Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Next
Comments 99151 to 99200:
-
Chemist1 at 01:19 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Now keep in mind the claims of global warming violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Now keep in mind the topic of this post and the Comments Policy. Off-topic comments will get deleted. Comments on the violation of the 2nd Law can be found here. I would also suggest reading this post as well. -
Chemist1 at 01:18 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Two things:already read those links. They contain no robust data to defend your claims. More importantly according to fundamental principles in chemistry and yes, Physical Chemistry, greenhouse gases cannot lead to a large amount of warming but can only be involved in heating processes. I already read the claim that hfranzen is a physical chemist. Even if true no actual data from P-chem supports his claims.Moderator Response: Comment on those relevant threads, not here, where further off topic comments will be deleted. -
muoncounter at 00:43 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
#6: "C02 has been higher on this planet prior to humans being here." Effectively dealt with here. "C02 lags temperature changes." And dealt with here. I would challenge anyone who believes that the observable atmospheric CO2 increase is coming from the oceans to show some data supporting that assertion. See the relevant thread. -
JMurphy at 00:29 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Chemist1, it is obvious that you do not know the difference between climate and weather, and that you think that records are records because you probably read about them somewhere. Also, that you think that certain areas or regions of the world represent the world as a whole. I agree with the response you got on another thread : start learning by going here, here, and here. Once you have some facts and figures to back up any of your assertions, come back and try again. -
adelady at 00:13 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
@61 "Last winter the continent of South America had a record cold winter." http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/map-blended-mntp-201006-201008.gif This graphic shows a couple of cooler areas in parts of the continent. The report it's taken from mentions cold conditions in a couple of places, but *not* South America. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100915_globalstats.html Do you have a reference for the record cold winter? -
Chemist1 at 23:48 PM on 10 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Oh and yes I know about the claim of a statistical averaging in terms of climate versus weather along a 30 year or so timescale, but this is not really useful at all. For one even with all of the weather stations and satellites, floats in the ocean, and thermal imaging, we still are not able to evaluate and assess all sources and sinks in the real system. GCM's are getting better but are not very good at long term projections and are not predictive at all. One may make an argument of NOA being affected by global warming or the late Steven Schnider's prediction on cloud formations, but to date no empirical data exists to support such assertions.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] If you knew the difference between weather and climate you would not have just posted the previous comment. As for the other items you mention (satellite and ocean heat measurements, clouds, GCM's, "NOA [do you mean NAO?]), use the search function in the upper left corner to find a more appropriate thread to posit your questions on. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 23:45 PM on 10 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Last winter the continent of South America had a record cold winter. The East coast is currently expreriencing record breaking cold conditions, (and snowfall in some places exceeding expectations of climate scientists and many meteorologists)California had a uncharactistically cold summer and is now experiencing an unusually cold winter, Europe has been experiencing a cold wave, NY had some heat waves but nothing record breaking, Minnesota has been experiencing extreme cold characteristic of what would be expected for that region, and Russia had some record breking heat waves. If there is no global cooling there is certainly no global warming either. -
Chemist1 at 23:40 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
This post has several flaws in it. Most notably a far too superficial discussion on thermodynamics and a vague discussion on averages. When I have more time I will go into detail but for now temperature changes can greatly affect how much C02 is exchanged naturally from oceans to the atmosphere. Second what does hfranzen mean by "on the average?" There are many ways to measure averages loosely or central tendency, so on what timescales in what way is the claim average being made and actually measured? C02 has been higher on this planet prior to humans being here. Oceans supply most of our oxygen supplies as well. C02 lags temperature changes. C02 has very different effects in an open system than in a closed one like in a lab experiment where controlled conditions do not necessarily mimick real world, natural behavior. Thermodynamics also limits how much temperature changes can be possible due to rising greenhouse gases. Large amounts of C02 and CH4 can be added to the system with no net temperature change. As hfranzen correctly mentions: the oceans are full of life and complex biological cycles and buffering capacity. Water with a high heat capacity covering around 75% of the earth's surface with incredible depths can trap heat indefinitley as it goes from the warmer body to the cooler body due to temperature differences. This is basic thermodynamics: heat travels to the cooler body.Even process like convection and advection are not going to grab all of the heat and trap it in a manner that raises temperature, which is just the statistical averaging of kinetic motion of molecules. It is still impossible to actually average global temperature though the GCM's and techniques are getting better.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] My, that is quite the Gish Gallop. I would suggest you go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html to learn more. Thanks! -
Bernard J. at 22:59 PM on 10 January 2011The physical realities of global warming
Hi John. Would it be possible to update the second figure to include the 2010 value, perhaps in a separate colour? I think that it would demonstrate a point... -
Chemware at 22:56 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Thanks boba10960 - exactly what I wanted - I have a mate (a scientist !!!) who is in deep denial, and "warming oceans" is his pet theory. Nice to know that the oceans have not warmed by 12 C or so. -
boba10960 at 21:38 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
One can find extensive technical information that backs up the post of hfranzen on the web site of the Carbon Dioxide Information Data Center: CDIAC Chemware: You can download CO2SYS from the CDIAC web site as an Excel file to perform the calculations you may wish to play with. It is well documented so that educators can use it for classroom exercises. Others have used full ocean models to calculate the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration in response to the changes in whole-ocean average temperature. I don't remember the source or I would cite it, but the sensitivity is about 7 or 8 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 per degree of warming of the ENTIRE ocean (mainly the deep ocean). Since the deep ocean has warmed hardly at all, and the surface ocean has warmed only a fraction of a degree, the contribution to rising atmospheric CO2 by warming of the ocean over the past century is negligible. One other comment: The calculations described by hfranzen are for a lifeless ocean. The net effect of organisms in the ocean is to transfer carbon from the atmosphere and the surface ocean down into the deep sea, commonly known as the "biological pump". The net effect is that the dissolved carbon concentration in the deep ocean is about 10% greater than it would be in a lifeless ocean, while the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is much lower than it would be if the ocean were lifeless. Calculations done in the early 1980's indicate that atmospheric CO2 could be as high as 450 ppm in a lifeless ocean. These calculations are summarized more recently in the textbook "Ocean Biogeochemical Cycles" by Jorge Sarmiento and Niki Gruber. Despite massive human impact on fisheries, as yet there is no evidence that humans have measurably perturbed the biological pump, but perturbation remains a possibility that could lead to either a positive or a negative feedback for atmospheric CO2. For example, the idea to lower atmospheric CO2 by adding iron to the ocean around Antarctica is based on stimulating the biological pump to transfer more carbon into the deep sea. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 21:35 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 To put it very simply: looking at the causes of past climate change will not tell you much about the causes of current climate change. To understand current climate change, you have to look at the different factors which we know have an impact on global climate. Scientists have done that, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of current warming, while other factors such as solar variability, the Milankovitch cycles, internal variability and volcanic activity are very unlikely to be the cause of current warming. It's not twisted logic, it's the conclusion reached by thousands of climate scientists based on evidence. Because one factor was responsible for warming in the past doesn't mean that factor is responsible for current warming. I have already asked you to tell me which mechanism is responsible for current warming, if not CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and you failed to answer me. So I'm going to ask you again: 1) Which factor is responsible for current warming, and what data do you base this assertion on? Can warming caused by this factor explain other observations, such as nights warming faster than days and stratospheric cooling? You seem to think that orbital changes are responsible for current warming - can you find me a single scientific paper that shows it? 2) Why would an increase in CO2, a gaz which absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, not have an impact on temperatures? Do you have evidence, as published in the scientific literature, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally flawed? -
MarkR at 20:53 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
2/ plus humans are emitting CO2 at a rate faster than it's building up in the atmosphere. If oceans are outgassing it too, then where the hell are human emissions going and why is chemistry broken? And why do we measure falling ocean pH? The 'CO2 rise isn't human caused' arguments is one of the stupidest I can think of once you look at the data. Sure, to someone who's new to the whole deal and hasn't seen the figures it might make sense, but consistent 'skeptics' should know better. -
JMurphy at 18:58 PM on 10 January 2011We're heading into cooling
cruzn246, could you post your location on the It's Freaking Cold thread (even if only generally, but more detailed than "Midwest") so we can all check when you might have actually last had any record high temperatures ? -
scaddenp at 18:49 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
3/ Well eventually this IS a carbon feedback, but outgassing from ocean as source of current CO2 is unsupportable. If this was true, the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 would be different from the observed. -
Chemware at 18:23 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
A couple of suggestions:- Provide references to the various data used in the calculation;
- Put the model into a spreadsheet, and provide a link for others to play with it;
- One skeptic theory is that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by outgassing from the warming oceans. What oceanic temperature increase would be required to produce this ?
- Have you searched the literature for work on this subject ?
-
archiesteel at 15:40 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel: "Trotting out that tired old graph shows that you don't understand what I explained in #154" It's not a tired old graph, and it shows exactly what apiratelooksat50 asked about: a correlation between CO2 and temperature. The "red herring" is your artificial requirement that CO2 and temperature must *always* correlate. That's simply not true, as aerosols and other forcings (such as orbital forcings) can also affect temperatures. What you and apiratelooksat50 have failed to demonstrate is how the current warming isn't linked to CO2, despite the mountain of evidence suggesting it is. Until you bring that evidence, you have no argument. Oh, and I wasn't briging up the funding issue, I simply stated in a colorful way that only a very small minority of climate scientists support your position, and that many of them appear to be scientists-for-hire given their past employers. I do agree that it's off-topic, however, and won't mention it any further in this thread. -
apiratelooksat50 at 15:32 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Sphaerica @ 189: "So, at the end, you come out with the same old, tired, wishy-washy nonsense. You agree with the logic, but there are "uncertainties" and things we can't quantify or know and "It's the magnitude of these effects that are in legitimate question."" We agree on some of the more basic mechanics and science of climate. Absolutley there are uncertainties and unknowns. Read the pro-AGW papers yourself and note the use of "uncertain" words like may, possible, potential, suggest, etc... Read the twisted logic in the last paragraph that started this thread. It says that CO2 did not initiate the shifts toward interglacials the past 400,000 years, but current climate change is driven by GHG's. It then has the audacity to say the conclusion was not based on analysis of past climate change. I'm a peacemaker by nature, and I realize that discussing climate change and it's mechanics are akin to discussing evolution vs. creationism. (FWIW I firmly believe in evolution). We will probably never agree with the other side, but serious, civil scientific discussion is always enjoyable. Only the march of time will decide who the victor in this debate is.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You misquote Anne-Marie's paragraph:"To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change."
This issue has been examined thoroughly. Per the National Academies, global warming is an accepted fact and that we are causing it is a greater than 90% likelihood. The reason that past climate change is not a useful comp for what is empirically, measurably occurring today is that at no demonstrable point in the paleo record has CO2 ever increased in the atmosphere by such a large amount in such a short period of time in the absence of other causative forcings and feedbacks (the rate is the thing). If you don't understand the post and the material it links to, don't mischaracterize with terms like "twisted logic" or "audacity". Similarly, if you do understand it but disagree, do so respectfully. And provide links to peer-reviewed, published material that supports your disagreement. All else is hand-waving. -
gallopingcamel at 15:30 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
archiesteel (#186), Trotting out that tired old graph shows that you don't understand what I explained in #154. You misunderstood (deliberately?) "apiratelooksat50s" comment (#184). He was challenging you to match the CO2 curve to temperature over an extended period of time and that simply can't be done. The best you can hope for is a match over a few decades (e.g. 1975 to 2000) but there will be other periods where the correlation is in anti-phase (e.g 1934 to 1975) at least in the arctic: http://www.skepticalscience.com/twice-as-much-canada.html http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/coastal-average.png In an effort to find common ground, I support DB's opinion that the funding issue is a red herring.Moderator Response: {Daniel Bailey] I made no such claim about funding. But while I'm here, let's address your misunderstanding of archiesteel's graph. You are simply incorrect that a match cannot be done over a space longer than a few decades (a thorough reading of this post over at RC is called for), as archiesteel's graph covers a 160-year period. If you want still longer, than how about this (note the zero year is 1950):
-
villabolo at 15:24 PM on 10 January 2011What's in a Name?
Perhaps we should use a triple foundation of the following: Global Warming-the man made cause. Climate Change-the natural consequences Climate Crisis-the social consequences. -
apiratelooksat50 at 14:35 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Archiesteel @ 186 "It's not really in question. Just about the only "scientists" contesting this are financed by conservative think tanks, themselves bankrolled by the like of David Koch and his ilk." By this logic, "scientists" financed by liberal think tanks should be ignored as well.Moderator Response: Okay, fair enough. Now everybody please back off the politics. -
muoncounter at 14:27 PM on 10 January 2011We're heading into cooling
#23: "I cannot remember... " Short memory? Looks like you were probably in the red in November. But now its moisture that keeps it warm? Can you substantiate that, with maybe some data?Moderator Response: Please, no substantiation. No discussion of local temperature records. -
cruzn246 at 14:18 PM on 10 January 2011We're heading into cooling
JMurph, I cannot remember the last record high temp in my area. Sure we had a warm summer, but it was the direct result of a nearly constant moist environment that kept nighttime temps abnormally high.Moderator Response: Enough with reports of local temperatures, especially ones based on personal memory. Stick to the topic of this thread. -
hfranzen at 14:04 PM on 10 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
P.S. to # 40. Please see comment #25 above. -
hfranzen at 14:00 PM on 10 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
It is not the water vapor feedback that concerns me - GWPPT6 has no feedback included in the calculation. In GWPPT6 the effect of carbon dioxide alone is isolated and therefore there is no interference from water vapor included. That is, there may well be some important absorption lines of water vapor and caron dioxide that overlap and if this is the case the calculated absorption by carbon dioxide could be in error because of this overlap. I feel quite certain that this is not a major effect, but it could have some impact upon the calculations. I would suggest that an accurate estimate of the effect of carbon dioxide could be found by doing the calculation including the enormous number of absorption lines of both carbon dioxide and water vapor including allowance for line broadening (collision effects, and his would require partitioning the calculation into temperature intervals as a function of altitude). I not only lack the data and the experience to do this calculation, but it would also require a huge amount of serious computer time. However I feel confident of the result because the number that I get is in the right ball-park. In fact until I am made aware of a more detailed calculation that yields a result that it significantly different from that of GWPPT6 I am inclined to believe that as long as the interest is in climate change, as opposed to local weather, the results of GWPPT6 are quite satisfactory. -
muoncounter at 13:46 PM on 10 January 2011Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
Last time this stomata question came up, the geocraft.com site featured prominently (but that was on a different thread). Oddly enough, one point never gets mentioned by the deniers: The error bars around stomata reconstructed CO2 values tend to be +/-50ppm. See Figure 6 in Jessen et al 2005 (one of the sources for the graph in #9). Put those error bars on the orange line around 300ppm in the graph in #9 and it is no different from the ice core data. And the deniers claim tree ring data is suspect! -
Daniel Bailey at 13:23 PM on 10 January 2011Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
(Reader Matthew posted this in a different thread at 12:54 PM on 10 January 2011; as a courtesy I'm reposting it here.)
Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years
A skeptic posted this and I went to know what you think of it. Thanks.
-
Bob Lacatena at 13:13 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
185, apiratelooksat50, So, at the end, you come out with the same old, tired, wishy-washy nonsense. You agree with the logic, but there are "uncertainties" and things we can't quantify or know and "It's the magnitude of these effects that are in legitimate question." No, they're not. At this point in time, multiple lines of evidence, from paleohistory to simple physics to GCMs all project climate sensitivity at between 2˚C and 4˚C per doubling, with somewhere around 3˚C being the best guess. So many lines of evidence converge on that point, as a matter of fact, that its nearly a certainty, and if there's any error in the estimate, it's in being too low. Still, at the end, you're position is simply that of the tired robots who are ideologically motivated and so can't be swayed by facts, because the facts can always be interpreted in a pleasing way to meet your wishes. And you've wasted everybody's time. Some simple irrefutable facts: 1) If we address the problem now, it will be cheap. If we don't both the suffering and the costs of climate change will be enormous. 2) Many of the solutions are in the ecological, strategic and economic interests of all parties anyway, completely separate from climate change issues. 3) There is immense inertia in the system. We have already dialed the planet's thermostat way, way up. Even if we found a way to completely stop burning fossil fuels today, the damage would be immense. The planet's temperature would continue to rise for some time. So your strategy of delay and deny and refute and vacillate and "let's just wait and see, shall we?" is going to have enormous, horrific repercussions. If we don't get things under control for 20 or 30 years, the price is going to be very, very steep. From the very beginning, I found your evolving tone of rational, mild resistance to be disingenuous. It set off all sorts of alarms in my denial detectors. I'm angry with myself for having held out hope, but on the other hand I'm certain that any number of lurkers have read our exchanges, and learned from them.Moderator Response: Additional comments on topics that are specifically addressed by other threads must be on those threads. I mean apiratelooksat50 and everybody else. Please. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:13 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Re: apiratelooksat50 (184)"If CO2 levels are a major force force in global temperature increases, and we have this sharp increase, then the we should see a similar increase in temperature."
Strawman argument. Lest I must repeat myself, this was all discussed further upthread."Can you overlay that graph, as well?"
archiesteel at 186 and muoncounter at 187 have more than fulfilled this request of yours. The Yooper -
Utahn at 12:44 PM on 10 January 2011Temp record is unreliable
If anyone cares I emailed the folks who have done the GSOD database, and it sounds like the GHCN daily record has an overlap with 4131 GSOD stations, but that the GHCN monthly stations(which according to the above provide the 3 main temperature datasets) do not overlap with the GSOD stations. Still not quite sure I understand that so if anyone has any other info feel free to chime in! -
muoncounter at 12:32 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#184: "Can you overlay that graph" Already done, most recently here. If you would look at and read and learn from other threads, you would see that your 'objections' have answers. All except for that untouchable bottom line 'no it's not'. Perhaps you should answer the question: What caused you to become so convinced that you are correct? What allows you to disregard mountains of evidence and cling to your pre-conceived mindset? #185: "Nothing should be ignored, but instead should be considered in reality ... " Ahh, now we bring in the reinforcements: solar magnetic field, cosmic rays, blocking, solar UV and what not? 'ABC': anything but CO2! Archie beat me to it. Continuing to chase those other strawmen is off topic for this thread. -
archiesteel at 12:28 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@apiratelooksat50: "If CO2 levels are a major force force in global temperature increases, and we have this sharp increase, then the we should see a similar increase in temperature." CO2 is not the only factor in global temperatures. It's naive to think there would be a 1:1 increase, and no one (except you, it seems) thinks this is what happening. It would appear you are setting up a strawman. This graph, posted in another article, does however show a pretty good relationship between CO2 and temperature:
"Nothing should be ignored, but instead should be considered in reality and not in gross projections of worst-case scenarios."
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst is the better survival strategy.
I'll add that most projections are in fact conservatives, and that apathy is a much bigger threat than alarmism right now.
"What!?!? Isn't this whole thread about orbital forcings and didn't we agree on the abilitiy of orbital cycles to initiate both warming and cooling phases?"
Sure, but orbital forcings aren't responsible for the current warming phase. That is pretty easy to prove, considering we have a pretty good grasp of the Earth's current orbital parameters.
"CO2 is a factor, but the major title is still disputed."
Not really.
"I can trot out as many peer reviewed papers as can you that differ with each other."
97% of publishing Climate Scientists support the idea of CO2 being the major driver of the current temperature increase. That's pretty far away from 50-50...
"It's the magnitude of these effects that are in legitimate question."
It's not really in question. Just about the only "scientists" contesting this are financed by conservative think tanks, themselves bankrolled by the like of David Koch and his ilk.
Seriously, there's not much to debate. Deniers and contrarians have failed time and time again to provide scientific evidence to support their challenge - and don't make any mistakes about it, the burden of proof is on them to show that the established science is wrong, not the other way around.
-
apiratelooksat50 at 11:06 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Sphaerica @ 183. "So all of your arguments devolve into one thing -- that the mechanisms as described are correct, but the quantifications are either unknown or unknowable, and therefore everything can be ignored." That is a broad stroke of the brush, but in an attempt at brevity: I have other points. Mechanisms are mostly correct, but the quantifications are not verifiable at this point. Nothing should be ignored, but instead should be considered in reality and not in gross projections of worst-case scenarios. "Let's get more to the point. You dodged my last question completely. Given the understanding of how CO2 has affected both temperatures and the entrance and exit processes for glacial periods in the past, regardless of degree: The "temperature lags CO2" argument against CO2 induced climate change is an invalid one." What!?!? Isn't this whole thread about orbital forcings and didn't we agree on the abilitiy of orbital cycles to initiate both warming and cooling phases? "That is: (a) CO2 has lagged the initial change in temperature in the past, but ultimately is still a major factor in pushing temperatures further up or down -- the appearance that CO2 lags temperature is an illusion due to the fact that the initial forcing is from a change in albedo, and puts CO2 increases "behind the curve"." CO2 is a factor, but the major title is still disputed. I can trot out as many peer reviewed papers as can you that differ with each other. And, did you really use the word illusion? We really are getting into magical realms, now. "(b) Increases in CO2 without the same historical initial forcings and sources (i.e. CO2 as a result of increased temperatures, versus CO2 as a result of the burning of fossil fuels) can be expected to have similar effects, regardless of the fact that in this case CO2 is not rising as a result of rising temperature." Of, course. CO2 is CO2. Whatever effects it has are going to be the same regardless of the source. It's the magnitude of these effects that are in legitimate question. "Do you agree?" See above. -
Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Klaus Flemløse - Soares works with extremely short (months and 6-month periods) to examine his correlations; as keithpickering pointed out this is far too short. In looking at longer term correlations, he fails to account for other forcings (such as mid-century aerosols, which counteracted a great deal of CO2 forcing), which is quite a serious mistake. It's a very poor paper. This journal is very curious, both in article content and the mysteries of who is putting it out - previous comments have noted this as well. I would be very careful about accepting the articles based on it's (very short) history. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:54 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Daniel Bailey @ 182. If CO2 levels are a major force force in global temperature increases, and we have this sharp increase, then the we should see a similar increase in temperature. Can you overlay that graph, as well? -
MrAce at 10:45 AM on 10 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
I think I found the paper where Hansen came to his 1.2C. It looks like it is the result of a 'simple' model with radiation, convection, clouds and aerosols, but without the water vapor feedback: Climate impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide -
keithpickering at 09:17 AM on 10 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
@Klaus Flemløse Soares failed to find a correlation in monthly values, a totally unsurprising result. The lag between forcing and temperature change will always be longer than that. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:01 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
175, apiratelooksat50, So all of your arguments devolve into one thing -- that the mechanisms as described are correct, but the quantifications are either unknown or unknowable, and therefore everything can be ignored. Let's get more to the point. You dodged my last question completely. Given the understanding of how CO2 has affected both temperatures and the entrance and exit processes for glacial periods in the past, regardless of degree: The "temperature lags CO2" argument against CO2 induced climate change is an invalid one. That is: (a) CO2 has lagged the initial change in temperature in the past, but ultimately is still a major factor in pushing temperatures further up or down -- the appearance that CO2 lags temperature is an illusion due to the fact that the initial forcing is from a change in albedo, and puts CO2 increases "behind the curve". (b) Increases in CO2 without the same historical initial forcings and sources (i.e. CO2 as a result of increased temperatures, versus CO2 as a result of the burning of fossil fuels) can be expected to have similar effects, regardless of the fact that in this case CO2 is not rising as a result of rising temperature. Do you agree? -
hfranzen at 09:00 AM on 10 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Initially I did the calculation of GWPPT6 to convince myself that the science that I know something about (P.Chem.) would not lead me to doubt the predictions of the IPCC. Once I had done the calculation and could see that it was straightforward (no estimates or extrapolations) and was a basic conformation of what was being claimed, I felt that it was worthwhile to try to get out to friend and foe alike what I see as a logical conclusion, namely that basic science leaves the deniers no wiggle room. The calculation is shown step-by-step on my web site (hfranzen.org) Anyone in the world should feel free to examine the argument for errors. I do not know where Jim Hansen got his numbers so it is impssible for me to say why our numbers differ. I can say that my calculation is primitive compared to those done by climate scientists with large computers. There are two points at which my pared down approach might introduce some error, namely in the neglect of water vapor absorption competing with carbon dioxide absorption (line overlap) and in the use of 50 reciprocal centimeter intervals (as opposed to 5 recip. cm intervals or line-by-line calculation). It is impossible for me to say by how much these simplificaions alter the results, but, in the years I have been working on GWPPT6, all the feedback i have received has indicated to me that the errors are not significant. But, even if my number is off by some tenths of a degree, I feel that the calculation catches the essential features of the interaction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the earth's infrared radiation and provides me with a basis to assert that global warming is a scientific fact, a statement which I am quite certain is accepted by most readers of these threads. It is my hope that the availability of the argument presented in GWPPT6 will provide for some a deeper understanding of the nature of the interaction. -
citizenschallenge at 08:43 AM on 10 January 2011What's in a Name?
Global Warming is what is causing it, Climate Change is the result, Climate Disruption is what we are going to be increasingly experiencing. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:40 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Re: muoncounter (179) You're right, that one's usually my shtick. This Skeptical Science update of the ice core/Mauna Loa data is pretty compelling, too:
For over 400,000 years atmospheric CO2 has never been over 300 PPM...until now
The Yooper
-
archiesteel at 08:39 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel: this is getting off-topic, as indicated by the moderator, so I'll try to seque back to CO2 and its lag. "It is highly relevant that the present is a better time to live than the LIA owing to the higher temperatures." Sure, as long as they remain within natural viability, i.e. the temperature we had before the current warming increase (which started long after the LIA had ended). The fact that we have pumped CO2 in the atmosphere has taken us out of the natural variability zone, and we have yet to see its full extent due to the time it takes for the full effect to take place. Again, all the evidence points to the fact that CO2 has warmed the climate as a forcing, not a feedback, and thus the "lag" issue is a red herring. "My caring started a long time ago when working to reduce pollution in London (UK). " That has nothing to do with CO2 and the greenhouse effect. "If this thread is about anything it explores the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and climate." Actually, this thread is about how the CO2 lag in paleoclimatology is irrelevant to the current warming trend, where CO2 is a forcing rather than a feedback. "I find the arguments of "apiratelooksat50" more persuasive than anything the vocal majority here has offered." That's because you agree with his opinion .That doesn't make for strong science... "I strongly endorse his answers in #175." Again, that a politcal agreement, not a scientific one, since he made at least two factual errors in his post. I think you've made your case. At this point, all you seem intent on doing is repeating the same thing over and over, which is a hallmark of contrarians on this site. (sigh) -
gallopingcamel at 07:58 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
archiesteel (#177), you said: "Irrelevant. We are not debating whether or not the fact that it's currently warmer than the LIA is a good thing or not. We are debating the risks caused by such unprecedented human-made warming, especially with regards to the future. You see, I care about future generations. I suggest you start caring as well." I disagree. It is highly relevant that the present is a better time to live than the LIA owing to the higher temperatures. My caring started a long time ago when working to reduce pollution in London (UK). Actions speak louder than words. If this thread is about anything it explores the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and climate. I find the arguments of "apiratelooksat50" more persuasive than anything the vocal majority here has offered. I strongly endorse his answers in #175.Moderator Response: Everybody stick to the topic of this thread. -
muoncounter at 07:48 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#175: "the importance relative to other factors has yet to be determined." Actually, it has been determined; its called forcing. See How CO2 warming is driving climate. For a completely different approach that also finds that increasing CO2 results in warming, see Physical chemistry. "we are violating the usual pattern ... I believe violate is too a strong word " Is there anything natural about the right hand side of this curve? (Although it's usually Yooper who points to this graph). Breaking our environment out of the comfortable zone we as a species grew up in should not be taken lightly. "the consequences have yet to be determined." Ah, that old dodge. If we can only wait a few more decades, we'll see ... Busted in Its not bad and Extreme weather, among other threads. At the end of the day, all your arguments will keep vanishing (a bit like Arctic ice). The only thing that can remain is the 'No it's not' hard line. What will it take to break that wall down? -
archiesteel at 07:35 AM on 10 January 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
@JR: "Underestimated" doesn't mean "wrong." In fact, scientists will often present conservative estimates in order to be safe. You seem to be arguing that scientists should use the high end of their estimates, but that would cause many contrarians to cry "alarmist!" -
One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
What is the rebuttal to "If sea level is rising faster than predicted, what do we not understand yet and how do I have any confidence in the predictions if they are already wrong?"? -
archiesteel at 07:04 AM on 10 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
@Klaus: that journal you're linking to doesn't seem very credible. This is the title of one of the articles they posted: "“Molecular genetic program (genome) contrasted against non-molecular invisible biosoftware in the light of the Quran and the Bible” You can read more on the nebulous SCIRP in a Nature exposé. -
Rob Painting at 06:57 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Pirate @ 175 If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect. It has never happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force. Huh?. One minute you teach environmental science, the next you don't understand either the geologic and biologic carbon cycles, nor Milankovitch cycles. And now it's the runaway Greenhouse Effect?. Where do you teach?.Moderator Response: All further runaway warming omments by everybody must be on either the runaway warming Argument or the runaway warming Post. To find those, type runaway warming into the Search field at the top left. -
archiesteel at 06:52 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@GC (#166): "The IPCC (AR4) says that there has been ~0.8 degrees Celsius of warming since 1850. The warming in Greenland has been about three times greater." Yes, we all agree on this. "The world is warmer than it was three hundred years ago and we should all be thankful for that." Irrelevant. We are not debating whether or not the fact that it's currently warmer than the LIA is a good thing or not. We are debating the risks caused by such unprecedented human-made warming, especially with regards to the future. You see, I care about future generations. I suggest you start caring as well. "While I have many patents and peer reviewed papers, my climate work is amateur so I will respect the opinions of other amateurs." Patents and peer-reviewed papers in optics are irrelevant to the current debate. As others have said, you should be *more* critical of amateur opinions, especially if they go against the established science. I know the idea that the underdog is right has a romantic appeal to it, but more often than not that's not the case in science. -
archiesteel at 06:47 AM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@apiratelooksat50: "I will agree with this, though I believe violate is too a strong word and has negative implications." That opposition on your part is political, I'm afraid. "Atmospheric CO2 rates are higher than in the recent past, but temperatures are still normal." Temperatures are increasing dramatically. I fail to see what is "normal" about this. "If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect." Wrong. Positive feedback does not necessarily lead to runaway greenhouse warming. Please read this before commenting further on the subject. So, unless you come up with some unheard new science, will you admit you are wrong on this? We've lost enough time debunking the same old myths for your benefit...
Prev 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Next
