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

[Nyknicks4412]

A 20 year graph for an earth that has been around for 4.5 billion years...and you want to claim it as solid proof that the globe is warming at an alarming rate? For starters it is "cherry picked" data...if you don't understand what that means let me explain. You picked a minuscule amount of data that fit into your theory of global warming. The problem is that it doesn't really even play into your theory. The pause we are talking about is evident and it shows a very very slight increase from start to finish.

Now a graph that actually represents a larger picture. Please take some time to look at it. Then once you have go do some research on climate change outside the last 30 years. You might be surprised what types of changes our beloved Killington has gone through.



If I have learned one thing about those who believe in man made global warming it is that they cannot explain who caused the global warming when we weren't around. Notice I said who...not what. Because I think we can all accept the Earth has warmed and cooled on it's own.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

It will not be good for life on Earth to ignore the facts that are in front of us. It seems that logic and research heads to the back of the bus for some, when it comes to the issue of climate change. The sergeant puts out some long winded rhetoric on his approach to the understanding of the subject, it really is not that difficult to understand, but he does hint on some aspects of the scientific method. I like to think that I understand what is going on in the Earths atmosphere, and I also like the fact that about 98% of people that study this science on a regular basis, I can be in agreement with.

I was once told you can "Dazzle people with brilliance, or baffle them with bull sh*t". I believe the deniers try way to hard to "baffle us with bull sh*t".

Seriously? I suppose I was dreaming to believe this could be about science and not ad hominem attacks...

Coydog... thanks for a thoughtful and reasonable response. Glad you used UAH ( which is also adjusted, I agree, but not constantly adjusted even decades later like GISS) and yes there is a slight temp increase , depending on what you choose as end points of course. I will suppose that it is global. Anyway even if I fully accept the data and trends as presented ( I like to play with the homemade graphing at WoodForTrees) what are we talking about? The trend lines as presented are for about 1 degree PER CENTURY. To which I would say...so what?

This is certainly less that the trend from the last century and certainly less than the trend for 1900 - 1940 when there was no appreciable CO2 to drive the temperature change? This is certainly NOT "unprecedented warming" which demands that CO2 MUST be the driver and we must limit our CO2 to SURVIVE?

So, even though other metrics show flat lines for time periods stretching back more than 15 years (even NASA has admitted as much) you can, without doing awful science find a slight increase still occurring. And... so what? The climate model projections were fun much greater warming EVEN IF CO2 somehow flatlined.

We both agree CO2 is increasing, and some of it is from burning carbon-based fuels. It was projected that if this happened there would be a much greater increase in atmospheric temperature. I am sure you know this is true. The "pause" (diminishment of warming or lack of significant warming as you will) was not "projected" by the models. Most people reading here are probably not even aware that this is an issue that needs explanation (Streamtrackers last link even starts out by admitting the pause needs explaining.) but you are a bright guy and you know there is an issue here.

This does not demand that the models are wrong but you should certainly have less faith in the skill of the models than you had a decade ago. It does not mean I am certain they are wrong. I am not certain. ( I would say I am willing to bet they are wrong but somehow that makes some folks mad so I won't)

Thanks for keeping this about science. I am not trying to disrespect anyone. I know my tone is sometimes abrasive but on this site I am regularly called a denier, a dupe, kooky denialist, poorly educated, etc.... I hate to seem thin skinned but I fear that all the ad hominem insults are convincing to some readers. So I can be snarky... I don't think You, or Streamtracker or Rogman are less intelligent than I am. Sorry if the tone implies that. But I do hope you all will approach this with a similar attitude.

Lets keep it to science, as much as it may bore the neutrals, and realize there may be things we can learn from each other. If insults are our most common commodity we will surely be wasting our efforts.

Again thanks for the thoughtful response. I will try and give you a more detailed counterargument when time permits

[Coydog]

A 20 year graph for an earth that has been around for 4.5 billion years...and you want to claim it as solid proof that the globe is warming at an alarming rate? For starters it is "cherry picked" data...if you don't understand what that means let me explain. You picked a minuscule amount of data that fit into your theory of global warming. The problem is that it doesn't really even play into your theory. The pause we are talking about is evident and it shows a very very slight increase from start to finish.

Now a graph that actually represents a larger picture. Please take some time to look at it. Then once you have go do some research on climate change outside the last 30 years. You might be surprised what types of changes our beloved Killington has gone through.



If I have learned one thing about those who believe in man made global warming it is that they cannot explain who caused the global warming when we weren't around. Notice I said who...not what. Because I think we can all accept the Earth has warmed and cooled on it's own.

I find this argument to be particularly uncompelling. The earth has heated up before without human activity therefore human activity does not cause the earth to heat up. A bit like saying avalanches are a natural phenomena and occur without human activity, therefore human activity cannot cause avalanches.

Looking at the posted graph, the smoothed trend exhibits a half cycle of roughly a 10C change over 75 million years. The modest rate of change computed solely from the UAH data projects a 10C change in about 720 years. Stated another way, the posted prehistoric record shows increases at a rate of 0.0000013 C/decade and the UAH data alone shows a 0.14 C/decade rate or 100,000 times faster.

Of course, climate scientists don't typically argue this way nor should they. Instead they point to other data such as the relative consistency of 300 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere over 650,000 years having increased by 100 ppmv over the past 200 years, much faster than any natural process.

For those who ask why is this important? It's important because CO2 is a greenhouse gas like water vapor and methane.

(from ACS Climate Science Toolkit)

The earth receives heat from the sun and radiates this energy back into space. Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be in balance with the sun at a surface temperature of about -18 C. Greenhouse gases along with clouds absorb this heat and re-emit it. Some of the re-emitted heat warms the surface and thus becomes "trapped". To maintain balance with the sun (i.e. radiate back the same energy as without greenhouse gases), the earth's surface temperature essentially rises from -18 C and has remained at about 15 C for a long time, at least until recently.

More greenhouse gases, more re-emission, more heat - this is, to use a phrase, settled science. The serious climate change debate, near as I can tell, is not whether dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere causes a heating up, but rather at what rate does this occur? Most models of climate change entail additional associated effects that ultimately lead to a dramatic temperature rise such as more heat leading to more water vapor leading to yet more heat. There is plenty of data to back this up but there are also valid criticisms of these theories. Unfortunately, much of the debate seems to get lost in all the partisan shouting by people more interested in taking sides than critical thinking.

Unlike the old days, a lot of the data used by the scientists is available online as are many of the published papers. Just about anyone with college freshman level math & science can follow along and even reproduce the results. However, the jury is still out whether this ultimately evolves or devolves the science.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Again a very productive posting... thanks for keeping such a clean and decent tone... hope I am able to reciprocate! You said (or quoted?)

"The earth receives heat from the sun and radiates this energy back into space. Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be in balance with the sun at a surface temperature of about -18 C. Greenhouse gases along with clouds absorb this heat and re-emit it. Some of the re-emitted heat warms the surface and thus becomes "trapped". To maintain balance with the sun (i.e. radiate back the same energy as without greenhouse gases), the earth's surface temperature essentially rises from -18 C and has remained at about 15 C for a long time, at least until recently.

More greenhouse gases, more re-emission, more heat - this is, to use a phrase, settled science. The serious climate change debate, near as I can tell, is not whether dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere causes a heating up, but rather at what rate does this occur? Most models of climate change entail additional associated effects that ultimately lead to a dramatic temperature rise such as more heat leading to more water vapor leading to yet more heat. (I think it is ALL the models...but I suppose that is quibbling)There is plenty of data to back this up but there are also valid criticisms of these theories. (thanks for your candor) Unfortunately, much of the debate seems to get lost in all the partisan shouting by people more interested in taking sides than critical thinking.(agreed!)

Unlike the old days, a lot of the data used by the scientists is available online as are many of the published papers. Just about anyone with college freshman level math & science can follow along and even reproduce the results. However, the jury is still out whether this ultimately evolves or devolves the science."

Yes I think this is becoming a turning point in science and will, EVENTUALLY, turn out to be all for the good. Right now the "rules" of this strategy are still evolving and hence a bit ugly at times. Nonetheless the concept of crowd-sourcing the task of REPEATING results seems very promising. I realize that climate research results often cannot be "replicated" in a classical scientific way.

But any statistical operations can and SHOULD be replicated (audited) by ADVERSARIES. Yes, adversaries. The only way to be sure if your hypothesis is actually bulletproof is to give every relevant piece of it to those that oppose your hypothesis and ask them to disprove your conclusions. If you give your "enemies" all your data and they cannot demonstrate error in your conclusions.... science marches forward putatively accepting your hypothesis. AND YOU THANK THEM FOR THEIR EFFORTS.

The exaggeration of the adversarial relationship between "believers" and "deniers" has pushed us away from this classic strategy for establishing truths about the universe. I think both sides are guilty for pushing things in this direction.

Just like we accept the principle that a functional legal system depends on adversarial relationships to maximize the likelihood of justice we need to recognize that a balanced adversarial relationship between hypothesizers and skeptics is needed to maximize the likelihood we shall arrive at the truth.

Thank you for your informed and sincere efforts.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

COYDOG,

Also to be helpful I would recommend this as a decent source to consider contrarian perspectives. You may have visited it but maybe not. It might be more to your liking (more respectfully scientific?) than WUWT or Climate Depot (which I admit I visit regularly... along with Skeptical Science and Real Climate)

anyway the site I would recommend is The Hockey Schtick... I know it has a wildly abrasive name but... the majority of the posts are references to published peer-reviewed science that is outside the IPCC version of climate science. If you have time go there and look around. Quite a good source to look a scientifically "validated" research that dissents from the consensus. The link it:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

try not to be offended by the name and hunt for the peer-reviewed science posted. Very interesting results in the mix. Good luck

[jpski]

It is amazing how many people look all over the place for answers to the problem of climate change. If one is to look at the Physics behind the problem, and understand this Physics and also understand the Earth's carbon cycle, it should become real clear to what we are up against. While you are at it, understand the difference between Carbon 12,13 and 14.
Once this information is understood, add up all the numbers, to how much Carbon is put into the atmosphere every year. This should help remove ones skepticism of the problem we face.

[Mister Moose]

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)

I read that. It is chock full of supposition, but has no definitive conclusion. Your use of the word 'probably' sums it up. This does not lead me to agree that any of this is "settled science"

I find this argument to be particularly uncompelling. The earth has heated up before without human activity therefore human activity does not cause the earth to heat up. A bit like saying avalanches are a natural phenomena and occur without human activity, therefore human activity cannot cause avalanches.

Good analogy. However, no one is suggesting that the increase in avalanches from human activity is threatening to cover all of the alpine villages in snow, and we all must stop skiing and mountaineering. And to encourage reduction in ski activity, we should enact a ski tax and send the money to Washington. Meanwhile, Al Gore skis from village to village with an entourage, explaining that his ski activity is necessary.

For those who ask why is this important? It's important because CO2 is a greenhouse gas like water vapor and methane.

(from ACS Climate Science Toolkit)

The earth receives heat from the sun and radiates this energy back into space. Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be in balance with the sun at a surface temperature of about -18 C. Greenhouse gases along with clouds absorb this heat and re-emit it. Some of the re-emitted heat warms the surface and thus becomes "trapped". To maintain balance with the sun (i.e. radiate back the same energy as without greenhouse gases), the earth's surface temperature essentially rises from -18 C and has remained at about 15 C for a long time, at least until recently.

More greenhouse gases, more re-emission, more heat - this is, to use a phrase, settled science. The serious climate change debate, near as I can tell, is not whether dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere causes a heating up, but rather at what rate does this occur? Most models of climate change entail additional associated effects that ultimately lead to a dramatic temperature rise such as more heat leading to more water vapor leading to yet more heat. There is plenty of data to back this up but there are also valid criticisms of these theories. Unfortunately, much of the debate seems to get lost in all the partisan shouting by people more interested in taking sides than critical thinking.

How do we know that without any greenhouse gasses the earth's mean temperature would be -18C?

Your link is broken, so I can't check, but that explanation has many flaws, to the point where I doubt the credibility of the source.

[Nyknicks4412]

Come on people we are all expert climatologists here...so lets not challenge each other on if we know the periodic table of elements or not.

Here.





C02 and Temperature side by side and on the same time scale...I am not seeing the correlation you describe between C02 increase and rapid rises in temperature. In fact I see periods of ice ages with much higher levels of C02 than we have now.

The models you are citing that describe rapid rises in temperature over the last 20 years and portray a dismal future of massive temperature rises over the next century have been wrong so far. Hence the "pause" we are describing. Please look at the big picture. Man-made global warming is not a fact. We can't even predict what the temperature will be a week from now. Let alone in 20 years. So lets just take a look at history and feel comfortable in knowing the snow will be around for a while. We are much more likely to have a mass extinction of our own doing then dying due to climate change.

[Coydog]

Good analogy. However, no one is suggesting that the increase in avalanches from human activity is threatening to cover all of the alpine villages in snow, and we all must stop skiing and mountaineering. And to encourage reduction in ski activity, we should enact a ski tax and send the money to Washington. Meanwhile, Al Gore skis from village to village with an entourage, explaining that his ski activity is necessary.

Probably because unlike the climate, avalanches usually act locally. You triggering an avalanche in Tuckerman doesn't normally effect people in Texas. However, in specific areas where human activity does lead to more avalanches, often lots of mitigation occurs.

How do we know that without any greenhouse gasses the earth's mean temperature would be -18C?

Fairly basic physics and algebra, see:

Effective temperature of the Earth (PDF)

The Greenhouse Effect

and you'll probably like this one:

Where did they get a crazy idea like that? (PDF, pp 4-6)

[Rime & Reason]

Good analogy. However, no one is suggesting that the increase in avalanches from human activity is threatening to cover all of the alpine villages in snow, and we all must stop skiing and mountaineering. And to encourage reduction in ski activity, we should enact a ski tax and send the money to Washington. Meanwhile, Al Gore skis from village to village with an entourage, explaining that his ski activity is necessary.

Mister Moose, Sgt Eddy specifically asked us not to go political in this thread. You already made it clear in a previous thread that this issue is political for you. Maybe you should sit this one out?

[Rime & Reason]

I am getting tired of the denialists saying there has been a pause in warming during the last 15 years as if it is settled science. Take a look at these 3 photographs of an Alaskan glacier. They were taken, in order, on
September 2, 2002,
August 6, 2005, and
August 13, 2007.
That is during the so called pause in global warming. As you can see, the ice is still melting and the world is still warming, and the pause, well the pause just isn't.

http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/gla ... graphy.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Three oblique aerial photographs that show changes in the terminus of Bear Glacier, Kenai Mountains, Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska, during the five year period between 2002 and 2007. The September 2, 2002 oblique aerial photograph of is taken towards the north and shows the retreating, calving terminus of the glacier, located at the head of a large ice-marginal lake, informally named Bear Lake. Prior to 1950, the entire basin of Bear Lake was filled by Bear Glacier’s piedmont lobe. By 1961, a small lake occupying less than 10% of the basin had developed adjacent to the southeast margin of the glacier. By 1984, the lake nearly doubled in size. In the 18 years between 1984 and September 2002, the lake quadrupled in size. The triangular-shaped terminus of the glacier depicted here has retreated at least 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) from its 1984 maximum position. The large tabular icebergs and the low relief, low-gradient terminus suggests that the terminus has thinned so much that much of its lower reaches are afloat. Floating glacier termini typically retreat rapidly and calve large tabular icebergs. (USGS photograph by Bruce F. Molnia). The second photograph was made on August 6, 2005. During the 35 months between photographs, the triangular-shaped terminus of the glacier retreating more than 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) with the large triangular lobe disappearing, the result of intensive passive calving. The glacier has also thinned by about 10 meters (33 feet). The large tabular icebergs that are present are evidence of the rapid disarticulation of the glacier’s terminus. (USGS photograph by Bruce. F. Molnia). The third photograph was made on August 13, 2007. From 2005-2007, the terminus continued to retreat through passive calving, although at a slower rate than prior to 20005. A few of the large tabular icebergs are remnants of even larger icebergs present in 2005. Others are the result of continuing disarticulation of the glacier’s western terminus. In the 24 months between images, the western margin of the glacier retreated more than 0.4 kilometers (0.25 miles). (USGS Photograph by Bruce F. Molnia)."

[Geoff]

Liet-Kynes knows. This is a Harkonnen plot.

[Mister Moose]

Mister Moose, Sgt Eddy specifically asked us not to go political in this thread. You already made it clear in a previous thread that this issue is political for you. Maybe you should sit this one out?

I'm not aware that I was party to any agreement, or that Sgt made any such request in his first post. Sgt declared his question to be apolitical, which it was.

I think illustrating the bridge from scientific debate to proposed legislation is a valid one. Furthermore, since Al Gore is not in office, or running for office, but is a figurehead for the subject at hand, mentioning his name is not political.

Coydog, that's a lot of reading, and I will respond, but later. It would be better if you explained it in your own words, and used your understanding of the matter to sum it up in more concise terms. If you use links to verify your discussion, at least point me to where in the morass I might find pertinent discussion that addresses your assertion.

[Rime & Reason]

Mister Moose, Sgt Eddy specifically asked us not to go political in this thread. You already made it clear in a previous thread that this issue is political for you. Maybe you should sit this one out?

I'm not aware that I was party to any agreement, or that Sgt made any such request in his first post. Sgt declared his question to be apolitical, which it was.

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

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Mister Moose, Sgt Eddy specifically asked us not to go political in this thread. You already made it clear in a previous thread that this issue is political for you. Maybe you should sit this one out?

I'm not aware that I was party to any agreement, or that Sgt made any such request in his first post. Sgt declared his question to be apolitical, which it was.

I think illustrating the bridge from scientific debate to proposed legislation is a valid one. Furthermore, since Al Gore is not in office, or running for office, but is a figurehead for the subject at hand, mentioning his name is not political.

Coydog, that's a lot of reading, and I will respond, but later. It would be better if you explained it in your own words, and used your understanding of the matter to sum it up in more concise terms. If you use links to verify your discussion, at least point me to where in the morass I might find pertinent discussion that addresses your assertion.

Yeah... I am certainly not " in charge" here. I think we are all expected to be independent actors hopefully prompting each other in ways that move the conversation forward constructively. So R&R I don't much mind if you call me a denier or make some political point as long as it does not devolve into a situation where all we do is rant and moan at each other.

Judging from Mr. Moose's posts he seems genuinely bright and polite and diligent in his approach to arguing this topic. I do not suspect he has made a career as a scientist but he shows he is reading a lot of the crap that we all post, thinking about what he read and THEN coming to a tentative conclusion. If he happens to mention Al Gore as a personality involved in the debate I would hope you would allow him that latitude without claiming he made a political rant. He seems like exactly the kind of "intelligent layman" we all all trying to influence. I suspect he started into his investigation assuming the "consensus" was correct. I suspect he has not made any firm conclusions as to the details of this topic.

In strongly agree with Moose re the posting of links. Coydog you did this well before...stick to it. Post a link IN SUPPORT of a point you have made concisely in your own words. We do not have unlimited time to read all the material you could link us to. Instead tell us what you think we ought to know then provide the link in support so that it can be "verified."

R&R you posted that some glaciers are melting somewhere. You showed us pictures. Therefore we are insane for not "BELIEVING" ALL the pronouncements of the global warming consensus????? Are you serious?

Have you seen a map of the likely extend of North American glaciers prior to their retreat in the current interglacial? What caused all that melting?????? Burning "fossil fuels?"