Bloomberg: What's really warming the world?

[LeafByNiggle]

Hans, here’s a question and a comment (for viewers)

Why is 300 ppm the magic number? I’ve seen no science that it’s the ideal level.

300 ppm is a round number that has been approached, but not exceeded in the last 400,000 years. Sure, it was much higher in the far distant past, but humans were not living then, and they certainly weren’t living in huge vulnerable concentrations that depend on high-efficiency agriculture.

 

[Theo520]

300 ppm is a round number that has been approached, but not exceeded in the last 400,000 years. Sure, it was much higher in the far distant past, but humans were not living then, and they certainly weren’t living in huge vulnerable concentrations that depend on high-efficiency agriculture.

Without a stronger argument than ‘that’s what it was’ I’d easily argue a higher mean PPM will be good for growing all the food we need.

Net, there is not solid science on the ideal PPM

 

[vz71]

300 ppm is a round number that has been approached, but not exceeded in the last 400,000 years. Sure, it was much higher in the far distant past, but humans were not living then, and they certainly weren’t living in huge vulnerable concentrations that depend on high-efficiency agriculture.

So CO2 concentration fluctuated up without humans around?

Who would have thought?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So CO2 concentration fluctuated up without humans around?

Who would have thought?

Everybody. No one is contesting that point. So what?

 

[sps49]

So you’re just spouting techno-buzz words? I challenged you to support your contention that something or other implies linear relationships. Your refusal to rise to the challenge might lead something to think you don’t really know how to support that claim.

I can only suggest that you read the black part of what I previously wrote. Other than that, I don’t know what else you could do. Perhaps a course in non linear control theory, or an introduction in power law phenomenon would help.

Even without knowing how the physical system operates, one can still see from those graphs (and the data they represent) if there is a trend. I wouldn’t exactly call that useless.

Of course you wouldn’t. This is one of the problems with data mining.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Without a stronger argument than ‘that’s what it was’ I’d easily argue a higher mean PPM will be good for growing all the food we need.

Net, there is not solid science on the ideal PPM

I would like to see your “solid science” backing up your idea that a higher CO2 concentration would be good overall. On my side I have at least 400,000 years of evidence that less than 300 PPM produces the world we know. On your side you have only the laboratory experiment that shows more CO2 makes a plant grow faster. What evidence do you have that the total global biological systems will benefit? For example, we know that certain insect pests are limited by weather to warmer regions. If you allow CO2 to change the climate, what will these pests do when a whole new, previously unattainable ecosystem is put at their disposal? And rice paddies that are currently at sea level will not benefit much from increased CO2 if they are totally submerged by a rising sea level. No, you will not “easily” argue that the only consequence will be bigger crops. Change “argue” to “speculate” and it will be closer to the truth.

 

[estesbob]

:banghead:

I have maintain that man is not responsible for global warming.

Global warming may or may not occur, but man can have no effect on it.

I maintain that this whole subject is less about “science” and mythical environmental control than it is about politics. Those who promote this hoax are only interested in passing laws like “Cap and Trade”- - the bartering of “carbon credits”, and the redistribution of wealth from industrial nations to third world countries.

I have stated that there is no evidence proving that man is capable of causing climate change.

FROM NOW ON,
ZOLTAN PROCLAIMS

There is no such thing as “global warming.”

From now on, the politically correct term shall be Natural Temperature Variation. (NTV)

There is also no such thing as “Climate Change”

From now on it will be known as “Natural Atmospheric Variation” (NAV)

“AGW” or Anthropogenic Global Warming (man-made global warming) remains a THEORY Until it is proven, it shall be referred to as: “The Unlikely-to-Be-Proven THEORY of AGW”

Since “consensus” is the business of politics and has no bearing on real science…the term has no scientific value and will be used only in a political context.

I will be watching this thread…ready to pounce npatrol:

How about instead of NTV we just refer to “weather”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I can only suggest that you read the black part of what I previously wrote. Other than that, I don’t know what else you could do. Perhaps a course in non linear control theory, or an introduction in power law phenomenon would help.

Doubling down on your techno-buzz words? I don’t know what “black part” you mean. But you made the claim in your post #59 in response to Lynn, saying:

*Assuming that the models have enough fidelity to replicate the physical system, and that the system may be treated as a linear equation in one (or more) unknown(s), you might have a point. Neither is true, so the claim falls flat. If you must clutter up the thread with diagrams, please be good enough to provide the source and context of the chart.
*

I thought this odd because it was in response to Lynn’s claim that AGW can be seen as real and there was no “pause” by looking at actual observed data. No models were referenced in Lynn’s posting. So my question is very simple. Why doesn’t Lynn’s posting prove her point without the need of non-linear control system theory considerations?

 

[lynnvinc]

You may not simply cut out data and make a claim about what the system would do in its absence,…

Sorry, but that’s exactly how they do science. I know it’s crazy, reducing the very complex world to 2 variables by controlling for 3rd, 4th, 5th, and so on variables. But. hey, that’s just happens to be the way they do science. Don’t blame me.

In fact, what they often do in climate science is take out the GH effect to see what the expected temp would be (with the other known variables, just minus the GH effect), then compare that with actual data…and it’s closer to this comparison below between actual observations and the solar irradiance cycles. Note how the temps fairly well track the solar irradiance cycle up to about 1980, when the temps start really shooting up:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[lynnvinc]

…I have maintain that man is not responsible for global warming.

Global warming may or may not occur, but man can have no effect on it…

How convenient. It means you have no responsibility for doing anything about it…unless you’re a woman

 

[estesbob]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Theo520]

Please stop projecting Leaf, it’s interfering with your reading comprehension…

I said higher CO2 (>300) would be good for plant growth. There is ample research supporting this claim along with the practical real world experience of how green houses operate. I’ve never seen this questioned.

I then said “there is not solid science on the ideal PPM”. Since you were not able to provide relevant research and I claim it’s an open question, why did you immediately insist I validate higher CO2 levels would be good overall?

I repeat, I said we don’t know what our CO2 target should be (based on science)

I would like to see your “solid science” backing up your idea that a higher CO2 concentration would be good overall. On my side I have at least 400,000 years of evidence that less than 300 PPM produces the world we know. On your side you have only the laboratory experiment that shows more CO2 makes a plant grow faster. What evidence do you have that the total global biological systems will benefit? For example, we know that certain insect pests are limited by weather to warmer regions. If you allow CO2 to change the climate, what will these pests do when a whole new, previously unattainable ecosystem is put at their disposal? And rice paddies that are currently at sea level will not benefit much from increased CO2 if they are totally submerged by a rising sea level. No, you will not “easily” argue that the only consequence will be bigger crops. Change “argue” to “speculate” and it will be closer to the truth.

 

[sps49]

Doubling down on your techno-buzz words? I don’t know what “black part” you mean. But you made the claim in your post #59 in response to Lynn, saying:

*Assuming that the models have enough fidelity to replicate the physical system, and that the system may be treated as a linear equation in one (or more) unknown(s), you might have a point. Neither is true, so the claim falls flat. If you must clutter up the thread with diagrams, please be good enough to provide the source and context of the chart.
*

I thought this odd because it was in response to Lynn’s claim that AGW can be seen as real and there was no “pause” by looking at actual observed data. No models were referenced in Lynn’s posting. So my question is very simple. Why doesn’t Lynn’s posting prove her point without the need of non-linear control system theory considerations?

There are probably many things you may consider odd, but that’s none of my concern. If you don’t agree with my interpretation, that is well and good; it’s happened before, and will happen again. If you don’t get the concept, oh well. But perhaps you should ask lynnvinc, who is apparently answering my comment about control variables and models:

Sorry, but that’s exactly how they do science. I know it’s crazy, reducing the very complex world to 2 variables by controlling for 3rd, 4th, 5th, and so on variables. But. hey, that’s just happens to be the way they do science. Don’t blame me.

In fact, what they often do in climate science is take out the GH effect to see what the expected temp would be (with the other known variables, just minus the GH effect), then compare that with actual data…and it’s closer to this comparison below between actual observations and the solar irradiance cycles. Note how the temps fairly well track the solar irradiance cycle up to about 1980, when the temps start really shooting up:

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Are you arguing that since these medical problems have been solved, we must be able to solve other, totally unrelated problems having to do with climate?

This prediction had nothing to do with climate, and was being made by different people. Only if you count as “reserves” the more difficult to extract oil that was not counted before.

Not arguing…just posting examples of man’s creative industriousness.

It is human nature to provide the best one can do for oneself. (call it survival) In doing so, society benefits. It matters not, whether science, medicine or economics raise mankind’s standard of living…it happens. We survive wars, pestilence, famines, earthquakes, floods, depressions and socialism. We are not static. It is our nature to improve our lot.
This unproven fear of man-made global warming is nothing more than another acid rain panic.

And only 40 years ago Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick predicted we would have bases on the moon in 2001. How’s that prediction working out?

Yeah…that is sad. We would probably be mining on the moon right now if NASA hadn’t gotten into the weather/climate business.

Scientific and technical achievement does not always progress at a steady rate. It moves in fits and starts according to luck and opportunity. Just because all these wonderful things have happened does not mean a very specific wonderful thing you predict will ever happen.

I have just as much authority to predict anything I want. Based on the track records of some of the great climate alarmists…my predictions have considerable more credibility.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The examples you list show that you don’t seem to understand the problem.

The problem is that misguided people want us submit to a UN-sponsored world socialist government with the environmental political scientists in total charge.

The ultimate “judge” at present is the press. Fortunately for the Political Scientists, the scientifically illiterate reporters and other popular journalists are quick to grab anything that calls for change, change, change.

Since most of the press, ranging from our local folks to the New York Times, tend to showcase the Political Science and suppress the empirical results, the equally scientifically illiterate public gets only one side of the story, and they, in turn, quickly organize mass demonstrations calling for change, change, change.

Presumably, if you march enough protest signs around the country, the Laws of Physics will bend to your will.

If we carry on with business as usual, then we’ll have 850 ppm CO2 in the air by the year 2100 (a conservative estimate). That’s up from the pre-industrial 280 ppm. You need to go back tens of millions of years to get to a similar level. Even if we suddenly stop making CO2, it would take tens of thousands of years to get it naturally down to 300 ppm.

Who says 300 ppm is the natural level? I really like it where it is today.

In the pre-Industrial Revolution days people were starving. Since CO2 levels were only at 280 ppm obviously they needed more CO2. As proof…the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century.

Carbon sequestration would be a solution, but you can’t beat the laws of chemistry. The C-O bond is very strong and your only solution is to either capture the CO2 and bury it or turn it into carbonate. Expensive business. And we haven’t even looked at the detrimental effect on the oceans.

Of course, if you deny that atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect the temperature, then we can stop the discussion.

CO2 concentration can probably affect temperature…but you are “tilting at windmills” if you think that is the ONLY thing that affects temperature…let’s start (and end with) the Sun. Anything else, including CO2, is so miniscule that it is not worth scaring school children.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please stop projecting Leaf, it’s interfering with your reading comprehension…

I said higher CO2 (>300) would be good for plant growth. There is ample research supporting this claim along with the practical real world experience of how green houses operate. I’ve never seen this questioned.

…and neither was I questioning it.

I then said “there is not solid science on the ideal PPM”. Since you were not able to provide relevant research and I claim it’s an open question, why did you immediately insist I validate higher CO2 levels would be good overall?

…because why else would you cite this CO2/higher growth fact? The discussion up until that point was not about what the ideal CO2 level should be. So when you introduced the topic, I assumed you were trying to connect it to the discussion so far. The only possible connection I could see was the argument: “See, higher CO2 would not be so bad for us humans because our crops would grow faster.” That argument is of no value unless it is also true that nothing else bad will happen with higher CO2. So if that was not the argument you implied, please explain why you did introduce the subject of faster plant growth?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In the pre-Industrial Revolution days people were starving. Since CO2 levels were only at 280 ppm obviously they needed more CO2. As proof…the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century.

Are you seriously trying to attribute the growth of European population during the Industrial Revolution to the slight increase in CO2, rather than to the efficiencies of improved agriculture and civilization? I think most historians would say that technology and societal organizational factors totally explain that particular boom.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are probably many things you may consider odd, but that’s none of my concern. If you don’t agree with my interpretation, that is well and good; it’s happened before, and will happen again. If you don’t get the concept, oh well. But perhaps you should ask lynnvinc, who is apparently answering my comment about control variables and models:

Just because Lynn thinks you made sense does not mean you did.

Look, I’ll admit that non-linear feedback systems theory is very important in the understanding of how the climate works. And if someone claims they understand how the climate works and does not take non-linear feedback into account, you are well within your rights to call them on it. But Lynn’s posting that you responded to was not making any such claim. It was only about the past observations, which show a trend. You have failed to show how your introduction of the subject of non-linear feedback is necessary to see a trend in historical data.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Are you seriously trying to attribute the growth of European population during the Industrial Revolution to the slight increase in CO2, rather than to the efficiencies of improved agriculture and civilization? I think most historians would say that technology and societal organizational factors totally explain that particular boom.

If you can’t agree with my theory. Why should I agree with yours?

The evidence is there…increase in man made CO2 during the Industrial Revolution and civilization benefits. In fact the world’s standard of living is higher today than it was during the nineteenth century…and there is more man made CO2 in the atmosphere now. There must be a connection. Perhaps a few computer models based on health improvements and life expectancy will prove beyond a doubt the benefits of increased CO2.

 

[sps49]

Just because Lynn thinks you made sense does not mean you did.

Look, I’ll admit that non-linear feedback systems theory is very important in the understanding of how the climate works. And if someone claims they understand how the climate works and does not take non-linear feedback into account, you are well within your rights to call them on it. But Lynn’s posting that you responded to was not making any such claim. It was only about the past observations, which show a trend. You have failed to show how your introduction of the subject of non-linear feedback is necessary to see a trend in historical data.

Your slip is showing, LeafbyNiggle. Fortunately, I do not require your approval or judgement of coherency. It was explained once, twice, perhaps thrice, and if you need more explanation, re-read it, or not.