here comes the next ice age

[OrneryMod]

Link to Topic on Old Forums

[Wayward Son]

Seriati said:

quote:
---------------------------------------------------
No, this is something I read that Lord Monckton, a famous AGW denier, said about a conference he attended. That all of the deniers in the conference agreed that CO2 was trapping heat...and that anyone saying they did not believe it was just trying to slander the denier movement. I had a link to it on another thread, but I can't find my link right now (too many AGW links to choose from  ).
---------------------------------------------------
Feel free to link it, I'd be happy to take a look.

Seriati, I finally found it.

Shock news from the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference: among the 600 delegates, the consensus that Man contributes to global warming was not 97%. It was 100%...

At a conference of 600 “climate change deniers”, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.

The article makes other points, which I don't necessarily agree with, but I think it is pretty clear that even AGW deniers don't deny that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere.

[Pete at Home]

Thanks.  What are the key issues in dispute, then?

[Seriati]

Thanks Wayward, you should look at my response to you on that point in the old thread.  I would answer yes to those questions as well.

[Wayward Son]

I did note your answers in the old thread, and am not surprised that you would agree.

But it does illustrate my point, too.

We all know, and all agree, that CO2 is trapping heat.  And this trapped heat will cause the Earth to warm unless something else somehow counteracts it.

So my questions are:

If that something else exists, what is it?

How does it work?

How long and well will it work, or will it stop working sometime in the future, perhaps the near future?

And how confident are you that you are right?

Until these questions are settled, it is stupid to assume that there is such a something that will prevent global warming from occurring.

Because there may not be anything to counteract the rise in CO2.  Or it may only last a few decades.  Or it may only counteract a fraction of the warming.

This is why denialists should be working like mad on creating good climate models, to prove that something is counteracting the CO2 rise.  They are the ones that have to prove that global warming is not occurring because of CO2 rise.

Because we all know and agree that CO2 is trapping more heat.

That heat has to go somewhere or else temperatures will rise.  And temperatures have been measurably rising.

So, if it is not CO2, what is preventing the CO2 from doing it?

Deniers need to answer these questions before we should start listening to them.  Because without those answers, they are engaging in "just so" stories.

[Seriati]

Wayward, you're not using logic there.  Can you explain why we have had periods of higher atmospheric carbon and lower temperatures?

Do you understand that while everyone can agree that atmospheric carbon has a warming effect, that whether the Earth is warming or cooling is controlled by far more factors than atmospheric carbon?  If for instance the Earth is heading towards a cooler climate phase all atmospheric carbon would be doing is reducing the rate of decline?  No one has to argue the specifics you want them to, because you haven't demonstrated that the observed effect with respect to carbon can be generalized to the atmosphere as a whole.  What's interesting about the six questions, is the one question that did not get asked (deliberately) on which the divergence occurs:  Has it been conclusively shown that human caused atmospheric carbon increases are the direct cause of significant warming?   The answer to which is, no.

I get you want to flip the burden of proof to make the other side responsible for "proving" it, but that's not how it works when the solutions you potentially want would represent radical and expensive shifts in everyone's way of life.

[scifibum]

"Has it been conclusively shown..."

Well, if you listen only to the denialists, then I guess you would have to say that we shouldn't do anything until they all agree that the proof is conclusive.  Or we could listen to the incredibly large majority of the scientists who agree that the evidence is compelling.

[Seriati]

Scifibum, can you show anywhere that I argued against listening to the scientists?  I've questioned the quality of the conclusions being drawn and certainly the common lay understanding that has been misderived therefrom, but I've always acknowledged its the best we have (at the current date).

That said, I've hammered the proposed solutions as they are generally counterproductive and virtually always drawn on political concerns rather than environmental science.

[scifibum]

I think your position amounts to "there's not enough proof to justify any difficult or expensive efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of slowing AGW".  I think you arrive at that position by exaggerating the uncertainty and giving too much credence to deniers and doubters.  So my impression is that what you mean by "listening to the scientists" doesn't amount to "trusting their interpretation of the data". 

Although we definitely need to carefully weigh the pros and cons of any given remediation strategy, I think in general we're stuck upstream from that on the question of whether there's a problem to fix - and that wouldn't be the case if we were listening to the scientists.

[D.W.]

We need to quit wasting time and nail down eco-friendly, non warming, global cooling solutions.

Then we can sort out controlled global warming solutions which don't rely on fossil fuels.  It's not like we can bank on terraforming to work by exporting our remaining oil reserve to other planets. 

So much wasted time... 
So many other environments to exploit for their treasures!

[Pete at Home]

I did note your answers in the old thread, and am not surprised that you would agree.

But it does illustrate my point, too.

We all know, and all agree, that CO2 is trapping heat.  And this trapped heat will cause the Earth to warm unless something else somehow counteracts it.

So my questions are:

If that something else exists, what is it?

How does it work?

How long and well will it work, or will it stop working sometime in the future, perhaps the near future?

And how confident are you that you are right?

Until these questions are settled, it is stupid to assume that there is such a something that will prevent global warming from occurring.

Because there may not be anything to counteract the rise in CO2.  Or it may only last a few decades.  Or it may only counteract a fraction of the warming.

This is why denialists should be working like mad on creating good climate models, to prove that something is counteracting the CO2 rise.  They are the ones that have to prove that global warming is not occurring because of CO2 rise.

Because we all know and agree that CO2 is trapping more heat.

That heat has to go somewhere or else temperatures will rise.  And temperatures have been measurably rising.

So, if it is not CO2, what is preventing the CO2 from doing it?

Deniers need to answer these questions before we should start listening to them.  Because without those answers, they are engaging in "just so" stories.

If we presume that the C02 is trapping heat (and all reasonable persons do make such a presumption), there's still the question of whether human CO2 emissions are driving climate change.  (There are other human-driven emissions that we should consider, e.g. methane from cattle ranching and other human activities.)

I suspect that the main human activity that's leading to climate change is not carbon emissions, but rather the destruction of carbon sinks in the forests and the oceans.  Massive scale reforestation and limits on ocean-destroying enterprises, protection of reefs and research on assisting the formation of reefs (what we failed to do in Florida with that ghastly failure of a rubber tire experiment), may give us more climate protection for our buck than measures that raise unemployment by crippling industry.

[Wayward Son]

Wayward, you're not using logic there.

Oh, no, I very much am.   

Can you explain why we have had periods of higher atmospheric carbon and lower temperatures?

Because there are other factors than greenhouse gases that control the temperature of the Earth.

If you review the old thread, I have never denied that.  In fact, I listed a few such factors (such as solar intensity and distance from the sun).

But so what?  So in the past, other factors have overcome higher levels of CO2.  The question you have to answer is is something doing that now.

Because we all agree that CO2 is trapping more heat, and trapped heat can raise temperatures.

Do you understand that while everyone can agree that atmospheric carbon has a warming effect, that whether the Earth is warming or cooling is controlled by far more factors than atmospheric carbon?  If for instance the Earth is heading towards a cooler climate phase all atmospheric carbon would be doing is reducing the rate of decline?

And if you can prove this, then we won't need to worry very much, will we?  But you first need to prove it...

No one has to argue the specifics you want them to, because you haven't demonstrated that the observed effect with respect to carbon can be generalized to the atmosphere as a whole.

 

Wait a minute.  You've already agreed that CO2 is trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.  What more do I have to demonstrate?

What's interesting about the six questions, is the one question that did not get asked (deliberately) on which the divergence occurs:  Has it been conclusively shown that human caused atmospheric carbon increases are the direct cause of significant warming?   The answer to which is, no.

Eh?  We have already agreed that CO2 is trapping heat.  Trapped heat causes warming unless something else absorbs or emits the heat.

CO2 concentrations are increasing yearly in our atmosphere and our oceans.  We emit gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.  We have found no other major source of CO2 that would account for this much increase.  Plus, some other studies that I won't mention now.  So we are the source of the CO2.

And, of course, the question implies that there has been significant warming.  Do you agree?

Still, even if there has been no "significant" warming so far, what happens when the concentrations reaches 450 ppm?  500 ppm?  800 ppm?

Even if it has not been "conclusively" shown that the observed warming is primarily due to humans, how about the future warming?  Because we have already agreed CO2 traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere.  So more CO2 will trap more heat.  Unless something else counteracts that.

So while the answers so far may not seem "conclusive" to you, you need to consider that the answer you are advocating is even less "conclusive."  And over time, increased CO2 will increase Earth's temperature if nothing else counteracts it.

I get you want to flip the burden of proof to make the other side responsible for "proving" it, but that's not how it works when the solutions you potentially want would represent radical and expensive shifts in everyone's way of life.

What makes you think the atmosphere and the thermodynamics inherent in it care about the expense of our lives?

And if you are so concerned about radical and expensive shifts, consider how much it will cost to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere in the future.  Controlling CO2 and bringing it back to levels we've experienced for the last 400,000 years will be far more expensive, and require more radical shifts in our lifestyle, than we would need to do now.  Remember, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years or more before being reabsorbed by natural processes.

So consider if you want to pay now, or pay more later.

[Pete at Home]

Is there any way of knowing whether the current melting of glaciers and raising of sea level is more due to human CO2 emissions, versus the volcanoes under the Antarctica glaciers?

[Seriati]

What's interesting about the six questions, is the one question that did not get asked (deliberately) on which the divergence occurs:  Has it been conclusively shown that human caused atmospheric carbon increases are the direct cause of significant warming?   The answer to which is, no.

Eh?  We have already agreed that CO2 is trapping heat.  Trapped heat causes warming unless something else absorbs or emits the heat.

Wayward, this right here is where you're misapplying the logic.  Your conclusion does not lead from your axiom, which was the point of the question I highlighted.  The fact that man generated carbon has contributed to warming, does not speak to whether it has caused significant warming.  All the rest of your lengthy response falls apart in my view without bridging this gap.

Originally posted by Scifibum:

I think your position amounts to "there's not enough proof to justify any difficult or expensive efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of slowing AGW".

That's a compound sentence with hidden assumptions.  It assumes that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would slow AGW, which assumes that AGW is occurring, that the impact of AGW vs GW is significant and that GW would not otherwise be occurring (which avoids even addressing the question of whether we've correctly identified the vector of warming, and whether the trend line has existed long enough to be conclusive).

But I take your meaning.  What I object to is difficult and expensive efforts that we try to implement that have no chance of reducing net greenhouse emissions.  It's my view that the primary purpose of inter-governmental climate accords is wealth redistribution not environmental benefit, and that every one of them to date has resulted in a net negative environmental impact by reducing the cleanest first world industry in favor of the dirtiest third world industry.  I'm flat out saying that the "cures" proposed are environmentally worse than the disease, and economically they are expensive and demanding on first world persons.  I see them as having no redeeming value.

Would I be onboard for positive environmental changes?  Absolutely, don't even need them to be expressly about GW control, they are an end in and of themselves.  How about ending agricultural subsidies that lead to deforestation, and encouraging reforestation?  How about subsidizing first world industry to putting tariffs on third world polluters to put them out of business for good? 

I think you arrive at that position by exaggerating the uncertainty and giving too much credence to deniers and doubters.  So my impression is that what you mean by "listening to the scientists" doesn't amount to "trusting their interpretation of the data".

I think I've answered this, but I'd like to add that trusting an interpretation of data is far different than endorsing the policies that have come out of those who use the data to support themselves.  It certainly does not mean being blind to the problems with the data (which are enormous) or misunderstanding the certainty of the conclusions that can be drawn from it (which is endemic in this debate).

Frankly, I give zero credence to deniers, they have the hardest case to prove.

[Wayward Son]

Wayward, this right here is where you're misapplying the logic.  Your conclusion does not lead from your axiom, which was the point of the question I highlighted.  The fact that man generated carbon has contributed to warming, does not speak to whether it has caused significant warming.  All the rest of your lengthy response falls apart in my view without bridging this gap.

OK, then answer me a couple of questions.

CO2 produces warming in the atmosphere.  How do you know it doesn't procedure "significant warming?"  And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then?  What is your conclusive evidence of this?

Remember, it does produce warming.  How can you know it is not "significant," or won't be in the future?

[Seriati]

CO2 produces warming in the atmosphere.  How do you know it doesn't procedure "significant warming?"

I don't.

And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then?

I don't.

What is your conclusive evidence of this?

There is none.

Remember, it does produce warming.  How can you know it is not "significant," or won't be in the future?

Only by additional study.  It's important to remember though, climate science is observational science not susceptible to experimental confirmation.  It takes a lot of time to be certain in a non-experimental science about your conclusions.  Which of course, is exactly why climate scientists are so keen on models, they generate the appearance of experimental validity without the reality.

[Wayward Son]

So, IOW, Seriati, there is no reason not to believe that some level of AGW is occurring, and no reason not to believe it may be as bad as the computer models indicate.

But it is not conclusive with the information we currently have.

Am I correct in believing that is your position?

[Seriati]

So, IOW, Seriati, there is no reason not to believe that some level of AGW is occurring, and no reason not to believe it may be as bad as the computer models indicate.

What does belief have to do with this?  This is a scientific question, not a matter of belief.  Proof is what is and should be persuasive.  There are indicators that AGW is occurring, they are just not at the level of proof.  I went into detail on the models to show why they are particularly misleading and often used to convince people that we have more scientific certainty than is possible.

Am I correct in believing that is your position?

If you're describing the "position" free from intent, reasoning or meaning you could describe it simply like that.  It's misleading to do so.

[Pete at Home]

Wayward, this right here is where you're misapplying the logic.  Your conclusion does not lead from your axiom, which was the point of the question I highlighted.  The fact that man generated carbon has contributed to warming, does not speak to whether it has caused significant warming.  All the rest of your lengthy response falls apart in my view without bridging this gap.

OK, then answer me a couple of questions.

CO2 produces warming in the atmosphere.  How do you know it doesn't procedure "significant warming?"  And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then?  What is your conclusive evidence of this?

Remember, it does produce warming.  How can you know it is not "significant," or won't be in the future?

CO2 does produce warming, and historically, HAS often produced significant warming.

How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere was produced by human activities?

How much of the current warming changes were produced by CO2?

Actually, there are much more powerful greenhouse gasses that are overwhelmingly produced by human activities, such as SF6

[Wayward Son]

What does belief have to do with this?  This is a scientific question, not a matter of belief.  Proof is what is and should be persuasive.  There are indicators that AGW is occurring, they are just not at the level of proof.  I went into detail on the models to show why they are particularly misleading and often used to convince people that we have more scientific certainty than is possible.

Ah, I see, you want scientific proof.  Absolute proof that practically eliminates all other possibilities.  Proof that is so certain, so precise that we can predict with a great deal of certainty exactly what the outcome will be for any given change.

I believe your thinking of mathematics, not science.

Science is more about different levels of certainty.  You never have absolute certainty, absolute proof.  You have more or less certainty.  Some explanation reach a high level that they are labeled theories, but even the most hallowed theory is not considered immutable if new facts dispute it.

So asking for "proof" is unachievable.  Science doesn't "prove" anything.

But what we can do is ascertain and compare the levels of certainty.

For instance, we are very certain that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere trap more heat.  So certain that practically everyone agrees with that theory.

That the Earth's atmosphere has been warming over the past century and half is also fairly certain, when you consider not only temperature readings but climate-related changes in plant species locations, animal (especially insect) ranges, glacial melting, etc.  There are far more indications of warming than of not.

And we have reliable measurements of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  So that is very certain, too.

But you dispute how certain we are that CO2 is the main cause of increased temperatures.  And here is where comparing levels of certainty is useful.

We are certain that CO2 is trapping heat, which, unless the heat is dissipated, will increase temperatures.  So we are pretty much certain that some increase in the temperature is from the higher CO2 concentrations.

We very, very uncertain that increased solar insolance is causing temperature increases.  This is because there has not been a consistent increase in solar insolance for the past few decades--the measured insolance has gone up and down, without a marked trend in either direction--while temperatures have been tracking up.

So in comparing certainties, we would say that our certainty of CO2 being a cause of temperature increase is much greater than from solar variances.  In fact, we would say that we are more certain that the temperature trend is NOT caused by solar variance and that it is.

This can be applied to almost every objection by denialists to AGW.

This is why I say that denialists need to "prove" their contention that AGW is NOT happening.  Because when we look at the various levels of certainty, we are far more certain that CO2 is part of the warming than it is not.  We are far more certain that CO2 is probably the major cause of the warming than we are not.  We are far more certain that increased concentrations of CO2 will increase temperature than we are not.  Relatively, we are more certain of AGW than we are of the objections.

Have we reached a level of absolute certainty about AGW?  No, I'll agree with you there.  But the preponderance of evidence is pointing toward AGW.  So it must be taken seriously.

[Wayward Son]

CO2 does produce warming, and historically, HAS often produced significant warming.

How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere was produced by human activities?

You might want to look here for starters.

How much of the current warming changes were produced by CO2?

As far as I know, the only way to make a reasonable estimate of how much warming has been caused by CO2 is using the various computer models.

This article may provide more information and directions for further information.

Actually, there are much more powerful greenhouse gasses that are overwhelmingly produced by human activities, such as SF6.

True, including good old H2O.  But CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long, long time (at least a century), so it will affect our climate for the foreseeable future.  Most of these others gases stay for much shorter periods, so their affects are shorter lived.

Skeptical science is a good source for answers to a lot of the basic questions.

[Seriati]

Ah, I see, you want scientific proof.  Absolute proof that practically eliminates all other possibilities.  Proof that is so certain, so precise that we can predict with a great deal of certainty exactly what the outcome will be for any given change.

No.  That's an absolutely incorrect and insane summary of what I asked for. 

For instance, we are very certain that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere trap more heat.  So certain that practically everyone agrees with that theory.

Which is a relative concept, unfortunately AGW is theory about an absolute (not relative) value.

That the Earth's atmosphere has been warming over the past century and half is also fairly certain, when you consider not only temperature readings but climate-related changes in plant species locations, animal (especially insect) ranges, glacial melting, etc.

Overstatement based on the actual quality of the record.

There are far more indications of warming than of not.

This part is true though.

And we have reliable measurements of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  So that is very certain, too.

Yes, which I've explained previously is another source of bias.  We over-weight in our analysis things that we find easy to measure.

But you dispute how certain we are that CO2 is the main cause of increased temperatures.  And here is where comparing levels of certainty is useful.

You're using "certainty" in a mixed up way, not in a real scientific way, I'm guessing you pulled this from the Union of Concerned Scientist's piece that is talking down to people to try and explain the controversy.  Normally "certainty," would be expressed as uncertainty, with respect to a result.  Without the ability to run experiments on the climate (the problem of n=1) you're stuck with needing a phenomenal amount of data to generate anything approximating a reasonable level of uncertainty. 

That's why climate scientists are so keen on modeling.  They use computer algorithms to generate "experimental" results and generate very low levels of uncertainty.  The problem is that the apparent uncertainty is false.

We are certain that CO2 is trapping heat, which, unless the heat is dissipated, will increase temperatures.  So we are pretty much certain that some increase in the temperature is from the higher CO2 concentrations.

I'll go with close enough.

We very, very uncertain that increased solar insolance is causing temperature increases.  This is because there has not been a consistent increase in solar insolance for the past few decades--the measured insolance has gone up and down, without a marked trend in either direction--while temperatures have been tracking up.

I'll go with wrong because of a misinterpretation (there is no question at all that solar radiance is responsible for the majority of the temperature "increase" on Earth - pretty much all 250+ degrees Kelvin that we enjoy are directly coming from the sun.  Even the mechanism for Carbon that you posited is nothing more than trapping more energy from sunlight).

What you seem to mean is that there appears to be a temperature trend that doesn't correlate to the variation in solar radiation.  I'll note, you seem to what to jump from there to a carbon vector, based on correlation, notwithstanding the lack of demonstrable causation or the fact that there are a multitude of factors that also correlate to the trend.

So in comparing certainties, we would say that our certainty of CO2 being a cause of temperature increase is much greater than from solar variances.

I don't think anyone would actually say that.  In fact, this is what happens when someone looks at a correlation and decides that they don't need to show a causation.  The best you could say is that the increase in carbon correlates to the increase in temperature (of course even there you have problems with actually showing the data demonstrate that fact).

In fact, we would say that we are more certain that the temperature trend is NOT caused by solar variance and that it is.

We wouldn't actually say it that way. 

This can be applied to almost every objection by denialists to AGW.

Yes, you are correct, mislabeling correlation as causation and overstating the case can in fact be applied to every objection by denialists.  Not sure that's something to be proud of though.

This is why I say that denialists need to "prove" their contention that AGW is NOT happening.

It's also why I say they don't.

Have we reached a level of absolute certainty about AGW?  No, I'll agree with you there.  But the preponderance of evidence is pointing toward AGW.  So it must be taken seriously.

I have never said not to take it seriously.  I've said at every stage its the best science we have on the topic.  But I've also said that its way less certain than its presented.

So take it seriously, but don't panic.  And most of all, don't let you need for a solution let you be duped into supporting actions that are actually worse for the environment.

[DonaldD]

Seriati are you aware of the studies showing that outgoing radiation (from the planet) has dropped in the specific wavelength bands at which CO2 and methane absorb energy, and that this drop is consistent with theoretical expectations?

Are you also aware of the studies showing an increasing trend of infrared energy at the surface of the planet, and that spectral analyses of that radiation show that the increase was again quantitatively linked to wavelength bands associated to greenhouse gases?

I know these studies weren't mentioned above, so I wonder whether this new information does anything to change your position with regards to the link between CO2 and the energy imbalance / temperature increases being simply a correlation.

[TheDrake]

Zombie!

[Seriati]

Seriati are you aware of the studies showing that outgoing radiation (from the planet) has dropped in the specific wavelength bands at which CO2 and methane absorb energy, and that this drop is consistent with theoretical expectations?

I'd find it interesting of course.  Not sure why it would surprise you (or anyone) that when we have more atmospheric carbon, we'd see less energy escaping in that wavelength?  That's basic logic.  For it to be a greenhouse effect though, it would have to result in the total escaping energy decreasing, or if it were a run away green house effect in a knock on that increases the energy capture by atmospheric H2).  Why also reference methane and carbon collectively?

Are you also aware of the studies showing an increasing trend of infrared energy at the surface of the planet, and that spectral analyses of that radiation show that the increase was again quantitatively linked to wavelength bands associated to greenhouse gases?

I think I found the site you were looking at, do you have a link to the studies themselves?  The page I found filtered out H20, which too me, limits the utility of the analysis.  I get why they did it, because if you include H2O everything else looks like it's completely insignificant.  However, isn't that the point?  You have to show a total change to make the case. 

I know these studies weren't mentioned above, so I wonder whether this new information does anything to change your position with regards to the link between CO2 and the energy imbalance / temperature increases being simply a correlation.

Not sure what you think my position actually is.  It's a good start, but it's not evidence of causation, nor is it evidence that just reducing atmospheric carbon would have any kind of positive impact.  Keep in mind, I'm pro-controlling pollution for its own sake, there are an enormous amount of health consequences to allowing rampant carbon production.  However, making this exact argument to me is not going to be easy.

[DonaldD]

Just to be clear - I was discussing CO2, not "atmospheric carbon" which might be confused with particulate molecular carbon, and doesn't have the same effects at all in the atmosphere.

So, if you accept that increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane are blocking increasing amounts of long wave radiation (in specific wavelength bands) from escaping the atmosphere, what more would you require to be convinced that those compounds are responsible for recent global warming, and that the position is not supported primarily by some assumption of "correlation"?

Would it be sufficient to show that there is now an imbalance between energy coming into Earth's atmosphere and being radiated out of Earth's atmosphere? Your response seems to suggest you think there might be other wavelengths where energy is being radiated at higher levels, offsetting the shortfall mentioned in my previous post.

Earlier, you wrote:

I'll note, you seem to what to jump from there to a carbon vector, based on correlation, notwithstanding the lack of demonstrable causation or the fact that there are a multitude of factors that also correlate to the trend.

This suggests that you think/thought that the theory of AGW is based on simply calculating correlations between CO2 levels and temperature readings; I wanted to point out that there is actual experimental data underpinning the theory, and that data is consistent with observations.

[cherrypoptart]

Another "climate change denier", but I thought it was an interesting article.

I didn't agree with his position against wind turbines and solar panels but I particularly liked one statement he made:

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

That's pretty funny. The Earth's temperature and climate have changed radically for billions of years but the temperature and climate that we have right now happens to be exactly where it is supposed to stay from now on. Not only that but if it wasn't for humans our climate would stay static. I guess I can see why we'd like to keep things as they are since we've got our systems all set up for it but I'm not so sure I see why the climate wouldn't change, or even why it wouldn't change so quickly, if it wasn't for human interference. I suppose that point has been made before but I just found the way he put it to be entertaining.

I thought I read somewhere that oxygen levels during human evolution may have been much higher than what they are today and biologically we would perform better with greater oxygen in the atmosphere although there may be a trade off with more free radicals in our systems.

https://www.google.com/search?q=oxygen+levels+50,000+years+ago&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl8rPRnLHRAhXBPCYKHSChDaMQsAQILw&biw=1360&bih=659#imgrc=eoFHCGmh2BCNOM%3A

Just a chart I came across and it shows the oxygen levels significantly higher about 15,000 years ago at around 23% vs 21% today and spiking at what looks like about 26% around 70,000 years ago when we were really starting to break out as a species. So we talk about climate change and how it affects the Earth but what about how it affects us biologically if the oxygen levels continue to decline?

That happens naturally though and there are periods where it's been down to 16%. I wonder what would happen if it got down to 20% or 19% within the next few decades, if the difference in our mental faculties and physical abilities would be noticeably different.

[cherrypoptart]

Another "climate change denier", but I thought it was an interesting article.

I didn't agree with his position against wind turbines and solar panels but I particularly liked one statement he made:

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

That's pretty funny. The Earth's temperature and climate have changed radically for billions of years but the temperature and climate that we have right now happens to be exactly where it is supposed to stay from now on. Not only that but if it wasn't for humans our climate would stay static. I guess I can see why we'd like to keep things as they are since we've got our systems all set up for it but I'm not so sure I see why the climate wouldn't change, or even why it wouldn't change so quickly, if it wasn't for human interference. I suppose that point has been made before but I just found the way he put it to be entertaining.

I thought I read somewhere that oxygen levels during human evolution may have been much higher than what they are today and biologically we would perform better with greater oxygen in the atmosphere although there may be a trade off with more free radicals in our systems.

https://www.google.com/search?q=oxygen+levels+50,000+years+ago&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl8rPRnLHRAhXBPCYKHSChDaMQsAQILw&biw=1360&bih=659#imgrc=eoFHCGmh2BCNOM%3A

Just a chart I came across and it shows the oxygen levels significantly higher about 15,000 years ago at around 23% vs 21% today and spiking at what looks like about 26% around 70,000 years ago when we were really starting to break out as a species. So we talk about climate change and how it affects the Earth but what about how it affects us biologically if the oxygen levels continue to decline?

That happens naturally though and there are periods where it's been down to 16%. I wonder what would happen if it got down to 20% or 19% within the next few decades, if the difference in our mental faculties and physical abilities would be noticeable.

[TheDeamon]

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.5dPCVrnY.dpbs

Was pretty funny to make note of, but then, I'm a skeptic. So I should be amused by such things.

[Seriati]

Just to be clear - I was discussing CO2, not "atmospheric carbon" which might be confused with particulate molecular carbon, and doesn't have the same effects at all in the atmosphere.

So, if you accept that increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane are blocking increasing amounts of long wave radiation (in specific wavelength bands) from escaping the atmosphere, what more would you require to be convinced that those compounds are responsible for recent global warming, and that the position is not supported primarily by some assumption of "correlation"?

Evidence.  As I've pointed out repeatedly our models are based on collections of small scale studies about components that we can understand in a very narrow test range.  To get to a study of the climate as a whole though is not just the same thing as adding up the small studies that we have done.  If we could be sure that we have actually picked all the correct elements to study, have correctly identified the entire trend line of their interactions with all the other elements involved, and have not accidentally included erroneous elements or over or under-weighted correct elements, we could generate a model that may have predictive success.  Even then though it would predict for, potentially, a broad range of outcomes.  What we have now, may be as accurate as asking 3 people at random in a town about a traffic accident that occurred that they may not have even seen.

So while this piece of evidence is very good stuff, it's almost purely just a definitional argument.  Honestly, it's as insightful as a study showing that if you put a red colored filter in front of a flash light, you get much less blue and yellow light coming out the other side.  Could there be any other result?  You want to move from there to an implication that because there is this single effect, hundreds, thousands, millions? of other effects are also moving on a correlated line (ie causation) then you have to show that this single change in fact forces the others.

Would it be sufficient to show that there is now an imbalance between energy coming into Earth's atmosphere and being radiated out of Earth's atmosphere? Your response seems to suggest you think there might be other wavelengths where energy is being radiated at higher levels, offsetting the shortfall mentioned in my previous post.

The total output is a usefull data point over time, as reductions would imply that this is a material point.  However, without understanding other interactive elements its very difficult to be sure that the trend you are seeing is actually linked to the element you want - which is why we typically run controlled experiments (to remove confounding influences), which is the exact thing we can't do on the climate.  We don't have a control group to compare against.

Earlier, you wrote:

I'll note, you seem to what to jump from there to a carbon vector, based on correlation, notwithstanding the lack of demonstrable causation or the fact that there are a multitude of factors that also correlate to the trend.

This suggests that you think/thought that the theory of AGW is based on simply calculating correlations between CO2 levels and temperature readings; I wanted to point out that there is actual experimental data underpinning the theory, and that data is consistent with observations.

I'm constantly baffled by how I must come across that you guys, where you think I under less about or a more simplistic version of AGW than you do.  My criticisms are not from ignorance, they are directly from understanding how much a modeled result can not tell you, from understanding the deficiencies of observational rather than experimental science.  I still say, the modeled results are the best we have, maybe the best we could make, and should be taken seriously and refined, but I also am aware that the margin for error on them is grossly understated because of the forgoing limitations.

[Wayward Son]

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

Dr. Ivar Giaever is a silly physicist who is speaking about a subject he is not an expert in and denies the facts his fellow scientists have come up with.

How he can say the climate is "amazingly stable" is beyond me (unless he simply denies that temperatures have risen dramatically over the last century and a half--i.e. simply denies the facts).  Any reasonable person who accepts the temperature data has to come to the conclusion that something incredibly unusual is happening.  And that fact that no other known variable (solar input, change in Earth's orbit, etc.) has changed that radically puts CO2 as the prime suspect.  Anyone who denies that is simply denying the facts.

Cherry, look at this chart from xkcl.  You'll need to scroll for a while.  Look at how temperatures have varied since the last ice age.  Look at the dates.  Finally, look at the bottom of the chart to see how much temps have varied recently.

Climate has been amazingly stable--until now.

Even a Noble prize for quantum physics doesn't make you an expert in everything.  And even some experts in a field make mistakes.  But when over 90 percent of the experts in a field agree on something, the best bet is that there is something to it, and we had best take it seriously.

Sorry, Cherry, but Giaever is commenting on things outside of his field of expertise and is obviously, terribly wrong.

[cherrypoptart]

The thing that was interesting to me though is we hear about CO2 all the time but we don't really hear much about Oxygen. Even people who don't think higher CO2 levels are a grave concern might feel differently if it was put in terms of lower O2 levels.

[TheDeamon]

Cherry, look at this chart from xkcl.  You'll need to scroll for a while.  Look at how temperatures have varied since the last ice age.  Look at the dates.  Finally, look at the bottom of the chart to see how much temps have varied recently.

Depends on whose chart you're looking at, I'm going to say I doubt his hockey stick. He's also missing a cooling phase that happened in the middle of the 20th century, as he shows warming instead. 2015's numbers as well as much of 2016 are also skewed due to a strong El Nino cycle which always causes temps to demonstrate a warming bias. If you compare the average for 2016, we're within instrumentation error on temperature difference between 2016 and 1999(another post-El Nino year), you end up with 2016 only slightly ahead of 1999 based on satellite data.

That's hardly a runaway greenhouse effect. Or a pronounced warming trend.

[Wayward Son]

I believe he was using averaged temperatures over a multiyear period, so the fact that it is curving up would be an indication that the years after the 1999 El Ninos were much hotter than after previous El Ninos, without as much cooling in the intervening years, rather than an absolute temperature.

But, of course, that wasn't the point of the chart.

It was to show that, compared to the temperature changes over the last 20,000 years, the temperature change in the last 150 years is unprecedented.  Compared to 150 years ago, it's either a hockey stick, or a steep slope, or something.  But one way or another, you got to have a line skewering upward to connect those two points.  And no where in the past 20,000 years did we see a change like that. 

So averaged temperatures have been remarkable stable for the last 20,000 years--until now!  Why temperatures have changed so (relatively) suddenly is the big question.  And it ain't solar input, or orbits, or lack of cloud cover, or anything else we have verified.  The best theory is that it is CO2, which has climbed precipitously during that time, too.  And it has the theoretical basis, and the models which are fairly accurate (within error bars), to back it up.

It is a pronounced warming trend.  You just have to look back a bit farther than a couple of decades.  Try 20,000 years.

[NobleHunter]

One thing I'd like to know about the xkcd chart is do we have the resolution to see the current kinds of changes in the pre-historic record? If you can only distinguish temperatures for a 100-year period, the current trend might look like an outlier than can be discarded from the model, assuming it reverts to something closer to the mean before too long. There may very well have been similar spikes but our data is too coarse to see them properly.

Not that it'll help much. The thing about the "optimal climate" argument is that almost all of our infrastructure was built to the current condition. Turning Siberia and Northern Canada into arable land isn't going to help much if the great prairies and the Mediterranean coast get baked into sand. Might as well argue that rising sea levels create wonderful new sea-side properties in upstate New York. Climate change is going to wreck the stuff we have now and by stuff I mean the foundation of civilization (food and land).

[TheDeamon]

One thing I'd like to know about the xkcd chart is do we have the resolution to see the current kinds of changes in the pre-historic record? If you can only distinguish temperatures for a 100-year period, the current trend might look like an outlier than can be discarded from the model, assuming it reverts to something closer to the mean before too long. There may very well have been similar spikes but our data is too coarse to see them properly.

This is a big thing. They'll handwave away data that suggests comparable spikes in the past, even though we have data showing such year-over-year spikes happening in the modern record(El Nino anyone?) so seeing some longer lived ones happen at times over the last several thousand years. But no, man couldn't have caused that, and because they've decided man is causing this, the environment must be playing by new rules now.

Not that it'll help much. The thing about the "optimal climate" argument is that almost all of our infrastructure was built to the current condition. Turning Siberia and Northern Canada into arable land isn't going to help much if the great prairies and the Mediterranean coast get baked into sand. Might as well argue that rising sea levels create wonderful new sea-side properties in upstate New York. Climate change is going to wreck the stuff we have now and by stuff I mean the foundation of civilization (food and land).

Climate does not, and has not, shifted that quickly in the past. That being said, climate shifts wrecking regional civilizations isn't unheard of within natural variation. The Vikings farming in the same Greenland that scientists are freaking out over melting ice caps anyone? Ancient Egypt? The Roman Empire? The Mayans? The Anasazi Indians? The list goes on and on. Don't underestimate our ability to adapt to the situation, even being able to engineer solutions in some cases so we can keep certain activities in place rather than set up operations somewhere else.

Which is part of the thing where the Climate Science isn't settled. Most of those polls where they come up with the very high numbers supporting the idea of "Global Warming"/Climate Change is because they do agree there is evidence of a warming trend, although the severity of the warming so far, and warming projected forward is disputed(the flaws in the models being used are many, and the accuracy is lacking for most of them). 

What also remains disputed is the degree to which mankind has contributed to the current trend, and in what ways. Is it CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" or is it land use change? It is a combination of both? Are (poorly understood) "natural systems" more involved in what's happening than many have considered?

The Multi-Decade Oscillations are one such example. Particularly where most of the observed warming has happened in NA, Europe, and Asia. Well gee, we just had the Atlantic go through a decades long warm phase that happened to coincide with one in the Pacific, so they were feeding each other. But they're both believed to be shifting into a cold phase, the North Atlantic expected to do so for the next couple decades, if so things are going to be cooling down now that El Nino has done it's thing and its residual energy has now been bled off.  Probably not an ice age, but certainly cooler than what's been seen in recent decades.

[NobleHunter]

So were there similar century-plus spikes? If so, how are they accounted for? Saying that "they" would is just handwave them is just speculation.

There are (attempted?) explanations for previous climate shifts. The only explanation we have for the current change is CO2. As far as I know, no other explanation has held up.

[Wayward Son]

One thing I'd like to know about the xkcd chart is do we have the resolution to see the current kinds of changes in the pre-historic record? If you can only distinguish temperatures for a 100-year period, the current trend might look like an outlier than can be discarded from the model, assuming it reverts to something closer to the mean before too long. There may very well have been similar spikes but our data is too coarse to see them properly.

Randall does address this in his comic, between 16000 BCE and 15500 BCE.   Of course, he doesn't show the scale, although it looks like the spikes are limited to less than 1C unless they are very brief.  You may have to go the sources to find out (if they even directly address it).  I'm sure there is a mathematical way that shows how big and long the spikes can be to have the average temperature be what is shown (not just "hand waving"), but I wouldn't know what that is off-hand.

[Seriati]

Randall does address this in his comic, between 16000 BCE and 15500 BCE.   Of course, he doesn't show the scale, although it looks like the spikes are limited to less than 1C unless they are very brief.

Take a closer look, what he's showing is what he believes the range the spikes could encompass (generally calculated using standard deviations), what you are assuming (incorrectly) is that there is precise data that covers those time periods.  Everything in that range is inferential (i.e., there are no direct measurements), even modern scientific measurements are largely inferential historical ones are in the realm of "best guess."  That's why I didn't really respond to the chart in the first place, it's deliberately smoothed in the past to emphasize the current trend.

[Wayward Son]

This is a big thing. They'll handwave away data that suggests comparable spikes in the past, even though we have data showing such year-over-year spikes happening in the modern record(El Nino anyone?) so seeing some longer lived ones happen at times over the last several thousand years. But no, man couldn't have caused that, and because they've decided man is causing this, the environment must be playing by new rules now.

Daemon, you are ignoring the average temperatures of the past decades.  Sure, there are spikes in El Ninos years, but what happens between those spikes?  When the temperature drops between spikes, it keeps rising.  We are seeing it go up between spikes.  The last decade was the hottest decade since we've started measuring.  The decade before that, too.  There is a discernible trend.  If you don't believe it, take out the El Nino spikes and see how the non-El Nino years are trending.

[Wayward Son]

Randall does address this in his comic, between 16000 BCE and 15500 BCE.   Of course, he doesn't show the scale, although it looks like the spikes are limited to less than 1C unless they are very brief.

Take a closer look, what he's showing is what he believes the range the spikes could encompass (generally calculated using standard deviations), what you are assuming (incorrectly) is that there is precise data that covers those time periods.  Everything in that range is inferential (i.e., there are no direct measurements), even modern scientific measurements are largely inferential historical ones are in the realm of "best guess."  That's why I didn't really respond to the chart in the first place, it's deliberately smoothed in the past to emphasize the current trend.

Thinking about it, you're right, Seriati.  I was assuming there was more precise data than what is doubtlessly used.

However, that doesn't mean that the charts are wildly inaccurate.  While it has been smoothed, the chart does reflect the average temperatures.  They did not have large, long-lasting spikes because those would affect the average.

But you and NobleHunter are right.  It would be very useful to know what the resolution of the prehistoric data.  There may have been similar spikes in the past as the one we see now that could have reverted back to the mean.  But we've been looking for that reversion for over 50 years now and haven't seen it yet.

[Seriati]

I didn't say they are "wildly inaccurate," I would characterize them as misleading.  If they were financial charts for instance, somebody might be going to jail over them.

The data that far back is not able to show accurate annual temperatures, let alone intra-year information, nor can it show accurate year to year trends, all they can really show is an average over a period (and even that is again a best guess).  That line could have looked like an EKG hooked up to five different people having simultaneous heart attacks and we'd have no way to know it.

It's inherently flawed to compare precise data to imprecise data and then argue that the volatility is what you're showing.

[TheDeamon]

I didn't say they are "wildly inaccurate," I would characterize them as misleading.  If they were financial charts for instance, somebody might be going to jail over them.

The data that far back is not able to show accurate annual temperatures, let alone intra-year information, nor can it show accurate year to year trends, all they can really show is an average over a period (and even that is again a best guess).  That line could have looked like an EKG hooked up to five different people having simultaneous heart attacks and we'd have no way to know it.

It's inherently flawed to compare precise data to imprecise data and then argue that the volatility is what you're showing.

Far more likely the imprecise data from the "historical reconstruction" going back thousands of years has a "resolution" that often spans decades rather than specific years. IE they're unable to say the average global temperature in 1965 BCE was __ degrees. What they could say is that evidence suggests the average global temps between 2000 to 1950 BCE was __.

Which still goes back to "The spike" going on over the past 30 years. If we were in a paired MDO that had an unusual warm spike, and we're running into the trough of the following cold spike, then once that trough completes, much of that "warming" may suddenly balance out to "average" or close to it.

[Seriati]

While I can't for life of me understand why there would be a global conspiracy to overstate the impact of warming, anyone have any interesting thoughts on the whistleblower reports that the "pausebuster" paper may not be supportable?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

[Kasandra]

Except that that's not what Bates said.

[Seriati]

Not sure you read both accurately if you cite to it with a "not what Bates said" header, since it doesn't appear to be contradictory on that point.  It's definitely still an issue of data adjustment and whether the appropriate adjustments were made, as both links discuss.  In any event I was really asking for the opinions of some of the posters who seem to have researched this topic in the past.

[TheDeamon]

Oh, speaking of "adjustments" that news headline a couple weeks back where they were harping about the past three years being the warmest on record?

Well, not quite. At least according to the actual instrument record. How they generated the claim was by means interpolating the data from various reporting stations to "fill in the holes" which mostly happened in the Arctic and Antarctic for obvious reasons(and satellites don't reliably observe those areas either).

Where in many respects they performed the equivalent of declaring that Salt Lake City, Utah has had some of its warmest years on record.... Based on weather station data recorded in Phoenix, Arizona and Calgary, Alberta. But because they've declared their interpolated data to be authoritative, you need to take their word for it.

[Kasandra]

Not sure you read both accurately if you cite to it with a "not what Bates said" header, since it doesn't appear to be contradictory on that point.  It's definitely still an issue of data adjustment and whether the appropriate adjustments were made, as both links discuss.  In any event I was really asking for the opinions of some of the posters who seem to have researched this topic in the past.

Well, you'll have my opinion, too.  Bates did not complain that the data was manipulated to emphasize the lack of a hiatus.  He only said the analysis hadn't been completed, but he didn't challenge the results.  You'll have to wait for someone who doesn't believe that climate change is occurring for additional backup for the DM article.  Maybe Trump can be the decider.

[TheDeamon]

Not sure you read both accurately if you cite to it with a "not what Bates said" header, since it doesn't appear to be contradictory on that point.  It's definitely still an issue of data adjustment and whether the appropriate adjustments were made, as both links discuss.  In any event I was really asking for the opinions of some of the posters who seem to have researched this topic in the past.

Well, you'll have my opinion, too.  Bates did not complain that the data was manipulated to emphasize the lack of a hiatus.  He only said the analysis hadn't been completed, but he didn't challenge the results.  You'll have to wait for someone who doesn't believe that climate change is occurring for additional backup for the DM article.  Maybe Trump can be the decider.

He did say the data wasn't properly vetted. It also wasn't properly archived. There were a few other steps skipped as well. But hey, their findings with sketchy data could make headlines (and did) in advance of a major international conference on that specific subject. But we're supposed to shrug it off and believe it's just an "unfortunate coincidence."

[Kasandra]

He's also been denounced by other scientists who actually worked on the data and report that he challenges, and others familiar with both the data and the report's conclusions.  What this kerfuffle says to me is that climate change deniers are always happy to leap onto any hint of disagreement or inconclusiveness backing up the steady release of information that confirms that it is happening.  Look at the House Science Committee members' comments if you want to see people otherwise disinterested in the topic dancing on their desks in response to the DM article.