Global warming - caused by humans or not?

[ainwood]

We've got a problem if we're confusing science with politics; or, more accurately, if we're letting science be politicized.

In any case, does this look like "merely a cycle" to you?

No, but it does look like the result of using proxies and actual measurements on the same graph, which shouldn't be done. And it does look like a proxy analysis that is deeply flawed: it is my understanding that proxies that support the hypothesis were included, and ones that don't were excluded (or given a lower weighting). This graph doesn't appear to show the medieval warm period, for example. Of course, this could be checked more easily if the scientists doing the work would release their data and their methodology, you know, like 'scientific method' tends to require (see www.climateaudit.org for more details).

Re contribution of CO2, here is a timely article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/

Summary: he uses a (very simplistic) correlation to estimate CO2 increases based on anthropogenic vs increases in sea temperature.

 

[Simple Simon]

ah, the same old lies, along with the 'there is a 1 per mil chance that one of your datapoints could be wrong! No, i can't believe what I don't like, whatever the evidence'.

Sigh - what would it take to convince people that pumping massive amounts of green house gasses into the athmosphere will - golly! - increase the green house effect? God throwing stone slabs with 'YOU DID IT!' at them?

I doubt that would suffice......

ainwood, I asked you a long time ago, and I never got answers:
- where is all that CO2 going that is created by burning gas, coal and oil? Or do you accept that a large part is stying in the athmosphere?
- why is this CO2(along with the increasingly released methane), over the last 200 years, not changing our climate, when in fact we know that these gases do exactly that?
- and what other mystery process is causing the massive temperature rise, when solar activity, Milankovich cycles and naturally released green house gases have been ruled out?

 

[El_Machinae]

Of course the majority of CO2 change is according to natural cycles. But the year-to-year increase will have a heavy human component. His first graph is comparing the rate of change to yearly emissions (a bit deceptive, since one is an acceleration (i.e., derivative of velocity) and one is merely a velocity: this is why they look uncorrelated).

As the planet breathes, the CO2 will change. I've often said that humans are causing the 10% yearly increase. I think he's coming to the same conclusion I am, but then confusing the meaning.

 

[tdb]

Re contribution of CO2, here is a timely article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/

Summary: he uses a (very simplistic) correlation to estimate CO2 increases based on anthropogenic vs increases in sea temperature.

That article has an interesting point hidden in it. Warming of ocean causes an increase in the CO₂ levels of the atmosphere. But CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and causes warming of the atmosphere! That's a positive feedback loop. Looking back at the graph of CO₂ levels in the past 400000 years, it seems that it's released very quickly until something halts the process and the levels begin to decrease again. At present, the levels are already past the point where the increasing normally stops. If we upset the balance too much, we may end up with a runaway temperature rise, and given how little we really know about climate and its mechanisms, it's anyone's guess what happens after that. For a worst case scenario, watch the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". At best, we'll just have a few hundred million people starve due to decreasing crop yields. (That's assuming we do nothing to prevent it - it's not too late yet.)

 

[raigainousa]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/...-simple-model/

Nice article. Simple but self-explanatory.

 

[peter grimes]

At best, we'll just have a few hundred million people starve due to decreasing crop yields

I don't think that's the thing to worry about. The bit that scares me into having post-apocalyptic visions in the sea-level rise and its impact on delta regions. Hundreds of millions of people will have to physically get up and go somewhere else. Starving people will eventually die. People on the move form mobs.

 

[Narz]

People on the move form mobs.

and mobs have MobBosses.

 

[ainwood]

ah, the same old lies, along with the 'there is a 1 per mil chance that one of your datapoints could be wrong! No, i can't believe what I don't like, whatever the evidence'.

If there is a 1-in-a-million chance that their datapoints are wrong, then why the reluctance to share them and have other people verify their results?

Go read up on some of the examples.
here is a case where a proxy was included up-side down.
here is an analysis that shows that the number of principle components used analysis of antarctic warming was 'optimised' to give the maximum positive trend.
Or you may like to check out Surfacestations.org where they have assessed 70% of the north american surface temperature stations (the stations that input into GISS temperature record, IIRC). Apparently 69% of stations are considered class 4 or 5: ie they are within 10m of an artificial heating source (or heat store), and estimated to have errors of >= 2°F.

Sigh - what would it take to convince people that pumping massive amounts of green house gasses into the athmosphere will - golly! - increase the green house effect? God throwing stone slabs with 'YOU DID IT!' at them?

I doubt that would suffice......

ainwood, I asked you a long time ago, and I never got answers:
- where is all that CO2 going that is created by burning gas, coal and oil? Or do you accept that a large part is stying in the athmosphere?

Well, I don't remember this being asked by you, but anyway:

Yes, CO2 created by burning coal gas & oil is going in to the atmosphere. Is that the main source of CO2 increase? Not sure. Is world biomass increasing offsetting some? Apparently. I'll put some more thought into that later.

- why is this CO2(along with the increasingly released methane), over the last 200 years, not changing our climate, when in fact we know that these gases do exactly that?

Not saying that its not. But how much? And what other mechanisms are in-play? What is the impact of cloud cover? What about ocean currents?

- and what other mystery process is causing the massive temperature rise, when solar activity, Milankovich cycles and naturally released green house gases have been ruled out?

Well, is it a massive temperature rise?

Latest UAH lower troposhere satellite record shows that the temperature is currently 0.09°C above the 1979 - 2000 average.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, CO2 created by burning coal gas & oil is going in to the atmosphere. Is that the main source of CO2 increase? Not sure. Is world biomass increasing offsetting some? Apparently. I'll put some more thought into that later.

It looks like Canada's forests have become a net-emitter in the last five years, because we're seeing increased invasive species killing trees due to the warming. This trend could very well continue, because bug can migrate faster than trees can evolve.

I'd think it obvious, though, that biomass will offset some of the CO2 increase. This is an important part of the year-to-year ppm increase. I don't have a reason to think that biomass will cause CO2 to go down, if we continue to emit sequestered carbon, though.

What is the impact of cloud cover? What about ocean currents?

Well, ocean currents can transfer heat, not remove it. I really think they're responsible for the unexpected loss of northern sea ice.

Cloud cover is the data point I'm waiting for. The increased humidity is going to compound the retained heat, clearly. Albedo could slow the rate of heat increase, though, to negligible levels. (though it doesn't seem to have been doing so, so far)

I'm worried about losing the buffering benefit of the sea ice. My beer cooler stays at 0 C when I'm on the beach, until the ice is melted.

 

[ainwood]

Well, ocean currents can transfer heat, not remove it. I really think they're responsible for the unexpected loss of northern sea ice.

Yep, but because the oceans aren't in complete thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere, the ocean currents can cause heating (or cooling) of the atmosphere. And when people measure the atmospheric (or even sea surface) temperature to point to global warming (or cooling), then this can be misleading. I personally think that the IPCC should look at total energy stored, not just temperature.

Cloud cover is the data point I'm waiting for. The increased humidity is going to compound the retained heat, clearly. Albedo could slow the rate of heat increase, though, to negligible levels. (though it doesn't seem to have been doing so, so far)

I think this is one of the points that the IPCC models don't model particularly well. The assumption is that the increased water vapour causes an increased greenhouse effect. The net effect depends on where the clouds form.

 

[Ghpstage]

I personally think that the IPCC should look at total energy stored, not just temperature.

Is there a way this can be done? I would have thought temperatures would be the only data we have on total energy that can be measured with reasonable accuracy, I certainly wouldn't want to be given the job of measuring total wave and wind energies

 

[ainwood]

Wind and wave energy is a function of the kinetic energy of the air & sea. Total energy would be (average temperature of sea - arbitrary base temperature) * heat capacity of sea + (average temperature or atmosphere - arbitrary base temperature) * heat capacity of air.

The arbitrary base temperature is needed because energy (well, enthalpy at least) can't be directly measured, only changes in enthalpy can be measured.

 

[Ghpstage]

Wind and wave energy is a function of the kinetic energy of the air & sea. Total energy would be (average temperature of sea - arbitrary base temperature) * heat capacity of sea + (average temperature or atmosphere - arbitrary base temperature) * heat capacity of air.

The arbitrary base temperature is needed because energy (well, enthalpy at least) can't be directly measured, only changes in enthalpy can be measured.

I should have known this! I was thinking about Bernoulli effects, didn't think about it being the full system (**Note to self, not every problem with air or water involved is a fluid problem )

I'd suppose if we also measure Earth's heat loss, solar energy in and ground temp we could measure any net gains/moves over a period. Measuring average ground temperature might cause a problem though

After thinking about it, I would have thought this would be the model used in most climate change studies, if not theres bound to be a good explanation why?

 

[AngryZealot]

So because some data was flawed, and some graphs "look" flawed, therefore all data is flawed. Gotcha.

 

[ainwood]

So because some data was flawed, and some graphs "look" flawed, therefore all data is flawed. Gotcha.

No.

Because some data is flawed, those flaws should be investigated, and that flawed data shouldn't be relied on.

And data generated by people in publically-funded research positions should be made available to other people to check & verify their results. And studies published in journals should also have dta made available.

 

[civ_king]

I'm not sure why people latch onto the CO2 more than other things. After all, we've been hearing an awful lot about ruminant methane lately. But again, this is due to human activity, not wild herds.
[snip]...

I concur, we have raised them after all, and without us raising them their numbers would number far lower by reducing beef intake not only do we slow climate change but we also could solve starvation...

BTW (pulling this out of my brain made of bull fart) but um, don't volcanoes dust and ash more then compensate for the Co2 like erm Tambora and uh Toba rendering the co2 moot? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg is an interesting thing

 

[El_Machinae]

I think this is one of the points that the IPCC models don't model particularly well. The assumption is that the increased water vapour causes an increased greenhouse effect. The net effect depends on where the clouds form.

Yeah, I'm waiting for the papers on that. In the meantime, though, I believe it to be pragmatic to reduce CO2 output and to prepare to greatly reduce CO2 output. This is because, frankly, all I have is a reason why it might NOT be too bad. I think we have a moral obligation to slow down activities that might be bad, and the data saying that it might be bad is pretty strong.

 

[civ_king]

if we act and GW is a hoax then worst case scenario we just chipped 2-3% off GROWTH, yes that's right-GDP that has yet to materialize

 

[Simple Simon]

If there is a 1-in-a-million chance that their datapoints are wrong, then why the reluctance to share them and have other people verify their results?

Go read up on some of the examples.
here is a case where a proxy was included up-side down.
here is an analysis that shows that the number of principle components used analysis of antarctic warming was 'optimised' to give the maximum positive trend.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you sound like a cross between a tobacco apologist and a YEC.

Or you may like to check out Surfacestations.org where they have assessed 70% of the north american surface temperature stations (the stations that input into GISS temperature record, IIRC). Apparently 69% of stations are considered class 4 or 5: ie they are within 10m of an artificial heating source (or heat store), and estimated to have errors of >= 2°F.

But it should not escape your mental powers that these heat sources are not exponentially increasing over the last few years. So the error is fact, but exists in a very similar fashion year after year after years..... i.e., all years are on average equally wrong. Thus, a trend is still a true trend, even if each individual value is artificially increased by a certain amount.

Also, where are those ominous artificial sources in all the other places in the world, e.g. the Arctic and Antarctic?
You're cherry-picking, and badly at that.

Yes, CO2 created by burning coal gas & oil is going in to the atmosphere. Is that the main source of CO2 increase? Not sure. Is world biomass increasing offsetting some? Apparently. I'll put some more thought into that later.

So you have no idea how much CO2 is fossil, precentage-wise? None?

Not saying that its not. But how much? And what other mechanisms are in-play? What is the impact of cloud cover? What about ocean currents?

So you are a GW agnostic? That's news to me.....
As for other mechanisms: many are known. And as you point out, many are not known well enough for my liking. So what should we do?

Let's look at the evidence we agree on (I assume we do):
- there is a world-wide warming trend
- it does not correlate with sunspots
- it does not correlate with Milankovitch cycles
- it does correlate roughly, albeit with a certain delay, with fossil CO2 emissions
- albedo from snow cover is going down, a self-reinforcing trend
- other factors play a role, a big one of those being that less fossil CO2 stays in the atmosphere than we produce (i.e., if fossil CO2 is bad, then the unknowns are ameliorating things for us)
- CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
- ancient times with high CO2 correlate with vastly different climates than ours.

In sum, what should we do - assume that we do not know enough and fence-sit, or assume that maybe we cause the feces that is happening and try to remove our massive CO2 input into a system we do not know well?

Well, is it a massive temperature rise?

Latest UAH lower troposhere satellite record shows that the temperature is currently 0.09°C above the 1979 - 2000 average.

You quote Roy Spencer on me?



sorry, but a guy who starts his GW 101 lecture with the words:

Global warming theory assumes the Earth is naturally in a state of "Global Energy Balance" (Absorbed Sunlight = Emitted Infrared"

in my book counts right along with the people at conservapedia and Answers in Genesis.

EDIT: golly, I can smell out a creationist better than a pig can smell a truffel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views_on_creationism_and_intelligent_design

Guilty as hell! He is a kook! EDIT: I was wrong, he is a paid liar. see EDIT below.

And even better: I was right about the tobacco apologist parallel as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views_on_global_warming, last sentence:

Spencer is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute.

Golly, what are these institutes?
heartland institute:

Heartland's publications make the following assertions about climate change:

* "Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate."[7]
* "The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend."[7]
* "A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."[7]
* "The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'."

OK, lies, plain and simple. Even better, it works for tobacco apologists directly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Tobacco

now for the other guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on scientific issues and public policy. In the 1990s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

More recently, the Institute has focused on disputing mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. Funded by ExxonMobil and chaired by a former official of the American Petroleum Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute has been described by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians",[1] and by Newsweek as a "central cog in the denial machine."[2] Historian Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.

More tobacco apologists.


Sorry, ainwood, but if this is the people you rely on, then I must discount what you say as paid lies. You may not realize that you are being lied to, and actually believe that you, personally, are telling the truth, but anyone who WANTS to see WILL see that there is ample evidence: you rely on the opinion of hired mouthpieces who have been proved, thousands of times, to have lied, lied, and lied again, even in court or before congress, under oath, about tobacco and other poisons. And now you assume that they suddenly found the holy truth about an issue where some of their main funding source (e.g. ExxonMobile) have a vested interest in their finding them not guilty?

 

[ainwood]

Sorry to be so blunt, but you sound like a corss between a tobacco apologist and a YEC.

Right. So you start with an attack on me.

But it should not escape your mental powers that these heat sources are not exponentially increasing over the last few years. So the error is fact, but exists in a very similar fashion year after year after years..... i.e., all years are on average equally wrong. Thus, a trend is still a true trend, even if each individual value is artificially increased by a certain amount.

Also, where are those ominous artificial sources in all the other places in the world, e.g. the Arctic and Antarctic?
You're cherry-picking, and badly at that.

..and it should not have escaped yours that the station history of many of these locations has changed. Sites were not always, for example, next to the outlet of air conditioning units. Go have a look at the temperature records for individual stations, and find the point at which the temperatures jump around.

And as for the arctic & antarctic, we have a new study that shows that the antarctic is warming slightly, which is very amusing. For a long time we had "the antarctic is cooling slightly, but that is exactly what is predicted by global warming models". Now we ahve "see, the antarctic is warming too, just like we said" (I paraphrase somewhat, obviously). But that study is another flawed study, by the looks of it.

So you have no idea how much CO2 is fossil, precentage-wise? None?

Enlighten me, then. How much is due to fossil fuels?

So you are a GW agnostic? That's news to me.....
As for other mechanisms: many are known. And as you point out, many are not known well enough for my liking. So what should we do?

Let's look at the evidence we agree on (I assume we do):
- there is a world-wide warming trend
- it does not correlate with sunspots
- it does not correlate with Milankovitch cycles
- it does correlate roughly, albeit with a certain delay, with fossil CO2 emissions
- albedo from snow cover is going down, a self-reinforcing trend
- other factors play a role, a big one of those being that less fossil CO2 stays in the atmosphere than we produce (i.e., if fossil CO2 is bad, then the unknowns are ameliorating things for us)
- CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
- ancient times with high CO2 correlate with vastly different climates than ours.

In sum, what should we do - assume that we do not know enough and fence-sit, or assume that maybe we cause the feces that is happening and try to remove our massive CO2 input into a system we do not know well?

I think you'll find that the correlation coefficients for some of these other things are probably as good as for Mann's reconstructions.

You quote Roy Spencer on me?



sorry, but a guy who starts his GW 101 lecture with the words:


in my book counts right along with the people at conservapedia and Answers in Genesis.

Ah yes - an ad-hominem. Perhaps we can have a critique of the UAH temperature measurements, and why it is flawed and completely wrong? Do you think that if Roy Spencer didn't work at UAH then the temperature record would change?

It appears that the guys there are a hell of a lot more transparent with their methodology than the likes of GISS are with their surface temperature 'record', where they adjust values up and down all the time.


Edit: Didn't realise that you'd edited your post to spend a post a whole lot more of your ad-hominem attacks. Forgive me if I ignore them, and just ask you to answer this question: Perhaps we can have a critique of the UAH temperature measurements, and why it is flawed and completely wrong? Do you think that if Roy Spencer didn't work at UAH then the temperature record would change?