Global Warming?

[weller2]

Addendum on natural CO2 variability.

As you can see in the above graph, there was a sharp increase in atmospheric content of CO2 at the end of Permian – it jumped from ca. 300ppm to 2000ppm. This increase corresponds to the Permian-Trassic extinction event, which wiped out 96% of marine life and 70% of land life:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

Coincidentally, such CO2 levels (1000-2000ppm) is what we will have around 2100 provided that emissions are not reduced.

 

[frobert]

Here is an interesting take on the Obituary of Man

Man, Conqueror of Nature, Dead at 408

Man, the conqueror of Nature, died Monday night of a petroleum overdose, the medical examiner’s office confirmed this morning. The abstract representation of the human race was 408 years old. The official announcement has done nothing to quell the rumors of suicide and substance abuse that have swirled around the death scene since the first announcement yesterday morning, adding new legal wrinkles to the struggle already under way over Man’s inheritance.

Man’s closest associates disagree about what happened. His longtime friend and confidant Technology thinks it was suicide. “Sure, Man liked to have a good time,” he said at a press conference Tuesday evening, “and he was a pretty heavy user, but it wasn’t like he was out of control or anything. No, I’m sure he did it on purpose. Just a couple of weeks ago we were hanging out at his place, looking up at the moon and talking about the trips we made out there, and he turned to me and said, ‘You know, Tech, that was a good time—a really good time. I wonder if I’ll ever do anything like that again.’ He got into moods like that more and more often in the last few years. I tried to cheer him up, talking about going to Mars or what have you, and he’d go along with it but you could tell his heart wasn’t in it.”

Source - Read More

 

[JB_Dugan]

Here is an interesting take on the Obituary of Man

Man, Conqueror of Nature, Dead at 408

Source - Read More

I have a solution…

 

[JB_Dugan]

So what? If other drivers are constant, then altering one will change the climate. To prevent CO2-driven warming, you’d have to have another driver acting to COOL the climate – and so far, nobody in the anti-AGW camp has managed to demonstrate that such driver exists (and they have really tried).

But drivers of climate are not constant. Sunshine and water vapor constantly change…as does wind and ocean currents.

I really don’t think it is up to the noble skeptics to do the work for the alarmists. I am still waiting for proof that man’s contribution of trace amounts (compared to all other natural gases and climate drivers) of CO2 are having any effect on our climate.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Funny thing about predictions a prediction can be correct but the date could be off…

Then it is really not an accurate prediction.

Actually I could predict Sunrise tomorrow and I would be 100% correct.

An alarmist “scientist” knowing full well that the Earth is most likely going through a warming trend, can easily predict that the Earth is getting warmer and blame it on anything he wants. People fall for “Chicken Little” all the time.

Toast is the eventual fate of the world, how fast we get there is the unknown and more difficult to predict.

Algore was the key player in this whole fiasco. His doomsday speeches and writings coupled with his award winning movie scared the hell out of school children…and 90% of what said was wrong. His credibility is not as important as a good scientist’s. If the Earth is not toast by 2016, Algore will be off somewhere spending his carbon credits. The scientists who linked with him will be facing a very skeptical crowd…maybe with buckets of tar and feathers.

 

[frobert]

I have a solution…

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=18791&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1386449473

I am a simple story teller that sees no need to save the planet. Mother earth will be here long after we are gone. Human tenancy on earth, however, may be somewhat less than they planned for.

Which reminds me of a story my friend, who is an ancient alien theorist, told me about humans being an alien experiment to determine if man was smarter than yeast. Even though he is fanatical about ancient aliens I don’t think he believed it himself.

re: my friend Al, I don’t justify what he did and as I didn’t do it I have suffer no guilt from the consequences. But, tell are you glad the world is not going to end when he predicted it would, I know I am. Some would say we more time, let’s see if we use it wisely.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Addendum to “Weird Science”

Suppose someone awards a grant to study man made global warming to a noted scientist. Can he come back and say: “My research says there’s no man made global warming”?

He was awarded a grant to produce a result; how can he possibly justify that result if it’s the result that would cost nothing to come up with in the first place?

The answer is HIS WORK, not the object of it. Because of that, the scientist will look for anything to come up with the correct answer, not just a predetermined one where his self-esteem depends on it.

So these “giants of science” have a fundamental problem, and it runs contrary to their nature. In the end, the very talent and brilliance of a lot of these people may be what blinds them to what it takes to truly pursue the truth.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But drivers of climate are not constant. Sunshine and water vapor constantly change…as does wind and ocean currents.

I really don’t think it is up to the noble skeptics to do the work for the alarmists. I am still waiting for proof that man’s contribution of trace amounts (compared to all other natural gases and climate drivers) of CO2 are having any effect on our climate.

There is a very extensive discussion of this very question here. This discussion began in 2007 and continues even to this year. But I draw your attention to posting #251 in that thread, which is found here. This posting considers the C14 vs C13 isotope concentration and what it says about where the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has come from. As an incentive to get you to look at that thread at length, I will say there are contributors on both sides of the question, so you will find some company there.

 

[weller2]

But drivers of climate are not constant. Sunshine

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

and water vapor constantly change

Water vapor is not a driver, it is a feedback, and it is a very specific feedback, because it is tied to temperature of the ocean. Warmer ocean → more water vapor → warmer air → warmer ocean → …

Speaking of which, technically, CO2 is also not a driver, but a feedback.

…as does wind and ocean currents.

These are neither drivers nor feedbacks. These are effects.

I am still waiting for proof that man’s contribution of trace amounts (compared to all other natural gases and climate drivers) of CO2 are having any effect on our climate.

1. What do you think happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary?
2. What is the difference between human-made and natural CO2 as far as climate is concerned?

 

[weller2]

Suppose someone awards a grant to study man made global warming to a noted scientist. Can he come back and say: “My research says there’s no man made global warming”?

Yes. The CLOUD experiment at CERN got funded and is running, despite the fact that proponents openly said that they were skeptical of AGW. Still, it was judged that their idea has enough merit to be tried. … And it has already produced some interesting results.

He was awarded a grant to produce a result; how can he possibly justify that result if it’s the result that would cost nothing to come up with in the first place?

That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how grants work.

1. You are awarded grants (or not) based on what you write in the grant proposal.
2. You do not request grants to “prove that X causes global warming”, you write proposal to “determine the effect of X on global warming”. This is because you don’t usually know in advance what the research will produce… if we knew the result already, there would be no reason to fund the research!
3. The proposal says that you will investigate relation between X and global warming by doing A, B and C. The funding agency is primarily interested in checking if you have actually done A, B, and C, and less in the result. So if you write a proposal to study trees in Siberia, because blah-blah-blah global warming, then you first have to demonstrate that you have actually paid the budgeted money to tree loggers in Siberia and not to ladies in Vegas. What you have learned from studying the trees is secondary as far as the grant bureaucracy is concerned.

The answer is HIS WORK, not the object of it. Because of that, the scientist will look for anything to come up with the correct answer, not just a predetermined one where his self-esteem depends on it.

Actually, that would meet the definition of academic fraud.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Funny thing about predictions a prediction can be correct but the date could be off.

Toast is the eventual fate of the world, how fast we get there is the unknown and more difficult to predict.

I got a kick out of this.

Yes, the sun will go nova eventually.

But we are not going to fry anytime soon.

The temperature for the most part has been cooler than normal.

40 years ago the same type of people said we’d all be floating in frozen ice blocks.

I don’t think we have the intellectual capacity to model the entire planet so accurately, and my guess is as a scientist that their models are off.

I’ve already seen studies that show the climate data is incorrect. The tree trings, the temperatures taken on urban heat islands, the e-mails suggesting data should be faked presumably to promote a left-wing political agenda…

We can do better.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how grants work.

1. You are awarded grants (or not) based on what you write in the grant proposal.

1. You do not request grants to “prove that X causes global warming”, you write proposal to “determine the effect of X on global warming”. This is because you don’t usually know in advance what the research will produce… if we knew the result already, there would be no reason to fund the research!

1. The proposal says that you will investigate relation between X and global warming by doing A, B and C. The funding agency is primarily interested in checking if you have actually done A, B, and C, and less in the result. So if you write a proposal to study trees in Siberia, because blah-blah-blah global warming, then you first have to demonstrate that you have actually paid the budgeted money to tree loggers in Siberia and not to ladies in Vegas. What you have learned from studying the trees is secondary as far as the grant bureaucracy is concerned.

What an idealistic view of the world you have! It’s no wonder you’ve fallen for the GW propaganda!

Why are climate activists so worried about getting grant money from the oil companies?!?!?!

This overblown man-made climate change nonsense is creating policy drivers for renewable energy infrastructure that is killing endangered species.

Do you realize that climate-based polices are making sustainable development more difficult?

You’re kidding yourself if you think the grant or even the peer-reviewed process is flawless. A lot of people don’t check that carefully, which I have to say has made a real of mess of things in a lot of fields.

 

[SuperLuigi]

But drivers of climate are not constant. Sunshine and water vapor constantly change…as does wind and ocean currents.

I really don’t think it is up to the noble skeptics to do the work for the alarmists. I am still waiting for proof that man’s contribution of trace amounts (compared to all other natural gases and climate drivers) of CO2 are having any effect on our climate.

Personally, I’m tired of seeing documentary after documentary showing the earth with an imaginary heat field and arrows bouncing up and back, up and back.

Most of the models that measure man-made climate change are much too primitive. Global warming is a faith-based movement based on faulty data to hedge forth a Western, left-wing political agenda to make liberals feel like they are helping the planet by growing government while they sit on the couch watching John Stewart thanks to good old coal.

 

[JB_Dugan]

There is a very extensive discussion of this very question here. This discussion began in 2007 and continues even to this year. But I draw your attention to posting #251 in that thread, which is found here. This posting considers the C14 vs C13 isotope concentration and what it says about where the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has come from. As an incentive to get you to look at that thread at length, I will say there are contributors on both sides of the question, so you will find some company there.

OMG…a blog with over 250 postings…

I am reminded of “Godwin’s Law” which states that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Yes, there are contributions from both sides, but reluctantly I have to reject the Skeptical Science Blog and its creator in particular. I find that Skeptical Science is only a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of knowledgeable dissent from their alarmist position.

You will remember that it was John Cook who produced the now debunked study claiming that 97% of climate scientists agreed that man was the cause of global warming. It is this sort of charade that leads politicians, like Barack Obama. to repeat such misinformation in order to sway public opinion. Thereby passing laws and regulations that will be more detrimental to mankind than 0.05 degrees of temperature over decades.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Water vapor is not a driver, it is a feedback, and it is a very specific feedback, because it is tied to temperature of the ocean. Warmer ocean → more water vapor → warmer air → warmer ocean → …

Speaking of which, technically, CO2 is also not a driver, but a feedback.

You are losing me here…but I am going to stay with this.

NASA says Water Vapor is THE most abundant greenhouse gas. According to their scientists… “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.” – Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

You say that Water Vapor is “feedback” rather than a driver. That is confusing.

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. It is “the big player”…

Why are you concentrating on CO2?

Oh wait I know…CO2 just became feedback…

These are neither drivers nor feedbacks. These are effects.

Now the sun,wind and ocean currents are “effects” and have no influence on climate.

This gets better all the time. I better stick to Polar Bears. They are neither “drivers, feedbacks or effects”…they seem to be beneficiaries of global warming.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OMG…a blog with over 250 postings…

I am reminded of “Godwin’s Law” which states that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Yes, there are contributions from both sides, but reluctantly I have to reject the Skeptical Science Blog and its creator in particular. I find that Skeptical Science is only a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of knowledgeable dissent from their alarmist position.

You will remember that it was John Cook who produced the now debunked study claiming that 97% of climate scientists agreed that man was the cause of global warming. It is this sort of charade that leads politicians, like Barack Obama. to repeat such misinformation in order to sway public opinion. Thereby passing laws and regulations that will be more detrimental to mankind than 0.05 degrees of temperature over decades.

A while back you said “I am waiting for proof that CO2 causes global warming”. To which you were offered the above posting. You reject the facts of the posting because it is found on a website that you label as “alarmist”. So what is “alarmist”? Apparently it is anyone who holds a position that global warming is caused by CO2. See the catch-22 cycle there?

Why not try this: Take the facts presented by an opposing view, and instead of trying to dig up dirt on the owner of the website, see if you can independently verify or disprove those facts. Since you didn’t even mention the isotope balance issue raised by the posting I pointed you to, it seems you did not even do that. It is clear you are not open to considering the possibility that you might be wrong.

 

[JB_Dugan]

A while back you said “I am waiting for proof that CO2 causes global warming”. To which you were offered the above posting. You reject the facts of the posting because it is found on a website that you label as “alarmist”. So what is “alarmist”? Apparently it is anyone who holds a position that global warming is caused by CO2. See the catch-22 cycle there?

Why not try this: Take the facts presented by an opposing view, and instead of trying to dig up dirt on the owner of the website, see if you can independently verify or disprove those facts. Since you didn’t even mention the isotope balance issue raised by the posting I pointed you to, it seems you did not even do that. It is clear you are not open to considering the possibility that you might be wrong.

You are right, Leaf.

Like a broken clock that is correct twice a day…a wacko website can post truth on occasion. Normally I would have delved deeper but…

Firstly, I said that I am waiting for proof that MAN MADE CO2 is causing global warming.

Then I really didn’t know that you were referring to Skeptical Science as a source of that proof. I didn’t try to refute the isotope thing because, as you pointed out, it has been a DISCUSSION in progress since 2007, hardly settled science.

In my estimation, this isotope business is a dead horse. The C14 vs. C13 concentration that supposedly distinguishes man made CO2 from natural CO2 was questioned very scholarly by Dr. Roy Spencer back in 2008.

wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

As long as it remains “in discussion” it is not the proof I need.

I will admit that I am not open to considering the possibility that I might be wrong. I made no claim that the Earth was going to burn up because Americans are driving SUVs.
Whether I’m right or wrong has no bearing. It’s up to Chicken Little to PROVE that the sky is falling.

 

[weller2]

You are losing me here…but I am going to stay with this.

Good.

I have known for some time that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about – the question is, when will you realize that yourself.

Re: forcing vs. feedback – the difference is explained in any textbook on climatology or even in any book on control theory.

 

[weller2]

Do you realize that climate-based polices are making sustainable development more difficult?

There is no such thing as sustainable development in carbon-powered economy.

 

[weller2]

Most of the models that measure man-made climate change are much too primitive.

Well, if you want to use models for measuring something, you ain’t gonna get far.