the case that Global Warming is very much an issue that man must address, if we wish to mitigate the worst case scenarios as much as we can.

If we don't do anything we will still adapt to whatever outcomes arise, but if we can reduce the amount of suffering, by precipitous action now, then we are obliged as caring people, to make that our goal.

Soren wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 8:57pm:

There is a fixation on CO2 because it can be easily linked to human activity and that human activiy can be measured after a fashion. But we know very, very little about all the other, natural contributors to the weather or how they all interact. So they are ignored in preference to modelling the variable that we understand. (That is not enough to elevate it into  cause, mind you.)   As I asked earlier, apart from Mozz who is game enough to say that we understand all the stuff that goes into making our climate and how they all interact and work and come up with a lovely day? Unlike Pilate, I was waiting for the anwer but it never came. Also, I could not help noticing that you did not touch on axion Numero Uno in my post: that establishing the causal relationship between CO2 levels and climate justice (warming/cooling/changing) is the first step in ay further discussion about man-made global waddayacallit We seem to have glided over that one, too. Am I inviting a thumb wrestle by noticing this? Was this all settled, ding-dong-wise,  while I ducked out for a leak?

Soren,

Please don't attempt to trivialise this discussion. It just makes it appear that you are unwilling to listen to my points. I'll stick to the facts if you will.  That post was a preamble. You're right, I have not yet established the causal relationship, but it was necessary to provide that preamble before I get down and dirty with the carbon cycle and carbon balance.  

You say that we can measure the CO2 after a fashion? I disagree based on my experience at reporting such things. Our measurement of CO2-e emissions is actually quite accurate and is become more accurate as time goes on.

You are fixated on CO2 as a single variable, not me. CO2 accounts for the bulk of the problem, yes, but there are other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide (N2O). Some of the CO2 is emitted as a result of combustion, and some is emitted when you roast calcium carbonate (limestone) during the cement manufacturing process.

Some of the CO2 is assigned as a result of land clearance in tropical areas. Clearing trees is a double (triple?) whammy. In most cases, they tend to burn a great deal of biomass in the process, tropical forests are a much more efficient carbon sink (by a factor of 3) than temperature forest, and the carbon sink is lost permanently in most cases.  

I have limited time, so you'll have to accept my points in piece-meal fashion.  I'll try to keep my presentation free of cut and paste. You can ask me for clarification at any stage, because I am totally clear in my mind about the details concerned.

As far as the atmospheric physics were concerned, despite having covered it at university in some depth, it took me about 5 years to really understand the basis of that. However it would be pointless going through the mathematics, as I think we'd lose a few people, and fortunately it's not a crucial part of the argument anyway.  


Quote:

And that we burn the equivalent of a whole coal train every 1.7 seconds. But as always, context is everything. How much difference does all that CO2 make to the atmosphere? Very little.

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that it makes very little difference? I'll explain in subsequent posts that it makes practically all the difference in the world.

muso wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 9:28am:

Soren, Please don't attempt to trivialise this discussion. It just makes it appear that you are unwilling to listen to my points. I'll stick to the facts if you will.  That post was a preamble. You're right, I have not yet established the causal relationship, but it was necessary to provide that preamble before I get down and dirty with the carbon cycle and carbon balance.

I appreciate the preambe and I am willing to listen as long as it is all leading up to the heart of th matter: do you think the causal relationship between human carbon emission and global climate warming/change/justice has ben established?

The causal relationship between human carbon emission and whatever climate phenomenon we are supposed to fight must be established befor any scheme or tax is introduced. Without causal relationhip it is all just fluff. And I know that you will not be able to establish a causal relationship. Nobody has ever done that.

Soren wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 8:31pm:

muso wrote on Nov 12th, 2009 at 9:28am: Soren, Please don't attempt to trivialise this discussion. It just makes it appear that you are unwilling to listen to my points. I'll stick to the facts if you will.  That post was a preamble. You're right, I have not yet established the causal relationship, but it was necessary to provide that preamble before I get down and dirty with the carbon cycle and carbon balance.   I appreciate the preambe and I am willing to listen as long as it is all leading up to the heart of th matter: Do you think the causal relationship between human carbon emission and global climate warming/change/justice has ben established? The causal relationship between human carbon emission and whatever climate phenomenon we are supposed to fight must be established befor any scheme or tax is introduced. Without causal relationhip it is all just fluff. And I know that you will not be able to establish a causal relationship. Nobody has ever done that.

I agree with the sections in bold, and I appreciate the fact that you are going to listen, as opposed to heckle and shout slogans like others have done.

The causal relationship has been done to death, and it's about as certain as just about anything can be in terms of scientific knowledge. I can easily explain it in highly technical terms, but that won't be too helpful. Climate Justice is the least of my concerns. I have a vague idea of what it means, and I think we have bigger issues, like rebalancing the global carbon cycle.

Work related issues (and play) have been top of my agenda in the last few days. This week I've had both corporate and government people chasing me for verification of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption, and tackling me on some very fine detail that doesn't actually make any material difference to the final results, so it has been quite frustrating.  

I want to get on to this as soon as possible. Fortunately the weekend is coming up. I'll try to tackle this early tomorrow morning when I have a clear head.  

muso wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 8:01am:

The causal relationship has been done to death, and it's about as certain as just about anything can be in terms of scientific knowledge.

I have never seen it and I doubt that you have.  It may have been skirted endlessly but never demonstrated.

Correct.  I haven't done it to death on this forum. Most explanations that you see on the web are either far too technical for most people or have too little detail and just focus on the main results with little or no explanation and contain such generalities or simplifications that it's no wonder denialists can use them as ammunition.  

I meant that in terms of research, it has been done to death. The 2007 Summary for Policy Makers should never have gone out with a 90-99% certainty. Most researchers wanted to put it at over 99%. Pressure from certain governments resulted in a much softer figure. This time around, there will be no room for argument.  That much is reflected in the two documents that I linked on the other thread.

I've started by posting a diagram of the Earth's Carbon balance on the Sticky thread. I'll be referring to that as we go on.

muso wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 9:34am:

Correct.  I haven't done it to death on this forum. Most explanations that you see on the web are either far too technical for most people or have too little detail and just focus on the main results with little or no explanation and contain such generalities or simplifications that it's no wonder denialists can use them as ammunition.

With the greatest respect, Muso, this is bvllsh!t and you know it.

The causal relationship between human CO2 and climate change has never been established, mostly because there are very simple and transparent examples of why there is NO causal relationship between warming and CO2. Everybody can easily undetrstand them. Even the correlation between CO2 and warming is unproven.

If governments want to impose a multi-billion dollar burden on their people, it is their duty to explain the reasons. To say it is too technical for most people to understand is not on.
I know you are not the government and it is not your duty to explain it all. Your efforts are appreciated.


If the absence of correlation between CO2 levels and warming is not enough proof that there is no causal realtionship, I ask you a simple scientific (not political) question: what would you take as a falsification of the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 causes warming?

mozzaok wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 7:13am:

lol, that is funny. Do not misunderstand me, I like you, and respect your intellect, and most of your opinions, Soren, but when you engage in a debate, such as you did with Muso, and do so under the guise of it being honest questioning, in search of facts, but then willfully ignore facts that are presented, and just jump to a totally different subject, when the facts do not suit your argument, then the question of just how honest, or open, you really are being, arises. As far as the issue being politicised, well that is not in question, it has become totally politicised, and many will use it for their own political goals. You also see a pretty clear divide between old left/right attitudes as well, with the denialists predominantly right, and the alarmists predominantly left, and the majority take up those positions wiyth little thought, or care, about the actual science involved. The fact that we are fortunate enough to have someone of Muso's calibre, willing to patiently inform us of scientific aspects we do not follow, is one that I appreciate greatly, and I have learned a lot from hearing his arguments. Ultimately it all boils down to trust, for laymen like myself, and while I have a profound mistrust of all politicians, I do trust the opinions of the plethora of independent, reputable scientists, who put the case that Global Warming is very much an issue that man must address, if we wish to mitigate the worst case scenarios as much as we can. If we don't do anything we will still adapt to whatever outcomes arise, but if we can reduce the amount of suffering, by precipitous action now, then we are obliged as caring people, to make that our goal.

Mozz, I go along with you a fair way, but not all the way. I am grateful to Muso, as you are. I appreciate your sober tone and I am happy to return the compliment.

Allow me this: I do not believe that the science of antropogenic global warming is settled. I actually believe that AGW has been sufficiently discredited already. There is no correlation between CO2 and warming. Sometimes they happen at the same time, sometimes they don't. When they don't, something else (who knows what) is responsible. I think a lot of the graphs and data are presented in order to cover up those facts - that something else is involved and tht we have no idea what it is.

Where people stand in these things is very much  matter of how they understand the world and themselves in it. That is why it is always a slightly person argument. It is always about the clash of world views, rather than a clash of science.

Again: I think we have an excellent thing going here - we are arguing without shouting too much.

The way I see it is that it is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - but it is a minor one. It absorbs a certain narrow band of IR wavelength, but the effect is logarithmic. Ie it's ability to absorb IR becomes saturated. I'm sure Muso has admitted that this effect by itself would only lead to a small, harmless increase in the Earth's temperature. The alarm comes from assumptions that most of the Earth's climate systems (clouds etc) have an amplifying effect and this is fed into the computer models to give the alarming predictions. However these systems and feedbacks are fully understood. So the science is not 'settled'.

Soren wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 9:23pm:

With the greatest respect, Muso, this is bvllsh!t and you know it.

No. To you it appears to be bvllshit. From where I stand, it's patently obvious. That's the chasm of understanding that we have to bridge.    

Should I jump to that part now, or do I have to explain that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years or so, is almost entirely a result of human activities? (Actually some of the CO2 produced has ended up in the oceans and some in the atmosphere. )

As I see it, there are two parts to the argument (that has to be proven):

1. That CO2 and greenhouse gases in general have increased significantly in the atmosphere and it's all our (homo sapiens) fault.

2. That if we continue to add CO2 and other GHG's at our current rate, it will result in consequences that will seriously threaten civilisation. These consequences include ocean acidification, an increase in global mean temperatures, increase in mean sea level.  increase in severe storm activity and a change in the pattern of precipitation with (on the whole negative) impacts on staple crop production.

As you can see, the second part of the argument starts to get complicated. We can confine ourselves to taking about temperature increase, but we need to be aware that it's much more far reaching than that.

pjb05 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 6:05am:

The way I see it is that it is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - but it is a minor one. It absorbs a certain narrow band of IR wavelength, but the effect is logarithmic. Ie it's ability to absorb IR becomes saturated. I'm sure Muso has admitted that this effect by itself would only lead to a small, harmless increase in the Earth's temperature. The alarm comes from assumptions that most of the Earth's climate systems (clouds etc) have an amplifying effect and this is fed into the computer models to give the alarming predictions. However these systems and feedbacks are fully understood. So the science is not 'settled'.

Well, I think you have a partial understanding there, pjb.

CO2 is the second biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect.  In order of importance (a combination of abundance plus greenhouse gas potential), the main greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Water vapour has slightly more that twice the warming effect of CO2 alone.  

Tropospheric Water vapour has increased consistently with warmer temperatures because warmer air holds more vapour.

Satellite observations show that globally, water vapour has increased by 2.4% during the last 20 years. All this is confirmation of the generally accepted climate sensitivity of 3.

The satellites indicate the troposphere has warmed by 0.4 C during the last 20 years, which agrees with surface thermometer readings across the world.

Thus the water vapour has increased at a rate of 6% per degree of global warming. We can use this measurement as a guide to the climate sensitivity. Most researchers agree on a climate sensitivity of around 3. IPCC AR4 put it thus


Quote:

....likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.

What this means is that for every doubling of CO2 concentration, the global temperature will rise by about 3 degrees.

Another way of putting this is that in terms of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapour accounts for 60% of the warming, while CO2 accounts for 25%, but the warming produced by the CO2 component directly results in the 60% warming caused by the water vapour component.

The causal relationship looks like this:

CO2 induced warming > Warmer oceans> More water vapour in atmosphere> larger Greehouse effect> warmer oceans> etc

You are right in saying that the radiative forcing due to CO2 is a logarithmic relationship (that's why we talk in terms of a fixed temperature rise for every doubling in concentration of CO2), but your concept of saturation is simplistic.

(I need to explain that point later.)

Incidentally, both the temperature and water vapour concentration of the stratosphere**  have decreased over that same 20 year study period. This is a direct consequence of the enhanced greenhouse effect, and is a confirmation of the cause of the observed temperature rise in the troposphere.

**As an illustration , commercial aircraft normally fly in the lower reaches of the stratosphere.

muso wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 8:08am:

Soren wrote on Nov 13th, 2009 at 9:23pm: With the greatest respect, Muso, this is bvllsh!t and you know it. No. To you it appears to be bvllshit. From where I stand, it's patently obvious. That's the chasm of understanding that we have to bridge.     Should I jump to that part now, or do I have to explain that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years or so, is almost entirely a result of human activities? (Actually some of the CO2 produced has ended up in the oceans and some in the atmosphere. ) As I see it, there are two parts to the argument (that has to be proven): 1. That CO2 and greenhouse gases in general have increased significantly in the atmosphere and it's all our (homo sapiens) fault. 2. That if we continue to add CO2 and other GHG's at our current rate, it will result in consequences that will seriously threaten civilisation. These consequences include ocean acidification, an increase in global mean temperatures, increase in mean sea level.  increase in severe storm activity and a change in the pattern of precipitation with (on the whole negative) impacts on staple crop production. As you can see, the second part of the argument starts to get complicated. We can confine ourselves to taking about temperature increase, but we need to be aware that it's much more far reaching than that.

You still have not addressed the central question - the causal link between 1 and 2.


There have been warmings and cooling in the past, demonstrably unrelated to atmosphric CO2. Where is the evidence that say that THIS time it is CO2 and antropogenic CO2 at that? There is no evidence.

Where is the evidenc that shows that whatever the causes of the previous warmings and coolings wer, they are not also at work now? there is no evidence because we do not know what caused the prvious changes.

Soren wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 1:29pm:

You still have not addressed the central question - the causal link between 1 and 2. There have been warmings and cooling in the past, demonstrably unrelated to atmosphric CO2. Where is the evidence that say that THIS time it is CO2 and antropogenic CO2 at that? There is no evidence. Where is the evidenc that shows that whatever the causes of the previous warmings and coolings wer, they are not also at work now? there is no evidence because we do not know what caused the prvious changes.

From Muso's recent posts I take it he doesn't deny that the warming effect of CO2 is small, but he is saying this will be amplified to dangerous levels by positive feed back effects - notably from water vapour. If so where is the evidence for this in the past? When in our geological history has a small rise in global temperature lead to a runaway greenhouse effect?

Soren wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 1:29pm:

You still have not addressed the central question - the causal link between 1 and 2.

OK. As I understand it, you accept that atmospheric CO2 has been rising recently, largely as a result of human activities, and you are asking me to prove the link between that progressively increasing level of CO2 and global warming.  I think that's what you are saying here. Please confirm that I'm not misrepresenting you.

If that is where you stand, then there is not much point dwelling too much on the former point any further than this post. I'll summarise the key points for that conclusion in this post. If you accept that the dramatic increase in CO2 is not largely due to volcanoes or some other factor, then it saves a great deal of work on my part to convince you otherwise.

It's quite easy to get to that point from a simple consideration of inputs and outputs. Any factory, refinery or industrial plant that exists anywhere in the world has records of how much fuel was burnt and the type of fuel. The main three sources of carbon dioxide emissions are:

Coal and other solid fuels: 35%
Oil and other liquid fuels: 36%
Natural gas and other gaseous fuels: 20%
Cement production: 3%

We can determine how much carbon is being emitted to the atmosphere, and we can break this down quite accurately in terms of country, in terms of industry sector and many other classifications.  

We know that certain greenhouse gases are emitted by specific processes, for example nitrous oxide is emitted primarily in fertiliser and explosives  manufacture.

If you look at the emissions of various gases, atmospheric methane  has levelled off around  1750ppb. Although it has a higher greenhouse gas potential than CO2, you can see than its concentration in the atmosphere is about 200 times less that of CO2 (by volume), its Greenhouse Gas potential is 72 (CO2=1) over a period of 20 years and it has an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years.

CO2 concentration is climbing at a rate of approximately 2ppm per year, up from approximately 0.7ppm per year in the 1950's and 60's. It's quite obvious that CO2 levels are rising in line with anthopogenic emissions. While volcanoes emit CO2, a cursory examination of the statistics show that the level of emissions is less than 1/100 of that due to human activities.

Methane emissions have levelled off as a result of improved practices in gas flaring. Most methane is emitted from oil and gas production, agricultural byproducts and  waste disposal and treatment.

Let me know if you have a problem with any of that, and we'll move on to the causal links and evidence connecting greenhouse gases and global warming.

---

I should have also pointed out that a lot of CO2 arrives in the atmosphere from largely biogenic sources.  Many of these processes have been going on for many millions of yearsand are have been more or less in equilibrium.

Some biogenic sources are increasing indirectly as a result of human activities. For example, the clearing of tropical rainforest, and the melting of tundra, resulting in the release of methane.

We talk in terms of carbon fluxes. The attached diagram comes from the following link:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/ccspstratplan2003-chap7.htm

It relates to a study done in 2003, so the figure of 6.3 Gigatonnes for fossil fuel emissions is now around 8.8.

The fossil fuel emissions are basically the primary factor that has unbalanced the global carbon cycle.  You'll notice a slight positive flux between the ocean and the atmosphere. That means that the oceans are absorbing approximately 1/3 of the CO2 emitted from fossil fuel production.  That proportion is reducing as time progresses and the ocean pH falls.

---

Now we come to the crux. This will take several posts, so you'll have to bear with me.

I don't think anybody will dispute that CO2, methane and N2O are greenhouse gases. The degree to which they each absorb infrared radiation can easily be demonstrated using an infrared spectrometer.

What we say about CO2 applies to other greenhouse gases in terms of warming effects, but of course methane and N2O do not lead to ocean acidification.

The crux of the matter lies in the fact that we have an enormous reservoir of the most significant greenhouse gas (water) in contact with the atmosphere and the trend of increasing atmospheric water vapour concentration is directly related to warming trends. (I'll talk about where CO2 comes in later)  

When a warming trend results in effects that induce further warming, the process is referred to as a "positive feedback"; this amplifies the original warming. When the warming trend results in effects that induce cooling, the process is referred to as a "negative feedback"; this reduces the original warming. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas and because warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, the primary positive feedback involves water vapor.

This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by other processes that induce negative feedbacks, which stabilise average global temperatures. The primary negative feedback is the effect of temperature on emission of infrared radiation: as the temperature of a body increases, the emitted radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

OK, I'll take an anti-divorce break and get back into this tomorrow morning.

Despite all that additional CO2 in the atmosphere, its proportion has increased from 0.0280 % to 0.0387 % of the atmosphere.
The whole atmosphere is greenhouse gases. One of its components increasing by the above proportion is trivial.

The positive and negative feedback to water vapour is an explanation of a hypothesis. That hypothesis is that a trivial component of the atmosphere (CO2) is the all-determining component. It is an explanation that involves the far more significant element of the atmosphere but only as an aid to the hypothesised CO2 effect.

The co-occurence of increased CO2 and recent warming is not a causal explanation and you do not need me to point it out. SO

I would like to hear about the evidence for causality:

What caused the recent changes? If CO2 - go to the next question:

What caused the past warmings and cooling when CO2 emission was clearly irrelevant.
And whatever that cause was - why is it not causing the recent cooling and warming?i

Soren wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 4:44pm:

Despite all that additional CO2 in the atmosphere, its proportion has increased from 0.0280 % to 0.0387 % of the atmosphere.

You can use percentage or ppmv, it doesn't matter. It still accounts for about 25% of the total greenhouse effect on Earth (directly).

These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 850,000 years, using ice cores data. We also have indirect geological evidence (proxy data) that indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.

The radiative forcing equation for CO2 is:

ΔF = αln(C/Co), where α = 5.35

I won't go into the maths in any detail, unless you want me to.

Regardless of the fact that the CO2 concentration is 'only' 0.0387% volume, the actual radiative forcing is a fundamental mathematical relationship and is generally accepted as non controversial.  

This equation is based on fundamental physics which has been established for many years. It is a derivative of the Stefan Boltzmann equation.  (black body radiation)

As I said previously, the warming effect for a doubling of CO2 is around 0.7 degrees due to CO2. The amplified effect due to water vapour is around 2.3 degrees in addition to that.

The water feedback has been the aspect with the greatest error in past years. A great deal of work has been done on this in recent years, and the 3 +/- 1.5 will be plus or minus a lot less in the latest report.  The Mount Pinatubo eruption was a good test of our knowledge, and I'll expand on that later.


Quote:

The whole atmosphere is greenhouse gases.

That is incorrect. If you think it is correct, then tell me what you think the radiative forcing contribution of nitrogen, oxygen and argon should be, and on what basis.


Quote:

What caused the recent changes? If CO2 - go to the next question: What caused the past warmings and cooling when CO2 emission was clearly irrelevant.

Slow solar variation and orbital factors. edit - (Actually CO2 content of the atmosphere has never been irrelevant. There is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature through time. )



Quote:

And whatever that cause was - why is it not causing the recent cooling and warming?

- because we can measure solar irradiance very accurately thanks to satellite technology, and we know that it has actually shown a slight reduction if anything. (I think I have covered that before) I think I can give you a better answer than that. I'll try again tomorrow morning.

You're right in saying that the recent trends are correlation and not causation.  The causation is more fundamental, and relates to the structure of the CO2 molecule, and for that, I'm going to have to think about how to word the explanation to make it easily understood.

The historical trends can serve as confirmation of the causal relationship. They are not the fundamental proof.

The diagram below shows the carbon dioxide molecule. It's a linear molecule with a carbon atom in the centre and an oxygen atom at either end, joined by a double bond. The molecule is capable of various stretching and bending modes which absorb and radiate energy at specific wavelengths in the infrared.

Think of it like a tuning fork. A tuning fork will absorb sound energy at a given sound frequency. As the tuning fork gets smaller, the frequency gets higher and higher and the wavength gets shorter and shorter. The CO2 molecule is like an extremely small tuning fork in that respect, except that we're talking about electromagnetic radiation instead of sound. (very simplified explanation)

If we use an infrared spectrometer to examine the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, we see broad lines in the infrared spectrum.

Some molecules, such as water, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide also absorb in the infrared. Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon do not. Gas molecules which absorb infrared radiation are known as greenhouse gases.  

Ah - Google is smarter than me, so read as follows:


Quote:

Molecules can absorb and emit three kinds of energy: energy from the excitation of electrons, energy from rotational motion, and energy from vibrational motion. The first kind of energy is also exhibited by atoms, but the second and third are restricted to molecules. A molecule can rotate about its center of gravity (there are three mutually perpendicular axes through the center of gravity). Vibrational energy is gained and lost as the bonds between atoms, which may be thought of as springs, expand and contract and bend. The three kinds of energy are associated with different portions of the spectrum: electronic energy is typically in the visible and ultraviolet portions of the spectrum (for example, wavelength of 1 micrometer, vibrational energy in the near infrared and infrared (for example, wavelength of 3 micrometers), and rotational energy in the far infrared to microwave (for example, wavelength of 100 micrometers). The specific wavelength of absorption and emission depends on the type of bond and the type of group of atoms within a molecule. Thus, the stretching of the C-H bond in the CH2 and CH3 groups involves infrared energy with a wavelength of 3.3-3.4 micrometers. What makes certain gases, such as carbon dioxide, act as "greenhouse" gases is that they happen to have vibrational modes that absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths at which the earth radiates energy to space. In fact, the measured "peaks" of infrared absorbance are often broadened because of the overlap of several electronic, rotational, and vibrational energies from the several-to-many atoms and interatomic bonds in the molecules. (Information from "Basic Principles of Chemistry" by Harry B. Gray and Gilbert P. Haight, Jr., published 1967 by W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York and Amsterdam)

---

Now for the Infrared spectrum of the atmosphere. This shows the absorption bands associated with different Greenhouse gases.

---

Do you understand the difference between forcings and feedbacks?

Think of water vapour being emitted from an industrial plant. This will have no long term impact on the water vapour concentration of the atmosphere, because water vapour drops out pretty quickly in the form of rain or snow.

However when there is a warming influence, either from increased solar activity or increased CO2, the atmosphere and the oceans will begin to warm and the mean water vapour concentration of the atmosphere will increase as a result. This effect is known as a feedback.

Carbon dioxide doesn't condense out in the same way. Although there is an equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere, this has a very subtle effect with increased solar output. Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas with a forcing effect.

I think from what I have said so far, you will appreciate that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The efficiency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is related to basic physical properties of the gas that can be demonstrated in any laboratory equipped with an infrared spectrophotometer. The Greenhouse Gas Potential of any gas can be measured quite accurately. While water vapour is a less efficient greenhouse gas, it is present in much larger quantities in most of the atmosphere. That last point may be important later on. Unlike CO2, water vapour is not uniformly distributed geographically or in terms of altitude.

All greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation from the sun and re-emitting that infrared at all angles, thus trapping a greater proportion of the heat from the sun.

We can easily establish that when the global atmospheric temperature increases, for whatever reason (eg solar variations, CO2 forcing), the water vapour concentration of the atmosphere increases. Since water vapour is a greenhouse gas, we can establish that there is a feedback which will amplify the initial warming.

I have not yet adequately demonstrated that last point.

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was a good test of water vapour feedbacks, because the volcanic ash cloud that enveloped the world effectively turned down the sun and consequently reduced the global temperature.

One of the parameters measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory is Solar radiation transmitted through the atmosphere. You can see the dips corresponding to the major stratospheric volcanoes that have erupted during the past 50 years.

---

pjb05 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 6:05am:

The way I see it is that it is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - but it is a minor one. It absorbs a certain narrow band of IR wavelength, but the effect is logarithmic. Ie it's ability to absorb IR becomes saturated. I'm sure Muso has admitted that this effect by itself would only lead to a small, harmless increase in the Earth's temperature. The alarm comes from assumptions that most of the Earth's climate systems (clouds etc) have an amplifying effect and this is fed into the computer models to give the alarming predictions. However these systems and feedbacks are fully understood. So the science is not 'settled'.

The bold section regarding saturation is a commonly used argument on certain sites but it's an old argument that was settled about 50 years ago.

The critical layer in the atmosphere for the greenhouse effect is the upper troposphere, far above most clouds.

The argument that the atmosphere is saturated with respect to CO2 is incorrect. Even if it were correct, it's the thin upper atmosphere where the absorption and scattering effect takes place. At that level, water concentration is low (very cold, dry air - low dewpoint) and CO2 becomes the dominant greenhouse gas. In those upper layers, there is no way that you could say that the CO2 absorption is saturated.

I can expand on this further if you want (I suspect that I might have to) but the physics behind this were finally settled back in the late 1950's and it is certainly included in just about every climate model that was ever written.

Fascinating reading, muso, thanks for putting those posts up.

Do you have links to websites or books etc for further reading?

OK - back to the Mount Pinatubo eruption. A paper by Soden et al back in 2002 was one of the earliest tests of climate sensitivity. This confirmed a number of things.

1. That the global cooling following the Pinatubo eruption could not be explained in terms of reduced solar transmission alone.

2. The measured global mean water vapour content of the atmophere dropped as a result of the cooling effect of the eruption.

3. The results provided quantitative evidence of the reliability of water vapor feedback in current climate models, which is crucial to their use for global warming projections.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5568/727

There has been a considerable amount of subsequent work done to refine our knowledge of water vapour feedback. Here are the results of a cursory search:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=Soden&x=36&y=4

---

Darwin wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 8:02am:

Fascinating reading, muso, thanks for putting those posts up. Do you have links to websites or books etc for further reading?

Darwin, When I have adequately addressed the issue and answered all of Soren's questions, I'll post a bibliography on the sticky section.  Here's an interesting summary:

CLIMATE SCIENCE: Warming Vapors

Water vapor is the atmospheric gas that collectively has the greatest greenhouse effect on climate, although it does not directly instigate warming or cooling trends, because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere varies only in response to temperature change. Instead, water vapor only amplifies temperature trends being caused by other factors such as atmospheric CO2 concentration or Earth's albedo. The extent to which humidity changes in response to temperature variation is therefore a key parameter in global climate models, because that quantity determines the strength of the associated warming or cooling.

Dessler et al. present satellite data from 2003 to 2008 which show that models have gotten that relationship correct, and that relative humidity is effectively constant at any given temperature. Thus, the temperature increases predicted by global models are virtually guaranteed to be several degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Knowing the water vapor content of a warmer atmosphere is also important for predicting rainfall and storminess.

[Summary by Science editor H. Jesse Smith]

Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704 (2008).

Unfortunately I don't have access to Geophysical Research Letters so I can't read the full paper.

Thx muso

muso wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 5:47pm:

Regardless of the fact that the CO2 concentration is 'only' 0.0387% volume, the actual radiative forcing is a fundamental mathematical relationship and is generally accepted as non controversial.

It may well be a mathematically non-controversial relationship. But we are not talking about mathematics. The climate is not a mathematical formula that we have fathomed yet.

I have seen a graph and learned exposition on how there is a case of diminishing returns when it comes to increasecd CO2 in the atmosphere and warming effect (radiative forcing): after a certain amount ofCO2 in the atmosphere, its radiative forcing effect diminishes rapidly.

There is clear evidence that whatever the occasional correlation (not causation) may be between CO2 and temperature, there is certainly no mathematical or any other correspondence between temperatuire and CO2.

The point is - there are other things at play. What they are, we do not seem to know. To pin it all on man made CO2 is unsupportable. Climate science is like brain science - we are making great and fascinating advances but to pretend that we understand how they work, or that we can identify single causalities (that we the proceed to complicate to death) is preposterous. For mine, this is a massive, hubristic over-reach. akin to phrenology or astrology.

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2009 at 8:41pm:

It may well be a mathematically non-controversial relationship. But we are not talking about mathematics. The climate is not a mathematical formula that we have fathomed yet.

I was talking about the radiative forcing of CO2. Mathematical was perhaps the wrong word. In the last few posts I have been trying to present a logical chain of causation between CO2 levels and increasing global temperatures. I believe that I have demonstrated that such a causal relationship exists, that  the effects can be measured by different means, and we can test the hypothesis very easily  using a considerable amount of ingenuity. (Please read the additional posts in the sticky thread).

What I meant was that there is a well established relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature based on parameters that we can measure. We can confirm the degree of radiative forcing by such things as the reduction of transmitted longwave radiation over time, and we can measure the magnititude of this effect for each greenhouse gas, because they each have their individual IR spectral lines..


Quote:

I have seen a graph and learned exposition on how there is a case of diminishing returns when it comes to increasecd CO2 in the atmosphere and warming effect (radiative forcing): after a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, its radiative forcing effect diminishes rapidly.

Without seeing it, I can't comment on the validity of the 'learned exposition'.  I have tried to explain the question of 'saturation' in another post.  Show me the link and I'll read it and comment.  If you mean that it's a logarithmic relationship - yes we've known that for over 100 years and the calculations take that into account.


Quote:

There is clear evidence that whatever the occasional correlation (not causation) may be between CO2 and temperature, there is certainly no mathematical or any other correspondence between temperatuire and CO2.

The Earth's climate system has natural variability built into it. We can measure and account for the sources of that natural variability to a great extent. It's very facile to say that there is no correlation when we can characterise that natural variability extremely well.

I haven't even touched on climate models in my explanation. It's not necessary to do so, because we're talking about increased heat accumulation by the Earth via an extremely well-defined mechanism. If you continue to add heat to a system, then it's going to heat up, regardless of its complexity.

However, it's of note that the latest generation of climate models can actually predict and reproduce the effects of the natural variability due to ENSO and solar cycles and just about every other natural event short of a major stratospheric volcanic eruption or a major meteor impact.



Quote:

The point is - there are other things at play. What they are, we do not seem to know.

We do know - at least enough to be able to account for natural influences in the climate system.

I'll try to summarise what I've said so far in terms of confirming the causal relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature rise in the next point. If you are not convinced by a particular point, please let me know and I'll expand on it.

Initially I tried to explain how there seems to be a cottage industry devoted to creating confusion in this field. I eventually realised that they are skilled communicators who sound very convincing to a person who has had no formal training in science.

To try to knock holes in their arguments is probably not the best approach since it's a bit like hiring a demolition crew to knock down an imaginary building then continually telling them that they missed the imaginary wall with the demolition ball every time.

How do you think they would feel? frustrated? That's how I feel too.

- So I'll stick to what I know. The basic science.

1. Vibration and assymetrical stretching modes of the CO2 molecule are excited by Infrared radiation of certain frequencies.

This is measurable using laboratory instrumentation. The science has been well established and unchallenged for about a century.

2. Escaping longwave IR radiation from the Earth's surface is intercepted and absorbed by CO2 molecules and retransmitted at many different angles.

The Greenhouse effect was first described by Joseph Fourier in the early 19th century (1824).

3. A greater proportion of the heat energy from this IR radiation is trapped in the lower atmosphere (troposphere)

The net radiative forcing can be confirmed by direct measurement of Infrared radiation over time using satellite observations.

4. The net effect is that an increasing amount of heat is trapped in the atmophere, resulting in a progressive increase in global temperatures

Although there is well understood natural variability, the superimposed heating effect can be measured (global mean temperatures) using satellite and ground-based measurements. Both sets of data agree with each other very closely.


5. The increasing global temperature vaporises a greater proportion of surface water.

The partial pressure of water in the atmophere is a function of increasing temperature. As an obvious consequence of that, the increased concentration of water (which has been measured) provides an additional greenhouse effect (known as feedback)

The radiative forcing equation for CO2 is one of the best established relationships. The mathematics are fiendishly difficult to understand, but the fact remains that it has been tried and tested using a variety of techniques, including the measurement of longwave radiation.

I'll see if I can find something on the web, but I have a feeling I'll have to scan something out of one of my textbooks, and even so, unless you have a good grounding in maths, it might be pointless.

I'm slightly surprised that you're latching on to that because it is so well established, and even accepted by the likes of Richard Lindzen and widely quoted by denialists.  

The area I was expecting to find some resistance from you was that of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity. Until recently, that was an area which was not very rigorous, and the error was around 50%.

muso wrote on Nov 18^th, 2009 at 8:07am:

The radiative forcing equation for CO2 is one of the best established relationships. The mathematics are fiendishly difficult to understand, but the fact remains that it has been tried and tested using a variety of techniques, including the measurement of longwave radiation. I'll see if I can find something on the web, but I have a feeling I'll have to scan something out of one of my textbooks, and even so, unless you have a good grounding in maths, it might be pointless. I'm slightly surprised that you're latching on to that because it is so well established, and even accepted by the likes of Richard Lindzen and widely quoted by denialists.   The area I was expecting to find some resistance from you was that of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity. Until recently, that was an area which was not very rigorous, and the error was around 50%.

I was not latching onto anything, of course. "radiative forcing equation for CO2" is not an explanation for climate change, however well the maths may be understood. The point is that climate is far more complex than can be explained even by such a well understood equation, fiendishly difficult or otherwise.  As for scanning the web or textbooks for even more complex maths - check Ockham's razor first.

What is fiendishly difficult because of its complexity, is climate itself. The atmosphere is one component of that complexity, greenhouse gases are one component of the atmosphere. CO2 is one minor component of greenhouse gases. No amount of fiendishly complex maths, deploying other elements of the atmosphere as boosters of the CO2 effect, will elevate CO2 into the position of chief puppetmaster of something as complex as climate.

Not only is there no causal relationship between warming and CO2 emission, there is not even correlation. Warming plateaus or goes backwards even as CO2 output continues to grow.

Just on Ockham's razor: attributing global climate warming to a change 0.01% in the composition of the atmosphere (from 0.0280 % to 0.0387 % CO2 = 0.0107% change) assumes that the remaining 99.9613% of the atmosphere is either negligible or is in active support of the CO2 effect (your thesis) and that apart from the atmosphere (and especially its tiniest component) no other non-atmospheric elements of the climate are influencing it more than CO2 (your assumption). i

You obviously didn't read my explanation because you are mischaracterising it.

Again - read the post with the texts in blue (Reply #76).  That's a summary of the salient points made in the previous posts.


Quote:

Not only is there no causal relationship between warming and CO2 emission, there is not even correlation. Warming plateaus or goes backwards even as CO2 output continues to grow.

That would be true over a very short period only - such as 10 years, and is a consequence of some very well characterised natural variations in climate. Even if you're driving up a hill on a bumpy road, you're still driving up a hill.

It's a simplistic argument that is recycled again and again.

I believe that I have demonstrated a causal relationship too. It exists as a consequence of the physical properties of CO2.

Your premise that all atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases was ludicrously wrong.

There have been warmings and cooling over centuries, clearly unrelated to human CO2. This may be an old point, but a good one.
The atmosphere is the greenhouse. No atmosphere, no greenhouse effect. Amount and composition are important but logically are obviously secondary. There is nothing ludicrous or wrong about this. The atmosphere on Mars is pretty much all CO2 - and it's colder than a gravediggers arse.


Natural variations - that's where more attention needs to be paid. But natural variations are fiendishly complex and cannot be faithfulkly modelled and entirely out of our control - hence their neglect when warming is discussed. CO2 is promoted because it is the stuff of 'precious bodily fluids', it is our moral misbehaviour.

Muso just doesn't get it does he Soren, natural variation obviously sees temps rise and fall.
So what if we now will have natural variation +2.
As I sit here after the hottest november night ever recorded, coincidentally, it was natural variation plus 1.9, and look forward to the hottest november ever , and the hottest summer ever, I take comfort knowing it is just natural variation, and will definitely not get any hotter in the future, because humans have definitely not done anything to exacerbate this natural variation we have.

Now even though natural variation plus 2 may be annoying, I can cool my conscience knowing that I did not contribute to it at all, and I can support continued massive overuse of fossil fuels for as long as they last.
Good to know, now just get it through muso's head, he is stuck on wanting actual facts though, bloody scientists.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 7:05pm:

Muso just doesn't get it does he Soren, natural variation obviously sees temps rise and fall. So what if we now will have natural variation +2. As I sit here after the hottest november night ever recorded, coincidentally, it was natural variation plus 1.9, and look forward to the hottest november ever , and the hottest summer ever, I take comfort knowing it is just natural variation, and will definitely not get any hotter in the future, because humans have definitely not done anything to exacerbate this natural variation we have. Now even though natural variation plus 2 may be annoying, I can cool my conscience knowing that I did not contribute to it at all, and I can support continued massive overuse of fossil fuels for as long as they last. Good to know, now just get it through muso's head, he is stuck on wanting actual facts though, bloody scientists.

I sympathise as much as you do, Mozza. But don't beat yourself up.

Here's my personal angle: the herd is for our 'precious bodily fluids', er... I mean CO2,  causing warming: the chances are it is not CO2. Despite all those pictures of trainloads of coal, we are still less than ants. Antropogenic global warming is a Liliputian fantasy of grandeur ( a yearning, to some extent). That's my hunch.

On the scientific front - Muso's forte - I am simply asking for a scientific demonstration of causality. It is very ungentlemanly of me, offering a quasi-bet, on something I know neither Muso nor any other scientist can possibly win. There is simply not enough scientific knowledge about the climate to declare CO2 to be the cause of whatever is happning to the climate.

Muso and others can offer complicated maths in support of hypotheses, fiendishly complex models and the rest - yet the desired causal relationship can not be established scientifically simply because there are so many other, much geater and much more complicated factors.

Wanting to be responsible for global warming is not enough. Desire is not enough.  Discovering correlations - like astrology, like phrenology - is not enough. The medievals believed that walnuts were the cure for brain diseases on the basis of correlation and resemblances. The insurance paradigm does not work. The science is not settled. The boosters for warmering have been discovered to be liars.
Models and graphs ae not proofs, only pictorial represenations of hypothses. There is a theory that the increase in the price of stamps causes global warming. A much better match than CO2.

A Liliputian fantasy.

---

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 4:30pm:

There have been warmings and cooling over centuries, clearly unrelated to human CO2. This may be an old point, but a good one. The atmosphere is the greenhouse. No atmosphere, no greenhouse effect. Amount and composition are important but logically are obviously secondary. There is nothing ludicrous or wrong about this. The atmosphere on Mars is pretty much all CO2 - and it's colder than a gravediggers arse. Natural variations - that's where more attention needs to be paid. But natural variations are fiendishly complex and cannot be faithfulkly modelled and entirely out of our control - hence their neglect when warming is discussed. CO2 is promoted because it is the stuff of 'precious bodily fluids', it is our moral misbehaviour.

Soren,

Just feeling the back of my head, I have natural variation in my bald spot, but at this rate, I'm going to have an extremely rapid onset of anthropogenic baldness with a clear causal link to your posts.

Let me explain the logical fallacy in your statement:
(How many times have I explained this already?)

Yes. We do have natural variations- do you honestly think you're telling me something new - something that is new to the science of climatology?   To say that the increase in CO2 in the last 50 years and the associated temperature rise, ocean acidification etc are just part of a natural cycle is a logical fallacy, especially since we know perfectly well, based on voluminous data, that it is no such thing. The causal relationship is now crystal clear. The Copenhagen Synthesis report uses the term "overwhelming evidence".

In the past, there were indeed natural cooling periods, such as the glaciations and warming periods. The commonly observed pattern was a very gradual decrease in temperatures leading into the glaciation and a rapid rise in temperature and CO2 following the glaciation. However the rate of increase in CO2 and temperature in the last 50 years is about 100 times faster than anything we have previously observed over those periods.

We have natural variations in temperature between Night and Day for that matter, and I'm pretty sure that the atmospheric CO2 doesn't change significantly between night and day.  

We expect to find natural variations.

Don't you understand this? The CO2 induced warming is superimposed on such well understood natural variations.

(Actually there is a seasonal cycle in CO2 too. This is due to the fact that there is more landmass in the Northern Hemisphere. The Northern Winter should see an increase, and there should be a drop in seasonal CO2 during the peak North Hemisphere growing season.  )

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 4:30pm:

The atmosphere is the greenhouse. No atmosphere, no greenhouse effect. Amount and composition are important but logically are obviously secondary. There is nothing ludicrous or wrong about this. The atmosphere on Mars is pretty much all CO2 - and it's colder than a gravediggers arse.

Maybe we'll have to send you back to High School, but you still don't get the greenhouse effect. Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon do not contribute directly to the Greenhouse Effect because they do not absorb in the Infrared.  Oxygen contributes indirectly because it exists in equilibrium with ozone, but other than that, the greenhouse gas potential is 4/5 of nil/ nada/niente. It's so low that it's insignificant.

Mars is as cold as a witches tit for various reasons. For starters, it is further away from the Sun than the Earth, and the energy reaching its outer atmosphere is only 42% that of the equivalent for the Earth.

D'you reckon that might be important?

The Maunder Minimum had an effect of reducing Solar irradiance by about 1.23 percent. What do you think the effect of a 58% reduction might be?  Do you think the Earth would also be pretty baltic too? - Too right it would.

Do you think that without its CO2 atmosphere, Mars would be even colder than it is? Think about it.

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 8:07pm:

.... can offer complicated maths in support of hypotheses, fiendishly complex models and the rest - yet the desired causal relationship can not be established scientifically simply because there are so many other, much geater and much more complicated factors. A Liliputian fantasy.

I could probably also give you complicated maths and fiendishly complex theory that explains  why the computer you are using actually works.

- but then that would all be mere theory. Computers and internet? The fact that you can see computers and use them is just correlation - and correlation is not causation.  

The mathematics is far too complex for anybody to understand. (well do you understand it? - of course not!)  

Everybody knows that the elfs make them at the North Pole under the supervision of Santa Claus.

The concept of man made computers is a Liliputian fantasy. It's a global plot by IBM I tell you, and the IBM scientists are all involved in this worldwide plot because they are scared of losing their jobs   ;D

Pull the other one, Soren.

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 12:03pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 19th, 2009 at 8:07pm: .... can offer complicated maths in support of hypotheses, fiendishly complex models and the rest - yet the desired causal relationship can not be established scientifically simply because there are so many other, much geater and much more complicated factors. A Liliputian fantasy. I could probably also give you complicated maths and fiendishly complex theory that explains  why the computer you are using actually works. - but then that would all be mere theory. Computers and internet? The fact that you can see computers and use them is just correlation - and correlation is not causation.   The mathematics is far too complex for anybody to understand. (well do you understand it? - of course not!)   Everybody knows that the elfs make them at the North Pole under the supervision of Santa Claus. The concept of man made computers is a Liliputian fantasy. It's a global plot by IBM I tell you, and the IBM scientists are all involved in this worldwide plot because they are scared of losing their jobs   ;D Pull the other one, Soren.

Totally gauche analogy. A computer is an entirely man made machine. The climate is neither a machine (although some of the science construes it 'as if') nor man made.  Insisting that our control of 0.0107 % of the atmosphere is control of the climate - we have changed and we can change it back - is shamanism, old-style atrological thinking.

Antropogenic climate change grows out of a really old-fashioned (ancient, in fact) and very reactionary way of thinking.

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 8:45pm:

Totally gauche analogy. A computer is an entirely man made machine. The climate is neither a machine (although some of the science construes it 'as if') nor man made.  Insisting that our control of 0.0107 % of the atmosphere is control of the climate - we have changed and we can change it back - is shamanism, old-style atrological thinking. Antropogenic climate change grows out of a really old-fashioned (ancient, in fact) and very reactionary way of thinking.

It's actually a very good analogy to your argument. The basis of your argument is that it's a complex system and therefore it's way too difficult to understand.    

We deal with complex systems in virtually all the sciences. Fortunately complex systems often allow deterministic predictability of certain characteristics. An example of such a deterministic prediction is the ability to predict the correct dosage of certain drugs in a complex system such as the human body. The deterministic calculation often comes down to some basic parameters such as the age of the patient, their body mass etc.

A further subset of predictions in complex systems may be made by using statistical predictions - probabilities, and finally we get down to the bottom of the barrel - stochastic modelling, which involves such esoteric aspects as chaos theory. Stochastic modelling can be put to good use in stock market analysis, but it is not required for the simple relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and radiative forcing.

In the case of CO2 and radiative forcing, the relationship is deterministic to an accuracy of better than 10%. We don't even need to look at statistical analysis, and have no need to visit the fuzzy logic world of stochastic modelling.    

The relationship is so well established that it can be tested by several independant methods.

It is as deterministic as the design basis of your computer. In fact, probably more so, because the tolerance of certain electronic components is often 20%.  

If you look in the literature, there are very few papers in the past 5 years that deal with radiative forcing (actually there was one in October this year, but it did not relate directly to CO2 radiative forcing. That's because the science behing radiative forcing is well and truly settled.

The evidence is that the computer works and it does what it was predicted to do. In the case of radiative forcing, it's a fairly fundamental thing. It relates to basic properties of the CO2 molecule.
The relationship is logarithmic.

If you don't accept the radiative forcing relationship, what do you accept? Ian Plimer? He states that water vapour accounts for 98% of the greenhouse effect.

Do you agree with him?

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 9:47pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2009 at 8:45pm: Totally gauche analogy. A computer is an entirely man made machine. The climate is neither a machine (although some of the science construes it 'as if') nor man made.  Insisting that our control of 0.0107 % of the atmosphere is control of the climate - we have changed and we can change it back - is shamanism, old-style atrological thinking. Antropogenic climate change grows out of a really old-fashioned (ancient, in fact) and very reactionary way of thinking. It's actually a very good analogy to your argument. The basis of your argument is that it's a complex system and therefore it's way too difficult to understand.

Climate is complex and dynamic and we do not know all the things that go into it and the way they all interact. The only thing you can say about computers is that they are complex. But we know all their elements, what part each plays and how they interact.

It is very old-fashioned to conceptualise nature as a machine. Likening it to an electronic machine is barely less fuddy-duddy.

"No - it's too complex - don't understand  - don't want to understand"

We're not talking about climate here. We're talking about a very specific aspect of climate - an input. That input relies on a well understood property of the carbon dioxide molecule to absorb infrared radiation.

We can stick some CO2 in a spectrophotometer cell and we can measure what it does in terms of how much infrared it absorbs, what frequencies it absorbs it at and we can determine how effective it is as a greenhouse gas. We can do the same for water vapour.

These are absolute determinations.

We can't predict the output of the Copenhagen Conference. We can't predict the reponses of the major countries over the next 40 odd years. Those the the major uncertainties.

Plimer talks about running models backwards. What we can do is to  input measured atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases over a historical period of time, and the models will provide basic parameters such as global mean temperatures. They actually reproduce these parameters extremely well. They already have a track record of predictions stretching back to the early 80's.

Climate modelling is a very advanced deterministic-based science.  

However we don't require climate models to tell us that global temperatures will increase. That part is basic science that is blatantly obvious when you consider such elementary aspects as energy balance.

[quote]Climate is complex and dynamic and we do not know all the things that go into it and the way they all interact. The only thing you can say about computers is that they are complex. But we know all their elements, what part each plays and how they interact.
/quote]

As each subsequent argument of denialists, is patiently, and comprehensively, deconstructed, and proved false, by the scientific community, we see the introduction of new, irrefutable arguments from these intransigent deniers.

This particular one which soren is now running up the flag pole can be simplified to it's basic meaning, which amounts to something like;
"there are mysterious unknown forces at work, which we choose to neither identify, or describe, that are causing the problems, therefore you cannot possibly contradict their validity, because you do not know what they are."
This also could be put another way;
"anything that is not understood perfectly, in every possible way, from every possible point of view, cannot be understood at all, and to try to do so is a waste of time"
which is why they equate 99.9% certainty, as being equivalent to zero understanding.
No wonder they have trouble with the math, lol. ;D
So, this new culprit which the denialists are championing as their 'raison d'etre' is the "unknown".

It makes perfect sense when you see their responses to what is "KNOWN", that this group should take their final solace in the great unknown.

Mozz,

What it boils down to is that you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

Yes, you are absolutely right muso but my concern is where do these campaigns emanate from?
Can we look forward to some future "mea culpas" from repentant PR gurus, of the kind we saw from the tobacco lobby lackeys?

The way we have seen denialism lurch from one argument to the next, without a backward glance of responsibility, really gives it the smack of an organised campaign from very professional people, rather than an organic movement grown up from a groundswell of real doubt amongst the population.
The targeting of the usual suspects, to be the cheerleaders for the cause is as predictable as ever, so I really hope that someone conducts a thorough and searching investigation into the denial campaign and pinpoints the global vandals who are driving it.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 10:03am:

[quote]Climate is complex and dynamic and we do not know all the things that go into it and the way they all interact. The only thing you can say about computers is that they are complex. But we know all their elements, what part each plays and how they interact. /quote] As each subsequent argument of denialists, is patiently, and comprehensively, deconstructed, and proved false, by the scientific community, we see the introduction of new, irrefutable arguments from these intransigent deniers. This particular one which soren is now running up the flag pole can be simplified to it's basic meaning, which amounts to something like; "there are mysterious unknown forces at work, which we choose to neither identify, or describe, that are causing the problems, therefore you cannot possibly contradict their validity, because you do not know what they are." This also could be put another way; "anything that is not understood perfectly, in every possible way, from every possible point of view, cannot be understood at all, and to try to do so is a waste of time" which is why they equate 99.9% certainty, as being equivalent to zero understanding. No wonder they have trouble with the math, lol. ;D So, this new culprit which the denialists are championing as their 'raison d'etre' is the "unknown". It makes perfect sense when you see their responses to what is "KNOWN", that this group should take their final solace in the great unknown.

Mozz, you deliberately misrepresent the nature of the doubt. CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere (0.0380 %), which itself is only one of many known and unknown factors. Do you know what they are? Do you know what caused pastr warmings and why tht cause s not operating now? Do you know what cayse pst cooling and why that cause is no operational?

You have not reasoned yuirself into any scientific position, only into a political one. (On the politics, the ETS is the stupidest thing you have seen from grwon ups for a long time.)

Science is not democratic. Conses and majority view mean little. Respected, top-notch scientists have expressed doubt. That shoul be a cue for a 'please explain', not hissy fits. An look how is doing th PR for warmering: Gore, Rudd, Blair.


CO2 forcing hypothesis, as Muso says, is logarithmic. I bet you do not understand what that means. It mean that for every increase of x (effect) you have to double Y (cause, CO2). In a hundred tears we have gone from 280 to 387. And not all of that incrase is man made.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 2:02pm:

Yes, you are absolutely right muso but my concern is where do these campaigns emanate from? Can we look forward to some future "mea culpas" from repentant PR gurus, of the kind we saw from the tobacco lobby lackeys? The way we have seen denialism lurch from one argument to the next, without a backward glance of responsibility, really gives it the smack of an organised campaign from very professional people, rather than an organic movement grown up from a groundswell of real doubt amongst the population. The targeting of the usual suspects, to be the cheerleaders for the cause is as predictable as ever, so I really hope that someone conducts a thorough and searching investigation into the denial campaign and pinpoints the global vandals who are driving it.

It's always the same questions, Muso, there is no lurching.

There is no greenhouse 'signature' up in the atmosphere. If the earth was warming, that's where you'd find proof. It's not there
In the data of the past few thousand years, CO2 changes occur after warming.
If CO2 was the cause of warming, there woul b a causal, demonstrable correlation between CO2 lvels and temperatures. There isn't.
Increasing CO2 does not correspondingly increase th greenhpuse effect. radiativ orcing s not enough.



Is there climate change? Yes. Is it caused by man made CO2? No.

I honestly admit to listening to the world's top scientists, and believing them when they explain their case, hence I accept that man made CO2 is having a significant, negative effect on our global warming.

You on the other hand, are not influenced by, and do not believe the scientists, so is it just the "vibe" of it that you think you have got it right soren?

I could follow muso's arguments, and reasoning, and statistical evidence, which displays why the scientists agree that global warming is effected by mankinds unprecedented use of fossil fuels, and yet you seek to deride my ability to understand the finer scientific arguments, when you have chosen to do what all denialists do, run away, and change the subject, when confronted by data you do not wish to here.

Perhaps your scientific ability is greater than your ability to honestly address the issue.

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 2:30pm:

CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere (0.0380 %), which itself is only one of many known and unknown factors.

It may be a tiny part of the atmosphere, but the degree to which it absorbs infrared radiation is the kingpin. Gases absorb infrared radiation to different degrees. Let's just say that the gas produced by anthropogenic activities was sulphur hexafluoride, not CO2, and it's concentration was not 0.0387 percent, but 0.00000387 percent instead.

Would you make the argument that it was only 0.00000387 percent of the atmosphere - an insignificant fraction of the atmosphere?

If you did, then you'd be making a grave mistake. The greenhouse gas potential of SF6 is 16300. That concentration is equivalent to 1.5 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in terms of global warming potential.  


Quote:

Do you know what they are? Do you know what caused pastr warmings and why tht cause s not operating now? Do you know what cayse pst cooling and why that cause is no operational?

Read through my past posts - I have already answered these questions.  The exact same causes are operating now, and at this point in time, the changes that would have occurred from those causes would have been negligible. There was a peak from increased Solar irradiance in the first half of the 20th Century. In the second half of the 20th century there was another peak, but far from an increase in solar irradiance, there was a decrease.

Orbital changes (Milankovic cycles) are even slower still, and occur over approximately 100,000 year cycles.  


Quote:

Science is not democratic. Conses and majority view mean little. Respected, top-notch scientists have expressed doubt. That shoul be a cue for a 'please explain', not hissy fits. An look how is doing th PR for warmering: Gore, Rudd, Blair.

Tell you what, the next time you have a toothache, we'll put it to a democratic vote as to how it should be treated. Do you think that's appropriate?

After all, that would be just democratic dentistry. Maybe we should have a vote on the Laws of Thermodynamics and get them passed by Parliament. Do you agree?

We've already had some ridiculous laws as a result of misinterpretation of science in one particular state (I'm ashamed to say which one), with lawmakers deciding on a hot water temperature for the workpace double that of the ambient temperature. The problem is that absolute zero is -273 degrees C. A "doubling of temperature" would have produced extremely dangerous high temperature steam. That's what happens when you have democratic science.

Maybe you would prefer it we could all take a vote on how the CO2 molecules should absorb infrared radiation, get a law passed, then complain like hell to your local member if the CO2 molecules refuse to obey the law.  


Quote:

CO2 forcing hypothesis, as Muso says, is logarithmic. I bet you do not understand what that means. It mean that for every increase of x (effect) you have to double Y (cause, CO2). In a hundred tears we have gone from 280 to 387. And not all of that incrase is man made.

It's not a hypothesis. It's solid theory, as solid as Electronic theory that is written in textbooks and was used to make your computer.

You understand logarithmic reasonably well, and it's a good job that it is logarithmic, otherwise we would have no hope of fixing this problem.

All the increase in atmospheric CO2 is manmade, especially if you include natural processes that have resulted in release of CO2 as a result of the activities of man.  

The measurements of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a testimony to that fact.

Quote:

There is no greenhouse 'signature' up in the atmosphere. If the earth was warming, that's where you'd find proof.

- and that's where we find such evidence, apart from the various kinds of evidence that demonstrates conclusively the underlying mechanism of  radiative forcing. The global mean land temperature is rising and the global mean ocean temperature is lagging behind exactly as predicted.


Quote:

In the data of the past few thousand years, CO2 changes occur after warming. If CO2 was the cause of warming, there woul b a causal, demonstrable correlation between CO2 lvels and temperatures. There isn't.

There is, although it's only been in the last maybe 150 years that we've been adding CO2, and the rate of emission has been rising exponentially. The causal relationship as you put it, is actually a two way equibrium. Sometimes temperatures have increased as a result of increasing solar activity and has resulted in CO2 being desorbed from the ocean into the atmosphere. At other times in the paloeclimate record, it has been the other way around. You're oversimplifying the issue and introducing an enormous strawman if you think that anybody is saying anything different to that.


Quote:

Is there climate change? Yes. Is it caused by man made CO2? No.

Within the past 50 years or so, the anthropogenic signature has become dominant. Prior to that, it was insignificant in the scheme of things.  The most serious effects are yet to come.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 3:44pm:

I honestly admit to listening to the world's top scientists, and believing them when they explain their case, hence I accept that man made CO2 is having a significant, negative effect on our global warming. You on the other hand, are not influenced by, and do not believe the scientists, so is it just the "vibe" of it that you think you have got it right soren? I could follow muso's arguments, and reasoning, and statistical evidence, which displays why the scientists agree that global warming is effected by mankinds unprecedented use of fossil fuels, and yet you seek to deride my ability to understand the finer scientific arguments, when you have chosen to do what all denialists do, run away, and change the subject, when confronted by data you do not wish to here. Perhaps your scientific ability is greater than your ability to honestly address the issue.

It is not the vibe. There is an increasing number of scientists expressing scepticism about AGW. I am simply not dismissing them as you seem to expect. I am satisfied that honest, independent, qualified scientists can and do express scepticism about AGW. They are very much worth hearing. I am alo aware that their number is not going backwards.

Any dissenting voice is treated by warmerists as a deliberate, sinister plot. This gives me the sh!ts and I could not, in good conscience, side with such hysterical fools.  Every intemperate tantrum by the Rudds, Mannes, Monbiots and the rest the opinionators is, to me, proof positive that they MUST be wrong.

They are political voices and they are shrill, dictatorial pricks. I do welcome sceptical opposition to them.



Muso,
I did say that science is NOT democratic. And your reposte? You challenge me to put my toothache to a democratic vote. Huh? I am the one asking for evidence, not the poll numbers.i

I guess you'd regard Plimer as a credible example of a dissenting voice.

Some of the blunders he makes are so embarrassing that a number of his fellow geologists have stepped forward to explain that not all geologists are like that.

The few examples of qualified scientists who are confusionalists obviously have their own reasons for writing what they must know is nonsense, but their reasons have nothing to do with science.

I very much doubt if there is a single honest person among them.  They are certainly not worth hearing. The reason that they are treated as being part of a sinister plot is because they are part of a sinister plot.

- and I disagree with your statement. The number of lowlifes and liars who choose to prostitute their ability in that way is dwindling. Most of them have already retired from their field.

History will not remember them kindly when they are gone. They will only be remembered as a disgrace to their professions.  


Quote:

Muso, I did say that science is NOT democratic. And your reposte? You challenge me to put my toothache to a democratic vote. Huh? I am the one asking for evidence, not the poll numbers.

Now you're quoting yourself out of context.  ;D

What's with the parochial fixation on Plimer?

From the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f

Plimer is not mentioned.

Quote:

It is not the vibe. There is an increasing number of scientists expressing scepticism about AGW. I am simply not dismissing them as you seem to expect. I am satisfied that honest, independent, qualified scientists can and do express scepticism about AGW. They are very much worth hearing. I am alo aware that their number is not going backwards. Any dissenting voice is treated by warmerists as a deliberate, sinister plot. This gives me the sh!ts and I could not, in good conscience, side with such hysterical fools.  Every intemperate tantrum by the Rudds, Mannes, Monbiots and the rest the opinionators is, to me, proof positive that they MUST be wrong. They are political voices and they are shrill, dictatorial pricks. I do welcome sceptical opposition to them.

Well at last a degree of honesty is shining through about your reasons for supporting denialism.
Thank you for being forthright enough to openly express what so many feel, but so few admit to.

Now you put the fact that you find your truth in the arguments of denialist "scienticians" as your first reason for supporting denialism, but then go on to deride two intellectuals, and a politician, which indicates a far less scientific approach, which may signal that your personal ideological stance is the root cause of your true gripe with the whole Global warming issue.


Now to address the two factors in one briefish blog, I will provide the link to Monbiot's correspondence between himself( an intellectual you despise), and Ian Plimer (one of the "eminent" scientists you refer to as proof of dissenting voices of reason within the scientific community)

I would merely ask that you put aside an hour or two, and read the exchanges between Monbiot, and Plimer, and examine the linked to scientific data provided in those pages, and then return to tell us if you still believe that Plimer is a credible source for anchoring your denial of Global Warming science to.

As I have said before, I do respect your intelligence soren, and certainly do not think of you as a fool, so I am keen to see how someone who supports Plimer, can read the information supplied in those links, and not have serious concerns about his credibility.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

I should just add that I am no fan of Monbiot, and have never actually read anything of his apart from this single page I have linked to, he may be a total raving loony for all I know, but that does not alter the facts he has presented in this particular case.

I look forward to hearing your take on this exchange.

muso wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 10:49pm:

I very much doubt if there is a single honest person among them.  They are certainly not worth hearing. The reason that they are treated as being part of a sinister plot is because they are part of a sinister plot.

Calling 31 thousand scientists (and that's jut in the US) sinister liars is laughable, Muso.


You have drunk far too much Al Gore Kool Aid, as they say. :)

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:34am:

muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 10:49pm: I very much doubt if there is a single honest person among them.  They are certainly not worth hearing. The reason that they are treated as being part of a sinister plot is because they are part of a sinister plot. Calling 31 thousand scientists (and that's just in the US) sinister liars is laughable, Muso. You have drunk far too much Al Gore Kool Aid, as they say. :) http://www.petitionproject.org/

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:34am:

muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 10:49pm: I very much doubt if there is a single honest person among them.  They are certainly not worth hearing. The reason that they are treated as being part of a sinister plot is because they are part of a sinister plot. Calling 31 thousand scientists (and that's jut in the US) sinister liars is laughable, Muso. You have drunk far too much Al Gore Kool Aid, as they say. :) http://www.petitionproject.org/

Scientists schmientists.

You're not dragging that one up again are you? You have a very short memory.

This time, please watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:43am:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 9:34am: muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2009 at 10:49pm: I very much doubt if there is a single honest person among them.  They are certainly not worth hearing. The reason that they are treated as being part of a sinister plot is because they are part of a sinister plot. Calling 31 thousand scientists (and that's jut in the US) sinister liars is laughable, Muso. You have drunk far too much Al Gore Kool Aid, as they say. :) http://www.petitionproject.org/ Oh the great OREGON Petition - yeah Scientists schmientists. Hawkeye Pierce from MASH is a scientist? You're not dragging that one up again are you? You have a very short memory. This time, please watch the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I [quote]Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

Muso, are you saying that all 31000 + names on that list have no scientific qualifications to reasonably evaluate the data and at last express their doubt honestly? Are you saying they are all pranksters?

Are you saying that greenman3610 and his little youtube clip has conclusively proved to you that all sceptics are sinister liars? That all (and not just a couple of pranksters) on that list are unqualified to express scepticisms? Or that they are not entitled to put thir nam to it?

You are cught up in the Leninist midset of the politics of AGW.
 

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:26am:

Muso, are you saying that all 31000 + names on that list have no scientific qualifications to reasonably evaluate the data and at last express their doubt honestly? Are you saying they are all pranksters? Are you saying that greenman3610 and his little youtube clip has conclusively proved to you that all sceptics are sinister liars? That all (and not just a couple of pranksters) on that list are unqualified to express scepticisms? Or that they are not entitled to put thir nam to it? You are cught up in the Leninist midset of the politics of AGW.

No. The video was for your benefit. I already understand the scientific basis, so I don't have a need for such videos.

Because I understand the science, I have an enhanced ability to smell a rat.

As far as your political name-calling is concerned, please continue if it entertains you, but I find that any political slant gets in the way of the science, so I tend to block it out as irrelevant.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:44am:

Quote: Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

And what is your interprtation of that data?

Out of 30 signatories, 26 were on databases checked by SA.

11 of the 26 stood by their decision to sign.
6 changed their minds.
3 didn't remember signing it.
1 has died since.
5 couldn't be bothered to talk to SA about it (some fearing bullying, no doubt).

And what does all this signify to you, scietifically-like?

What else but that all 26 are sinister liars, 6 of whom have repented since , 3 have lost their minds and 1 died of shame.



;D

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:38am:

muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 9:44am: Quote: Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM And what is your interprtation of that data? Out of 30 signatories, 26 were on databases checked by SA. 11 of the 26 stood by their decision to sign. 6 changed their minds. 3 didn't remember signing it. 1 has died since. 5 couldn't be bothered to talk to SA about it (some fearing bullying, no doubt). And what does all this signify to you, scietifically-like? What else but that all 26 are sinister liars, 6 of whom have repented since , 3 have lost their minds and 1 died of shame. ;D

Well for a start, the 1400 who claimed to have PhD's in climate science is a very small proportion of 32,000. The Scientific American study was enough to show that the petition was invalid. That's all it needed to do. If you continue to pick through the trash looking for diamonds, then that would be your problem.  

The verbage of the petition itself is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and untruths.

If you have to cling on to something like that as your last desperate plea then I'm sorry, but your argument is in a very bad way.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:22am:

uote] Well for a start, the 1400 who claimed to have PhD's in climate science is a very small proportion of 32,000. The Scientific American study was enough to show that the petition was invalid. That's all it needed to do. If you continue to pick through the trash looking for diamonds, then that would be your problem.   The verbage of the petition itself is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and untruths. If you have to cling on to something like that as your last desperate plea then I'm sorry, but your argument is in a very bad way.

So how many of the World's Scientific Societies (which you say all support AGW), are actually made up of climate scientists?

PS: what is a climate scientist?

muso wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 5:03pm:

[quote] Within the past 50 years or so, the anthropogenic signature has become dominant. Prior to that, it was insignificant in the scheme of things.  The most serious effects are yet to come.

Remind me where this anthropogenic signature is.

pjb05 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:41am:

muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 11:22am: uote] Well for a start, the 1400 who claimed to have PhD's in climate science is a very small proportion of 32,000. The Scientific American study was enough to show that the petition was invalid. That's all it needed to do. If you continue to pick through the trash looking for diamonds, then that would be your problem.   The verbage of the petition itself is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and untruths. If you have to cling on to something like that as your last desperate plea then I'm sorry, but your argument is in a very bad way. So how many of the World's Scientific Societies (which you say all support AGW), are actually made up of climate scientists? PS: what is a climate scientist?

A climate scientist is a person who is qualified in a discipline such as Climatology, or related fields such as Atmospheric Physics, Oceanography etc.  Not every 'climate scientist' is qualified to conduct research on every aspect of climatology. For example, marine biologists may be able to conduct research on some of the effects of climate change, such as calcification rates, but they will generally know very little about Climate modelling. Virtually all Environmental Science degrees have a significant grounding in earth sciences that are relevant to climatology.

Like any Scientific discipline it has its specialists. For example, some Geologists are clastic sedimentologists, some are petrologists , while others are palaeontogists, paleonologists etc.

To understand enough to realise that it's a problem requires a very basic grounding in science indeed.

A good test is whether or not the individual has published any papers in established climatology journals.

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 12:05pm:

Remind me where this anthropogenic signature is.

I'm talking about a clear causality based on:

1. The undeniable fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose specific absorbance (for want of a better term) at infrared wavelengths, can be measured quite accurately and compared to other greenhouse gases.

2. The fact that energy is conserved, and that the net longwave radiation over time can be demonstrated to be decreasing as confirmation of the increasing radiative forcing of specific greenhouse gases, and that the major effect is due to carbon dioxide.

3. The undeniable fact that anthropogenic activities currently emit  approximately 8 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year, and that this value has been increasing almost every year.

4. The undeniable fact that the increased mass of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has an isotope ratio indicatve of fossil fuel origins.  

5. The undeniable fact that ocean acidification is rising as a result of increased dissolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Is that succinct enough for you?

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:22am:

...have to cling on...last desperate plea....

???

So there are no established, working climate scientists who are sceptical? There are no otherwise scientifically trained people who have followed the data and the arguments? Except desperate sinister liars clinging to whatever it is that sceptics are forever clinging to?
Is this what you call the 'science is settled'?  

wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 12:38pm:

Yes. The facts are that key climate researchers for the IPCC have been outed as doctoring the data to reach a conclusion. Sounds like your 'scientists' aren't too scientific. Although I understand you will likely dismiss this as your preconceived world would be shattered, you have no comment on this release?

As far as I'm aware, the IPCC doesn't employ any climate researchers. It's a panel. Your source is therefore suspect.

The Secretariat and the TSU's of the IPCC employ about 10 people.

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:02pm:

muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 11:22am: ...have to cling on...last desperate plea.... ??? So there are no established, working climate scientists who are sceptical? There are no otherwise scientifically trained people who have followed the data and the arguments? Except desperate sinister liars clinging to whatever it is that sceptics are forever clinging to? Is this what you call the 'science is settled'?

If there are, then they are not very vocal, with the exception of a few good old boys from the deep South.  

If you can find some that have published in a reputable journal, let me know.

Energy and Environment is not a reputable journal.  ;D ;D ;D  

wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:06pm:

Where did I say they were employed by the IPCC? Pathetic attempt at a red herring  ::)

On this thread, we're talking about the science. Let's keep to the topic.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:27am:

Quote: It is not the vibe. There is an increasing number of scientists expressing scepticism about AGW. I am simply not dismissing them as you seem to expect. I am satisfied that honest, independent, qualified scientists can and do express scepticism about AGW. They are very much worth hearing. I am alo aware that their number is not going backwards. Any dissenting voice is treated by warmerists as a deliberate, sinister plot. This gives me the sh!ts and I could not, in good conscience, side with such hysterical fools.  Every intemperate tantrum by the Rudds, Mannes, Monbiots and the rest the opinionators is, to me, proof positive that they MUST be wrong. They are political voices and they are shrill, dictatorial pricks. I do welcome sceptical opposition to them. Well at last a degree of honesty is shining through about your reasons for supporting denialism. Thank you for being forthright enough to openly express what so many feel, but so few admit to. Now you put the fact that you find your truth in the arguments of denialist "scienticians" as your first reason for supporting denialism, but then go on to deride two intellectuals, and a politician, which indicates a far less scientific approach, which may signal that your personal ideological stance is the root cause of your true gripe with the whole Global warming issue. Now to address the two factors in one briefish blog, I will provide the link to Monbiot's correspondence between himself( an intellectual you despise), and Ian Plimer (one of the "eminent" scientists you refer to as proof of dissenting voices of reason within the scientific community) I would merely ask that you put aside an hour or two, and read the exchanges between Monbiot, and Plimer, and examine the linked to scientific data provided in those pages, and then return to tell us if you still believe that Plimer is a credible source for anchoring your denial of Global Warming science to. As I have said before, I do respect your intelligence soren, and certainly do not think of you as a fool, so I am keen to see how someone who supports Plimer, can read the information supplied in those links, and not have serious concerns about his credibility. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/ I should just add that I am no fan of Monbiot, and have never actually read anything of his apart from this single page I have linked to, he may be a total raving loony for all I know, but that does not alter the facts he has presented in this particular case. I look forward to hearing your take on this exchange.

I just banned IQSRLOW from posting as Al Gore, and removed all the posts he added, if there are any more of his posts in any boards I have not seen, let me know and I will get rid of them.

I reposted this because I addressed it to soren, but he may have missed it, and after the last few posts where people are championing the credentials of the denying scientists, it will be very instructive to see what they make of this exchange, with one of their most well credentialed advocates, Ian plimer, and George Monbiot.

I cannot comprehend how anybody could look at all the emails, and subsequent links, and have any confidence at all in Ian Plimers integrity as a scientific contributor of value to this issue.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:20pm:

I just banned IQSRLOW from posting as Al Gore, and removed all the posts he added, if there are any more of his posts in any boards I have not seen, let me know and I will get rid of them.

Thanks. I just recognised her style. I don't have the benefit of the IP address.

God, the denialists here are really excited aren't they? someone hacked the email server at Uni of East Anglia and posted the emails. Denialists and cherry-pickers like Andrew Dolt republished some of those. All this is supposed to prove AGW isn't happening (tho dolts like Andrew Dolt, LOW_IQ and Deepshit have no real idea what the emails say. Hey, if Dolt publishes it it must be true, not?)

So, no AGW (BTW, which of the published emails say this?????) why was it so bloody HOT here in SA the past week? Why is NSW suffering bushfires and 41C temperatures?

Nothing from any of the emails illegally obtained (hacked) and published show any doubt about AGW, or proof they are falsifying data or are in the pay of anyone to publish AGW data etc etc.

But the great unwashed like LOW_IQ and his bum mate Deepshit of course take Andrew Bolt's words as gospel. So the heat SA suffered is imaginary? Don't think so: I suffered through that record spring heatwave.

The timing of the hacking and publishing of these private emails is obviously meant to derail Copenhagen. My great fear is that they may have been succesful.

I'm sure that we'll get more nonsense as we get closer to the Copenhagen conference.

The Hadcrut project is a collaboration between the University of East Anglia's CRU and the UK Met Office. It's not the most representative of data sets, since it doesn't include as much Polar data as NASA's GISS.
I'm sure the truth will come out in the wash, but the unofficial version will stay in circulation, much like the myth of the 'Hockey Stick'. ;D

There are some I would like to take a hocky stick to!

BTW I might be posting a bit more here: Aussie has made the PA attached to this site a sanitised playpen no adult wants to play in. Freediver unfortunately doesn't give a stuff.

Darwin wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 5:43pm:

So, no AGW (BTW, which of the published emails say this?????) why was it so bloody HOT here in SA the past week? Why is NSW suffering bushfires and 41C temperatures?

You can't have it both ways Darwin.  Skeptics (or as you prefer 'denialists) get chided if they mention the weather in the context of global warming.

PS bushfires and 40 deg plus heatwaves aren't anything unusual in NSW this time of year.

It IS unusual in SA.

I was just pointing out the idiocy of saying the hacked emails said there was no AGW.

Re the heatwaves, in SA we have had so many in the last 3 years (both spring and fall) that it is a 1 in 200,000 chance that these were not caused by some agency--the only agency being AGW.

I will keep an anxious eye on my 88yo mother this summer, max temperatures in Adelaide, 48.5C last year--another record--will likely exceed 50C. I predict that about 2000 elderly people in SA & Vic will die from the record high summer temperature. Do you have any elderly relatives? If you do, any harm in making sure they will be OK at the height of summer heat? Not only AGW you know: the sun is entering a more active state and the Pacific is warm both on the Aust side AND the S American side.

Darwin wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 7:22pm:

It IS unusual in SA. I was just pointing out the idiocy of saying the hacked emails said there was no AGW. Re the heatwaves, in SA we have had so many in the last 3 years (both spring and fall) that it is a 1 in 200,000 chance that these were not caused by some agency--the only agency being AGW. I will keep an anxious eye on my 88yo mother this summer, max temperatures in Adelaide, 58.5C last year--another record--will likely exceed 50C. I predict that about 2000 elderly people in SA & Vic will die from the record high summer temperature. Do you have any elderly relatives? If you do, any harm in making sure they will be OK at the height of summer heat? Not only AGW you know: the sun is entering a more active state and the Pacific is warm both on the Aust side AND the S American side.

I think it is being suggested that the hacked emails show references to manipulating data and peer review and other unsavory behaviour. Also i think you will find the hottest temperature for Adelaide was 12 January 1939, 46.1 °C.

PS people die from the cold too.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 12:50pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 12:05pm: Remind me where this anthropogenic signature is. I'm talking about a clear causality based on: 1. The undeniable fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose specific absorbance (for want of a better term) at infrared wavelengths, can be measured quite accurately and compared to other greenhouse gases. 2. The fact that energy is conserved, and that the net longwave radiation over time can be demonstrated to be decreasing as confirmation of the increasing radiative forcing of specific greenhouse gases, and that the major effect is due to carbon dioxide. 3. The undeniable fact that anthropogenic activities currently emit  approximately 8 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year, and that this value has been increasing almost every year. 4. The undeniable fact that the increased mass of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has an isotope ratio indicatve of fossil fuel origins.   5. The undeniable fact that ocean acidification is rising as a result of increased dissolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Is that succinct enough for you?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its qualities of absorbing infrared (longwave) wavelengths are measurable (it is not mentioned that this absorbtive quality is logarithmic - most of the absorbtion is done by the normal CO2 levels, doubling the CO2 does not double the absorbtion.)
2. Energy is conserved - and the rest is an assumption. The elision has to do with what is elided in 1.
3. a measurement
4. another measurement
5. a declaration that the change in oceanic pH is due to 1-4.  



A fair summary?

Soren, did you read the link with the correspondence between Monbiot and Plimer?
Did you also read the links that showed a climate scientists responses to Plimer's questions to Monbiot?
Did you agree, or disagree with the thrust of the whole exchange, which portrayed Plimer as deceptive, evasive, and craven?

I obviously drew those conclusions, from my reading of it, but I really am interested to see the view that someone who thinks Plimer is a champion of impartial, independent science, who stands up to IPCC bullies, would make of this particular little episode????

I will repeat the link in case you missed it.
[url]http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer//url]

I also would question why you think just replying that something is measured, is supposed to taken as therefore inherently flawed, as you seem to do in your last response to muso.
If you consider a particular set of figures wrong, then an explanation why, or a link to a study which offers "measurements" you consider accurate, would probably strengthen your position.

pjb05 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 6:14pm:

You can't have it both ways Darwin.  Skeptics (or as you prefer 'denialists) get chided if they mention the weather in the context of global warming.

Correct. You can only go by long term trends. No climate scientist will say that the current heatwave in the Southern States is due to global warming. It's impossible to do so.

Quote:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its qualities of absorbing infrared (longwave) wavelengths are measurable (it is not mentioned that this absorbtive quality is logarithmic - most of the absorption is done by the normal CO2 levels, doubling the CO2 does not double the absorbtion.)

Correct - otherwise no amount of mitigation would help. I've already spoken about the so called 'tiny proportion= tiny effect' fallacy in my example with SF6. Nobody is hiding the fact that it's logarithmic. In fact climate sensitivity is expressed in terms of doubling of CO2.


Quote:

2. Energy is conserved - and the rest is an assumption. The elision has to do with what is elided in 1.

The rest is not an assumption. We know which IR absorption bands are related to CO2 through direct  measurement. (hence the importance of point 1) The reduction in longwave radiation is a measurement that confirms what we know about CO2 and radiative forcing, and puts a value on it. It provides a means of verifying the mechanism and an independant means of measurement..


Quote:

3. a measurement

Correct. That's significant. It's not just a speculation. It's a measurement, and together with 4, it confirms that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases to some extent) are increasing.


Quote:

4. another measurement

Not just another measurement - a very important measurement of  the atmospheric abundances of the 13C isotope (Francey and Farquhar, 1982) and molecular oxygen (O2) (Keeling and Shertz, 1992; Bender et al., 1996). That's the real human signature.


Quote:

5. a declaration that the change in oceanic pH is due to 1-4.

It's not a declaration. It's a conclusion that comes across as a consequence of a very fundamental law of physics (Henry's Law) The solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas.

The reduction in ocean pH can be clearly demonstrated to be due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. We can carry out very basic analyses on the sea water , such as total carbon, or determination of carbonate and bicarbonates using ion chromatography. Nothing airy fairy about this. It's very basic chemistry.


Quote:

A fair summary?

Now that I've tidied it up, yes it's a fair summary. It clearly shows that the effect is confirmed by direct measurement, based on the laws of physics and chemistry. This is a knowledge base that is quite fundamental. We can use our knowledge of science to build computers and TV's and to synthesise medicinal drugs among other things.  

You trivialise measurements, but it only through such things as direct measurement that we can confirm that this is a very real effect.

Maybe now, you'll begin to grasp that this effect has some very basic science to back it up, and you'll understand some of my frustrations in dealing with people who don't understand/ don't want to understand.

Even if it hasn't clicked yet, I still congratulate you for attempting to see it from where I stand. It's more than others have done.

So far, we've only grazed the surface of this subject. At least I haven't had to explain how preserved bubbles of atmosphere in the polar ice sheets can be used to assess paleoclimate, but I'm prepared to talk about that if required.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:20pm:

I cannot comprehend how anybody could look at all the emails, and subsequent links, and have any confidence at all in Ian Plimers integrity as a scientific contributor of value to this issue.

I can't understand how he can even function as a scientist to be quite frank. He lacks the necessary honesty.


Quote:

Plimer’s claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored, relative to natural variations, seems to rest on three main strands of argument: a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in ‘mainstream’ analyses; b: changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases have less effect than determined in ‘mainstream’ analyses; c: the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points a and b. Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are cases where Plimer: ►misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports; ►has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources; ►has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented; ►has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source.

Read through the comedy of errors in the linked pdf below. That's 35 pages describing errors in 'Heaven and Earth'.

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Re 5 points:
Muso offered 2 statements, followed by 2 measurements and another statement about oceanic pH.
They do not add up to a demonstration of AGW, whether in its original form, in my summary or Muso's 'cleaned up' version of my summary.

Plimer and Monbiot - I scanned the pages, I did not check the links.
There was to be depate at The Spectator. The place and time were settled, the event was advertoised.

Then Monbiot asked Plimer to answer some questions before the debate. I stress that this was AFTER the debate was booked. All concerned immediately saw through Monbiot's move as a way of trying to get out of it.
Plimer, obviously miffed, and unwilling to be so blatantly snookered, countered with his own questions.
Monbiot declared himself unqualified to answer them (but not unqualified to discuss the whole AGW issue, obviously).
WHen Plimer was not forthcoming with the answers, Monbiot triumphantly declared him a chicken and congratulated himself on his own cleverness by wriggling out of a debate while blaming his opponent whom, it appears to me, he was afraid to face on a debating podium.



Re Plimer's errors as detailed by http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
I only sampled this effort and read the couple of references to Plimer's treatmeant of the medieval warming. To my mind, the compiler has not made any dent on Plimer's claims that the medieval warming period was warmer than the present and that it was obviously unrelated to human emissions of CO2. As these points are not refuted by the compiler, I am not sure what he is on about.  WIth that in mind, I am sceptical (!!) about the rest of this document.
If it warms your hearts, I haven't read Plimer's book either. And I am not planning to, either.


The emerging news overataking us is the hacked emails in England. I have not looked into this beyond the headlines and what the ex-Chancellor has said in The Times:


Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.


Scepticism has its place and uses. It's good, don't knock it, boys.

Well soren, you have taken a pretty intransigent stance it seems, the interpretation you put on the Plimer/ Monbiot exchange would be a stretch for any unbiased person to make, especially without even reading the linked to responses to Plimers questions, which were pretty well exposed as a scientifically verbose attempt at distraction, while Monbiots questions were, as he stated, direct references to actual "errors" and "deceptions", contained in Plimer's book, "Heaven & Earth", which he wished to have addressed in the debate, and because of the scientific nature of defending his claims, and the position of other scientists debunking them, a pre debate exchange on those salient points, would be critical to a fair debate being possible.
Seeing Plimer's return questions and the nonsensical rubbish that many of them were(as was explained in the link you chose not to read) actually supports Monbiot's desire to have the critical scientific issues dealt with before the debate.
If this had been done, then both the pro, and anti arguments could not be merely deluged with a pretentious stream of incoherent scientific gobbledy gook on the day, as was Monbiot's concern, and a particularly valid one I may add in light of Plimer's ridiculous response questions.

To put it in lay terms, he was trying to avoid the old "bullshit baffles brains" tactics that are so often applied when people are trying to defend the indefensible.

As long as you stick your head in the sand and refuse to even examine the evidence of Plimer's incredibly inept attempts at creating an alternate theory for Global warming, then you do yourself the disservice of pinning your hopes of having your beliefs validated, on the extremely shaky ground of the credibility of a man who is clearly being denounced on scientific grounds, by the wider scienctific community.

If these emails that you refer to, are not thoroughly investigated, and any details of any or all misrepresentation of any meaningful data is not absolutely addressed by the scientific community, then they will be guilty of what I accuse the denialists of doing, and that is wilfully ignoring the evidence before them, but I do not expect that will be the case, because real scientists have more integrity than some less honest people who would do that. ;)

OK. Here is the information I have so far on the so called CRU hack:

The hack had absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which deals with temperature records, so any alleged tampering with temperature records is a non starter. Here's the Real Climate take on this:


Quote:

Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

So adding in a plot of real temperatures to a graph of multi proxy temperatures is basically just making a graph to show how actual temperatures compare to those derived from proxies on the same graph. Nothing wrong with that.

It related to correspondance between the Real Climate site, which is basically just a public communication site, and the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.

There was no plot to falsify data. No demonstration that AGW was false. It was just a publicity stunt that was organised prior to the Copenhagen Conference to attempt to show researchers in a poor light.  

It's a storm in a tea cup.

Copenhagen will fail? It has absolutely nothing to do with Copenhagen. It was about presenting a graph for the Real Climate web site.  ;D



Quote:

As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Well that does seem a far less sinister set of circumstances than what was being implied, but because of that implication I still would prefer to see a much fuller explanation supplied, and absolutely all doubt removed so that no denialist can make any good faith claims about this in the future.

That they would be able to attack the credentials of the raw data itself would lead to intolerable confusion, and there will already be many who have this tucked away in their minds as the absolute proof that all those crooked scientists were just making the whole thing up, just like cousin merle told 'em at the hoedown, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever sway them from that view, unfortunately.

Real damage has been done, and it will stay done for most denialists.

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 11:15am:

Re 5 points: Muso offered 2 statements, followed by 2 measurements and another statement about oceanic pH. They do not add up to a demonstration of AGW, whether in its original form, in my summary or Muso's 'cleaned up' version of my summary.

You'll have to read a bit further than the summaries, Soren. This thread and the sticky thread has the basic information.

Would a measurement of your blood alcohol concentration not be a demonstration of whether or not you had been drinking excessively?

Isn't that what measurements do?  They provide a demonstration of a fact.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 12:03pm:

Well that does seem a far less sinister set of circumstances than what was being implied, but because of that implication I still would prefer to see a much fuller explanation supplied, and absolutely all doubt removed so that no denialist can make any good faith claims about this in the future. That they would be able to attack the credentials of the raw data itself would lead to intolerable confusion, and there will already be many who have this tucked away in their minds as the absolute proof that all those crooked scientists were just making the whole thing up, just like cousin merle told 'em at the hoedown, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever sway them from that view, unfortunately. Real damage has been done, and it will stay done for most denialists.

It wouldn't matter how many times you explain the truth. They thrive on urban legend - urban legend that is deliberately manufactured.

It's just what they do.

It's not related to the raw data. Actually both the Hadley Centre and NASA are not very keen to release raw data these days simply because it is so easily manipulated by people who wait on every new month's data.

[quote]Would a measurement of your blood alcohol concentration not be a demonstration of whether or not you had been drinking excessively?/quote]

Actually muso, I think in soren's case we could expect him to blame it on the grapes he had for lunch fermenting in his stomach.
I mean there just has to be another reason, there has to be, we cannot possibly be responsible for,,,?? anything it seems.

It looks like the stunt is about to backfire.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/sceptics_fail_to_live_up_to_their_name_on_climategate/

I can't see how it possibly could backfire for them muso, they have evidence that shows people discussing the subject in non-scientific terms, to try and convey as strongly as possible the threat potential of global warming.
Now while that is not actually anything startling, it does not indicate a dispassionate scientific approach either, so it can be used by denialists to infer that if they are seeking to highlight the data which best fits their theory, are they suppressing stuff that does not?

I think that unfortunately, this will be more than a storm in a teacup, and also that it will provide ample ammunition for denialists to further confuse and deceive a public becoming more susceptible to their spurious claims.

I think this is bad, very bad, for the cause of real science, and rational debate.

I should add that I do not think there is anything sinister going on, and I do not believe that any real scientists have been shown to be falsifying their data, that realm belongs squarely in the denialists camp, but I do think this will steel the resolve of many denialists, and spur them on to even greater attempts at deception, to balance the books from their perspective, which they see as countering the governments lies, with lies of their own.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 12:16pm:

Actually muso, I think in soren's case we could expect him to blame it on the grapes he had for lunch fermenting in his stomach. I mean there just has to be another reason, there has to be, we cannot possibly be responsible for,,,?? anything it seems.

OK, a good play of devil's advocate. How about the fact that we saw him drinking a bottle of Vodka at lunchtime, we confiscated the bottle and carried out an analysis on the residue and confirmed the composition of the drink. A policeman followed him from the bar and noted him getting into the car while (soren was) swaying in a drunken fashion, then asked him to blow in the breathalyser. The reading corresponded to typical readings that would be expected for a man of his body mass who had just consumed 0.7 litres of Vodka of the concentration determined by the analysis, and a later blood sample was taken which confirmed the breath reading.

Actually that's a closer analogy of how certain we are that anthropogenic CO2 is causing/ will cause global warming.

Ah but of course, the policeman's attention could have been drawn by a very attractive brunette walking in front of him, and at that very moment, Soren's identical twin brother who had just finished drinking the original bottle, headed for the restrooms, while quite coincidentally Soren was walking down the street wearing identical clothing. The breath alcohol reading was actually caused by the same grapes that had fermented in his stomach, and the blood samples were of course switched by an evil scientist who had been having a heated debate with him on the Australian Politics Forum.

So based on that, yer honour, the man is innocent.

muso wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 12:11pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 23rd, 2009 at 11:15am: Re 5 points: Muso offered 2 statements, followed by 2 measurements and another statement about oceanic pH. They do not add up to a demonstration of AGW, whether in its original form, in my summary or Muso's 'cleaned up' version of my summary. You'll have to read a bit further than the summaries, Soren. This thread and the sticky thread has the basic information. Would a measurement of your blood alcohol concentration not be a demonstration of whether or not you had been drinking excessively? Isn't that what measurements do?  They provide a demonstration of a fact.

Muso,

You offered the 5 points as proof of causal relationship between AGW and CO2. But I do not think these 5 points demonstrated anything like a causal link.  As I said, they are 2 statements, two measuremenst and an assertion. There is nothing wrong with statements and measumenst but they do not demosntrate causality or even correlation. If your summary is not a demonstration of CO2 causing AGW, then the expanded version won't be either, no matter how many pages it fills.

Blood alcohol: a very silly analogy, the type that gives a bad name to AGW. The heart of the dispute, the scepticism, is NOT whether we are putting alcohol/CO2 into the blood/atmosphere. That is a matter of measurement.

What is disputed is about whether our CO2 is or is not causing global warming. The causal relationship not been has not been demostrated.



Even if we used your analogy, we are way under the legal limit: 0.0387% of CO2 in the atmosphere, if translated to alcohol consumption,  is less than a tenth of the legal limit of blood alcohol. Despite decades of increasingly wild pissups.
Cheers  ;)

I'm really at a loss as to what your standard for a causal link are.

Let's look at Point 1 again, and it becomes obvious that it's not just a statement.

1. The undeniable fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose specific absorbance (for want of a better term) at infrared wavelengths, can be measured quite accurately and compared to other greenhouse gases.


It is a statement of fact that can be (and has been) verified. It is a basic property of the carbon dioxide molecule to absorb infrared radiation, and I've even described the mechanism for that in terms of bond stretching and vibration.  

All the other conclusions stem from that basic fact. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, and the extent to which it does that, can be measured, and is known to a very high degree of accuracy.

Al the other measurements serve to confirm the mechanism.

It's a basic parameter than can be measured just as easily as the melting point of pure ice under standard conditions.  


Quote:

Even if we used your analogy, we are way under the legal limit: 0.0387% of CO2 in the atmosphere, if translated to alcohol consumption,  is less than a tenth of the legal limit of blood alcohol. Despite decades of increasingly wild pissups.

Ok, I realise that it's meant to be a frivolous statement, but how do you measure the legal limit? I do it on the basis of risk.

When you say "OUR" CO2, is that an indication that you think CO2 is the driving force behind global warming, but that mankind's contribution to the total amount of CO2 is negligible, compared to naturally occurring CO2?

Because if that is all that is bothering you then that aspect has been pretty extensively covered, and I am sure muso can once more go through the various carbon signatures for you, as well as supply the relevant measurements of the naturally occurring CO2.

I know Plimer was ridiculed by the real scientists for pushing that particular barrow, and as you still seem to regard him as a credible source, perhaps that basic issue needs to be re-addressed for you?

I fear that rather than this being the case, you are just whizzing around on the never ending denialist merry go round, where issues are addressed one by one, scientifically debunked, only to then reappear after all other issues have been answered, to be put forward yet again as a valid reason once more, as if the previous debunking had been olbliterated from your memories.
Perhaps that is the "REAL" natural cycle that denialists are talking about?

pjb05 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 7:36pm:

Darwin wrote on Nov 22nd, 2009 at 7:22pm: It IS unusual in SA. I was just pointing out the idiocy of saying the hacked emails said there was no AGW. Re the heatwaves, in SA we have had so many in the last 3 years (both spring and fall) that it is a 1 in 200,000 chance that these were not caused by some agency--the only agency being AGW. I will keep an anxious eye on my 88yo mother this summer, max temperatures in Adelaide, 48.5C last year--another record--will likely exceed 50C. I predict that about 2000 elderly people in SA & Vic will die from the record high summer temperature. Do you have any elderly relatives? If you do, any harm in making sure they will be OK at the height of summer heat? Not only AGW you know: the sun is entering a more active state and the Pacific is warm both on the Aust side AND the S American side. I think it is being suggested that the hacked emails show references to manipulating data and peer review and other unsavory behaviour. Also i think you will find the hottest temperature for Adelaide was 12 January 1939, 46.1 °C. PS people die from the cold too.

They do but not in Adelaide. Nope, we reached 48.5C last summer!

muso wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 3:24pm:

I'm really at a loss as to what your standard for a causal link are. Let's look at Point 1 again, and it becomes obvious that it's not just a statement. 1. The undeniable fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose specific absorbance (for want of a better term) at infrared wavelengths, can be measured quite accurately and compared to other greenhouse gases. It is a statement of fact that can be (and has been) verified. It is a basic property of the carbon dioxide molecule to absorb infrared radiation, and I've even described the mechanism for that in terms of bond stretching and vibration.   All the other conclusions stem from that basic fact. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, and the extent to which it does that, can be measured, and is known to a very high degree of accuracy. Al the other measurements serve to confirm the mechanism. It's a basic parameter than can be measured just as easily as the melting point of pure ice under standard conditions.

So you are suggesting that this basic property of CO2 is your reason for declaring human CO2 to be the cause of global warming?

I have not seen any other cause suggested by you or othres.

muso wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 3:24pm:

Ok, I realise that it's meant to be a frivolous statement, but how do you measure the legal limit? I do it on the basis of risk.

Is AGW actually happening or is there only a risk of it happening? Is CO2 causing AGW or is there a rik of CO2 may be implicated in a possible AGW?

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 6:04pm:

So you are suggesting that this basic property of CO2 is your reason for declaring human CO2 to be the cause of global warming? I have not seen any other cause suggested by you or othres.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse. I have probably been simplifying this too much.

The basic property of CO2 to absorb infrared is the first part. This is the effect that traps a greater proportion of the heat in the troposphere.


We know that it absorbs IR and we can monitor that by satellite.
We know how much we put there (from source and isotopes).

We also know how much extra water vapour will / has been partitioned into the atmosphere as a result of the temperature rise due to CO2 and can do a back calculation to confirm the climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. Approximately 1 degree of this rise is due to the CO2 itself, while the other 2 degrees are due to the water vapour.


As a confirmation, we can look at the paleoclimate record from ice core data and we can confirm that this relationship between temperature and CO2 has applied over the last 850,000 years or so.

Over the years, various workers have conducted independent work that show varying levels of climate sensitivity, centred on about 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2.

Here is an example of such a paper. It's well worth reading through it.  

http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0411002
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0411002

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 6:49pm:

muso wrote on Nov 23rd, 2009 at 3:24pm: Ok, I realise that it's meant to be a frivolous statement, but how do you measure the legal limit? I do it on the basis of risk. Is AGW actually happening or is there only a risk of it happening? Is CO2 causing AGW or is there a rik of CO2 may be implicated in a possible AGW?

AGW is actually happening and it will get worse.  The risk in question is not just about the consequences of AGW.  The increased CO2 in the atmosphere has also caused a gradual drop in ocean pH - and that will get worse with time too.

The latter will be the one that hurts us soonest when it really starts to impact on ocean ecosystems. Taken in combination with overfishing and depletion of fish stocks, it is likely to have a very significant effect.

You would be best if you could read the Copenhagen Synthesis Report. That has a good discussion of the nature of the risks and how a 2 degree guard rail is a good economic compromise.


Quote:

Evidence indicates that ocean acidification is a serious threat to many organisms and may have implications for food webs and ecosystems and the multi-billion dollar services they provide. For instance, erosion is likely to outpace growth of tropical coral reefs at 450-480 ppm CO2; there are already reports of a 19% decrease in growth of Great Barrier Reef corals.

Incidentally, have you noticed how crayfish and prawns are becoming more plentiful?  That's a result of overfishing. There are fewer predators around.

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 2:42pm:

Blood alcohol: a very silly analogy, the type that gives a bad name to AGW. The heart of the dispute, the scepticism, is NOT whether we are putting alcohol/CO2 into the blood/atmosphere. That is a matter of measurement.

I didn't notice that before. I'm glad that you finally recognize that.

Now does that mean that you agree with the concerns about the falling ocean pH and the reducing rates of calcification in marine organisms? - because that is a direct consequence of the rising CO2 levels, not the temperature rise. In some ways, the rising temperatures will actually mitigate that effect (increased temperature desorbs some CO2 from the oceans). In other ways (coral bleaching etc) it will not.

- And that is a far more imminent threat than global warming.

Yes, the ocean acifification is attacking the marine food pyramid.

As CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep rising the equilibrium level of CO2 also rises so increasing oceanic warmth will not reduce acidification.

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 8:06am:

Soren wrote on Nov 23rd, 2009 at 6:04pm: So you are suggesting that this basic property of CO2 is your reason for declaring human CO2 to be the cause of global warming? I have not seen any other cause suggested by you or othres. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse. I have probably been simplifying this too much. The basic property of CO2 to absorb infrared is the first part. This is the effect that traps a greater proportion of the heat in the troposphere. We know that it absorbs IR and we can monitor that by satellite. We know how much we put there (from source and isotopes). We also know how much extra water vapour will / has been partitioned into the atmosphere as a result of the temperature rise due to CO2 and can do a back calculation to confirm the climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. Approximately 1 degree of this rise is due to the CO2 itself, while the other 2 degrees are due to the water vapour. As a confirmation, we can look at the paleoclimate record from ice core data and we can confirm that this relationship between temperature and CO2 has applied over the last 850,000 years or so. Over the years, various workers have conducted independent work that show varying levels of climate sensitivity, centred on about 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2. Here is an example of such a paper. It's well worth reading through it.   http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0411002 http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0411002

There is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature increase. The greenhouse effect associated with CO2 is a logarithmic relationship - double the CO2 does not mean double the absorbtion or greenhouse effect. There is a rapid 'diminishing returns' effect.

ANd CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, a small player in greenhouse effect; the atmosphere is only one player in the climate.

The shrill insistence that human can catastrophically alter the climate by doubling or even tripling one component of the atmosphere from 0.0280% to 0.0560% or 0.0840 % and that this will outweigh everything else that makes up the climate is a mania.


A Brooker points out: "One of the more suspicious features of the man-made global warming theory is the extraordinary pressure, which has been built up to insist the evidence for it is so overwhelming that it is a moral crime to question it."

And "The fact remains that the models on which the whole global warming panic was based have been proved dismally wrong, suggesting that the theory on which they were programmed may itself have been fundamentally flawed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html#ixzz0XjAkfiRd

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 8:52am:

Soren wrote on Nov 23rd, 2009 at 2:42pm: Blood alcohol: a very silly analogy, the type that gives a bad name to AGW. The heart of the dispute, the scepticism, is NOT whether we are putting alcohol/CO2 into the blood/atmosphere. That is a matter of measurement. I didn't notice that before. I'm glad that you finally recognize that.

Then you are a very careless reader. Very careless. Nobody has ever said that there is no human-made CO2 going into the atmosphere. If you are only now waking up to it then perhaps you should adjust the mindset from 'patronising' to ' what are they actually saying?' Much more scientific, to say the least.



Quote:

Now does that mean that you agree with the concerns about the falling ocean pH and the reducing rates of calcification in marine organisms? - because that is a direct consequence of the rising CO2 levels, not the temperature rise. In some ways, the rising temperatures will actually mitigate that effect (increased temperature desorbs some CO2 from the oceans). In other ways (coral bleaching etc) it will not. - And that is a far more imminent threat than global warming.

SO we have been knotting our collective brows and pursing our lips with great, great concern over global cooling, warming, changing, justice- now the issue is that the colour in coral will run a little? Never mind saving the wales, what is a far more imminent threat is that in 10-20 years Nemo won't be camouflaged adequatly.

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

SO we have been knotting our collective brows and pursing our lips with great, great concern over global cooling, warming, changing, justice- now the issue is that the colour in coral will run a little? Never mind saving the wales, what is a far more imminent threat is that in 10-20 years Nemo won't be camouflaged adequatly.

Don't you realise that it's a lot more that just coral bleaching? (In fact coral bleaching is an effect of temperature, not pH reduction. Now who's a careless reader?)

If the current decreasing trends in ocean pH hold up, coral reefs will not be able to maintain themselves. The erosion rate will exceed the growth rate. On current projections, this will happen in about 40 years time.

Do you realise what the implications are in terms of commercial fishing?

Apart from that, the reduction of calcification will have effects on other food chain organisms which will also have an impact on commercial fisheries. Fish are equipped with otoliths, which are balance organs which rely on calcification rates. If the otoliths can't grow at a sufficient rate, the fish will not survive.

Whole societies rely on harvests from the sea. Can't you see the implications of this?  

You may choose to reduce it to 'save the whales', but the consequences are a lot more far reaching than that. Ultimately (and I haven't set a time scale on this statement), it could result in the extinction of life in the ocean,  the removal of organisms which in themselves act as carbon sinks, and potentially, just one or two less understood consequences, such as global ocean anoxia.

Think clouds of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas (rotten egg gas) emanating from the oceans.

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:10am:

You may choose to reduce it to 'save the whales', but the consequences are a lot more far reaching than that. Ultimately (and I haven't set a time scale on this statement), it could result in the extinction of life in the ocean,  the removal of organisms which in themselves act as carbon sinks, and potentially, just one or two less understood consequences, such as global ocean anoxia. Think clouds of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas (rotten egg gas) emanating from the oceans.

Silly Yadda, intrudes this thread with scripture [....AGAIN!!].      ;)




Revelation 8:9
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Revelation 16:3
And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.



Hmmmm, could global ocean anoxia cause all living things in the oceans to die???



In commiseration, can i offer ? ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eyFiClAzq8

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 9:20am:

There is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature increase. The greenhouse effect associated with CO2 is a logarithmic relationship - double the CO2 does not mean double the absorbtion or greenhouse effect. There is a rapid 'diminishing returns' effect.

Once again, nobody is claiming that it's a linear effect. The effect is very subtle, and all those subtleties have been taken into account. Really Soren, don't you think climatologists don't understand basic physics? OMG! Let's get real here. If we were talking about a doubling in the Energy absorbed, then we'd rapidly have a planet like Venus where the surface temperature is high enough to melt lead. We're not talking about this at all. Please take a reality check, Soren.   ::)


Quote:

ANd CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, a small player in greenhouse effect; the atmosphere is only one player in the climate.

OK, soren-  please list all the players in the climate, and what you understand to be their relative importance. You obviously have a good grasp on this. We already explained how tiny components can have huge impacts. 5 parts per million of copper in a lake system will kill all the fish. If you take Mercury, then you're talking parts per billion. Your statement is nonsensical when taken without applying some sort of context or reasoning behind it.



Quote:

The shrill insistence that human can catastrophically alter the climate by doubling or even tripling one component of the atmosphere from 0.0280% to 0.0560% or 0.0840 % and that this will outweigh everything else that makes up the climate is a mania.

What about the shrill insistence that most radiance heat is transferred by infrared radiation? Is that another shrill insistence? - or maybe the shrill insistence that a 1kg mass resting on the ground exerts a downwards force of 9.81 Newtons?  


Quote:

A Brooker points out: "One of the more suspicious features of the man-made global warming theory is the extraordinary pressure, which has been built up to insist the evidence for it is so overwhelming that it is a moral crime to question it."

It's a moral crime not to question it. What do you think the thousands of research papers have been about, if not to question the whole idea?
That's what science is all about.



Quote:

And "The fact remains that the models on which the whole global warming panic was based have been proved dismally wrong, suggesting that the theory on which they were programmed may itself have been fundamentally flawed.

THe models have actually been confirmed time and time again. Modern models even take into account natural cycles such as ENSO and solar cycles.

Provide an example of where a modern climate model has been proved (your term, not mine) to be wrong.

Yadda wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

Silly Yadda, intrudes this thread with scripture [....AGAIN!!].      ;) Revelation 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea. Hmmmm, could global ocean anoxia cause all living things in the oceans to die???

Well done, Yadda  ;D

See soren! - the Bible confirms this. ;D

Yadda - I listened to a program on ABC National at lunchtime yesterday in which a climatologist was explaining how different societies come to terms with the realities of climate change through their individual traditional mythologies.

As the more dire consequences start to take effect, I'm sure that there will be an increasing role for religion, so I don't think that your post is particularly out of place.  ;)  I doubt if the world is going to be largely atheistic by 2050.

This link is especially for you:

http://www.christianecology.org/Stewardship.html/

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:52am:

Yadda wrote on Nov 24th, 2009 at 10:33am: Silly Yadda, intrudes this thread with scripture [....AGAIN!!].      ;) Revelation 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea. Hmmmm, could global ocean anoxia cause all living things in the oceans to die??? Well done, Yadda  ;D See soren! - the Bible confirms this. ;D Yadda - I listened to a program on ABC National at lunchtime yesterday in which a climatologist was explaining how different societies come to terms with the realities of climate change through their individual traditional mythologies. As the more dire consequences start to take effect, I'm sure that there is a role for religion, so I don't think that your post is particularly out of place.  ;)  I doubt if the world is going to be largely atheistic by 2050.

LOL       ;D      ;D      ;D







Its OK though muso, coz someone up there is looking out for all of those ppl like me.     :D     ;)
....ALL THREE OF US!     ;D


Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22  And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.


;)

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:38am:

We already explained how tiny components can have huge impacts. 5 parts per million of copper in a lake system will kill all the fish. If you take Mercury, then you're talking parts per billion. Your statement is nonsensical when taken without applying some sort of context or reasoning behind it.

Context or reasoning, you say?

Could it be that this is due to the strange fact that fish are not a copper or mercury based life form? Or am I just a fish-death denialist?

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:07am:

Context or reasoning, you say? Could it be that this is due to the strange fact that fish are not a copper or mercury based life form? Or am I just a fish-death denialist?

Picky, aren't you? - ok make that cyanide then - a carbon based toxin.

Yadda wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:06am:

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22  And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Do you think soren would qualify for the rapture? For the sake of my hair, it would be nice if he was whisked away. - and could you pray for that? Pray for my hair too if you like.

- or do you think he might just be my personal tormentor for being non-religious ?  ;D

- the one who returns my rock down to the bottom of the hill when I think I've just about got it to the top?

http://www.scheffel-gymnasium.de/faecher/religion/sisyphus.gif

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:19am:

Yadda wrote on Nov 24th, 2009 at 11:06am: Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22  And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Do you think soren would qualify for the rapture? For the sake of my hair, it would be nice if he was whisked away. - and could you pray for that? Pray for my hair too if you like. - or do you think he might just be my personal tormentor for being non-religious ?  ;D - the one who returns my rock down to the bottom of the hill when I think I've just about got it to the top?

soren might just be your personal tormentor for being non-religious ?

Hmmm?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me muso.       ;D





But then again, someone once said,

To live, is to suffer.
Bhudda

;)


I think that the Bhudda was on the money.

Ok, to complete my analogy of your way of thinking, we have a lake (Let's call it Baia Mare, and site it in Romania). We have a major fish kill in the said lake and you're the mine manager whose tailings dam burst its banks.

What have you to say for yourself Mr Soren?

- Well Cyanide is carbon based (true) and it is after all a plant food (true - calcium cyanide was actually used as a fertiliser in the 1950's) .

Apart from that, an independant laboratory has verified that there is only a tiny proportion of cyanide in the water (a mere 387 parts per billion). Are you telling me that such a tiny proportion 0.0000387 percent - an insignificant proportion of the entire lake of this plant food is responsible for killing those fish?  There are many other things in that lake that could have killed the fish. Our laboratory tests proved quite conclusively that salt kills freshwater fish. Our analysis conclusively found significant quantities of salt in the Baia Mare. Now lacustrine toxicology is an extremely complex system, and we can't possibly account for all the variables concerned. Besides that, correlation does not imply causation. Please prove to me that those fish were killed by cyanide - you can't prove it.

However our best scientists have incontrovertible evidence that the fish also had a major biological defect. Their respiratory process was ultimately to blame. It's a basic weakness of the Krebs cycle, and we can prove that the terminal oxidase of the mytochondrial respiratory system, cytochrome c oxidase (1) was obviously genetically defective in that it caused an irreversible block of the electron chain reaction, resulting in an auto induced chemical asphyxiation. This resulted in the fatal death of the said endangered Romanian freshwater kipper fish.  (nya nya)

(1) Pecina, P., Houstkova, H., Hansikova, H., Zeman, J., Houstek, J. (2004). Genetic Defects of Cytochrome c Oxidase Assembly. Physiol. Res. 53(Suppl. 1): S213-S223.

Now get your Leninist Atheist greenie ass out of my office! I shall write to my favourite Viscount about this. This is obviously a Maoist plot to confiscate the profits of my mine and share it with a number of  muslim coutries in the third world. It's a commie-Islamic plot (and have I made my  gratuitous gay or hand-wringing apologetics stereotypical references yet?).

You can't deny it. That's the real agenda here - isn't it - hmmm?  

The fish are not dead. They are merely resting.

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 2:48pm:

The fish are not dead. They are merely resting.

Soren,

I can't believe that you have not had at least had a glimmer of an insight from the details that I have posted.

Maybe what you rebel against is the stereotype greenie. To be quite honest, I have a deep mistrust of the feral non-toilet trained deep greenie myself.

Maybe you think that this is all just a plot to redistribute wealth.

Well maybe some people have hijacked the issue and they want to use it as an excuse to redress the injustices of the world. That would not surprise me. The environmental movement has more than a few motley characters. THey need to be kept under control.

All I'm asking for is a move (as quickly as possible) towards renewable energy so that we can phase out fossil fuel reliant technology in a similar way to how we phased out steam powered railway engines in the mid 20th century. We need the renewable energy mainly because our carbon based economies are untenable, and because we need to maintain and build on global wealth in order to survive.  

Unless we make some very deliberate moves towards that end, the current civilisation is in for a very hard ride this century. That's not a belief based on faith. It's a forecast based on the best facts at my disposal.

The build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its consequences of ocean acidification and global warming needs to be tackled on all fronts, and if that means selling more nuclear fuel or even building nuclear power stations, that will win hands down over procrastinating until we can build solar power stations.

Above all, our Western civilisation has to survive, and we need to start looking at other challenges to maintain the spark. Such challenges may ultimately include the colonisation of the Moon and Mars.

There will always be poor people, but unless we can continue to advance our world economy and civilisation, as a species, we'll suffer a worse kind of poverty - a poverty of spirit.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet and say "It's all too hard"

I sometimes wonder if humanity is worth saving, but in the end, what else do we have?

Soren your attempt for perfection has been fulfilled.

That was very funny.

You are also very close to being perfectly infuriating, and it brings to mind something I once heard, used to try and instil a broader awareness to a friend whose intellect, and debating skills, were second to none;
"just because you never lose an argument, does not mean you are always right"

You have impressed muso by posting intelligent questions, but disappointed me, by ignoring it when he supplies intelligent replies.

Do not rule out the nuclear option!

4th Generation plants generate new fuel while burning the fuel they are given. Minimal waste (bury in inactive Broken Hill mines) and generate new fuel.

bit later there is the nuclear fusion option!

mozzaok wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 7:23pm:

Soren your attempt for perfection has been fulfilled. That was very funny. You are also very close to being perfectly infuriating, and it brings to mind something I once heard, used to try and instil a broader awareness to a friend whose intellect, and debating skills, were second to none; "just because you never lose an argument, does not mean you are always right" You have impressed muso by posting intelligent questions, but disappointed me, by ignoring it when he supplies intelligent replies.

Mozz and Muso, My position is simpler than yours - I am not trying to convince you of anything. If I infuriate you it is because I am not convinced by your scientific arguments and don't share your certainty about AGW or your sense of its importance.


My analogy for our debate here would be: you are both committed, pious believers (Muso an ordained priest/mufti/shaman) and I am an agnostic with strong atheist leanings. You both sniff a bit of sulphur and are looking for the hooves and tail. I see two other-worldly guys, captive to a fantastic notion.


In a way we are having an existentil argument: I cannot conceive of the world in a manner that would have us, Liliputians, control the climate, both to induce GW or to reverse it. The world as I perceive it, is far, far more complex and enormous than to be so drastically altered by somethings as comparatively trivial as human CO2.


You, on the other hand,  have no difficulty with seeing CO2 as a threat. For me, the scientific arguments remain unconvincing especially as they are much more tentative than the political slogans grafted onto them. To you, AGW seems as plain as the day.
Except you must have some doubt. All pious people do. It is easy for me. I have not yet moved on from doubt.


Finally, and in a way least importantly, the political boosters and catastrophy-mongers for AGW are unpalatable. Since they and their opponents fill our ears every day, and as we cannot stay politically neutral, I am siding with the political sceptics and deniers (hence the smell of sulphur, not because I am not buying the scientific stuff).

Cheers.


PS

Muso, Sisyphus was punished so horribly for being a world-class trickster. Falsified the data, in today's parlance....
;) ii

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:56pm:

PS Muso, Sisyphus was punished so horribly for being a world-class trickster. Falsified the data, in today's parlance.... ;)

I think you need to brush up on your classics. What Sisyphus was specifically punished for was chaining up Thanatos (death) so that no person could pass the gates of Hades. He dared to interfere with fate. Any trickery was to prevent his own demise.  

- I prefer Albert Camus' 'Le Mythe de Sisyphe' where he likens it to the struggle of human endeavour, absurd as it may be.

The only thing I'm trying to convey is something that is so obvious that I can't understand why it hasn't clicked yet.  I believe that I've explained enough of the science to make the point many times over.  The only thing that stands in the way is your faith in the denialists.  That's what transforms the communication of basic High-School physics into a sisyphean task.

You are the one with the faith that a few eccentrics might have a point (actually they are all different points- I must post a matrix some day). I take nothing on faith. I have worked hard to understand the atmospheric physics that enables reasonably accurate predictions of global climate, but the basic science that enables us to understand the process is elementary.

Do I have any doubt? Since we're dealing with basic science that is easily understood, I have as much doubt in this as I have with the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, or to deprive you of the pleasure of being picky, around a common centre of gravity.

Yadda,

You bring up some interesting points which probably deserve a new thread.

So to conclude with the original point of this thread, the assertion that power generated is a miniscule fraction of heat received from the sun, is irrelevant even if true -  an obvious strawman.

Soren,

Ok, I talked to God, and he explained to me that climate change is real.  ;)



Quote:

After several hours Joe finally gave up on logic and reason and simply told the cabinet that he could talk to plants and that they wanted water. - Idiocracy

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:10am:

So to conclude with the original point of this thread, the assertion that power generated is a miniscule fraction of heat received from the sun, is irrelevant even if true -  an obvious strawman.

That's 'conclude' the debate in the Turnbullian sense, no doubt.

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 11:15am:

Soren, Ok, I talked to God, and he explained to me that climate change is real.  ;)

Did he say it was a punishment for your sins, though? And for using fire too much in order to cook your sacrificial offering (and for your vanity for producing too much tooth paste and loo paper, notorious trapping of Judeao-Christian civilisation)?

:P

Soren wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 10:27pm:

muso wrote on Nov 25th, 2009 at 9:10am: So to conclude with the original point of this thread, the assertion that power generated is a miniscule fraction of heat received from the sun, is irrelevant even if true -  an obvious strawman. That's 'conclude' the debate in the Turnbullian sense, no doubt.

Well that's heartening. You really think I got a 48-35 majority?

OK, At last I've found a description of the basic physics of climate change on the web, and it's detailed enough to show that it's rigorous.

Here is the link:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

So that saves me from transcribing from a textbook.

Thanks for that link Muso, I have it saved in my favourites now.

If we could somehow get a denialist to ever read them, that would go a long way to helping them address the issues they find so problematic.

Unfortunately, it is usually just more preaching to the choir, while denialists seek comfort in, populist propaganda without scientific integrity, to validate their beliefs.
The total aversion they have for ever examining information of the type you just provided indicates a degree of stubborness which will be hard to penetrate.

Which denialist said this?

"Well, the thing is we deal with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth's system works, we know enough to say as the IPCC said that greenhouse gases cause warming. They are 90 per cent sure, 90 per cent plus sure that it's caused by humans, we can go that far. In the last few years, were there hasn't been a continuation of that warming trend, we don't understand all of the factors that create earth's climate, so there are some things we don't understand, that's what the scientists were email about, you know, we don't understand the way the whole system works, and we have to find out."



Tim Flannery.





Do you have to be an evil denialist to spot the awkward contradiction? We are pretty sure it's us even though we don't understand how the system works.

I heard this morning on the ABC (yes, I am an ABC RN & ABC FM listener) a man breezily rattling off the what the 'scientific community' has agreed on, broadly speaking:

In order to halt GW at 2 degrees we must reduce emissions in the rich countries by 15-30 percent by 2020 and in the developing countries like China, by something less than that. And we must provide financial help to the non-industrialised poor countries for some reason (presumambly to salve our trumped-up guilt over giving them independence too soon.)

This is such arrant nonsense. Halt GW at 2 degrees? As if we could calibrate the 'climate' by fiddling with knobs! As if the climate was a bloody car that you can acceleate and decelerate by controling the fuel. As if there was  direct causal link, to the exclusion of all other factors, between human CO2 and temperature. This is so 19th century, it is laughable.

You have to outsource your marbles to believe this sort of shite .

Soren,

The main emphasis is on that 2 degrees C guardrail, however the latest research suggests that even if there was a global cut in emissions by 60% by 2020, the best we could achieve would be a plateau at 2.5 degrees.

That is based on a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees.

As far as Tim Flannery is concerned, I really think he has the wrong end of the stick.  The recent levelling off in global temperature is due to natural variation. These short term variations have a magnitude similar to that of the warming trend, which means when solar output reduces due to solar cycle, there will be a temporary dip in the trend.

Of course when we go up the other side of the solar cycle, that's when the warming trend and the solar trend reinforce, causing a bump. The net forcing for solar variation is around 2 Watts per square metre, so allowing for water vapour feedbacks, you could multiply that by 2 or 3, which is not much in the scheme of things.

At this stage, we're looking for the peak of cycle 24 around 2013. So things should start to heat up in the next few years.

I really don't know why you have such a problem understanding this.

---

Nice to see you have added your own addendum to the Global Warming facts Soren.


Quote:

As if there was  direct causal link, to the exclusion of all other factors

The causal link has been well explained, and well understood for a long time now, but, the bit, "to the exclusion of all other factors" is the usual distortion we have come to expect from denialists.

We have to face the fact that we cannot stop the process that is happening, but we still should be trying to minimise the extent of it, as much as we can, and if we can reverse the current growth of CO2 emmissions, then we are merely giving the planet the best chance we can in the circumstances, and how anyone can disregard that is beyond me.

The denialists claim that unless we continue to grow our use of fossil fuels, and continue to pump ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, we will all have to revert to stone age lifestyles, and forgo all the technological advances of mankind, which is utter nonsense, like all their propaganda is.

We will still have "natural" cycles if we reduce our carbon emmissions, but we may just avert some of the nastier ones, if we make the necessary changes, before it is too late.

The balance in nature is delicate, and the tipping point scenarios are not mere fancy, but they are judicious warnings about what could happen, if we continue to expect the earth to magically cope with any amount of environmental abuse we subject it to.

Your inability to grasp the scientific principles involved does not mean they are not real, and in effect right now, Soren, anymore than a primitive man's inability to understand the physics of aviation would nullify their validity, and make planes suddenly fall from the sky.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 8:25am:

Your inability to grasp the scientific principles involved does not mean they are not real, and in effect right now, Soren, anymore than a primitive man's inability to understand the physics of aviation would nullify their validity, and make planes suddenly fall from the sky.

I wonder if inability is the right word. It's more a kind of "don't want to understand".  That much is apparent.  

Soren, let's just suppose that the physics that I've presented is real, and that there is an underlying warming trend due to the consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions.

If you were heading up an Oil corporation or a Coal producer, would you see the impending switch to renewable energy as a threat?

Perhaps you'd see that eventually we'll run out of resources, but what if the move to renewable energy was happening too fast? What kind of measures would you sponsor to slow things down a bit? - to moderate public demand for renewables?

Do you think that if you brought it in slowly and maintained control over the renewable sector, that it would be in the best long term interest of your corporation?

Do you think your shareholders would approve? It certainly makes good business sense.

Of course you'd have to keep it totally underground, and in the public eye, you'd have to be flying the flag of renewable energy, otherwise there might be a backlash.  

What do you think? honestly?

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 8:24am:

Soren, The main emphasis is on that 2 degrees C guardrail, however the latest research suggests that even if there was a global cut in emissions by 60% by 2020, the best we could achieve would be a plateau at 2.5 degrees. That is based on a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees. As far as Tim Flannery is concerned, I really think he has the wrong end of the stick.  The recent levelling off in global temperature is due to natural variation. These short term variations have a magnitude similar to that of the warming trend, which means when solar output reduces due to solar cycle, there will be a temporary dip in the trend. Of course when we go up the other side of the solar cycle, that's when the warming trend and the solar trend reinforce, causing a bump. The net forcing for solar variation is around 2 Watts per square metre, so allowing for water vapour feedbacks, you could multiply that by 2 or 3, which is not much in the scheme of things. At this stage, we're looking for the peak of cycle 24 around 2013. So things should start to heat up in the next few years. I really don't know why you have such a problem understanding this.

I understand all that. What I also notice is that the predictions or the reasoning behind the predictions or both are always changing. As UNPREDICTED new information comes to hand, as the climate unfolds in UNPREDICTED ways, failed past predictions are explained in terms of new predictions. Something unpredicted will always scuttle the previous predictions but it will be co-opted to make a new, firmer, larger, smoother, more jutting, er, I mean more scientific prediction.

"Unforeseen and unpredicetd natuaral variations prevented previous predictions to be fulfilled? Never mind, we assure you that the science is all settled and simple and well in hand this time . The current truth is fully reliable and based on irrefutable science.  Look at this graph. See?"

mozzaok wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 8:25am:

Your inability to grasp the scientific principles involved does not mean they are not real, and in effect right now, Soren, anymore than a primitive man's inability to understand the physics of aviation would nullify their validity, and make planes suddenly fall from the sky.

That's cute and catchy but it is a false analogy.

Nobody understands global climate. We understand bits of it, we model it based on partial understanding. We can ignore the known unknowns and obviously do ignore the unknown unknowns and still make a model. We can make a model aeroplane. We can make an actual aeroplane. If our hypothesis is correct, it will fly, if not, not.

Climate we can't make.

We are forever playing with models. And the actual climate forever comes up with something different from the models. That's the rub.
Some boffins made a model that came up with the same answer no matter how you changed the input. Computer says no. Computer says AGW.

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 10:02am:

I understand all that. What I also notice is that the predictions or the reasoning behind the predictions or both are always changing. As UNPREDICTED new information comes to hand, as the climate unfolds in UNPREDICTED ways, failed past predictions are explained in terms of new predictions. Something unpredicted will always scuttle the previous predictions but it will be co-opted to make a new, firmer, larger, smoother, more jutting, er, I mean more scientific prediction. "Unforeseen and unpredicetd natuaral variations prevented previous predictions to be fulfilled? Never mind, we assure you that the science is all settled and simple and well in hand this time . The current truth is fully reliable and based on irrefutable science.  Look at this graph. See?"

The problem is that most 'skeptics' (your term) conveniently ignore what we know about natural variations. They take the temperature record and say "See- there is no correlation" ignoring the fact that there is natural variation, and that this is very well understood.

If we looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term natural variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Nino events typically come with global-mean temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years.

We can account for the influence of these natural influences, not by some iterative approach, but by measuring the changes, in some cases quite accurately.  

The global ocean surface temperatures in 2009 broke all previous records for three consecutive months: June, July and August. The years 2007, 2008 and 2009 had the lowest summer Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, and in 2008 for the first time in living memory the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were simultaneously ice-free.

This was repeated in 2009. Every single year of this century (2001-2008) has been among the top ten warmest years since instrumental records began.

This trend is set to increase even more as the greenhouse gas induced warming trend and the solar output start to increase in unison in the next few years. Sunspots numbers this month have continued to ramp up from October as predicted.

In Science, we work on the basis of self correction. The overall predictions are refined as time goes on.

In the 1920's, a book was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein. His remark was, ‘If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!’  As Stephen Hawking pointed out however, that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form of testable results.

These attributes of science can be used in assessing competing assertions about climate change:


Quote:

Can the statement under consideration, in principle, be proven false? Has it been rigorously tested? Did it appear in the peer-reviewed literature? Did it build on the existing research record where appropriate?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then less credence should be given to the assertion until it is tested and independently verified.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 10:50am:

The problem is that most 'skeptics' (your term) conveniently ignore what we know about natural variations. They take the temperature record and say "See- there is no correlation" ignoring the fact that there is natural variation, and that this is very well understood.

Foregive me but this reminds me of arguing with Comical Ali or Lester.

My point was that all the Warmerist predictions prior to the recent plateauing ignored or were unaware of  whatever natural variation caused that plateauing. It came as a surprise to them.  My supplementary point was that this UNPREDICTED plateaung is proof that the climate modeling is NOT based on well-understood science of natural causes, known and unknown and therefore has been ignored by AGW advocates. SO it confounded their predictions, causing some of them to wish to hide the plateauing.

But what you appear to be hearing is that I am ignoring the obviously non-CO2 based causes of that recent plateauing ( even though I brought it up) and the fact that it was NOT predicted or that they tried to hide it is proof to your way of thinking that the science is well undertood!! The parrot is indeed merely resting!!!


This to me makes absolutely no sense.

Soren wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 11:52am:

muso wrote on Dec 1st, 2009 at 10:50am: The problem is that most 'skeptics' (your term) conveniently ignore what we know about natural variations. They take the temperature record and say "See- there is no correlation" ignoring the fact that there is natural variation, and that this is very well understood. Foregive me but this reminds me of arguing with Comical Ali or Lester. My point was that all the Warmerist predictions prior to the recent plateauing ignored or were unaware of  whatever natural variation caused that plateauing. It came as a surprise to them.  My supplementary point was that this UNPREDICTED plateaung is proof that the climate modeling is NOT based on well-understood science of natural causes, known and unknown and therefore has been ignored by AGW advocates. SO it confounded their predictions, causing some of them to wish to hide the plateauing. But what you appear to be hearing is that I am ignoring the obviously non-CO2 based causes of that recent plateauing ( even though I brought it up) and the fact that it was NOT predicted or that they tried to hide it is proof to your way of thinking that the science is well undertood!! The parrot is indeed merely resting!!! This to me makes absolutely no sense.

Don't try to obfuscate the issue. I was not referring to what you believed, but what you inferred that the main body of climatology believe.

To clarify my last statement: The problem is that most 'skeptics' (your term) conveniently ignore what we know about natural variations. , we refers to our current knowledge base of climate science. I was making the point that you are trying to simplify the matter by implying that nobody can predict what these natural variations will be and that the prediction was useless as a result.

Basically you originally inferred that the IPCC, or climatologists in general (you used the term 'warmists') failed to account for natural variability.  

What anybody actually believes is immaterial anyway. It's more about what can be observed and tested.

If you read every single IPCC report since AR1, natural variation has been accounted for pretty comprehensively. Perhaps there was more uncertainty in the first two reports. IPCC WG1 reports have chapters entitled: 7: Observed Climate Variations and Change (1990); 3: Observed Climate Variability and Change (1996); 2: Observed Climate Variability and Change (2001); 6: Paleoclimate (2007).

Nothing much came as a surprise, except pehaps the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991, and that only had a short-term effect on global temperatures.

In fact the cooler temperatures in 2008 were predicted over a year before that. The natural variation is of such a short duration (about 10 years)  that it doesn't affect the validity of the prediction of an underlying warming effect. Climatology is not about short term trends (10 years). The minimum baseline considered by the IPCC reports is 25 years (from memory) Short term noise is irrelevant because it doesn't add to the long term trend in any way. It makes the road bumpy, but it's still climbing up the mountain as predicted.

Besides that, almost every current generation climate model makes allowances for these short-duration influences nowadays anyway.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 4:01pm:

Don't try to obfuscate the issue. ... Nothing much came as a surprise, except pehaps the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991, and that only had a short-term effect on global temperatures.

Old Flannery, author of The Weather Makers (!)) sounded pretty surprised for a guy who is not surprised. So was Monbiot. So were the guys who tried to hide the plateau/cooling at Hadley.

Monbiot is a journalist - It's his job to be surprised. The quote from Tim Flannery was interesting, but I think they were off the cuff remarks, or possibly taken out of context.

People are entitled to say what they like. It's what is testable and verifiable that counts in the end.

That's where your opinion that there is no link between atmospheric CO2 and global warming comes in. It's an opinion. It's not backed up by any evidence, and in fact is contradicted by literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers.

If you can find a paper that argues that atmospheric CO2 does not cause warming, I'd be very surprised.

Your opinion lies with the fringe dwellers. Even Richard Lindzen agrees that CO2 causes warming.  

muso wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 9:18am:

Monbiot is a journalist - It's his job to be surprised. The quote from Tim Flannery was interesting, but I think they were off the cuff remarks, or possibly taken out of context. People are entitled to say what they like. It's what is testable and verifiable that counts in the end. That's where your opinion that there is no link between atmospheric CO2 and global warming comes in. It's an opinion. It's not backed up by any evidence, and in fact is contradicted by literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers. If you can find a paper that argues that atmospheric CO2 does not cause warming, I'd be very surprised. Your opinion lies with the fringe dwellers. Even Richard Lindzen agrees that CO2 causes warming.

Muso,
yours is a dodgy post.

Atmospheric CO2, being a greenhouse gas, obviously has a connection to temperature. Greenhouse gases, including CO2, are among the causes of the Earth's temperature. But being among the causes does not mean being the cause.


What is disputed is that whatever climate change is occuring now, it is down to human CO2 and that therefore controlling human CO2 will reverse it. What is disputed is the singular significance warmerists attribute to human CO2 and their insistence that by controlling human CO2 now we would be able to control the Earth's temperature.

ANd what is also very strongly disputed and resisted is the religious zeal with which AGW is promoted; the dodgy models that produce a confirmation of the hypothesis of human CO2 primacy in temperature variations, the inexcusable falsification of data, the hiding or denying of access to data, the destruction of unfavourable data, the manipilation of the peer review process and the like.

If advocates of AGW were REALLY scientific, they would be at the forefront of testing and retesting of their thesis from every angle, not protecting it by manipulating data to avoid its testing. They would be attacking its weakest elements to see if it stands up to serious scrutiny. As scientists, they would be in search for all the ugly facts that may slay their theory, however beautiful that theory may be.

But instead they are protecting it as if it was a political principle. In every way they are acting not as scientists but as political partisans in a fight over power and political influence (and thus money).

The basis of the argument is physics.

The temperature record is not the main argument. It merely serves as a confirmation.

Your claim that the data was manipulated is a total fabrication.

It has been explained in a previous post. The data that was ignored was data that the author of a proxy tree ring study said should be ignored. It was a question of ignoring suspect data. Apart from that, it wasn't even being used for an IPCC report.

There is no question of raw Hadcrut data being manipulated. Nobody is actually saying that.

Hadley is separate to the CRU, and and we've discussed before, it's only one dataset, and not a very good one at that because it has incomplete coverage of polar latitudes - hardly data that was central to IPCC reporting.

Your post was decidedly dodgy because it hints of impropriety without providing any details.  

The data supporting AGW has been manipulated: models were used that would come up with the same answer no matter what data you put in. Original, pre-adjsuted data has been destroyed. Other data has been withheld. Peer-review principles have been arrogantly undermined. Clever tricks have been used.

The credibility of catastrophic AGW advocates is going down while scepticism is growing. Are going to say, like Comical Abu re 'islamophobia', that it's just one big conspiracy by the dark forces?

The CRU hacking stunt was a carefully orchestrated lie. Nothing more.

Don't get all excited there Soren. You're losing your rational approach and coming up with totally baseless accusations.

It's obviously timed to coincide with Copenhagen of course. Basically if somebody  hacked into you email, I'm sure they could come up with all sorts of distortions. Things that you were not really saying.

Once again - the data was not raw climate data. It related to proxy studies, and the data that was ignored was suspect. That's why it was ignored. No IPCC reports were influenced by any alleged misconduct.

What data was 'destroyed'? - none.


It's a storm in a teacup.

muso wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 9:12pm:

What data was 'destroyed'? - none. It's a storm in a teacup.

Well, then Philip Jones has stood aside because of a storm in a teacup and the environment correspondent for The Times and many others don't know what they are talking about.
We had a hockey stick fiasco. That was no mere storm in a teacup. Flannery is fumoxed. Gore is a fraud. The EST is dead. The emails look really bad.
And all this just by some non-institutional snooping and arguing and questioning. On the other side, AGW has a whole intergovernmental panel, funded by every government. If the 'science' is so clear and settled and past dispute, why is it so easily rattled? Why is it still so unconvincing? I'll tell you.

This particular pudding, AGW, has been zealously and spectacularly over-egged by scientific curate's eggs. The relentless  'day after tomorrow' scenarios have been crazy and they are finally seen for what they are - propaganda.

Just in:
“There are enough technologies in existence to allow for mitigation,” he said. “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases out of the atmosphere.”

Speaking days before the start of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Dr Pachauri, who collected the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC with Al Gore, said that such a strategy needed to be pursued as a matter of urgency.



Nuf said.

Dr Pachauri, Head of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC, eh?  


Steyn nails him:


Come Fry with Me
[Mark Steyn]

In order to save the planet from global roasting, it seems entirely reasonable to ask Mr. and Mrs. Joe Peasant to subordinate their freedom of movement to an annual "carbon allowance" preventing them flying hither and yon and devastating the environment. As Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explains:

"Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer."

Rajendra Pachauri? Hey, if you're manning the VIP lounge at Heathrow, that name may ring a bell:

Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles.

Wow. 443,243 miles. How many flying polar bears does Dr. Pachauri kill in an average quarter? Well, not to worry, he probably offsets his record-breaking ursocide with carbon credits from carbon billionaire Al Gore.

And in any case it's okay to devastate the planet on IPCC business — plus the occasional cricket match:

So strong is his love for cricket that his colleagues recall the time the Nobel winner took a break during a seminar in New York and flew in to Delhi over the weekend to attend a practice session for a match before flying back. Again, he flew in for a day, just to play that match.

And why not? Aside from a slight increase in the risk of polar bears dropping from the skies onto stray Indian bowlers and wicket-keepers, where's the harm?

P.S. I like the headline on Dr. Pachauri's climate'n'cricket story: "Heat On Cricket Pitch Warms This Climate Change Laureate." If you're waiting for some journalist to ask him about the contradictions between his lifestyle and the one he wants the rest of us to submit to, that sound you hear is cricketers chirping.

Soren wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 9:57pm:

Dr Pachauri, Head of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC, eh?

LOL Sounds a bit desperate - like bottom of the barrel stuff. What do you expect him to do, swim? Besides, like myself, I'd say he offsets his air miles. It's not that expensive to do. (boring)

I guess if you can't argue against the science, you have to attack the people involved. It's one continuous ad hominem.

I don't care if it's the Queen of England. An opinion is just an opinion. It requires to be tested before it can be anything else.

Opinions are like @ssholes- everybody has one - they're all different, and they all stink to everybody except their respective owners.  

Now where's that paper you were going to produce that says that increased CO2 does not cause warming?

Did you lose it, along with the other paper that says that the Sun orbits the Earth?

These people are looking for new recruits:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

Maybe name dropping will impress them. You should try your routine on them.

Soren wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 9:50pm:

The EST is dead.

It's only resting

Leading denialists start new political party, join up, and hang out with the beautiful people, and intellectual elite.

---

muso wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 5:54pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 2nd, 2009 at 9:50pm: The EST is dead. It's only resting

Long may it rest, in peace.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 6:19pm:

Leading denialists start new political party, join up, and hang out with the beautiful people, and intellectual elite.

Muso, Mozz,
Glad that we are still giggling (just).

muso wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 5:42pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 2nd, 2009 at 9:57pm: Dr Pachauri, Head of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC, eh?   LOL Sounds a bit desperate - like bottom of the barrel stuff. What do you expect him to do, swim? Besides, like myself, I'd say he offsets his air miles. It's not that expensive to do. (boring) I guess if you can't argue against the science, you have to attack the people involved. It's one continuous ad hominem. I don't care if it's the Queen of England. An opinion is just an opinion. It requires to be tested before it can be anything else. Opinions are like @ssholes- everybody has one - they're all different, and they all stink to everybody except their respective owners.   Now where's that paper you were going to produce that says that increased CO2 does not cause warming? Did you lose it, along with the other paper that says that the Sun orbits the Earth? These people are looking for new recruits: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm Maybe name dropping will impress them. You should try your routine on them.

Hahaha, tres amusant

funny Indian fella, offsets his carbon thingy, hahaha, flat earth, hahaha, bottom (!) of barrel, hahaha, arseh@les (uhh, naughty) hahaha.




Muso,
I perceive a bit of a sh!t eating grin coming on in the distace when I read such posts.


The pertinent isuue is ignored:

Quote:

We had a hockey stick fiasco. That was no mere storm in a teacup. Flannery is fumoxed. Gore is a fraud. The EST is dead. The emails look really bad. And all this just by some non-institutional snooping and arguing and questioning. On the other side, AGW has a whole intergovernmental panel, funded by every government. If the 'science' is so clear and settled and past dispute, why is it so easily rattled? Why is it still so unconvincing? I'll tell you. This particular pudding, AGW, has been zealously and spectacularly over-egged by scientific curate's eggs. The relentless  'day after tomorrow' scenarios have been crazy and they are finally seen for what they are - propaganda.

To me, the zealous agit-prop is the dead give away.

If AGW is true, it will prevail. All it would need is stating in the light of reason. Boosting it by agit-prop - when the scientific integrity is blown away - is just not going to be enough.

Scientists have been suspect for some time, in different contexts. Calling on their authority is no longer enough.

And that is exclusively the scientists' fault, I hasten to add.i

muso wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2009 at 5:42pm:

Now where's that paper you were going to produce that says that increased CO2 does not cause warming? Did you lose it, along with the other paper that says that the Sun orbits the Earth?

You are a very careless reader, Muso. It's all starting to blur for you, I suspect.


I promised no such paper because I did not need to. I have asked repeatedly for a demonstration of a causal link and have said that you will not be able to demonstrate one because it does not exist. This means that your hypothesis - that a causal link exists - is unprovable. Too many known unknowns and who knows how many unknown unknowns.


(Do you feel the same frisson as me, recalling the Bush era? I miss him, don't you? Things were sooo much more black and white back then? Now everything is the same in-between African-American, so to speak)

You asked for a causal link:


Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around [tex]\sigma T^4[/tex] (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al, 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however, the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.

Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions

CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated

Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.

These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the ‘wings’ (see this post for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.

There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept. One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non-negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower, therefore reacts more proportionately to the ‘adjusted’ forcing and this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing. The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution of forcing agents, different feedbacks and processes might come into play and thus an equivalent forcing from two different sources might not give the same response. The factor that quantifies this effect is called the ‘efficacy’ of the forcing, which for the most part is reasonably close to one, and so doesn’t change the zeroth-order picture (Hansen et al, 2005). This means that climate forcings can be simply added to approximate the net effect.

The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2, and the net forcing (including cooling impacts of aerosols and natural changes) is 1.6±1.0 W/m2 since the pre-industrial. Most of the uncertainty is related to aerosol effects. Current growth in forcings is dominated by increasing CO2, with potentially a small role for decreases in reflective aerosols (sulphates, particularly in the US and EU) and increases in absorbing aerosols (like soot, particularly from India and China and from biomass burning).

Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ’slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC.

Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2).

Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number

Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.

Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.

Q.E.D.?

(By Gavin A Schmidt, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who explains it more succinctly than I did)

Good work Muso, you have provided an extensive scientific answer to what causal link is there between man made co2, and global warming, but while the judges confer to decide if they will allow a position based purely on scientific evidence, and cold hard facts, to stand, we will continue with;

"Who Wants To Be A Denial Lair?"

Now get ready for the next question;
We have seen a furore over the stolen emails, but can you tell me, when was the last Denialist Schill, caught telling the truth??

a) 1997
b)1998
c)1999
d)none of the above

You chose D, and you are corrrrrreeccctttt, it was in fact a trick question, because NO, denialist schills have ever been caught telling the truth.

Now we have the next question in two parts, and you will need to supply both parts for the answer to be accepted,
The Arctic has always been melting, and having bits fall off it, but name the vessel that bumped into one of those bits and sank in 1912, and if you get that right, you will get the next part of the question, and remember, only a full answer is acceptable.

"The Titanic"?

Keeeerreeccttt, and now for the second part,
provide a scientific argument proving the causal link between the boat sinking, and the 1,517 souls lost that day.

"There is none, they did not perish, they were merely resting."

Keeeereeccttt, you are a denial lair.

Muso, I have read the six easy steps to AGW by CO2 but I find it unconvincing as an explanation of global warming.


CO2 is one of the trace elements. Its estimated effect at double the current saturation is treated in isolation. Much larger forces are barely touched upon, their effects and interactions are not presented. This is the gospel for the believers. Points 1-3 are pretty straightforward. It gets a bit wobbly at 4 and by 5-6 it has enough assumption to be treated as a hypothesis rather than an explanation of a causal link.


Good try but sorry, no cigar.

Here's an interesting exchange. First is a downplaying attempt regarding the 'Climategate' scandal and the second is a response on the Boston.com green blog:

Harvard professor weighs in on climategate
E-mail|Link|Comments (66) Posted by bdaley December 2, 2009 06:12 PM ]

James McCarthy, a respected Harvard professor who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists do not undermine the evidence for manmade global warming.

McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The letter reads "The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”

The reply:

I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that "human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming" is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.

Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England). Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is "allowed" to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a "runaway greenhouse" in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen's runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly. As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why "hide the decline"?) are ignored or hidden. As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their "Copenhagen Diagnosis"); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered. We have long known that Jones's paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn's plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).

Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by "peer review" is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.
We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science "settled", refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional "overwhelming evidence" continues this anti-science activity.

All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word "trick". Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only "value added" data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).

But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it. If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, "peer review" was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?

The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the "global warming believers" to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will. Contrary to Prof. McCarthy's assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.

But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no "consensus" exists. The "2500 scientists agree" number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).

The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.
Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains "overwhelming support" for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

By an "ANONYMOUS"??????? climate scientist PJ?

You would think if he had the bravado to try and defend the ridiculous lies, he would have attached his name, and citations to the studies which corroborate his points, which just coincidentally fall into the zombie lie/denialist fanboy favourites category.

It is just more total PR denialist garbage, fair dinkum, you guys just flat out refuse to ever read any facts, and jusat believe any idiot denial blogger.

What next, a TV campaign with a shot of the back of someone's head with;
"this man is a climate scientist, we can't show his face, but he uses total bulldust to impress cretins, and only ever accepts disproven lies as the basis for all his opinions, but he just knows this must be a big cconspiracy to keep real scientists like him in the dark, because he has not had a single paper published, which could not be because he is a smacking great ninny, so it must be a conspiracy to silence him"

At least you do not have to use your brains to be a denialist, you do not even need a good memory, you repeat the same lies so often, you must know them all by heart.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 5^th, 2009 at 10:48pm:

By an "ANONYMOUS"??????? climate scientist PJ? You would think if he had the bravado to try and defend the ridiculous lies, he would have attached his name, and citations to the studies which corroborate his points, which just coincidentally fall into the zombie lie/denialist fanboy favourites category. It is just more total PR denialist garbage, fair dinkum, you guys just flat out refuse to ever read any facts, and jusat believe any idiot denial blogger. What next, a TV campaign with a shot of the back of someone's head with; "this man is a climate scientist, we can't show his face, but he uses total bulldust to impress cretins, and only ever accepts disproven lies as the basis for all his opinions, but he just knows this must be a big cconspiracy to keep real scientists like him in the dark, because he has not had a single paper published, which could not be because he is a smacking great ninny, so it must be a conspiracy to silence him" At least you do not have to use your brains to be a denialist, you do not even need a good memory, you repeat the same lies so often, you must know them all by heart.

Have another look - he does cite papers. Anonymous? Well it's a chat room like this one. I don't see you or Muso putting your names up here.

PS  - what is your opinion of the hacked emails? It would seem to be a raving scandal to me. Hasn't the head of the East Anglia's CRU research centre stood down over it? Isn't the UK met office going to start over again with a review of climate data?  

pjb05 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 1:39pm:

Anonymous? Well it's a chat room like this one. I don't see you or Muso putting your names up here.

Excellent point. Impeccable democratic credentials.

Peer reviewed by this chatroom, you may want to say...

pjb05 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2009 at 1:39pm:

Have another look - he does cite papers. Anonymous? Well it's a chat room like this one. I don't see you or Muso putting your names up here. PS  - what is your opinion of the hacked emails? It would seem to be a raving scandal to me. Hasn't the head of the East Anglia's CRU research centre stood down over it? Isn't the UK met office going to start over again with a review of climate data?

Sorry, I finally lost my luck at avoiding Swine Flu, but I'm back on board briefly. There was a report on the Science Show about this. It's worth listening to that.

The main issue is access to raw data, and the 'bunker mentality' that the scientists have against denialists.

The science is so settled on this issue of global warming that it isn't funny, but what we have is well organised groups of people who launch personal attacks on scientists who are basically trying to do their jobs.

The natural reaction is to avoid giving them anything that could be used against them. They regard it as a war and denialists as the enemy.

How would you feel if a 2 year portion of your personal email was published on the net?  I know I would be horrified. Given that kind of data, it's very easy to twist what is said and discredit somebody that way.
 
Regardless of all that, they have been told to be more transparent, so there will be changes in the way they make the data public.

NASA is already fairly transparent. CSIRO is most definitely not (LOL)
and the Brits have always been pretty opaque.

There is another issue with the raw data. It's commercial in confidence. They get the data from the Met Office (Hadley Centre) and that is totally separate to the CRU. THey have been instructed by the Met Office that the data is available only if they don't share it.

I understand that the data is available for purchase, exactly the same as with the BoM in Australia.  

It's worth listening to the article on the Science Show.

PJB - I had a bad experience when I did not maintain my anonymity online, including death threats to my family, so I would prefer to remain anonymous. It shook me around quite a bit actually, but that's another story.

Soren wrote on Dec 5^th, 2009 at 11:34am:

Muso, I have read the six easy steps to AGW by CO2 but I find it unconvincing as an explanation of global warming. CO2 is one of the trace elements. Its estimated effect at double the current saturation is treated in isolation. Much larger forces are barely touched upon, their effects and interactions are not presented. This is the gospel for the believers. Points 1-3 are pretty straightforward. It gets a bit wobbly at 4 and by 5-6 it has enough assumption to be treated as a hypothesis rather than an explanation of a causal link. Good try but sorry, no cigar.

It's very difficult to explain this with so much disinformation out there.

Didn't you read my slightly allegorical post about trace materials ? (The cyanide one)

What are the much larger forces you're alluding to?

What do you mean by "double the current saturation'? The statement doesn't make any sense. Do you mean double the current concentration?

CO2 is not treated in isolation. In the current thinking, it's treated with other well-mixed greenhouse gases. The radiative forcing contribution is quite complex. There was a recent paper in Nature. I'll try to find the reference.

Even if it were,  there is very little change to the overall greenhouse gas effect but the mixed gas approach has produced subtle changes to the results.

You can still use the simplest, earliest models to show that warming occurs. All we have added since then have been refinements, and there will be more refinements which will increase the overall effect.

There are some things we just don't know enough about, such as tipping points - the clathrate bomb, release of methane from thawing permafrost etc, but they will certainly add to the problem and not detract from it.  

From an energy input perspective alone, it's obvious that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases heat retention. It's obvious that increasing temperatures results in higher average water vapour concentrations.

muso wrote on Dec 7^th, 2009 at 8:45am:

What are the much larger forces you're alluding to?

The important point is that these are complex phenomena that depend on the confluence of many factors, of which global warming is generally not the most important. Consider the following scenario: Person A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell, and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C, who was carrying a carton of eggs that dropped and broke. Would any rational person conclude that the best way to prevent this would be to prohibit kicking dirt? Yet this is precisely the “logic” that will dominate Copenhagen.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article6933589.ece

Warning! Scenario (or 'model', if you prefer) is by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The analogy doesn't have any bearing on anthropogenic Global Warming.  

It's a physical property of CO2 that causes it to trap heat. We can determine how much it is going to do this by some very basic physics, and we can account for the natural variations.

It's true that a number of climatologists were not happy with the accuracy of the models after 2007, but they have been refined further as a result. Do you think that any refinements have resulted in more moderate predictions? The answer is no.  

What the likes of Trenbarth et al were talking about at the time was the fact that we couldn't accurately predict certain tipping points and some of the effects of reduced albedo due to melting ice.

These effects will certainly not make the predictions better - they will make them much worse.

The argument today is not about whether it will happen, but about how serious the warming effects will be.

There are indeed some highly complex factors at play, and we know that if we set off some of these tipping points, it could easily double the temperature rise predicted by the 2007 report for the end of the century.  

We're seeing some effects beteen last year's La Nina and this year's predominantly El Nino conditions in certain crops.

I bought some grapes last year from a local grower. They were black muscats and were plump and juicy. The change this year had not been all that drastic in terms of absolute temperature change, but I bought some grapes last week and the were very sad by comparison.

The rainfall has been about the same but the temperature was higher.  What I'm not saying is that this dramatic reduction in yield was due to the longterm trend in global warming. What I am saying is that a minor temperature difference can make an incredible difference, and we can expect to see a systematic rise in temperature over the next few decades which will have some very detrimental effects on crop yields.

If the current trend continues, the productivity will be further reduced even in years that are cooler compared to the previous one.


Richard Lindzen is a professional denialist, not only for the energy companies, but for the tobacco industry. His "iris theory" was discredited back in the 80's and he has had a major chip on his shoulder since that time.

muso wrote on Dec 8^th, 2009 at 2:29pm:

It's true that a number of climatologists were not happy with the accuracy of the models after 2007, but they have been refined further as a result. Do you think that any refinements have resulted in more moderate predictions? The answer is no.

Deliver us from data refiners.
Smoking gun at Darwin Zero

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

the gist:
Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.

Another odd fact, the GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 (which covers much of the same period, and as per Fig. 5 is in excellent agreement with Station Zero and Station 1) totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them.

That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it “hides the decline”.




Muso, climate research done to prove AGW, predicting catastrophy and apocalypse is shot. Not just by this but by all the other shenaningas, intemperate jostling and overshouting and leninist sloganeering.

You have to apply correction to some temperature data to correct for such things as Urban Heat Island. It stands to reason.

Watts already went through a similar exercise with US based Weather Stations.

Watch the video and make up your own mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 7:15pm:

You have to apply correction to some temperature data to correct for such things as Urban Heat Island. It stands to reason. Watts already went through a similar exercise with US based Weather Stations. Watch the video and make up your own mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

A greenman clip! I'm impressed.

Muso, you need to look at the data manipulation and the consequent changes in the graphs. Watts explains why he finds the exercise suspect. We know who Watts is. We know what he is saying. We have the data evidence for what he is saying.
A droning greenman on youtube is just one more question mark, not the refutation you think it should be.


As I said before, it is up to AGW alarmists to present a watertight case in view of the extraordinary demands they make on all of us. A sceptic needs to show only that the warmerists are not as convincing as they pretend to be. The whole denialist/alarmist debate is about your credibility.
Now a kid can yell out "THE WARMERSIST EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES' and nobody will ask if that assertion has been through peer review. If anything, it is more credible for not being peer reviewed.

It is now established that warmerists simply should not be and cannot be taken at their word. This means that the debate starts now. All your assumptions, all your prediction all your coulda-beens are subject to hostile scrutiny.

You can still turn out to be right but the level of proof required is now way up from the Gore Nobel Prize days.  This is the big news now, that's where the debate is now - you need to go beyond the scary stories about the wolf.

China, with a trillion dollar surplus stuck in its socks is pleading for aid as a deserving poor developing country. How did we get to this? Because of the nonsense that has been peddled by the Goristas. And I am afraid you are one of them.