That would be the ones that get ignored as the percent error is greater then the variance of temperature.
Those with no margin of error reported are fiction.
- Status
Those with no margin of error reported are fiction.
S
St_Francis
Guest
What!!! You are using the MWP to “prove” the possibility of “GW”? 1. This is rich, since previously the AGW alarmists totally suppressed and are now minimizing the MWP… 2. It seems to be a conflation of AGW and natural climate changes, and 3. what AGW skeptcs are concerned about is not the GW part but the A part.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Nooooo, only that God knows the real reality, and knows it much better than we ever could. He also knows what is best for us, each one of us. God is truly awesome.
It really benefits to pray, esp when one is caught in difficult dilemmas.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
The actual readings are still the more important data to look at, not just the margin of error one favors.
Here’s an interesting video about how the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality covered up the amount of alpha radiation in the drinking water by always taking the low margin of error figure: youtube.com/watch?v=gzKv01efP04
So I guess people can take that 5% chance the AGW is not happening and do nothing (or rather go on living a life of waste and inefficiency).
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What is the null hypothesis?
What is the alternative hypothesis?
What is the sample and the size of the sample?
How did you determine the standard deviation; i.e. what are the data in this case.
Simply a higher average temperature worldwide does not of itself prove the MM part of MMGW.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
- Global warming is not happening
- Global warming is happening, but this is not due to human emissions of GHGs.
- Global warming is happening.
- Global warming is happening, and this is largely due to human emissions of GHGs.
They take temps from around the world. You can look up and check on how they do this, the logistics, how they make up (or not) for “missing” data – the GISS and UK Met do this differently, but come out with roughly the same results. How they have to reduce and adjust temps from places where urban heat islands have grown up around the weather stations, etc.
This might help: “Climate Data, Management and Exchange” from the World Meteorological Association – wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_data_management_exchange.php
This natural experiment is being done on the whole earth, a O X O type of experiment. We do not have a second earth as a “control” or to flee to if the experiment gets very dangerous. (It would never get IRB approval.)
To some extent one can look at Venus, with a huge GH effect, and its very high surface temps – much higher than would be expected without that. And Mars with a very tiny GH effect and only a tiny more warmer than would be expected without that. Based on the laws of physics, that is.
Here is something about the standard deviation as it pertains to GW:
“The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change,” by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, August 2012 at giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/
And here: “Perceptions of Climate Change” (same authors) at pnas.org/content/109/37/E2415.full.pdf+html
And here: "Q and A re “The New Climate Dice” columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DiceQNA.pdf :
We have shown, from observations (not models), that the climate dice are now loaded – and that a new category of extreme climate events is occurring with increasing frequency. Specifically, we refer to the occurrence of unusually hot summers, summers more than three standard deviations outside normal climate – with their associated wildfires and droughts…
Furthermore, we have shown that these “3-sigma” (3σ) events, where σ is the standard deviation – seasons more than three standard deviations removed from “normal” climate – are a consequence of the rapid global warming of the past 30 years.
Here’s a video that might help re more frequent “3 sigma [very improbable under normal or the null] events”: youtube.com/watch?v=u6IaKe02dso
No it doesn’t. Like a survey, all the other factor that could or might cause warming (increased solar irradiance, earth wobble, irregular orbit, gamma rays, etc) have been taken into account and found not to have been factors, leaving increasing CO2 (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere (the known cause of the natural GH effect) the main factor of the current warming. The ratio of CO2 from fossil fuel burning to CO2 from other, natural factors has been increasing, revealing the human “fingerprint” in this warming.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
See “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?” at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Hope these answers help.
E
Erich
Guest
…how they make up (or not) -]for/-] the “missing” data…
There. Fixed it.
AGW True Believers tell us that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are the cause of increased temperatures – and they make up the data out of whole cloth in an attempt to “prove” this – but 420,000 years of data (in the form of the Vostok ice core sample) show us that atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind temperatures by about 800 years.
Why the fall of atmospheric CO2 levels after falls in temperature (and why the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels after rises in temperature)? The reason is that cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. We see this whenever we leave fizzy beverages out in warm weather; they lose their carbonation quickly. In like manner, when the temperatures are cooler, the ocean water is able to hold much more CO2. As the temperature warms, CO2 is released into the atmosphere, hence the increase in CO2 levels during warmer periods in time.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
This is a good indication as to where the MM part of the MMGW comes into play.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The relationship between CO2 and temperature is a multi-faceted one. The mechanism you just described does exist and it very likely is the reason for the CO2 concentration to lag the temperature in those ancient records. But that was during periods when there was no huge amounts of CO2 being added to the atmosphere by other sources, so it was the only mechanism in play at the time. Now we have a fairly sudden release of CO2 that we know (from isotope analysis, as pointed out in the post before mine) is not from ocean release but from recent burning of fossil fuels. And we have separate mechanism that is in play (the greenhouse effect) to raise temperatures as a result of the CO2. The other mechanism is still in effect (warmer oceans releasing more CO2), but today the CO2 will be leading the temperature, not lagging. So there are two different mechanisms, both in play at once.
B
Bill1940
Guest
Lynn: I certainly agree with you that God knows better and I think He created a world that is entirely organized for that benefit of mankind. This includes tectonic plates that move and climate that changes. My point about the MWP is that it occurred as a natural sequence of events without our contribution to atmospheric CO2. One of your recent posts referred to a so-called Anthropocene Era. This is not a geological term but more of a term of art or pop-culture invention of the environmentalist movement. I’m sorry but I just have a lot of reasonable doubts that our miniscule CO2 contribution, which triggers its own sequestration by increased plant growth, is anything worthy of radical public policy change. I also think its reasonable to be skeptical of a so-called scientific consensus which is the beneficiary of massive monetary subsidy. Finally, if there is a real problem, and the cure entails a totalitarian system of global governance parceling out who gets energy, how much it costs, and who gets to have children, and how many, then I fear the cure to be worse than the disease.
D
donsnow
Guest
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You are really on to a very important point. In the past (except for the end-Permian 251 mya when it is hypothesized that carbon emissions from the Siberian traps caused the initial warming) the warming has often been initially caused by the earths irregular orbit and wobble, and such.
What happens with warming is that it releases a lot of CH4 methane and CO2 from melting ocean hydrates and permafrost, the CH4 degrading into CO2+ within 10 years. This leads to further warming, which leads to further GHG release, and so on until nearly all the trapped CH4 and CO2 is released. Such warming has occurred over many 1000s of years – in the past, unlike today, it has been a very slow process.
In other words, CO2 & CH4 are not only climate warming forcings, but also feedbacks to the warming and in many past warmings have lagged the warming.
It happens that this time around our “methane shotgun” is more loaded than many time during past warmings. Already the initial warming, caused mainly by our burning of fossil fuels and land use, etc, is causing that ice-trapped CH4 and CO2 to be released, which will cause more warming, causing more release, causing more warming. What we’re doing now is “pulling the trigger” on that additional CO2 from nature, a portion of which can persist in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years. See realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/
The other positive feedback factor is increasing warmth melts snow and ice, revealing darker land and oceans, absorbing more heat, causing more melt, revealing more dark land and oceans, causing more heat absorption, and so on.
The opposite also happens: orbit and wobble factors cause some initial cooling, which covers more land and ocean, causing more reflection and cooling, etc. Also the cooling traps in ice CH4 and CO2 that would otherwise decompose and get into the atmosphere to be locked in ice (the increasing hydrates and permafrost from that initial cooling), which leads to further cooling, leading to further locking away of CH4 & CO2. I’m not sure, but I think “snowball earth” was caused this way.
CO2 releases being a feedback to warming does not disprove it also a forcing (and preceding warming), as well, and in fact makes our future prospects all that more dire. Esp since nearly none of the climate scientists are taking this “CO2 as a feedback” much into consideration; it is not in the climate models they are using, for instance. And that’s bec they can’t really quantify this situation or put it in an equation, even tho they do know that when ice melts, the gases trapped in that ice get released.
So we know it will happen if enough warming takes place (and it is already happening), but when and how much can’t be pinned down right now.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
How do you figure our CO2 contribution has been miniscule? Some numbers, please?
And as for natural sequestration, take a look at any satellite map of the Amazon rain forest now and compare it to the earliest available satellite photos. Deforestation is happening faster than the supposed increased plant growth triggered by increased CO2. And where do you get your figures on how effective that trigger is anyway? (Sensitivity numbers, please?)
L
lynnvinc
Guest
And I not only agreed, but pointed to other even greater warmings in the past, which in no way disproves that this current warming could be mainly caused by humans. Solar irradiance does not distinguish between natural and human emitted CO2 – it has the same effect of causing warming – even tho scientists can tell by changes in the 13C and 12C ratios that emissions from fossil fuel burning are increasing in the atmosphere.
It is a new term and is slowly catching on. A few climate scientists are beginning to use it. See stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/planetary-boundaries.html
The geologists (for whom a 1000 yrs is the blink of an eye) will perhaps be the last to latch onto it. We’ll see if it catches on in a few decades (I won’t be around to see then).
Of course policy considerations and fears should not determine science. Plus there are more than one way to “skin the cat” – there are lots of good suggestions out there to help people mitigate AGW without harming the economy or creating a totalitarian state to do so.
Having said that, from my experience with science I’ve found that even tiny things (aside from CO2 in the atmosphere causing CC) can make a big difference. It’s seems almost like magic to me (a non-scientist), but I just trust the scientist. I know some climate scientists personally and I really do trust them, esp over blog people.
However, I also think scientists are conservative and reticent in their claims – desiring to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims – so I’m always thinking that it’s probably worse than what the scientists are telling us. I’m on the other side of science from the skeptic and industrialist side.
B
Bill1940
Guest
Many aspects of the matter, including the beneficial effects of CO2 on plant growth, can be read here:
co2web.info/NIPCC-Final_080303.pdf
The matter of increased deforestation in the Amazon jungles is a separate issue but CO2 has a fertilizer effect everywhere. Should the people in the Amazon be prohibited from raising cattle? I’m sorry but some of my response wound up in the quote box above & I can’t seem to fix it. ~Bill
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The words “plant growth” do not appear anywhere in that document. If you have an actual reference to how CO2 fosters its own sequestration, please tell me what page of what document so I don’t have to read through an entire 50-page propaganda piece from the Heartland Institute to find it.
No, because it directly contradicts your claim that nature is taking care of all the excess CO2 by plant sequestration.
I made no value judgements about whether deforestation is good or bad, or should be allowed. I only claim that it contradicts your purely scientific claim that nature is sequestering all of our excess CO2.
That is a source of misinformation that quotes, as its sources, other sources of misinformation. In particular, the CO2 concentration is misrepresented in that document. The relevant figures are these: 1958: 318 ppm. 2014: 398 ppm. That is a 25% increase in CO2 concentrations over a mere 56 years. That much rise in that short a time is unprecedented. And almost all of the increase is due to burning of fossil fuels, which we know from isotope analysis of the CO2. But your article ignored that fact. Also, while the article took great pains to show that CO2 has a smaller GWP (global warming potential) than Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and other such gasses, it conveniently ignored the fact that water vapor (their poster child for the real greenhouse player) has a GWP of 10% to 20% of that of CO2. So the contrast between CO2 and water vapor is not as great as they would have us believe. Thus my question of how you can think our contribution to CO2 concentrations has been miniscule when it has caused the concentrations to increase 25% in 56 years.
The effect of water vapor is not being ignored by climate scientists. Many papers specifically address the role of water vapor. If it has not appeared in certain tables it is because we have no way to directly affect water vapor concentrations. It is part of the baseline, and may even be part of a positive feedback loop, depending on whether the water vapor is low in the atmosphere or way up high.
E
Erich
Guest
Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn’t know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas – water vapor – into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not ‘prove’ that global warming is not man-made, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds.
In fact, according to the IPCC, water vapor accounts for 36-72 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor… and any warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on.
On the other hand, CO2 – a by-product of cellular respiration for the planet’s entire existence – only accounts for 9-26 percent of the greenhouse effect. Plants love it, and grow much larger with more of it! Compare this picture of the Tetons and the Snake River, taken in 1942:
with this picture, taken in 2011:
In fact, according to the IPCC, water vapor accounts for 36-72 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor… and any warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on.
On the other hand, CO2 – a by-product of cellular respiration for the planet’s entire existence – only accounts for 9-26 percent of the greenhouse effect. Plants love it, and grow much larger with more of it! Compare this picture of the Tetons and the Snake River, taken in 1942:
with this picture, taken in 2011:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
CO2 can’t be both feedback and forcing at the same time. I’m detecting some real contortions here being created to “prove” the MM argument. Basic physics says you can’t have it both ways.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why not? All that means is that CO2 introduced from outside the system (like by burning fossil fuels) can over time force the temperature to increase. And the feedback element means that when temperature goes up (for whatever reason), the oceans will release more of the dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere, making CO2 a feedback element as well. There are no contortions needed.
- Status