Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[carlosMM]

I perused... Your sources confirm what I said - climate drives co2, not the other way around.

Wrong - climate CAN drive CO2. Not climate (always) drives CO2. Are you capable of understanding that distinction? It is explicitly explained in the sources, so I am a bit confused as to why you seem not to grasp this simple point.

If you look at the graph of a warming trend ~240 kya (6 min into the video) you'll see that co2 peaked 800 years after temperature. The world was cooling for 800 years before co2 peaked. As the world warms up, co2 is produced and released and we get a bit warmer. As the world temperature peaks, still rising co2 slows the cooling trend (for awhile).

Again you state this in present form, as if it was a universal rule. But as shown, "artificially" adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere is a different process, and in that case CO2 drives climate, not the other way round.

I said, "if we were in an ice age", our co2 wouldn't change that reality. And thats true... Maybe in the future we'll be able to modify our atmosphere to retain enough heat to ward off an ice age.

Well, that's wrong: how else did the "snowball earth" thaw?
In an ice age massiv release of fossil carbon (could happen naturally by exposure of large carbon-rich deposits on shelfs) can drive warming up to the point where the ice age ends - that's just not how the last few ice ages ended.

It wasn't a quote, just some researchers in a documentary on climate history standing at an old shoreline miles from the current ocean.

let's see: I am god and you must transfer all your money to my bank account.

Hey, that's an awesome level of proof right there, now send the $$

Rising seas flooded vast tracts of forests by then but warming seas were a major factor.

Rising sea levels? 8,000 years ago?

Rather, humans began massive deforestation and rice farming, increasing Co2 and methane in the atmosphere.

 

[Berzerker]

Wrong - climate CAN drive CO2. Not climate (always) drives CO2. Are you capable of understanding that distinction? It is explicitly explained in the sources, so I am a bit confused as to why you seem not to grasp this simple point.

Your sources dont say co2 drives climate, they say co2 lags behind temperatures. And if you're arguing over "can" based on an exception to the rule, I'm not interested in debating your petty distinctions.

Again you state this in present form, as if it was a universal rule. But as shown, "artificially" adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere is a different process, and in that case CO2 drives climate, not the other way round.

First you butchered what I said (your video begins with a lecture about strawmen, how ironic) and now you're telling me to ignore your video source? Did you not read what I just told you? There was an 800 year lag between temperature and co2 peaks! That means according to your source, the world was cooling for 800 years while co2 continued climbing.

Well, that's wrong: how else did the "snowball earth" thaw?
In an ice age massiv release of fossil carbon (could happen naturally by exposure of large carbon-rich deposits on shelfs) can drive warming up to the point where the ice age ends - that's just not how the last few ice ages ended.

Snowball Earth is an unproven theory and the cause is speculative... Try to deal with facts, okay? How did the last few ice ages end?

let's see: I am god and you must transfer all your money to my bank account.

Hey, that's an awesome level of proof right there, now send the $$

I wasn't offering proof, I was explaining why I cant link to a documentary I saw on TV. Sorry, I aint in the mood for your BS.

Rising sea levels? 8,000 years ago?

Rather, humans began massive deforestation and rice farming, increasing Co2 and methane in the atmosphere.

I said rising seas had flooded vast tracks of forests "by then". And yes, thats what happens when ice ages end, seas rise and flood forests. Sea levels were possibly higher than today, that means a warmer world and more co2 in the atmosphere.

 

[carlosMM]

Your sources dont say co2 drives climate, they say co2 lags behind temperatures. And if you're arguing over "can" based on an exception to the rule, I'm not interested in debating your petty distinctions.

*sigh*

the distinction "always odes" vs. "can" is the important point here. If you're unwilling to debate the difference, then you should shut up and leave the thread, because you refuse to accept facts that influence climate.

First you butchered what I said (your video begins with a lecture about strawmen, how ironic) and now you're telling me to ignore your video source? Did you not read what I just told you? There was an 800 year lag between temperature and co2 peaks! That means according to your source, the world was cooling for 800 years while co2 continued climbing.

Simple fact: you have not watched the entire video. Bad Berzerker.

Orbital factors begin a long, slow warming trend, which causes the outgassing of CO2 and methane from oceans and soils, reinforcing and amplifying the weak orbital warming, and creating dramatic global change. The study says “the sequence of events is in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing.” and “the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. […] we should distinguish between internal influences (such as declaciation CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. […] Althought he recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is felt first in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating the later ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing of CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks […] which are also at work for the present-day and future climate.”

Can it be made clearer? CO2 was a major factor for ending the ice age, which orbital forcing started - but it alone would have been much too weak.
What this shows is that higher CO2 is not only a consequence of warming, but a driving force in its own right. Naturally, CO2 jumps up (among other things) as a consequence of warming, but it also causes warming if it stems from a different source than warming because of orbital forcing.

Snowball Earth is an unproven theory and the cause is speculative... Try to deal with facts, okay? How did the last few ice ages end?

Snowball earth is rather well supported - massive equatorial glaciation is hard to explain otherwise. And no orbital forcing could have ended that alone.

And - it is really time you get this - there are several possible ways to end an ice age. What ended the last few need not be the cause of others. but, in case you again did not get the video content:

Last few ice ages ended by
- small warming due to orbital forcing
- causes outgassing of greenhouse gases
- these cause massive warming via greenhouse effect
- this causes further fast atmospheric feedbacks
- these cause further warming.

What we are doing today is jump-starting this feedback system:

- small warming due to orbital forcing
- humans release large amounts of fossil CO2
- these cause massive warming via greenhouse effect
------- causes outgassing of even more greenhouse gases
- this causes further fast atmospheric feedbacks
- these cause further warming.

That's the entire point you're denying.

I wasn't offering proof, I was explaining why I cant link to a documentary I saw on TV. Sorry, I aint in the mood for your BS.

Then support your claim otherwise. Hints: google, yahoo, GEOREF, etc.

I said rising seas had flooded vast tracks of forests "by then". And yes, thats what happens when ice ages end, seas rise and flood forests. Sea levels were possibly higher than today, that means a warmer world and more co2 in the atmosphere.

If that's what you meant - fine, after the end of the last ice age (when was that again? 8,000 years ago??? Cause that's when we see the first divergence of CO2 and methane from orbital forcing curves! - sorry, Holocene started 11,000 years ago!) CO2 was higher than in the ice age - we fully agree. You just stick your fingers into your ears when it comes to the point that this added CO2 is responsible for a large part of the warming that ended the ice age.

In summary, CO2 lags behind warming if warming is started by other cause, but CO2 itself causes warming. Saying that "there will be no warming because the CO2 got jump-started without another cause" is nonsense. Claiming that orbital forcing alone is strong enough to end an ice age is also nonsense. To quote teh second source I gave:

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials.

and that's all. Extending this to "played no role" is a strawman.

 

[MrCynical]

first of all, the correlation between CO2 (and methane) and temperature is decidedly more complex than you pretend science pretends. However, aside from the correlation we have a mechanism that directly links the two. So this is not about a mere correlation.

CarlosMM, you must appreciate that a scientist has to be skeptical. The quote in enormous bold font may be true, but any implication of causation should immediately prompt a demand to show evidence if you're a scientist. Yes, there's a mechanism (the greenhouse effect) which states a link between them - that's basic physics and a reasonable start. However that same physics states that radiative forcing is logarithmic - plug in that CO2 level and you simply can't get that large a temperature increase without a lot of feedbacks. That's feedbacks beyond even the most pessimistic scenarios presented in IPCC reports.

So CO2 may have played some part in the higher temperatures of that time period, but to then go on to claim that a return to those CO2 levels would result in a return to those temperatures is to make the fallacious leap from correlation to causation. Showing a mechanism connecting the two variables is not adequate for that claim. You'd need to take into account all other variables, and present a mechanism accounting for the full amount of the temperature difference - not merely an increase in temperature. The papers' efforts to account for the discrepancy with other climate research is a fairly half hearted mention that maybe it has something to do with continental ice or vegetation. If I was a peer reviewer, I'd be jumping in and asking - why are you assuming all the temperature difference stems from CO2? OK some probably is - but the rest of climate modelling would suggest the bulk is from other sources. Have you really allowed for all the differences between earth now and 40 million years ago? Orbit? Continental arrangement? Vegetation? Wind and Ocean currents? Unless you can either do that, or come up with a complete mechanism for the entire temperature difference from CO2 this is straying into assuming causation from correlation.

Now to be fair the paper only explicitly states the correlation - X years ago, Y temperature difference. It doesn't quite go as far as you have in assuming causation, though the last paragraph strays well beyond what their data can support. Their statement:

If the world reaches such concentrations of atmospheric CO2, positive feedback processes can amplify global warming beyond current modeling estimates

-is totally unsupported. The fact the current model doesn't show that large a temperature difference from CO2 doesn't necessarily mean the model is wrong. Unless of course you can account for every other variable. In climate science that literally implies accounting for every variable in the world (and then some) but I still see people trying to make that claim. If someone tells me they can control every variable in a sealed apparatus on a lab bench it will take a lot of careful inspection before I believe them, and I will always allow for the possibility they're wrong. Make the same claim on something the size of a planet - and I'm not going to take you seriously, and nor should any other scientist.


Now if you want to look at climate science as a whole, you must realise that if the implication of this paper is correct (1000ppm CO2 = +16C), that would be almost as damning a verdict on current climate modelling as if it claimed global warming was negligible. Vast areas of climate research would still have to be wrong. It's easy in this area to gripe about bias - but I'd like you to ask yourself whether you'd have started this thread and presented it so favourably if the paper had said that last time CO2 was at 1000ppm the temperature was exactly the same. Be honest - you'd write it off as one bad paper versus the consensus. So why are you presenting the one paper as more likely to be correct when it suggests a more catastrophic result? I'm not trying to have a go at you here - I just think that in this area a lot of people need to sit back and think for a few minutes about whether they really are viewing all evidence with a fair and open mind.

 

[BasketCase]

The usual suspects spouting the usual strawman arguments.

That comment itself was a straw man. In fact, after giving this thread a quick re-read, it seems you see scarecrows everywhere.

first of all, the correlation between CO2 (and methane) and temperature is decidedly more complex than you pretend science pretends. However, aside from the correlation we have a mechanism that directly links the two. So this is not about a mere correlation.

Exactly. Like so many times in the past five years, you are not listening to me. The correlation is already established; CO2 levels and temperature (tend to) vary together. That is fact. Now stop battering away at your keyboard and read this next bit carefully. The question was: which way does the correlation go??? Does the one actually cause the other? Is it the other way round? Or are both factors controlled by something else entirely?? You have nothing that answers that--you never did. Nor does/did anybody else. You merely assume it's the CO2 that's the cause. So don't blab at me about pretend science.

The forecasts, however, have not changed qualitatively, but only narrowed the range of warming-to-be-expected.

Narrowed? No. The range is getting wider. The alarmists are starting to predict even worse warming. Could be fear that their case is slipping away from them.

- you admit to a doubling of athmospheric CO2. Care to calculate the number of animals you'd need for your model to work?

Sure. One thing I found out in the distant past (i.e. three years ago) was that ten percent of all human greenhouse gas emissions come from......drum roll.....HUMANS. Not cars, and not factories. From humans BREATHING.

And guess what, Sherlock: ninety percent of the animal biomass on the planet is INSECTS. And there you have the answer. When you pointed out cattle, you were looking in the wrong place. If humans can exhale a significant portion of that huge spike in CO2 levels, and insects can exhale ten times as much (actually, more than that--insects exhale more per unit body weight because of their very small ratio of volume to surface area), then a fairly modest growth in insect populations could account for the whole thing.

That's not fact. Just a theory. But if you can't disprove it.....

I remember well that you wrote many posts about global cooling here on CFC. We know that int he phase of massive industrial pollution during and after WWII this effect was strong, countering the greenhouse effect. So we have less warming that the greenhosue effect alone would provide, but we have massively reduced pollution, and thus turned the global cooling effect from global dimming way down. Thus, we will get this warming now. OOPS!

Yes, I did write that. It is entirely possible that our past efforts to clean up pollution caused global warming by removing cooling factors such as particulate crap in the air. The idea is only theoretical--but if it's true, that means the doubling of atmospheric CO2 may have had nothing at all to do with global warming.

Oops? In fact, I fail to see why you put that paragraph there, because it has nothing to do with how my theory about animal life controlling CO2 levels could be wrong; in my global warming travels, I have posted several possible causes of global warming. Only one was ever disproved, and I was the guy who disproved it.

 

[choxorn]

Sure. One thing I found out in the distant past (i.e. three years ago) was that ten percent of all human greenhouse gas emissions come from......drum roll.....HUMANS. Not cars, and not factories. From humans BREATHING.

Great. So, what about the other 90%? Should we just pretend it's not there?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

insects exhale more per unit body weight because of their very small ratio of volume to surface area

, what? So if there's more volume relative to surface area, the CO2 in the extra volume just disappears?

Also, insects aren't homeothermic = lower basal metabolic rate = lower CO2. Also, that small volume:surface area? Means that they expend less energy moving materials and wastes = lower metabolic rate = lower CO2.

 

[Cutlass]

Penguin Plunge Warmest Ever
Robert M. Thorson
January 13, 2011

My New Year's resolution was not to write a single column about global climate change. I hereby break that resolution.

"God is Great. Beer is good. And People are Crazy."

That's the chorus of a country-music tune that played on the radio as I drove toward Narragansett Bay, R.I., for a New Year's holiday. Within minutes, the song had clairvoyantly captured the essence of what I was about to witness: the residue from the 35th Annual Penguin Plunge at Mackerel Cove Beach in Jamestown.

Police directed me away from the traffic chaos. I braked for half-naked drunks staggering along the road. On the sidewalk were families dispersing toward cars parked on side streets. According to the lead article for The Jamestown Press (Jan. 6) by Cindy Cingone, a 25-foot-tall inflatable penguin presided over a giant beach party complete with barbecues and beer. She estimated that 2,000 revelers were present, about half taking the plunge. "The lovely bikini-clad Lynne Diamante, 2010 Mrs. Rhode Island," made an appearance. One group, probably in need of a designated driver, hired a stretch limo. Someone else packed 31 friends into a commercial bus. Sixteen local firefighters were stationed along the beach to ensure that no one died of self-inflicted hypothermia. Two were on high alert, wading the water in wet suits.

Why the craziness? Thirty-five years ago, a few residents of this Narragansett Bay town decided to celebrate the New Year by jumping into the icy water at Mackerel Cove Beach at noon. Though hardly an original idea (midwinter plunges are routine in many communities), this provided an excuse to have a little fun, and perhaps to help ameliorate a few hangovers from the night before. A tradition was born. Organizers stepped in. The event was soon raising big money for charity, gradually becoming the biggest fundraiser of the year for the Rhode Island Special Olympics.

On the beach at Mackerel Cove, the air temperature was 54 degrees during the Penguin Plunge. Never before had it exceeded 50 degrees. This pattern was consistent with the record-breaking heat of 2010. According to the Northeast Regional Climate Center, Boston experienced its highest average temperature since records were first kept in 1872. Hartford, Providence, Concord, New Hampshire and Caribou, Maine, also broke their heat records.

Of course, the average temperature varies each year. But the long-term trend toward unusually warm conditions is compelling, whether from surface measurements, satellite coverage or ice cores. Yet at the same time, fewer and fewer Americans now believe that the globe is warming, or that humans have anything to do with it. Those polled may be the same people who believe penguins inhabit the Arctic, which they assuredly do not. The song is right. "People are crazy."

Is beer good? That depends on your perspective. "Save the Bay" is a popular statewide slogan, with the main concern being the treatment of wastewater effluent and the consequent nutrient and microbial pollution that follows. On Mackerel Cove, the Jamestown police were concerned about the lack of portable toilets during what amounted to a two-hour party. Thank God for the flush of the tide.

Is God great? Of course it, she, or he is, assuming you aren't an atheist, which I am assuredly not. But I do often ask myself, if God is so great, then why are people so crazy?

Everyone must reach their own conclusion on this question. In the broader context of environmental policy, our craziness is destructive. In the narrower context of having a little fun, a sense of humor and an excuse to party help make life bearable.

I'll end with a little fun of my own, a thought experiment. What if winter conditions in southern New England warm to the point where January temperatures in the 40s and 50s are routine? Clearly, the craziness of winter plunges would diminish. Would we be crazy enough to let this happen?

***

Robert M. Thorson is a professor of geology at the University of Connecticut's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and a member of The Courant's Place Board of Contributors. His column appears every other Thursday. He can be reached at profthorson@yahoo.com.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-thorson-polar-plunge-0113-20110113,0,6373022.column

 

[Abegweit]

??? There are multiple, competing, climatology research centers.

There are no competing research centers. There are multiple government-paid groups who work with the same data supplied by the same government sources.

And the science does happen in open sight. Really, I sometimes DO think that this issue is beyond the ken of mundanes. People seem to think that there're 2-3 models that are government approved or something.

This is garbage. Excuses for lies and excuses for liars. These scumbags have repeatedly twisted data and have continually hidden their programs. Despite court orders, they refuse to reveal the bases for their conclusions. This is not science. Science is about openness and replication of results, not manufactured data and hidden models.

The actual models are different scientific organisations struggling with data-sets and supercomputer. The majority of the literature is about some small tidbit of regional climate OR some global perturbation in one or two metrics.

More crap. When you get away from the polite discussions between the liars, it is NOT about tidbits.

Finally, this is very much a libertarian issue. This issue demands that the libertarians be wise and educated, and not just sheep with objectivist leanings. Libertarianism demands that we're not allowed to hurt each other without consent. Libertarians have very good cause to suspect that pollution is going to negatively affect other people, people who never consented to the pollution.

Oh, you are very right about that. The FIRST libertarian question is the definition of pollution. Just how did plant food come to qualify anyway?

 

[Abegweit]

@CarlosMM

From your link: If I were to code up the most brain-dead simple implementation of NASA's global-temperature anomaly algorithm...

Why would anyone care what your results were? Garbage replicated is still garbage. Why do you think that replicating garbage proves anything?

 

[Berzerker]

*sigh*

the distinction "always odes" vs. "can" is the important point here. If you're unwilling to debate the difference, then you should shut up and leave the thread, because you refuse to accept facts that influence climate.

You're debating your strawman, I never said always or can or universal or whatever - thats your BS. And I'll leave the thread when you can get a mod to tell me to leave, but I may not respond to you any more because I no longer take you seriously.

Simple fact: you have not watched the entire video. Bad Berzerker.

I watched it all, your source confirms what I said.

Can it be made clearer? CO2 was a major factor for ending the ice age, which orbital forcing started - but it alone would have been much too weak.

"Orbital forcing started"? We are talking about climate drivers, right?

What this shows is that higher CO2 is not only a consequence of warming, but a driving force in its own right. Naturally, CO2 jumps up (among other things) as a consequence of warming, but it also causes warming if it stems from a different source than warming because of orbital forcing.

Yes, I said co2 warms us a bit... But it dont matter much if the world hits a cooling trend. And the graph in your video does not show co2 driving the climate, it shows co2 rising while temperatures are dropping for 800 years. Like I said, if we were in an ice age, our co2 wouldn't matter.

Snowball earth is rather well supported - massive equatorial glaciation is hard to explain otherwise. And no orbital forcing could have ended that alone.

Regardless, it aint relevant.

And - it is really time you get this - there are several possible ways to end an ice age. What ended the last few need not be the cause of others. but, in case you again did not get the video content:

Last few ice ages ended by
- small warming due to orbital forcing
- causes outgassing of greenhouse gases
- these cause massive warming via greenhouse effect
- this causes further fast atmospheric feedbacks
- these cause further warming.

What we are doing today is jump-starting this feedback system:

- small warming due to orbital forcing
- humans release large amounts of fossil CO2
- these cause massive warming via greenhouse effect
------- causes outgassing of even more greenhouse gases
- this causes further fast atmospheric feedbacks
- these cause further warming.

That's the entire point you're denying.

The warming prior to and after the Younger Dryas was not small. When do we get to see this massive warming?

Then support your claim otherwise. Hints: google, yahoo, GEOREF, etc.

No thx

If that's what you meant - fine, after the end of the last ice age (when was that again? 8,000 years ago???

Yer asking me? It aint what I meant, its what I said. And I didn't say the ice age ended 8,000 years ago, I said sea levels were already high (higher) and had flooded vast tracts of forests by 8,000 yeas ago.

Cause that's when we see the first divergence of CO2 and methane from orbital forcing curves! - sorry, Holocene started 11,000 years ago!) CO2 was higher than in the ice age - we fully agree. You just stick your fingers into your ears when it comes to the point that this added CO2 is responsible for a large part of the warming that ended the ice age.

The Earth's axial tilt was near its maximum 8 kya... We've been getting more vertical ever since and we've been cooling during that period. Thats called orbital forcing and we'll find out if we can pump enough gas into the atmosphere to significantly slow or reverse that trend. I certainly hope we can...

In summary, CO2 lags behind warming if warming is started by other cause, but CO2 itself causes warming.

I said that already

Saying that "there will be no warming because the CO2 got jump-started without another cause" is nonsense.

But I didn't say that.

Claiming that orbital forcing alone is strong enough to end an ice age is also nonsense. To quote teh second source I gave:

and that's all. Extending this to "played no role" is a strawman.

Or that...

 

[El_Machinae]

There are no competing research centers. There are multiple government-paid groups who work with the same data supplied by the same government sources.

This is garbage. Excuses for lies and excuses for liars. These scumbags have repeatedly twisted data and have continually hidden their programs. Despite court orders, they refuse to reveal the bases for their conclusions. This is not science. Science is about openness and replication of results, not manufactured data and hidden models.

More crap. When you get away from the polite discussions between the liars, it is NOT about tidbits.

No, I don't think you're really following this issue. All you've typed is strong partisan opinion. That's something that anyone can get from invective-filled blogs. I can even see the talking-points that the astroturfing has put into your vocabulary

Oh, you are very right about that. The FIRST libertarian question is the definition of pollution. Just how did plant food come to qualify anyway?

See? You're way, way back here. Loaded language: "plant food". Partisan vitriol. First principles denial.

It became pollution once we were able to ascertain downstream negative effects foisted upon the uncompensated and the unconsenting. Obviously.

Look, I can't force you to form an honest opinion. All I can say is that your opinion on this topic seems to be strongly biased and horribly misinformed. You can continue to type invective, or you can stop and think "he's right, I don't really know any of the primary literature".

 

[carlosMM]

I only have time right now for one anwser, the other posts have to wait. sorry.

CarlosMM, you must appreciate that a scientist has to be skeptical. The quote in enormous bold font may be true, but any implication of causation should immediately prompt a demand to show evidence if you're a scientist.

Stop pontificating - usually that's the intro to a clueless post - or a lie. Which will it be?
And quit whining if I reproduce a headline in a font size that's typical for a headline. You're trying to score cheap points through unfair implications. If you had any proper argument, I guess you wouldn't need to try and obfuscate.

Yes, there's a mechanism (the greenhouse effect) which states a link between them - that's basic physics and a reasonable start. However that same physics states that radiative forcing is logarithmic - plug in that CO2 level and you simply can't get that large a temperature increase without a lot of feedbacks. That's feedbacks beyond even the most pessimistic scenarios presented in IPCC reports.

I guess that you means: because radiative forcings are logarithmic, and because the CO2 increase in even the most wild IPCC models is low, there will be little warming.

However, the scenario we currently seem to be fulfilling, A1 (incidentally the worst case of those often used) shows a business-as-usual course that will at least double CO by 2100 - that's bad enough. If we assume that climate sensitivity is 3°, and that we have already seen 1° (both cautious assumptions) we will get another 2°. I call this a strong warming, considering the consequences we already see taking place.

So CO2 may have played some part in the higher temperatures of that time period, but to then go on to claim that a return to those CO2 levels would result in a return to those temperatures is to make the fallacious leap from correlation to causation.

Show me where I or the source I quote makes that assumption!


Oh, you can't? because the entire thing talked about CO2 levels, and then simply compared what the temperature was when we last had these levels - but nowhere does anyone say we will definitely see these temps?

pity, makes your last sentence a strawman.

Showing a mechanism connecting the two variables is not adequate for that claim. You'd need to take into account all other variables, and present a mechanism accounting for the full amount of the temperature difference - not merely an increase in temperature. The papers' efforts to account for the discrepancy with other climate research is a fairly half hearted mention that maybe it has something to do with continental ice or vegetation. If I was a peer reviewer, I'd be jumping in and asking - why are you assuming all the temperature difference stems from CO2?

But they don't!

In fact, you ignore that the paper lists solar output (lesser back then), palaeogeography (roughly similar), carbon cycle (not only plants), in addition to plant cover and ice. So, basically, we have another strawman. or have you not read the paper, but only the quote here?

OK some probably is - but the rest of climate modelling would suggest the bulk is from other sources. Have you really allowed for all the differences between earth now and 40 million years ago? Orbit? Continental arrangement? Vegetation? Wind and Ocean currents? Unless you can either do that, or come up with a complete mechanism for the entire temperature difference from CO2 this is straying into assuming causation from correlation.

False. First of all, this is not my research.
Second, nobody was, as you constantly imply, claiming that the temperature would be the same.
Third, there are well-known mechanisms that lead to strong feedbacks creating additional warming: outgassing of CO2 from oceans, methane from various sources, increases erosion rates causing release of fossil carbon, reduced albedo from decreasing ice cover, etc. These are figured into the climate sensitivity, and here we are again at 2*CO2 = ~+2° from today on.

OOPS!

Now to be fair the paper only explicitly states the correlation - X years ago, Y temperature difference. It doesn't quite go as far as you have in assuming causation, though the last paragraph strays well beyond what their data can support.

You insinuate stuff I never implied. Makes me angry, and outs you as a sloppy worker. And you dare pontificate?

Their statement:

If the world reaches such concentrations of atmospheric CO2, positive feedback processes can amplify global warming beyond current modeling estimates

-is totally unsupported. The fact the current model doesn't show that large a temperature difference from CO2 doesn't necessarily mean the model is wrong. Unless of course you can account for every other variable. In climate science that literally implies accounting for every variable in the world (and then some) but I still see people trying to make that claim. If someone tells me they can control every variable in a sealed apparatus on a lab bench it will take a lot of careful inspection before I believe them, and I will always allow for the possibility they're wrong. Make the same claim on something the size of a planet - and I'm not going to take you seriously, and nor should any other scientist.

That doesn't show that the statement is unsupported. Current models take fast feedbacks into account, but slow feedbacks are ignored. Very high CO2 levels in the past correlate with temperatures that can only be explained if slow feedbacks are taken into account.
And nobody talks about perfect control here - as opposed to what you claim is being claimed and demand to be done, it is not necessary to account for every variable in the world. AS long as we know if it has a positive or negative feedback, and how large that will very roughly be, we can predict up or down - not to a tenth of a degree, but well enough to see if models are generally accurate or not.

Now if you want to look at climate science as a whole, you must realise that if the implication of this paper is correct (1000ppm CO2 = +16C), that would be almost as damning a verdict on current climate modelling as if it claimed global warming was negligible.

Not really - it is well known that the models are incomplete. The ICPP used very moderate assumptions, and warned of the minimum. it was always well known that strong feedbacks that are hard to predict (e.g., massive methane outgassing from methane hydrate) could add to that. if a model is to take a certain number of factors into account, and others are ignored, that doesn't damn the model if we find those factors to be important. it just means that we must try to add them in.

In this case, the added factors all seem to go the "wrong" way for us: adding to the warming. Thus, climate science as a whole has - intentionally - underestimated the problems we will face - that's all.

Vast areas of climate research would still have to be wrong.

oh? really?

which are these?

It's easy in this area to gripe about bias - but I'd like you to ask yourself whether you'd have started this thread and presented it so favourably if the paper had said that last time CO2 was at 1000ppm the temperature was exactly the same.

Yep - if it made sense and wasn't the usual denialist cherry-picking, I'd have been delighted. Because that would have been a strong indication that our problems will be less than expected. And wouldn't you be glad if you can continue to drive a big car without having to tell your kids in 20 to 30 years that you knew about the problem but didn't do diddly squat to solve it?

Be honest - you'd write it off as one bad paper versus the consensus. So why are you presenting the one paper as more likely to be correct when it suggests a more catastrophic result? I'm not trying to have a go at you here - I just think that in this area a lot of people need to sit back and think for a few minutes about whether they really are viewing all evidence with a fair and open mind.

now you use the cheapest and most dishonest trick: the "consensus whine" as I call it.

No, we must look at the merits of each paper. The consensus is strong because papers critical of it have been found to be flawed, while papers supporting it have been found to be better. The consensus can thus serve as an indication if a paper may be flawed - does it need to be scrutinized extra-carefully or is it in line with a lot of well-tested work? But it does not absolve us from checking.

In this case, you have displayed the typical dishonesty of a denialist. You misrepresented the paper and conflated my opinion with the paper. That's not how you convince me that this paper needs extra scrutiny. That's how you tell me that you can't look at it open-minded.

 

[MrCynical]

Stop pontificating - usually that's the intro to a clueless post - or a lie. Which will it be?
And quit whining if I reproduce a headline in a font size that's typical for a headline. You're trying to score cheap points through unfair implications. If you had any proper argument, I guess you wouldn't need to try and obfuscate.

I wasn't pontificating here CarlosMM . I was very careful in my original post to be both polite and fair - courtesies which you haven't returned. I like civilized discussion - are you willing to have one?

I guess that you means: because radiative forcings are logarithmic, and because the CO2 increase in even the most wild IPCC models is low, there will be little warming.

However, the scenario we currently seem to be fulfilling, A1 (incidentally the worst case of those often used) shows a business-as-usual course that will at least double CO by 2100 - that's bad enough. If we assume that climate sensitivity is 3°, and that we have already seen 1° (both cautious assumptions) we will get another 2°. I call this a strong warming, considering the consequences we already see taking place.

Actually 1000ppm CO2 by 2100 isn't that far outside the IPCC models. A 16C temperature increase way beyond even the worse case scenarios presented though. 2 degrees may be strong warning, but it's nothing compared to the 16 degree impication of the paper.

Oh, you can't? because the entire thing talked about CO2 levels, and then simply compared what the temperature was when we last had these levels - but nowhere does anyone say we will definitely see these temps?

But the entire tone of your post, and for that matter the paper's conclusion was "look - things are much worse than the current worst case scenarios". If you don't agree with that then fine - say so, but bear in mind you're being rather misleading in your presentation of this. You don't like what I've picked up from this thread - fine. What do you think the likely scenario is?

But they don't!

In fact, you ignore that the paper lists solar output (lesser back then), palaeogeography (roughly similar), carbon cycle (not only plants), in addition to plant cover and ice. So, basically, we have another strawman. or have you not read the paper, but only the quote here?

I have read the paper CarlosMM - are you sure you've linked to the right one? There's no data at all on paleogeography, the carbon cycle, plant cover or ice in the paper you're quoting. They state them as possible sources of additional feedback, but give no evidence or any form of data to either back it up, or to suggest they've really put much thought into it. There is one graph on solar output to be fair. It is after all more of a discussion paper than one presenting research.

That doesn't show that the statement is unsupported. Current models take fast feedbacks into account, but slow feedbacks are ignored. Very high CO2 levels in the past correlate with temperatures that can only be explained if slow feedbacks are taken into account.

Let me spell this out: There is no evidence to support the statement. Basic science - I'm not obliged to prove something is unsupported. They are obliged to present evidence to support it,and as outlined, they haven't. Let me just quote that statement again.

If the world reaches such concentrations of atmospheric CO2, positive feedback processes can amplify global warming beyond current modeling estimates

They do not present any evidence for this, beyond stating it after the discussion of the global temperature the last time CO2 hit 1000ppm. Now either they believe the temperature is going to be higher based on that than current modelling estimates, or this is a total non sequiteur to the rest of the paper. So they do stray over the line from correlation to causation. Since the temperature was that high last time round, they are assuming that current models are innaccurate - that is assuming causation in there. If you don't agree with that then fine, but make that clear when you start quoting them.

And nobody talks about perfect control here - as opposed to what you claim is being claimed and demand to be done, it is not necessary to account for every variable in the world. AS long as we know if it has a positive or negative feedback, and how large that will very roughly be, we can predict up or down - not to a tenth of a degree, but well enough to see if models are generally accurate or not.

Unless you know of a variable, how are you planning to tell whether it's positive/negative and what kind of magnitude? When I see quotes for future temperatures, I expect to see very large error bars, as I really don't think models allow for anywhere near all the influence on the climate. That is after all the point of the paper - it's just they reckon we're underestimating, again assuming 1000ppm has at least some causation for the temperature in that time period.

Current models take fast feedbacks into account, but slow feedbacks are ignored. Very high CO2 levels in the past correlate with temperatures that can only be explained if slow feedbacks are taken into account.

See my previous comments about controls. Scientists wince when they're informed that X is the only possible explanation, particularly in a huge and poorly understood system.

Vast areas of climate research would still have to be wrong.

oh? really?

which are these?

All those which were producing the vast underestimates of the change in temperature - which would be basically all current climate models. As I said - If the implication of 1000ppm = 16C rise is true. You could argue it as merely incomplete, but I don't draw much distinction between "struggling to get in the same order of magnitude" and "wrong".

Yep - if it made sense and wasn't the usual denialist cherry-picking, I'd have been delighted. Because that would have been a strong indication that our problems will be less than expected. And wouldn't you be glad if you can continue to drive a big car without having to tell your kids in 20 to 30 years that you knew about the problem but didn't do diddly squat to solve it?

Out of interest, what exactly do you expect me personally to do to solve it? At present I'm interested in keeping climate science firmly following the scientific method, though maybe it's wishful thinking to think I have an infinitessimally higher chance of making an impact on that front.

now you use the cheapest and most dishonest trick: the "consensus whine" as I call it.

No, we must look at the merits of each paper. The consensus is strong because papers critical of it have been found to be flawed, while papers supporting it have been found to be better. The consensus can thus serve as an indication if a paper may be flawed - does it need to be scrutinized extra-carefully or is it in line with a lot of well-tested work? But it does not absolve us from checking.

In this case, you have displayed the typical dishonesty of a denialist. You misrepresented the paper and conflated my opinion with the paper. That's not how you convince me that this paper needs extra scrutiny. That's how you tell me that you can't look at it open-minded.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - yes I generally agree with that. As for your criticism of my open-mindedness, you've rather shot yourself in the foot though. Let me ask you a simple question:

What is my opinion on climate change, and what evidence can you present for it?

You've already made your views fairly clear in your last paragraph. The rather ugly term "denialist" really doesn't belong in scientific discussion, but it seems you've already made up your mind on this. I haven't actually stated an opinion one way or the other on climate change in this thread - I have an opinion, but I haven't given you any evidence of what it is, nor is it really relevant to the discussion. In fact I don't think I've ever posted my personal views on this subject, so pretty much any response could be filed under "unsupported", but I'm willing to listen and maybe you can prove me wrong. What I have objected to is bad scientific practice - which given the path I've taken in life I feel obliged to call out whether it's matching my personal opinion or not.

Now I'll make one last try at this CarlosMM - please can you give me a civil response? I'm doing my best to be fair here, and I wasn't impressed by the amount of bile in your last post.

 

[Berzerker]

Carlos

However, the scenario we currently seem to be fulfilling, A1 (incidentally the worst case of those often used) shows a business-as-usual course that will at least double CO by 2100 - that's bad enough. If we assume that climate sensitivity is 3°, and that we have already seen 1° (both cautious assumptions) we will get another 2°. I call this a strong warming, considering the consequences we already see taking place.

we've seen a 1 degree C increase?

and this increase is coming out of a "little ice age" that ended 110-150 years ago?

how much warming did we see between the end of the last ice age and the Younger Dryas reversal?

that was either orbital forcing or Atlanteans - and you call orbital forcing "weak"?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Check it out, might explain evidence of glaciation at or near our present equator. But it does put our gnashing of teeth over co2 into context. I remember watching a docu on "Snowball Earth" and the "drop stones" they showed came from Africa, the maps at that link show glaciation in Africa - when Africa was closer to the south pole.

Fig 1 also shows that carbon dioxide and methane (main greenhouse gases) occur in higher concentrations during warm periods; the two variables, temperature and greenhouse gas concentration, are clearly consistent, yet it is not clear what drives what. The correlation coefficient is 0.81 between CO2 content and apparent temperature, on the whole. During deglaciation the two varied simultaneously, but during times of cooling the CO2 changed after the temperature change, by up to 1000 years. This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

 

[countrygrl]

The warming we are seeing now has absolutely positively nothing to do with the little ice age. It has everything to do with chemistry. For every mole of fuel we combust, we produce a mole of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide has a dipole moment which results in a net increase of heat energy held within our atmosphere. The more fossil fuels you burn, the hotter the atmosphere will get. It's not exactly rocket science. What's worse is the positive feedback loops we are creating across the globe, destroying species, expanding deserts, exhausting water supplies... it spells out one thing. Sooner or later humanity will face the end of the world as we know it if we don't change course. The sad part is that a disaster of monolithic proportions will undoubtedly be required for us to change our perceptions.

 

[Berzerker]

The warming we are seeing now has absolutely positively nothing to do with the little ice age.

You mean we should still be in the little ice age? Solar output began increasing in the 1800s and major volcanism has declined by 5x. The warming we are seeing since the end of the little ice age coincides with temp records, using that distorts the picture. Looking at the past cycling between cool and warm trends within even longer trends shows we're fretting over a tiny blip - a beneficial blip. Life was brutal 200 years ago...

It has everything to do with chemistry. For every mole of fuel we combust, we produce a mole of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide has a dipole moment which results in a net increase of heat energy held within our atmosphere. The more fossil fuels you burn, the hotter the atmosphere will get. It's not exactly rocket science.

Can we start with all that as a "given"? Why didn't all that hot air help us during the little ice age?

What's worse is the positive feedback loops we are creating across the globe, destroying species, expanding deserts, exhausting water supplies... it spells out one thing. Sooner or later humanity will face the end of the world as we know it if we don't change course. The sad part is that a disaster of monolithic proportions will undoubtedly be required for us to change our perceptions.

That aint from a slightly warmer world, thats over population. Deserts tend to expand during long cooling trends which are generally related to the changing axial tilt etc, so do ice sheets and glaciers that lock up fresh water. The Sahara was livable the last time the Earth's tilt was near its maximum because of an expanded monsoon track. We've cooled since, and the tilt is ~ 1 degree less and the Sahara has grown This world saw its most productive periods - from the POV of life, species, etc - when it was warmer, much warmer. And little or no ice...

 

[choxorn]

For every mole of fuel we combust, we produce a mole of carbon dioxide.

Assuming the molecules in the fuel contain one carbon atom each. If the fuel contains say, 3 carbon atoms in a molecule (Propane is C3H8, for instance), then 3 moles of carbon dioxide will be released for every one mole of the fuel burned.

The sad part is that a disaster of monolithic proportions will undoubtedly be required for us to change our perceptions.

Sadder is, if said disaster does occur, it might already be too late.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I don't know if arguing with someone about whether CO2 is a GHG is of any value.

If you're really concerned about AGW, then I suggest clipping scientific articles (good ones) as they come out, and mail them to a politician. I've also email my car dealer to complain about how my new car has much less efficiency than my old car. And I've mailed my electricity company saying that I'll move to electric heat once they start sequestering some of their carbon.

Some of this is a battle of tidbits.

 

[Arwon]

Sure. One thing I found out in the distant past (i.e. three years ago) was that ten percent of all human greenhouse gas emissions come from......drum roll.....HUMANS. Not cars, and not factories. From humans BREATHING.

That makes no sense. Human respiration is a closed loop, all the carbon was previously taken out of the air via photosynthesis, there's no net addition to the atmosphere.