Why the Greens are Bluffing on Manmade Global Warming
Time to call the enviro-commies’ bluff. I’m going all in on a monster.
The manmade climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does.
But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions.
- How much does man contribute to the greenhouse effect?
- If the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset any rising temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions?
- Fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?
Let’s lay out the facts first. Then we’ll carve the watermelon.
1. According to figures taken from the Department of Energy, the following shows man’s contribution to global greenhouse gases.
- Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring.
- Carbon dioxide contributes 3.618% to the greenhouse effect.
- Man contributes about 3.207% to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- Man thus contributes .28% to the greenhouse effect. Put in terms of a ratio, man contributes 1/357.14 to the greenhouse effect.
This scientifically verifiable answer should be interpreted to mean that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, which is not even the only factor in global warming. Solar fluctuations also play a role.
2. But, if man should shrug off these facts and decide to stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, what effect would it have?
- In raw terms, man contributes yearly about 2 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
- There is currently about 380ppm total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- According to scientific projections, man could stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, including by going into extinction, and this would drop global temperatures by .1 degree Celsius.
- In fifty years.
3. Finally, if man should decide to go ahead anyway and do everything short of complete extinction to prevent climate cataclysm, what effect would it have? This answer is a bit more prosaic.
Civilization rose along with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is self-defeating.
Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world would not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century? Wouldn’t our actions taken in the name of climate justice have been self-defeating?
A closing question. Should the sheer fact that man contributes in some miniscule fashion to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of human life? Is such control justified by some vague appeal to a “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat would this be the case, and neither tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
So you green grifters thought you were going to be ushered into power on the BIG LIE that man is responsible for catastrophic climate change? Think again. Hundreds of millions of people are catching on to the environmentalist myths, and the truth-sayers are gaining ground on the professional liars every day.
Hell hounds on your trail, boys. Hell hounds on your trail.
Hate facts. Snark. Just a splash of derision.
Rogue Government 
Great reasoning!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Superb!
Superb Reasoning! Well, sort of. Your analysis does miss a few things, but something tells me that, like most serious Objectivists, you like to rigidly control the information you’re exposed to. That way you don’t have to accept responsibility for anything that might cause a flat tire on the power trip. Shall we agree not to wax all emotional about this? If there’s one thing I can’t stand from a self-professed Objectivist, it’s irrationality.
1. What is the current ppm of atmospheric CO2? 393.69
2. What was the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1960? 318
3. If the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is as tiny as you claim, how did atmospheric CO2 increase by over 20% in 50 years and 40% in 150 years? Natural variation? No. CO2 does not fluctuate that rapidly through any natural cause. Indeed, atmospheric carbon hasn’t been this high in at least 600,000 years. You fail to take into account the carbon cycle.
4. What effect does this have on temperature. Your source doesn’t mention temperature, nor does it mention the physics of radiative transfer. Consider this model validation study. The study compared actual infrared radiation emitted by the atmosphere at various frequencies against what several climate models predicted. Turns out the models needed adjustments, but that’s beside the point. Look at table 4, page 908. Note the far right-hand column: measured flux. That’s the actual observed amount of energy emitted by the atmosphere on that day in that place at the frequencies absorbed/emitted by various GHGs, including water vapor. The insignificant gas CO2 accounted for 5.3% of the overall downwelling IR. Note that this is somewhat of a cherry-pick, since this particular observation was done in mid-winter with presumably low atmospheric water vapor. The claim has never been, though, that CO2 accounts for more downwelling IR than H20.
5. Which brings me to water vapor. Can global average atmospheric water vapor trend up or down of its own accord and thus account for the observed warming? No. Water vapor has a relatively short residence time. Water cycles through the atmosphere rather rapidly. Atmospheric concentrations of H20 stay steady without anything to force more evaporation or uptake. H20 is a feedback source, and a powerful one. What could cause increased evaporation? More insolation, perhaps? Sure, but the hottest recorded global decade occurred during a solar minimum (with the possibility of an underlying grand minimum). Orbital changes, then? Sure, but the long-term orbital forcing currently has us headed toward the next ice age. Despite these two negative conditions, the temperature continues to rise, and the measured rise does not take into account polar temps (in the Arctic, sea ice is melting more rapidly than IPCC models predicted).
6. Your referenced website also fails to address observational data. How would you explain, for example, rapid loss of Arctic sea ice? Hoaxed data? The website you cite uses Robert Grumbine as a source. Here’s what Grumbine has to say about AGW hoax theories. Perhaps natural variation? Ok, give me the mechanism.
You claim to be Objectivist, but you reject science–the most effective mode of inquiry for assessing probabilities. Surely an Objectivist would be interested in objectively assessing probabilities. You surely didn’t perform the necessary science yourself, so you must be trusting someone else for your opinion–someone who just performs a few back-of-the-envelope statistical moves. Would you ever trust such a person in an actual contractual situation? Why give up that level of control over your individual self-determination? Or is it a “well, i have to trust someone, so I might as well pick the one that supports my current philosophy” situation? That would be irrational. Then again, we see that even the great Ayn Rand became irrational when she tried to maintain her illusions against a real world that wasn’t operating as she commanded.
Hey, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but it won’t be because I tried to fit the data to my foregone conclusions. I know several Stalinists who like to make arguments nearly identical to those you’ve made. This is not about left-liberal-right-conservative-objective-middle. It’s about thinking critically, not making baseless assumptions, and not trusting individuals implicitly. Three scientists can have a shared specific agenda, but not ten thousand.
See my environmentalist posts for links to lies about MMGW. You make a number of flat assertions without backing it up, like most true believers. It is all there in black and white, and I cite sources, and name names. Pretty weak critique. But thanks for your attempt. Sincerely, RO
“Ok, give me the mechanism”
Great so you also know about the mechanism whereby CO2 causes global warming?
I would like to see the peer reviewed published scientific papers that describe and prove that mechanism. Please understand that models are NOT proof, merely hypotheses.
We are all waiting for your references.
btw seeing as how CO2 by your figures, started of at 0.018 % and is now 0.0393% of the atmosphere I would say that was an increase of concentration of : 0.0213% by my arithmetic. Does not seem very much when you use the figures sensibly does it?
Here are some facts about CO2 which you may also find enlightening:-
A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf
Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html
Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)”
Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.
Click to access 10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf
Click to access 10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf
Currently our atmosphere has about 380 ppmv in it.
Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm
Strange behaviour for a pollutant and poisonous gas wouldnt you say?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
What’s the null hypothesis?
It would take me too long to type out my response to the above post, so I will record it in the near future. See how Roger argues? Context, context, context. That is what zooms out a monstrosity and make it look like an amoeba. Cheers, RO
No problem, Roger.
First, though, do I need to link to papers that describe measured incoming solar radiation intensity and spectra, absorption/emission spectra of CO2, vertical profile of atmospheric CO2, and column concentration of CO2? This is everyday stuff that non-climatologist scientists and engineers use for infrared targeting systems, photovoltaic cells, rainforest canopy studies, etc., and there are CO2 measuring stations at several points on the globe, at various heights (all are consistent with one another, though). (plus Carbon Tracker)
Even though it is everyday stuff, it establishes a basic premise: CO2 absorbs/emits at several frequencies (pressure broadened) within the infrared range that the Earth emits as it is heated by incoming solar radiation. To reject this would be to reject well over a hundred years of chemistry and physics (and force John Tyndall to be in on the “hoax.”).
A second basic premise established is that adding CO2 (or any GHG, like H20) to a given volume of atmosphere will cause more absorption and emission. Absorption and emission occurs in all directions. More molecules, more absorption/emission. It then takes energy longer to reach space; the only way energy can exit the Earth is through radiation. The longer the energy stays in the atmosphere, the greater chance it has to do work, like keeping things warmer, melting ice, etc. Atmospheric GHGs add about 33 degrees Kelvin to the atmosphere. Without GHGs, the Earth would be frozen, excepting volcanic hotspots.
Ok, but how much does CO2 contribute to that 33K? This is a question with a dynamic answer. Water vapor is the most powerful GHG. However, it also has a short residence time in the atmosphere. The water vapor cycle is roughly nine days. With such a high rate of turnover, global atmospheric H20 reaches equilibrium fairly quickly. In other words, H20, by itself, cannot cause (subscr. req.) climate (climate range = 30 years) change.
If something else forces increased atmospheric H20, then H20 acts as a feedback. Something else could be increased solar input through solar changes, orbital changes, albedo changes, a change in the concentration of other GHGs. Albedo, though, is like H20. It is a feedback, except as a proxy for continental drift (and that happens far too slowly to describe recent, rapid changes). Direct changes in solar radiation do have an effect on climate, but the current effect is not on the scale of the current warming. The globe just experienced its historically-recorded hottest decade–during a solar minimum. As far as indirect solar effects go, If the orbital change theory is correct, we should be sliding toward the next ice age. (what of this needs a published paper?)
(Note: albedo is actually still part of the equation, in a minor but important way. Recent work on black carbon emissions and SO2 suggest that the albedo-based cooling effects of these pollutants could be statistically significant.)
That leaves only one forcing: other GHGs. Of the other GHGs, CO2 is by far the most powerful. Why is it so powerful? It absorbs/emits at multiple ranges within the spectral range of Earth’s thermal radiation. Importantly, it also shares ranges with H20, so that these frequencies experience a very hard time trying to exit the Earth. You can see this effect in the Puckrin paper, table 4, right-hand column. CO2-only frequencies of downward longwave radiation (DLR) was measured (not modelled) at 30.9 watts per square meter, and H20-only frequencies were 113.5. All CO2 and H20 bands, including shared, totaled 155.4. H20 is the overwhelmingly dominant GHG, but CO2 is overwhelmingly the second most dominant.
(Note: I used Puckrin because it’s not directly from the field of climatology. Puckrin was simply validating models using actual observations.)
Because of the short residence time of H20, CO2 becomes the dominant forcing. In other words, if you dump in some extra H2O, it washes out before it can have much of a radiative effect. CO2 does not wash out very quickly. Determining its residence time is a problem, though, because of the various ways it is “consumed” by the environment. Plants consume it at one rate. The ocean consumes it at another. And then there is the growing problem of what doesn’t get consumed. Ultimately, because of the volumes involved, residence time doesn’t matter so much for CO2. What matters more is how well it becomes dispersed and whether or not the environment can consume what CO2 is in the atmosphere. The life and chemistry of the Earth has adjusted to a fairly steady rate of CO2 for the last several hundred thousands years. It is not prepared to absorb a rapid increase of CO2. Evidence for that is in the long-term rising volume of atmospheric CO2.
What needs a paper at this point? Should we move on to where some actual debate is? Cloud effects? Aerosols? Deep ocean heating?
Most of this is the basic stuff. I don’t really want to cut and paste or repeat Spencer Weart’s narrative of the discovery of all this. I’ll just link to it.
What’s the null hypothesis to what? AGW is a theory, not an hypothesis. There is a very large number of distinct hypotheses upon which the theory is based, starting with the hypothesis that gases absorb and emit at specific frequencies. AGW is the dominant theory because it, far more thoroughly than any other theory, can account for the results of tested hypotheses (including those from physics, chemistry, biology, and climatology) and actual observational data. Present a comprehensive alternative that fits the results and the observations as well or better than AGW, and I’m instantly on board.
If you think by calling something a “theory” rather than a “hypothesis” gives it more credibility, than GFY – good for you.
The comprehensive theory I have is that the earth doesn’t give a crap about our negligible carbon dioxide emissions, and human beings shouldn’t either. Comprehensive enough for you?
Here is a little something we like to call a “counterfactual” in the science that I practice: If the earth was warmer before human beings began producing carbon dioxide, and fluctuations were more rapid, then how do you conclude that humans drive climate variation? Oh, so of course they don’t drive variation…but what is man’s impact on the climate? Quantify it for me and this conversation is over, and you know it.
Furthermore, what about the fact that carbon dioxide lags behind temperature fluctuation (I posted the data graph on a previous post)? Anyway, keep trying to muddy the water with HYPOTHESES on climate microprocesses. The only data you need to see for deducing correlation are: carbon dioxide levels, surface temperatures, and lower tropospheric temperatures. The rest is just confounding the matter. Occham’s razor – the sun is the overriding factor in determining temperature.
I enjoy your sophistry. Take care, RO
DSL,
This is the most honest appraisal of the mechanism I have ever read. Its by Dr Roy Spencer. Have a read of the whole lot yourself. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/dr-roy-spencer-open-to-possibility.html
“Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average…but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.
The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small “poke” is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).
So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists!
Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase.
Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, “we don’t really know”, rather than mislead people with phrases like, “the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2″, and then have the public think that means, “we have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2″.
Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved. ”
Of course what needs to be proven is the complete mechanism of how the so far unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” works. You basically covered what is true in the laboratory, but the world is just a little different from the lab.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Roger, why would CO2 act physically different in the laboratory? And this has not all been done “in the laboratory.” It’s been done in the field. The Puckrin study is just one of hundreds that measure downwelling longwave radiation from atmospheric GHGs. Spencer agrees with this. Spencer has the complete mechanism on his website.
And let’s not throw around the word “proven” too lightly. Science does not prove things. That circus is left to religion. Science determines probability. There are several high-confidence probabilities (Laws) that must be tossed aside if the basic mechanism is false. At the same time, no other theory approaches the level of confidence of AGW. Spencer recognizes this.
Spencer is an interesting case. He has clearly allowed parts of his scientific understanding to be washed out by his religious faith. Does he do the same with his work on the climate? If it is possible to allow ideology to replace scientific inquiry, then it’s certainly worth asking that question in Spencer’s case.
Spencer has also done shoddy work. It would seem slightly hypocritical to attack climatologists for assuming too much while supporting a scientist whose own work has been called into question <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080912091513/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/spencers-folly-3/"repeatedly (the link is to part 3, which contains links to parts 1 and 2).
Finally, the implication of Spencer’s recent book is that no science done by government-funded scientists is to be trusted (himself excluded). Is science done by corporations and foundations, then, the only science that is to be trusted? What is the difference between government-funded science and science funded by any other source? I understand that RO’s website here is dedicated to limited or no government, but it would be irrational indeed to assume that business-funded research is or would be unbiased. If I had to bet on least bias, I’d take government-funded science every time against corporate- or foundation-funded science.
Spencer is attempting to ride the fence. He gets pumps from people who believe what Rush Limbaugh tells them (I believe Limbaugh called Spencer his ‘science advisor’). He gets pumps from backyard scientists. He gets pumps from scientists because he has corrected the problems with his UAH data set after they were pointed out; he apparently has some integrity where that is concerned (though it’s not his baby alone). He gets pumps from Christians because he’s presented what amounts to the “God is in control” argument. He also gets pumps from people trying to keep the GW discussion on a scientific plane, because he’s a middle-man that many use claim as a “dog in the fight.” The problem with all this is that its fraught with contradiction. Spencer’s religion is not compatible with his science, and his views on GW on not consistent with his temp record work. His views on government funded science are not consistent with his own project, and his outside affiliations are definitely not consistent with either his own views or his work. Based on his published statements, I’d have to conclude that he’s a bizarre dude.
As far as uncertainty goes, though, there is only basic scientific unwillingness to say “proven” where the basics are concerned. The critical uncertainties right now are cloud responses (albedo vs. GHE — some studies show a slight negative feedback and others show a slight positive feedback), the Arctic and Antarctic temperature components (how to incorporate them when they’re not robustly measured — though proxy data (observations, GRACE data, sea ice measurement) strongly indicates the Antarctic is warming slightly and the Arctic is warming more rapidly than any other part of the globe), aerosol effects, and future human CO2 output. None of these uncertainties challenge the basic mechanism, and all are taken into account in producing the range of models.
Science is to be trusted. CO2 is a trace gas and represents a minor share of the greenhouse effect. And humans have a minor share of annual greenhouse gas production, CO2 included. And who is to say warming periods are to be decried in the first place? And how much impact could your central planning buddies have even if they wanted to undo human-created infinitesimal warming? Nearly every central planning regime in history, including those that claimed to be “environmentally friendly,” were lying industrial smoke-belching basketcases, like the USSR and China. Thank you, drive through.
RO: “If you think by calling something a “theory” rather than a “hypothesis” gives it more credibility, than GFY – good for you.”
What is the difference between a theory and an hypothesis in the science that you practice? In my understanding, specific hypotheses are tested, and based on the results of these tests a general theory is formed. Theories cannot be tested directly because they involve too many components.
“The comprehensive theory I have is that the earth doesn’t give a crap about our negligible carbon dioxide emissions, and human beings shouldn’t either. Comprehensive enough for you?”
You believe the Earth cares? You’re right, if you’re just using this as a figure of speech. The Earth will just cruise along getting hotter and colder until the sun finishes itself off or until an interstellar train wreck occurs or until the heat death or collapse of the universe. Life, to the extent that its various manifestations can care, will care. Indeed, it already is caring. Humans, in particular, have the potential to care.
“Here is a little something we like to call a “counterfactual” in the science that I practice: If the earth was warmer before human beings began producing carbon dioxide, and fluctuations were more rapid, then how do you conclude that humans drive climate variation? Oh, so of course they don’t drive variation…but what is man’s impact on the climate? Quantify it for me and this conversation is over, and you know it.”
Is this critical thinking? First of all, what do you mean by “fluctuations were more rapid”? Do you mean that the frequency of climate changes was more rapid, or do you mean that the rate of change was more rapid? Second, I never claimed that humans are the only source of climate change. That would be absurd. But it would be just as absurd to say that humans cannot be the cause of the current climate change. In other words, are you saying that the economic and biological activity of seven billion humans can’t alter the climate? There are thousands of studies that indicate that humans have done just so on both local and global levels. Your answer to your own question (“quantify it”) is a cheat; it’s zero for you. Yet I can marshal evidence against zero, and that would put you in the same position as me: trying to give a precise numerical product for a massively complex set of interactions.
“Furthermore, what about the fact that carbon dioxide lags behind temperature fluctuation (I posted the data graph on a previous post)? Anyway, keep trying to muddy the water with HYPOTHESES on climate microprocesses. The only data you need to see for deducing correlation are: carbon dioxide levels, surface temperatures, and lower tropospheric temperatures. The rest is just confounding the matter. Occham’s razor – the sun is the overriding factor in determining temperature.”
No doubt, CO2 has historically lagged temperature. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that CO2 can not be a forcing and/or that CO2 is not also a feedback? No. The established idea that CO2 historically lags temperature must also be read within the also established idea that humans weren’t pumping massive quantities of stored carbon into the atmosphere at those times. In other words, current conditions are not equal to those historical conditions. Relatively sudden dumps of GHGs into the atmosphere do not occur by themselves. It takes a forcing.
As I’ve said in earlier posts, over the span of climate (30 years) CO2 levels are rising, surface temps are rising, lower troposphere temps are rising. The sun is the overwhelming force, but without GHGs, we’d be frozen. Indeed, without the nudge that CO2 gives, we’d have snowball Earth. H2O’s residence time is nine days. Without the longer residence time of CO2, most of the water vapor (that most powerful GHG) would exit the atmosphere within a month, and it would be very cold.
DSL,
It is easy to attack the person, especially when he is not part of this forum to defend himself.
Of course he is also not alone in his work.
The reason why I refer to Spencer is that he presents a level headed logic. He points out inconsistancies and areas where there is no answer and points out how the IPCC and others gloss over these things.
Of course the laboratory is no substitute for empirical data on causation gathered in the real world. Once again Spencer stated absolutely correctly that the CO2 effect is very small and atmospheric temperatures depend on H2O(clouds). Therefore the question is whether the relationship between CO2 heat absorbtion and the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is a positive or negative one.
This is what I mean by empirical research for causation.
If you had taken the time to read the link properly without rejecting it out of hand you would have seen this phrase: “Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.”
This is exactly what we are doing, we are demanding answers to unanswered questions as well as explanations of facts which contradict the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming hypothesis”.
You yourself would do well to use some authority to backup your many assertions. Even if you are a top academic on the subject of AGW I would expect you to quote your sources..
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Roger, pardon me. Here’s a list of sources for each of the claims I made in my last post:
> “There are several high-confidence probabilities (Laws) that must be tossed aside if the basic mechanism is false.” This needs no source. The mechanism is based on the laws that govern radiative transfer. However, if you want the nuts and bolts, this website hashes them out. Don’t be taken by the website title; the operator is a fairly patient and apolitical poster.
> “At the same time, no other theory approaches the level of confidence of AGW. Spencer recognizes this.” No source here because there is no other theory. You can go to Spencer’s website to see that he accepts the basic mechanism. He just doesn’t accept the level of warming that most climatologists do.
> “Finally, the implication of Spencer’s recent book is that no science done by government-funded scientists is to be trusted (himself excluded).” For this, let’s look at what Spencer says in his book: “I find it difficult to believe that I am the first researcher to figure out what I describe in this book. Either I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it. That is a serious charge, I know, but it is a conclusion that is difficult for me to avoid.” (p. xxvii) Except that it’s not just climate scientists. Every major scientific organization has come out publicly in acceptance of the theory of AGW.
> The rest of that post is thought that follows through, excepting the last paragraph describing uncertainties. If you want sources for that, go to places where actual climate scientists are discussing the issues.
Now for the next post:
> On theory and hypothesis, there are hundreds of sites that explain the difference. Here’s one.
> “The Earth will just cruise along getting hotter and colder until the sun finishes itself off or until an interstellar train wreck occurs or until the heat death or collapse of the universe. Life, to the extent that its various manifestations can care, will care. Indeed, it already is caring. Humans, in particular, have the potential to care.” Do I really need sources for these theory-based probabilities?
> On the idea that humans can effect climate change, go here. The study described is the result of scientific activity from a broad range of disciplines. Now that I’ve given evidence, perhaps RO can now answer his own question.
> “No doubt, CO2 has historically lagged temperature. What does that mean, though?”
> “Does it mean that CO2 can not be a forcing and/or that CO2 is not also a feedback? No.” The physics of radiative transfer with regards to CO2 have already been dealt with–and with links–in other comments by me. The physical qualities don’t stop just because the temperature bumps up. In other words, when orbital forcing and solar peaks increase temperature, CO2 keeps on doing its thing. More on this, though, in the link above.
> “The established idea that CO2 historically lags temperature must also be read within the also established idea that humans weren’t pumping massive quantities of stored carbon into the atmosphere at those times. In other words, current conditions are not equal to those historical conditions.” Do you really need a source here?
> “Relatively sudden dumps of GHGs into the atmosphere do not occur by themselves. It takes a forcing.” There’s no evidence that this has ever occurred. Look at the entire geologic record for yourself.
> “over the span of climate (30 years)”
> “CO2 levels are rising”
> “surface temps are rising. Lower troposphere temps are rising”
> (oh, stratospheric temps are dropping, btw — as predicted)
> “The sun is the overwhelming force” Need a source? Look up at noon.
> “but without GHGs, we’d be frozen. Indeed, without the nudge that CO2 gives, we’d have snowball Earth. H2O’s residence time is nine days. Without the longer residence time of CO2, most of the water vapor (that most powerful GHG) would exit the atmosphere within a month, and it would be very cold.” Even though this logically follows from the physics of water vapor, here’s a source.
Roger, I’m attacking Spencer the person only to the extent that his person is a source of opinion for those who can’t or refuse to do the math. It is well-established that religion and science have an uneasy relationship. If a person believes that a theory–an understanding of the world–puts that person’s soul in jeopardy, that person will be disinclined to follow up on the theory. Darwin is a rather famous exception, but he still tried to reconcile the two.
Spencer never offers us the possibility that he himself is wrong, even though his fellow scientists repeatedly found errors in his work (see the sources above).
You say, “He points out inconsistancies and areas where there is no answer and points out how the IPCC and others gloss over these things.” Give me evidence for these claims.
“Of course the laboratory is no substitute for empirical data on causation gathered in the real world. Once again Spencer stated absolutely correctly that the CO2 effect is very small and atmospheric temperatures depend on H2O(clouds).” You apparently did not read the link I posted. Here’s a breakdown of cloud research.
“Therefore the question is whether the relationship between CO2 heat absorbtion and the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is a positive or negative one. This is what I mean by empirical research for causation.” Where is this empirical research of which you speak?
I gave you the macroprocesses, you can spin about the microprocesses until you’re blue in the face. It’s a scam. Next issue.
RO: “CO2 is a trace gas and represents a minor share of the greenhouse effect. And humans have a minor share of annual greenhouse gas production, CO2 included.” This again, with absolutely no response to the science provided in rebuttal. Sigh.
RO: “And who is to say warming periods are to be decried in the first place?” Ahhh, so we’ve moved from “it’s not happening” to “it’s not bad.” Ok. There is uncertainty here, to be sure. Some benefits include the ice-free Arctic. That will benefit shipping tremendously. It will also mean that the ice won’t be reflecting solar radiation. That’s a bad thing. Higher atmospheric CO2 has been shown to be good for certain types of plants (though bad for others). A warmer Earth means longer growing seasons. Or does it? I’ve heard all sorts of arguments about how agriculture will move north. No. The tilt of the earth will not change due to global warming. The north still gets less sun during its winter. Plants need sun for photosynthesis. A warmer U.S. also means more air conditioning. A warmer Earth also means more evaporation, and so more water vapor, and so more rain–not more rain events necessarily, but more intense rain (flooding). It also means changing weather patterns. Climate models have predicted long-term drought for the SW U.S., and guess what? And then there’s the inability for the biosphere to adapt to rapid climate change. The historical record shows that sharp changes in climate result in large die-offs of species. And what of oceans becoming increasingly acid due to the normal process of oceanic CO2 absorption? Anything that has a calcium-based shell is threatened.
“And how much impact could your central planning buddies have even if they wanted to undo human-created infinitesimal warming?” My “central planning buddies”? Ugh. I’ll point out again that capitalism is taxation without representation. A company organized by capitalism produces a small group of decision-makers–‘central planners’, if you will, who determine the nature of production and, through cultural apparatus, the nature of consumption. The U.S. is a massive example of this. It went from a 19th century culture of thriftiness (according to Protestant principles) to a 20th century culture of massive overconsumption and waste. What happened? Capitalism progressed, particularly in the post-WWII period with the advent of TV. As an Objectivist, you must loathe the corporate model, but it is a natural evolution of capitalism. Corporatism, like large-scale representative democracy, reduces the ethical load of those privileged by the economic mode. Capitalism produces the same tyranny that Stalinism did, as Orwell recognized half a century ago. The few end up ruling the lives of the many, both economically and culturally.
“Nearly every central planning regime in history, including those that claimed to be “environmentally friendly,” were lying industrial smoke-belching basketcases, like the USSR and China. Thank you, drive through.”
You do understand that China belches smoke at the demand of U.S. consumers and capitalists, yes? Or are you still reading capitalism as a national phenomenon. That was WWII. Things have happened since. There are these things called multinational corporations . . .
RO: “I gave you the macroprocesses, you can spin about the microprocesses until you’re blue in the face. It’s a scam. Next issue.”
What macroprocesses are you talking about? If the combined action of CO2 and H2O isn’t a large-scale process, then what in the climate is? I’ve already addressed Milankovitch, insolation, and continental drift.
You publicly say something is a scam and demand evidence for it. When the evidence is given, you start shuffling around terminology, give an absolute statement (zero evidence), and express a desire to talk about something else. I can do that, too, and we can both sound like high schoolers: “You keep talking about a scam. It’s not a scam. You are clearly wrong. I’ll leave you to your ideology and illusions.”
I can’t make it any more clear than the environmental posts I have already put on the blog, sophist.
DSL,
Frankly you are not making a lot of sense.
For instance:-
“No doubt, CO2 has historically lagged temperature. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that CO2 can not be a forcing and/or that CO2 is not also a feedback? No. The established idea that CO2 historically lags temperature must also be read within the also established idea that humans weren’t pumping massive quantities of stored carbon into the atmosphere at those times. In other words, current conditions are not equal to those historical conditions. Relatively sudden dumps of GHGs into the atmosphere do not occur by themselves. It takes a forcing. ”
If CO2 lags global warming, it cannot be the cause. Simplistic maybe but its a kind of law of logical thinking. The cause usually preceeds the effect.
This is just an example, furthermore if you expect anyone to take notice of your links, you should find some academic papers etc. e.g. Skeptical Science? We have all been there. I doubt if they know the meaning of “Empirical”, “Correlation” and “Hypothesis” or “Scientific Proof” or the limitations of a model, or what one actually is. Its well written though and the weak minded enjoy it.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
PS. By the way if you don’t like capitalism, try doing some reading on what it was like to live in the PR China before 1978.
Cheers
Roger
Thanks for arguing with DSL, frankly, I don’t have the patience for it. When simple facts and reasoning are confronted by obfuscation and a “wall of data” that doesn’t address the main points, I conclude the person is only interested in the political agenda, not the science, and will use all manner of sophistry to try to put doubt into your mind. That’s all the enviroleft needs to do in this debate, anyway. Get you to doubt the scientific facts right in front of your face, and instead have faith in the scientific “experts” to interpret esoteric facts tangential to the main issues at hand. Cheers, RO
Roger, you’re simply assuming that nothing can put CO2 in the driver’s seat. Changes in incoming solar energy (through solar and orbital changes) and changes through continental drift have dominated the long-term climate record. Why, can you tell me, does that prevent CO2 from being a forcing? You’ll note that ice albedo has also lagged temperature historically. Does that mean that if we erased the ice from both poles for 50 years, it would have no effect on climate? CO2 is a powerful GHG. Take it out of the atmosphere, and water vapor cools out of the atmosphere rapidly, and then we’re left with a few measly halocarbons to keep us warm at night. Add CO2 to the atmosphere, and it gets warmer (and, btw, puts more water vapor in the atmosphere, which makes it even warmer).
Roger, the snipe at SkS is a bad call. Everything there is based on the most thorough science there is, and links are provided. Working scientists post there. Your attack sounds ad hominem-ish, something you accused me of earlier. Give your evidence instead of trying to bandwagon with a “we’ve all been there (eh boys? heh heh).”
By the way, what are your criteria for being an “expert” in any field–statistics, physics, biology, etc.?
Rogue, I didn’t want to stoop to this, but I can’t resist: yes, I have no doubt that you “can’t make it any more clear than the environmental posts I have already put on the blog.”
Roger, I have done reading on China. Indeed, I just five minutes ago read the takedown of a book by the academic “Maoist” Alain Badiou that came through on one of my mailing lists. What was it that I’m supposed to learn by examining the extraordinarily complex historical development of 20th century China?
Rogue, you have answered nothing. From what I’ve read, you don’t understand basic atmospheric physics, and your misunderstanding can be revealed by simple observations that you can make yourself. Worse yet, you absolutely refuse to admit any error. Put forward your main points that I haven’t already addressed above. In the words of a band that was, at one time, very high on Ayn Rand, “show me, don’t tell me.” What are the main issues at hand?
Well I think I will take Rogueoperators advice and leave you to you own confusion. I don’t think you will learn much about China just from one book.
You do not seem to have any discernable logic in your comments and you do not appear to address the comment you are presumably answering.
As for Skeptical Science, some months ago I came across a teenager’s site and he claimed to work for skeptical science.
At the risk of making an ad hominem remark, you sound exactly like a confused 14 yr old trying to parrot what they are probably telling you at school.
All I can say is that you should start reading some academic papers and understand things properly before you try and argue them.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Chuckle, Roger.
“I don’t think you will learn much about China just from one book.”
I am here putting forth a case in good faith. I go to the links you provide, and I read them. You have not shown me the same level of good faith. The link I provided was to a review of a book on China, and I said I had just read the review; I did not say that was my only source of information on China.
“You do not seem to have any discernable logic in your comments and you do not appear to address the comment you are presumably answering.”
My logic was to put forth the case of AGW and to consider and respond to any rebuttals or questions. I did that. Nothing–nothing–that you or RO have said has addressed anything I’ve said regarding AGW. There has been absolutely no recognition of the physical basis of the theory. No acceptance, no challenge. What comment do you wish me to address? Quote it in your next response, and I will respond to it.
“As for Skeptical Science, some months ago I came across a teenager’s site and he claimed to work for skeptical science. At the risk of making an ad hominem remark, you sound exactly like a confused 14 yr old trying to parrot what they are probably telling you at school.”
Roger, I’m not a teenager, but I’ll wager I can find at least a handful who understand the reasons why CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere and doesn’t just “sink to the ground.” However, I’ll bet the majority of teenagers (at least in the U.S.) cannot accurately summarize the basic mechanism of AGW. I also know a fair number of adults (including 30-40 members of Congress and Senate) who also cannot summarize the basic mechanism of AGW, yet they claim it’s a giant hoax. If I knew nothing about you, but I started to publicly claim that you weren’t human but were instead a robot programmed by the vast right-wing conspiracy, would you think I was being fair or rational?
You clearly know very little about AGW, yet you publicly claim it’s a hoax. For example, you support the claim that CO2 cannot be well-mixed in the atmosphere, yet you then also support Roy Spencer as an expert. Spencer believes that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere. If you don’t really understand the physical basis, then someone is providing an understanding for you. It appears that several sources are providing your position for you, and their understandings are not compatible, yet you don’t recognize it.
You claim that I’m confused. I provided you with a summary of how GHGs operate. Where is the confusion in that summary? Where? Show me I’m confused, don’t just claim it without evidence.
As for the claim of “parrot,” you should know that I’ve spent three years working over the science. I don’t like to be wrong, and so I do things that help me be right. For example, I started with no basic assumptions other than ruling out a supernatural force (which would obviously render all arguments and all science pointless). I then looked at the theory, came to an understanding of it, and assessed the science that went into it (as collected/referenced by the IPCC and through Spencer Weart’s History). I then started to argue with it–what if, what if, what if. Solar? Albedo? Clouds? Natural cycles? I hung around at Anthony Watt’s site for a while, but it became clear that there was something funky going on. The discussion was not discussion; criticisms of posts were shouted down, and some really awful thinking was supported. I began to seek out the authors of the more thorough and thoughtful responses. That led me to Skeptical Science, Open Mind, Real Climate, and others. I was surprised to find that these were sites where actual, working scientists and statisticians were posting.
I still have questions about parts of the situation, but then so do scientists. Now, how did you arrive at the claim that AGW is a hoax? And where do you get the conviction, the absolute certainty, for your claims?
“All I can say is that you should start reading some academic papers and understand things properly before you try and argue them.”
Oh, but I did, Roger. Here’s the bibliography of Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming.” Weart summarizes the findings of over 2400 studies. Any inaccuracies in Weart’s representations of these studies has been addressed or is being addressed.
Dare I ask for your sources?
Ugh, I missed a bloody end-tag. I’ll thank RO for fixing it, but I’ve copied the post and can re-post if necessary.
Heck, I’ll just go ahead and re-post.
Chuckle, Roger.
“I don’t think you will learn much about China just from one book.”
I am here putting forth a case in good faith. I go to the links you provide, and I read them. You have not shown me the same level of good faith. The link I provided was to a review of a book on China, and I said I had just read the review; I did not say that was my only source of information on China.
“You do not seem to have any discernable logic in your comments and you do not appear to address the comment you are presumably answering.”
My logic was to put forth the case of AGW and to consider and respond to any rebuttals or questions. I did that. Nothing–nothing–that you or RO have said has addressed anything I’ve said regarding AGW. There has been absolutely no recognition of the physical basis of the theory. No acceptance, no challenge. What comment do you wish me to address? Quote it in your next response, and I will respond to it.
“As for Skeptical Science, some months ago I came across a teenager’s site and he claimed to work for skeptical science. At the risk of making an ad hominem remark, you sound exactly like a confused 14 yr old trying to parrot what they are probably telling you at school.”
Roger, I’m not a teenager, but I’ll wager I can find at least a handful who understand the reasons why CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere and doesn’t just “sink to the ground.” However, I’ll bet the majority of teenagers (at least in the U.S.) cannot accurately summarize the basic mechanism of AGW. I also know a fair number of adults (including 30-40 members of Congress and Senate) who also cannot summarize the basic mechanism of AGW, yet they claim it’s a giant hoax. If I knew nothing about you, but I started to publicly claim that you weren’t human but were instead a robot programmed by the vast right-wing conspiracy, would you think I was being fair or rational?
You clearly know very little about AGW, yet you publicly claim it’s a hoax. For example, you support the claim that CO2 cannot be well-mixed in the atmosphere, yet you then also support Roy Spencer as an expert. Spencer believes that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere. If you don’t really understand the physical basis, then someone is providing an understanding for you. It appears that several sources are providing your position for you, and their understandings are not compatible, yet you don’t recognize it.
You claim that I’m confused. I provided you with a summary of how GHGs operate. Where is the confusion in that summary? Where? Show me I’m confused, don’t just claim it without evidence.
As for the claim of “parrot,” you should know that I’ve spent three years working over the science. I don’t like to be wrong, and so I do things that help me be right. For example, I started with no basic assumptions other than ruling out a supernatural force (which would obviously render all arguments and all science pointless). I then looked at the theory, came to an understanding of it, and assessed the science that went into it (as collected/referenced by the IPCC and through Spencer Weart’s History). I then started to argue with it–what if, what if, what if. Solar? Albedo? Clouds? Natural cycles? I hung around at Anthony Watt’s site for a while, but it became clear that there was something funky going on. The discussion was not discussion; criticisms of posts were shouted down, and some really awful thinking was supported. I began to seek out the authors of the more thorough and thoughtful responses. That led me to Skeptical Science, Open Mind, Real Climate, and others. I was surprised to find that these were sites where actual, working scientists and statisticians were posting.
I still have questions about parts of the situation, but then so do scientists. Now, how did you arrive at the claim that AGW is a hoax? And where do you get the conviction, the absolute certainty, for your claims?
“All I can say is that you should start reading some academic papers and understand things properly before you try and argue them.”
Oh, but I did, Roger. Here’s the bibliography of Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming. Weart summarizes the findings of over 2400 studies. Any inaccuracies in Weart’s representations of these studies has been addressed or is being addressed, so we can assume a fair level of confidence in the accuracy of his reporting.
Dare I ask for your sources?
Sorry,
If you are a scientist, you had better stop using skepitcal science as an authority and to be quite honest, you ramble off the subject so much it is not clear what you are saying and what is gleanable seems pretty senseless.
Maybe you eithe need to grow up, realise you are senile or do some work on reasonable discussion.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
I see – we’re at the old, “blah blah blah, whatever” stage, where the audience has moved on and so there isn’t much capital to be generated. Hashing out an approximation of reality is just one of those old Enlightenment jokes, yes? It’s all about selling tickets to the show now, eh? When the conclusion is in sight, it’s time to open up the next tent.
dsl
your an idiot.