Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba

Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING WHY SHOULD THERE BE OTHER EFFECTS OF CO2?
It seems (seemed?) a reasonable hypothesis that the introduction of more CO2 into the atmosphere might increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Some of you think of this as a scientific truth rather than a hypothesis but I really don’t care.

The CO2 has been going up for the last 17 years and the atmospheric temperatures have not gone up. This is really not disputed. Some claim the earth is still heating (oceans) but almost no one claims there has been statistically significant ATMOSPHERIC warming for at least 15 years.

When this atmospheric temperature stasis started to occur there was lots of yelling that it wasn’t significant until the trend lasted longer. The first target was ten years. Then when the pause lasted ten years the target was changed to 15 years. Now that we have passed 15 years with no warming the “consensus” explanations have become interesting. Other factors (which the skeptics had been berated for considering as significant) were “masking” the warming. Or….The deep ocean was somehow stealing the heat which was not appearing in the atmosphere…without any heating in the intervening oceanic levels. Or…. We really shouldn’t worry about warming… what we should worry about is Climate Change!

Oh my.

Firstly climate has probably never been very stable in the history of the earth.

Our proxies for ancient temperature generally have low temporal resolution but nevertheless proxies like ice cores seem to show decadal variations at least as dramatic as our current changes. The CO2 changes are indeed more dramatic than any we can resolve with our low resolution proxies but the temperature changes are not. And there is a multitude of data showing weather events much more dramatic than our current events.

Secondly… how is this a scientific hypothesis?

In science you construct a chain of causal events which lead from a triggering factor to an outcome. When Global Warming first appeared as an idea all the activist scientists knew that no one would be scared if the outcome was merely a slightly warmer climate. So they extrapolated their theory to include more terrifying outcomes.

Because the atmosphere was hotter… methane would be released causing runaway warming.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…atmospheric water vapor would increase causing flooding
Because the atmosphere was hotter…species would be displaced as the seasonal patterns morphed.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…cyclonic activity would increase due to warmer ocean surface temperatures.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…droughts would increase because of increased evaporation
Because the atmosphere was hotter…mosquitoes would expand their range and terrorize northerners (ha!)
Because the atmosphere was hotter…ski resorts would have to close from lack of snow.
Because the atmosphere was hotter… tick outbreaks would destroy moose populations.
Because the atmosphere was hotter…well just fill in the blanks… as long as it is bad (NEVER GOOD EFFECTS)

All of these ideas were worthy of consideration because they had a chain of purported causal links to atmospheric warming which MIGHT be caused by increase in CO2.

They have NO scientific basis unless there is atmospheric warming.

Well for the last 17+ years there has been no atmospheric warming.

So none of these ideas have ANY scientific basis. Simple as that actually.

Any believers in the consensus can interrupt me here and explain, not with an internet link but an actual explanation (to show you understand it), HOW any of these effects would be CAUSED BY AN INCREASE IN CO2. Remember you CANNOT invoke an increase in atmospheric temperature because there has been none.

So, again... please explain, with a series of causal links (this is your hypothesis remember) how an increase in CO2 can increase flooding WITHOUT any increase in atmospheric temperature.

Remember NO LINKS, just a simple explanation. You should be able to explain ALL of them but I would like you to explain even one of them… just a simple explanation.

I don’t think you have one.

If you don’t have one… your faith in the consensus is merely an example of the magical thinking that pervades human cultures.

Which is fine… but it makes your shrieking at “deniers” deliciously ironic, as it seems you are the ones who have strayed from the path of science and become reliant on faith in authority.

You can change my mind with a simple explanation.
Ski the edges!
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Because the atmosphere was hotter… tick outbreaks would destroy moose populations.

Wuuuuuuut? I might have to re-think this.
Image
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by madhatter »

Image
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11596
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Mister Moose »

Here's a question.

If the heat has gone into the ocean for 15 years and not the atmosphere, what caused the switch?


Follow up.

If we don't know what caused the switch, how well do we really understand the greater system?
Image
Nyknicks4412
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 17
Joined: Feb 24th, '14, 08:38

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Nyknicks4412 »

I once read on the interwebs that 99.9% of all scientists agree in global warming...therefore the science of global warming is a fact.

My prediction is this: The deep dark reaches of the ocean are sucking up all the heat. Once the tipping point is reached they will release said heat back into the atmosphere. Average global temperatures will rise 20 degrees a year until we are all fried. Until they release the heat though...there will be no evidence of global warming in the atmosphere. Remember it is hiding down there just waiting for the right moment to strike. What we will see is crazy weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, dust storms ect. Oh and a few dead polar bears and penguins. Get ready people it is going to be a wild ride.

I bet if I throw a few statistics behind this and smoke up a few of my buddies they will get on board with my science too. If 10/10 of my friends believe it is not just true...its science.
buckethead
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1217
Joined: Apr 21st, '05, 18:56
Location: low and inside

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by buckethead »

i was gonna post one word:
"capacitor"
but felt it unfair to the original poster who wrote so much.
last post there hit it.
it's like arguing that the world is flat at this point.
we've had the 13 hottest years on record in the past 14 years. australia is burning, a few years ago it was russia.
now CA (which grows much of the world's food) is in a historic drought) and the polar ice is disappearing.
to hang on to but one apparent metric in all this is like
bleeding out and taking comfort that the eyesight is still 20/20.
the fact that so many still harbor doubt of what's going on
in spite of so much evidence, scientific and anectodal (including the fossil fuel-enriched members of congress and the executive) bodes very badly for all of us on the planet, but for a great many it is already well underway.
we lovers snow sports in the NE have lucked out this year - but it would be short-sighted to think this year's extreme cold is a signal that things are ok.

in the meantime be safe, ski hard and enjoy the weekend.
skiadikt
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11252
Joined: Nov 4th, '04, 21:43
Location: where the water tastes like wine

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by skiadikt »

didn't "we" just have an 18 page discussion on this ... perhaps the admins should consider adding "science" to the kzone board index for folks who care to engage in this type of behavior.
spoiled South American skiin' whore
Rime & Reason
Black Carver
Posts: 478
Joined: Jun 26th, '12, 00:19

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Rime & Reason »

skiadikt wrote:didn't "we" just have an 18 page discussion on this ... perhaps the admins should consider adding "science" to the kzone board index for folks who care to engage in this type of behavior.
I agree. It was fun when Spanky was the troll, but I do not think that one of the kooky denialists should get to be the troll.
buckethead
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1217
Joined: Apr 21st, '05, 18:56
Location: low and inside

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by buckethead »

sorry for troll-feeding, gang. haven't been here much since early season, so missed the 18 page post on same.

no apologies for the ski hard, enjoy the weekend part!
Streamtracker
Black Carver
Posts: 491
Joined: Aug 29th, '11, 12:36
Location: Sunderland, MA

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Streamtracker »

CO2 concentration is once of the factors that changes the global energy budget (the balance between the energy coming in to the earth system and that leaving), this includes energy that goes to heat atmosphere, heat oceans, energy to melt ice and snow, and energy that heats physical objects (rocks, trees, etc.).

During the last 17 years the global energy budgets shows an increasing trend. The Sgt.'s focus on the atmosphere illustrates he does not understand the fundamentals of how the climate system operates. He discounts the fact that the vast majority of the energy goes into ocean warming.

Mr. Moose the "switch" is probably a result of changes to circulation patterns.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-chan ... at-1.14525" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(FYI, the source I posted is from Nature, one of the top two professional science journals in all fields globally)

For those of you interested in looking into the false claims made by the Sgt. I recommend Skeptical Science. As someone who has studied and taught climate science for over 25 years, I find the site a reliable source of information. In addition, they have a nice feature where they debunk denialist myths at a novice, intermediate, and advanced level. So whatever your science background, you should find a useful explanation.

Image
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26276
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Bubba »

So what we now have is:

1. The theory of climate change (that atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of warming) that was modeled and given to the public as "settled science".
2. Models did not pan out as expected as temperatures stabilized, contrary to the theory and the models.
3. Some scientists are now questioning their models and looking for new explanations of why their models didn't pan out. (I'm amazed that it's only some.)
4. A new theory has been added to the mix, suggesting that the missing heat is being absorbed by the oceans.
5. New models are being developed but which are, as yet, untested.

Tell me again how this, then, is "settled science"? What I see is a plausible theory that is as yet unproven by modeling.

Given at least the plausibility of the theory, then policies should reflect the theoretical nature of the science as opposed to using the absolute (mostly dire) projections we have been given. That tells me we should take reasonable and cost effective actions to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency, exactly what we have been doing for the past 20 - 30 years. Gradual steps at reasonable and economically supportable costs, not the "balls to the wall" approach supported by so many "true believers".

Streamtracker, wouldn't you agree and, if not, why not?
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Streamtracker
Black Carver
Posts: 491
Joined: Aug 29th, '11, 12:36
Location: Sunderland, MA

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Streamtracker »

Bubba wrote:So what we now have is:

1. The theory of climate change (that atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of warming) that was modeled and given to the public as "settled science".
2. Models did not pan out as expected as temperatures stabilized, contrary to the theory and the models.
3. Some scientists are now questioning their models and looking for new explanations of why their models didn't pan out. (I'm amazed that it's only some.)
4. A new theory has been added to the mix, suggesting that the missing heat is being absorbed by the oceans.
5. New models are being developed but which are, as yet, untested.

Tell me again how this, then, is "settled science"? What I see is a plausible theory that is as yet unproven by modeling.

Given at least the plausibility of the theory, then policies should reflect the theoretical nature of the science as opposed to using the absolute (mostly dire) projections we have been given. That tells me we should take reasonable and cost effective actions to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency, exactly what we have been doing for the past 20 - 30 years. Gradual steps at reasonable and economically supportable costs, not the "balls to the wall" approach supported by so many "true believers".

Streamtracker, wouldn't you agree and, if not, why not?
1. The theory of climate change (that atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of warming) that was modeled and given to the public as "settled science".

"settled science" is not a term scientists typically use. Constant refinement is more like what scientists do.

2. Models did not pan out as expected as temperatures stabilized, contrary to the theory and the models.

No evidence that air temps have stabilized. Time-frame too short to make that claim.

3. Some scientists are now questioning their models and looking for new explanations of why their models didn't pan out. (I'm amazed that it's only some.)

Scientists have always been "questioning" their models. The modeling process is one of constant refinement.

4. A new theory has been added to the mix, suggesting that the missing heat is being absorbed by the oceans.

It's not a new theory. Ocean warming has always been part of the equation.

5. New models are being developed but which are, as yet, untested.

That's always the case -if somethings being developed, it is not ready to test. So I am not sure what you mean.

The refinement of the models is not a matter of inventing something from scratch.

If you have the time take a look at skeptical science. You'll find a section there that looks at how models have performed.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-mo ... think.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bottom-line: Models that look at atmospheric warming find are very good at modeling decade to decade changes and not as good (but not useless) for within decade changes.

A stock market analogy. Any well performing stock you own might be doing well year to year or decade to decade. But f you look at weekly measures, there are down or flat periods even in a stock that performs well. You are not going to sell this stock based on its short-term behavior.

The models and our understanding of climate system tells use we have a very well performing stock and in the decades to come we would be foolish to expect this stock to depreciate. I would invest heavily in this one.

And the stock just keeps rising: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Streamtracker on Mar 26th, '14, 17:39, edited 1 time in total.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Streamtracker & Coydog .. nice to have you back.

I would suggest you didn't answer my simple request for a simple explanation of how any other purported effect of CO2 can be justified with a chain of casual events... if the primary effect, warming of the atmosphere, is NOT happening.

Streamtracker your link admits that it was not an outcome predicted by any of the models...read the intro paragraph in your own link...they admit this. The ocean heating is a post hoc rationalization formulated after their models failed... you may have missed it but I addressed this in a previous post:

"OK, about the pause... there has been no change in atmospheric temperature anomaly for more than 15 years. This was absolutely NOT predicted by any of the "consensus" models. The models, by any sane measure have failed. There are a few ways to compare the models with reality that allow that the current temperature are not technically outside the allowed range for a few of the projections but anyone who will not admit the models have failed is either a fool or an activist lying to you.

So the models have failed to predict the behavior of the atmosphere...which was their primary purview. So how do the activists respond... change your models? Rethink your theory? Nope they look around for some other explanation because the still NEED their theory to be correct. Lots have excuses have been tried.

The current favorite is increase in ocean heat content. The beauty of this is that water has such high heat capacity that you can find huge amounts of heat in the oceans by the very slightest of temperature rise. And this is what they have done. They "work with" the ARGO buoy temperature probes (they get to adjust raw data) and find that in some parts of the world's oceans there is heating...maybe.

It is not everywhere, it is NOT at the surface but only at great depths. How are pieces of the deep ocean heating when the surface is not? NOBODY even has a decent hypothesis. How much heating in degrees C? 0.09 degrees. Think there are any thermometers in the system that have that accuracy/resolution? No Way. So It all comes down ,as usual, to the techniques of data reduction.

The data needs to be smoothed out to fill in the blank spaces where there is no data. What these folks like to do, they are notorious among statisticians, is to take the numbers they like, in this case the higher temps and spread them out as far as they can. And the shrink up the range of the colder temps to just about right at the buoy. In any case... I do not trust their integrity in data reduction (too many instances of error with bias) I do not think 0.09 degrees is worth noticing in this data (easily within the error bars if you will) and the entire concept of deep ocean heating was NOT predicted and stinks of fishing for a post hoc explanation to excuse the failure of their models.

The more you look into the details of the crew modeling climate... the less you will trust them to have avoided bias. All their exposed errors, and they are legion, are in favor of making it look like the world is warming.

So no I am not impressed with "deep ocean heating" as the current post hoc excuse for the failure of their models."


Those are my words expressing my understanding of the state of the science...not some link to a website I might not actually understand.

Coydog your resorting to pasting links suggests perhaps
1) you are resorting to an argument from authority...which is silly if there exists qualified dissent (there exists qualified dissent)
2) Maybe you can't explain it yourself.

Streamtracker... I have been to Skeptical Science innumerable times. There arguments are generally full of flaws and these flaws are pointed out to them in comments from informed readers. These comments are invariably removed by the site admins. I know this because on some of the "denialist" sites they have taken to capturing evidence of the comment removal on the "consensus" sites.

I always read the comments as avidly as I do the article. I do not believe that any hypothesis is worthy of support unless it can survive dogged criticism. The sites you guys posted links to make this a policy: remove negative comments. That makes me very worried about the integrity of the admins. If you can't take the heat don't post on the web. Erasing evidence of dissent should be a red flag that these guys

Will you ever actually respond to the points us "kooky denialists" make?
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

buckethead wrote:i was gonna post one word:
"capacitor"
but felt it unfair to the original poster who wrote so much.
last post there hit it.
it's like arguing that the world is flat at this point.
we've had the 13 hottest years on record in the past 14 years. australia is burning, a few years ago it was russia.
now CA (which grows much of the world's food) is in a historic drought) and the polar ice is disappearing.
to hang on to but one apparent metric in all this is like
bleeding out and taking comfort that the eyesight is still 20/20.
the fact that so many still harbor doubt of what's going on
in spite of so much evidence, scientific and anectodal (including the fossil fuel-enriched members of congress and the executive) bodes very badly for all of us on the planet, but for a great many it is already well underway.
we lovers snow sports in the NE have lucked out this year - but it would be short-sighted to think this year's extreme cold is a signal that things are ok.

in the meantime be safe, ski hard and enjoy the weekend.
Thanks for the pleasant tone ...in fact I understand the concept of capacitance, it has been part of my models of the world, in its various incarnations for many decades. The heat capacity of the oceans is of course very impressive but... an increase in temperature of 0.09 degrees does represent a lot of heat when you are talking about huge volumes of water but if you look into the details here on how this figure is arrived at and by whom.... well see my previuos post...

...and I hope you understand that the post you agreed with...by Nyknicks4412 was in fact sarcasm and not intended to be taken seriously by sane adults. Nyknicks4412 has posted before on this issue and made some very valid points on how silly parts of the "consensus" arguments are.

I know it sounds crazy to disagree with so many scientists but explain to me why Richard Lindzen MIT Sloane Professor of Meteorology who disagrees, is wrong. Why is he wrong. I do not think he is wrong. I think that a crowd of activist scientists and their funders in government are wrong.
Ski the edges!
Post Reply