70
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:01 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

It is also important to know how much, if any, effect anthropogenic CO2 production affects the climate as related to that occuring naturally (or anything else for that matter) before we start implementing major policy to control anthropogenic CO2 production.


Well, how can one convince unbelievers?
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:11 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I don't thin you understand what Foxfyre is saying, Walter. She is saying that there SHOULD BE NO MAJOR POLICY TO CONTROL ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 PRODUCTION

UNTIL

we determine how much of the co2 production OCCURS NATURALLY( in which case radical changes in society may be useless or less than productive in terms of cost.

There is such a thing as a cost benefit ratio. If, for example, half of the three degrees C gain in global temperature we will gain by 2100( see IPCC report for 2007 for median prediction) is from solar influences( see the many fine posts from Ican), the expenditure of BILLIONS to reduce the world wide global temperature by 1 and 1/2 degreess C in 90 years could best be spent in eradicating Malaria--( a feat which would save Millions of Lives).
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 02:59 pm
massagato, as parados says, ican's conclusions are garbage. They have, in fact, been rebutted on this topic, several times. ican has agreed that the points made in the rebuttal are valid. He then goes and cut-and-pastes the same garbage again. And again.And again. He has more time on his hands than I do. He cherry picks the data (for example he picked the period 1998-2008 he says BECAUSE it ran from an anomalous temporary max to an anomalous temporary min). That is statistically indefensible.
He ignoores the fact that you can only draw a valid relationshkp between two variables if you account for the effect of the other variables in the system. And he ignores the fact that annual temperature deviation from the mean is heavily (on a year by year basis) affected by the weather, particularly the largest weather events on the planet elNino/laNina/the Southern Oscillation. 1997-98 and 2007-8 being two very extreme ENSO years, which renders his calculations irrelevant right there.

He ignores the fact that SI is cyclical. That a cyclical function's effect over time cancels out--thgat the gain in one part of the cycle is matched by the decline in another part of the cycle. His data period doesn't conincide with the solar cycle, so his claim of declining SI is nonsense (particularly if you look at the curve betyween his endpoiints.)

He cherry picks the data--his claimed correlation only works with the endpoints he chooses. It has been pointed out to him that if you choose other endpoints, even adjacent ones to his, the results are actually of opposite sign. If your conclusion isn't generally applicable, and depends on arbitrary data points, as his does, the conclusion is nonsense.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 03:04 pm
We know how much of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. Pretty much all of it. Isotopic analysis of the change in the atmosphere has shown it (changing c12/c13 ratios and the change in C14 ratios before atmospheric nuclear tests screwed it up), and it is unprecedented over the last 600000 years (ice core records show CO2 fluctuating between about 180ppm during glacials and about 280-300 ppm during interglacials--in other words, natural processes and the natural carbon cycle does not produce the current, and rising, concentration).
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 03:12 pm
And back to ican, there may be a change in total TSI. The actual direct measurement of TSI by satellite, by the more accurate measurement shows a very slight decline over the measured period from the mid 70s to today, or by the other meaure a very slight increase, about a fourth of the probably flawed meaure up to the previous solar min, which if that previous measure was used, produced a figure of around 25% of the temp change influenced by the sun. (not 50%). In either case, that is NOT the SI figure that ican is using. He's using the cyclic figure, which dwarfs any possible longterm change in TSI. And even the cyclical TSI, which should produce a cyclic change in temp, roughly 11 years long, is so small no one has reliably been able to pick it out with certainty from the noise in the calculation caused by changing weather, which has a transient up or down effect on the temp, but which balances out in the long-term trend.
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 06:25 pm
@MontereyJack,
picked up an item on CBC news today from interview with researcher :

melting of antarctic ice presents greater danger to northern hemisphere than the southern one .

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/05/sea-level-rise.html

i recall that when we visited southern chile(patagonia) in 2006 the locals were complaining that there had been increased snowmelts on the mountains .
were they formerly could reach the snowfields (for skiing) in less than an hour , it took them now nearly two hours to reach the snowfields .
when we drove up to one of the skilifts , it turned out that you had a fair distance to go before reaching any snow .
i read recently that not much attention had been paid to glacier melting in the antarctic but that some scientists were now starting to investigate .
the problem is the enourmous cost to get into the antarctic - but it is definetely the largest ice mass on earth .
we should probably pay more attention to antarctica than to sending rockets into space .
hbg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 06:28 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
No Walter. I was not referring to your posted article. I was referring to your incorrect implied accusations of Okie and Ican.

and to this. . . .

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It is also important to know how much, if any, effect anthropogenic CO2 production affects the climate as related to that occuring naturally (or anything else for that matter) before we start implementing major policy to control anthropogenic CO2 production.


Well, how can one convince unbelievers?


Those who choose to be unbelievers on either side cannot be convinced.

If AGW is a reality and is measurable, skeptics can be better convinced by the scientific community using honest data and being up front and straight with us and by the scientific community exposing the frauds and charlatans such as Al Gore as the embarrassment that they should be rather than holding them up as gurus of science.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 07:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
n the other hand, those who are full steam ahead disciples of the "global warming will doom us all" hype, consistently refuse to consider the periods documented for Planet Earth when the CO2 levels have been much higher than now and the Earth was warmer than now long before any humans thought up an automobile or light bulb. As I recall they also didn't comment on periods in which CO2 was higher and the average temps were LOWER than now which should give at least pause for thought as to whether CO2 levels actually drives the average temperatures of the planet rather than being a side effect of climate changes.

Just out of curiosity Fox.. Could you present some science backing up your claims?
1. When were the CO2 levels higher than today? How was it calculated because there is no measurement of historic CO2 level that shows that.
2. What science is used to calculate temperature at that time period? (You will find it is probably calculated based on the green house effect of CO2.)
3. When was CO2 higher and temps lower than today? I see nothing in the literature to support that claim.

I don't deny that there was probably a period in earth's history when the CO2 levels were higher than today and the earth was warmer. But that was prior to sequestration over millions of years.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 08:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:

If AGW is a reality and is measurable, skeptics can be better convinced by the scientific community using honest data and being up front and straight with us and by the scientific community exposing the frauds and charlatans such as Al Gore as the embarrassment that they should be rather than holding them up as gurus of science.

That is an interesting statement Fox. You will accept the science if it reveals that the science is fraudulent.

In other words, you could care less about the science since you have made up your mind.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 10:26 pm
http://www.opentemp.org/_results/_20071024_Phanerozoic/co2concentration_vs_temp.png
http://e-huh.com/baut/phanerozoic-climate-change.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 10:46 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

If AGW is a reality and is measurable, skeptics can be better convinced by the scientific community using honest data and being up front and straight with us and by the scientific community exposing the frauds and charlatans such as Al Gore as the embarrassment that they should be rather than holding them up as gurus of science.

That is an interesting statement Fox. You will accept the science if it reveals that the science is fraudulent.

In other words, you could care less about the science since you have made up your mind.


Only you could draw that conclusion from my statement Parados. I swear some of you people need to change the brand of your bottled water or something. What you are drinking must contain something that renders you incapable of reading and/or comprehending what is there.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:44 pm
It is obvious that Parados either can't read or won't read. Rosborne 979's post shows clearly that co2 emissions were indeed higher than in the past. But like most of the Gore like frauds, Parados and other alarmists are incapable of explaining the evidence on Global Temperature 1856 -2000 given in Nature Magazine in 1999.

Global temperature rose .o4 C from 1910 to 1940 but then did not rise at all from 1940 to 1980. How could this be? Can Parados explain this? Certainly, the CO2 otput in the world was much greater from 1940 to 1980. But Parados won't explain this. He can't!
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:47 pm
Parados has not rebutted the excellent data given by Ican either. All Parados does is to blow smoke.

Ican wrote:

A-AAGT has been decreasing over the last 4 years.
CAD has been increasing over the last 12 years, but SI has been decreasing over the last 9 years.

NCDC Climate of 2008
Annual Report
Year ... °C
1997 . 0.46
1998 . 0.58
1999
2000
2001 . 0.49
2002 . 0.56
2003 . 0.56
2004 . 0.53
2005 . 0.61
2006 . 0.55
2007 . 0.55
2008 . 0.49

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
1997 0.351
1998 0.546
1999 0.296
2000 0.270
2001 0.409
2002 0.464
2003 0.473
2004 0.447
2005 0.482
2006 0.422
2007 0.405
2008 0.325

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

YEAR - CAD --- SI ----- A-AAGT
------- ppm -- w/m^2 -- °C
1998 367.61 1366.11 0.546
1999 368.59 1366.39 0.296
2000 370.33 1366.67 0.270
2001 371.83 1366.40 0.409
2002 374.45 1366.37 0.464
2003 376.71 1366.07 0.473
2004 378.23 1365.91 0.447
2005 380.78 1365.81 0.482
2006 382.55 1365.72 0.422
2007 384.60 1365.66 0.405
2008 386.20 1365.60 0.324
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 12:57 am
The data are fine, massagato. That's because they aren't ican's. He's merely cutting and pasting them from reputable climatological data.The conclusions he draws from themn, though, are all ican's , snd they are mathematically and scientifically indefensible, for the reasons which I outlined above, which I notice you ignored, as you have a habit of doing when the facts are inconvenient for your point of view.

ican's conclusion only works because he cherrypicks the data to fit his argument. His hypothesis that SI is decreasing, and global temp. is decreasing, while CO2 is increasing, therefore SI is the major determinant of temp, not CO2, only fits for the time period he picked. It is a spurious correlation, much like the one they use to cite the misuse of statistics: stock prices go up as women's hemlines go up.

If, for exmple, we use ican's data, but offset it just one year, and look at 1997-2007 for example, ABOUT 91% THE SAME DATA AS ICAN, we reach exactly the opposite conclusion.

YEAR TEMP. ANOMALY SI
1977 0.46 1365.75
2007 0.55 1365.66

Temperature is INCREASING, while solar irradiance is DECREASING, the exact opposite of what he thinks he's shown.

In other words, his "analysis" is nonsensical. The correlation he posits is there only becaue he cherrypicked his starting and ending points and totally ignored the actual variables that affect global temperatures.
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 12:59 am
Quote:
CO2 vs temperature: ice core correlation & lag

Abstract

The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated - see e.g. Petit et al., Nature 1999 - but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. This fact has also been explained in The Great Global Warming Swindle. It follows that the C0₂ greenhouse effect has not been important in the history and we shouldn't expect that it will become important in the future.

Special comment for Australian readers on Sep 28, 2007: just yesterday, there was a new paper in Science - Lowell et al., Science 2007 - that showed that CO₂ lagged by about 1,000 years when the last ice age started to end 18,000 years ago

The direction of the causal relationship can be shown in many ways: for example, it is not just CO₂ but other gases such as methane that follow temperature. The hypothesis of CO₂ as the primary reason wouldn't explain why these other gases are correlated, too. Also, we understand how oceans react to temperature changes by releasing gases. Finally, the gas concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years, see e.g. this 2003 paper in Science by Caillon et al.

* See also: climate sensitivity & nonlinear relationship between CO₂ and temperature
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 01:10 am
oh, hell, the goddamned a2k software reformatted the data in the small table in my previous answer--the three figures in each line are, in order, year, temp. anomaly (degrees centigrade above the 20th century mean), and yearly average solar irradiance in watts/m^2. The headers no longer appear over the numbers they characterize.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 01:13 am
@MontereyJack,
That's what you say. Monterey Jack. I will allow Ican to defend his own posts. I am sure he can doit.

SInceyou seem to be sure that you can rebut all of the skeptics,why don't you try to rebut this.

No one has yet.




QUOTE During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.05°C/decade (0.09°F/decade), but this trend has increased to a rate of approximately 0.16°C/decade (0.29°F/decade) during the past 30 years. There have been two sustained periods of warming, one beginning around 1910 and ending around 1945, and the most recent beginning about 1976. Temperatures during the latter period of warming have increased at a rate comparable to the rates of warming projected to occur during the next century with continued increases of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

END OF QUOTE

I have never heard a cogent explanation of the figures showing GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. My source indicates that GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increased 0.4 C from 1910 to 1940 but HAD NO GAIN from 1940 to 1980.

Assuming these figures are correct, I have never been able to find an explanation why there was no rise in the global temperature from 1940 to 1980. Surely, emissions of the putative villians-greenhouse gases--were much larger from 1940 to 1980 than the previous forty years.

Source-Tett, S.F.B.
"Causes of Twentieth Century Temperature Changes Near the Earth's Surface" NATURE 399:569-72

genoves
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 01:22 am
@Deckland,
Yes, indeed, Deckland. There is evidence to show that co2 is a lagging phenomenon rather than a leading one.

I will quote fromDr. Fred Singer's "Unstoppable Global Warming--every 1,500 years"

P. 11

CO2, for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator of global warming,not a causal factor. Within the lasrt 15 years, THE ICE CORES HAVE REVEALED THAT TEMPERATURES AND CO2LEVELS HAVE TRACKED CLOSELY TOGETHER DURING THE WARMINGS AFTER EACH OF EARTH'S LAST THREE ICE AGE GLACIATIONS. HOWEVER, THE CO2 CHANGES HAVE LAGGED ABOUT 800 YEARS BEHIND THE TEMPERATURE CHANGES.

GLOBAL WARMING HAS PRODUCED MORE CO2 RATHER THAN MORE CO2 PRODUCING GLOBAL WARMING.

THIS ACCORDS WITH THE REALITY THAT THE OCEANS HOLD THE VAT MAJORITY OF THE PLANET'S CARBON AND THE LAWSOF PHYSICS LET COLD OCEANS HOLD MORE CO2 GAS THAN WARM OCEANS."
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 07:15 am
@Foxfyre,
There is no other possible conclusion to make Fox..

The scientific community can't expose Gore as a fraud because he gets most of the science correct. Your demand that they do so means you could care less about the science and prefer Gore be called a fraud in spite of the support of science.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 07:43 am
@genoves,
Yes, CO2 was higher in the past, but I see no point on the graph where CO2 was higher and temperature was lower. If you could point it out, I would appreciate it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 10:27:14