Starship Asterisk*

Interesting argument about the greenhouse, but it's missing the fundamental points...

1) Yes it seems to be the case that CO2 is higher when temperature is higher, and lower when temperature is lower. But that doesn't describe causality, but rather only suggests correlation. To put it differently, I haven't seen anything that has convinced me that increasing CO2 is causing the temperature to go up is a better theory than increasing temperature is causing CO2 to go up.

2) Sure greenhouses make the enclosed space warmer. But that's a long way from proving that the greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere are making the Earth's climate get warmer. Earlier I pointed out that CO2 makes up a minuscule portion of the Earth's atmosphere, especially when compared with Mars or Venus. I don't care if you double or triple the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, it's still a tiny portion of the mix. We're talking about the small numbers here -- they tend to be noisy.

3) In the past the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere was 100's of time higher then it is now, (and the world's continents were collected into one land mass, the Earth was younger, etc. etc.) and the world was about about 10 degrees warmer then it is now. Each of those factors is acknowledged to have contributed to the increase in temperature. Combined they totaled 10 degrees. I don't understand how the increase in CO2 by 2X alone is going to have a disproportionate impact on the Earth's temperature. That claim just doesn't make sense. I don't care how complex the equations are, it still needs to hold together at both large and fine scales. If a model says that 2X increase in CO2 will increase the temperature by 2 degrees, while history has shown that 100X increase in CO2 existed at the same time as temperatures that were 10 degrees warmer -- something doesn't add up! At this point I trust the historical data more then the complex models.

4) Speaking of noisy. The earth's temperature goes up and it goes down. This variation appears to be getting larger. You can dismiss the data as being on too large of a time scale to be meaningful, but if the larger scale data is getting noisier, there is no way that the smaller scale numbers will not be getting noisier. So the reality that I'm seeing is that on a long time scale our planet's climate is getting more variable, as a result I would expect the same to occur on smaller scales. If we can't learn to deal with these more rapid climate swings -- we're all dead meat.

Here is a link to the reference . The original study was done by (Wood, 1909). Go to the section on Real greenhouses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect.

Keep in mind that in the earths atmosphere the C02 content is very minor compared to water vapor which is a significantly more important greenhouse gas and is handled very poorly by the models.

Sorry for not using the reply. I am new to this forum and generally try to stay out of the fray as I find i its a waste of time trying to convince people about whats going on by confusing them with Facts and actual data.

jluetjen wrote:Interesting argument about the greenhouse, but it's missing the fundamental points...

1) Yes it seems to be the case that CO2 is higher when temperature is higher, and lower when temperature is lower. But that doesn't describe causality, but rather only suggests correlation. To put it differently, I haven't seen anything that has convinced me that increasing CO2 is causing the temperature to go up is a better theory than increasing temperature is causing CO2 to go up.

2) Sure greenhouses make the enclosed space warmer. But that's a long way from proving that the greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere are making the Earth's climate get warmer. Earlier I pointed out that CO2 makes up a minuscule portion of the Earth's atmosphere, especially when compared with Mars or Venus. I don't care if you double or triple the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, it's still a tiny portion of the mix. We're talking about the small numbers here -- they tend to be noisy.

3) In the past the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere was 100's of time higher then it is now, (and the world's continents were collected into one land mass, the Earth was younger, etc. etc.) and the world was about about 10 degrees warmer then it is now. Each of those factors is acknowledged to have contributed to the increase in temperature. Combined they totaled 10 degrees. I don't understand how the increase in CO2 by 2X alone is going to have a disproportionate impact on the Earth's temperature. That claim just doesn't make sense. I don't care how complex the equations are, it still needs to hold together at both large and fine scales. If a model says that 2X increase in CO2 will increase the temperature by 2 degrees, while history has shown that 100X increase in CO2 existed at the same time as temperatures that were 10 degrees warmer -- something doesn't add up! At this point I trust the historical data more then the complex models.

4) Speaking of noisy. The earth's temperature goes up and it goes down. This variation appears to be getting larger. You can dismiss the data as being on too large of a time scale to be meaningful, but if the larger scale data is getting noisier, there is no way that the smaller scale numbers will not be getting noisier. So the reality that I'm seeing is that on a long time scale our planet's climate is getting more variable, as a result I would expect the same to occur on smaller scales. If we can't learn to deal with these more rapid climate swings -- we're all dead meat.

As to your points (well made)
1) You are correct in that there does seem to be an apparent correlation between (Carbon Dioxide, Methane...etc.) greenhouse gasses and temperature. and that given all we konw the determination between which is cause and which is effect is debateable.

2) you are also correct CO2 does make up a minuscule portion of the atmosphere. At 385ppm it is .0385% of the Earths Atmosphere (Mars and Venus both are 95%+ atmospheric CO2 more than 950,000 ppm)

3) You aren't quite correct on this one. Depending on the data source, atmospheric CO2 levels on the order of 550,000,000 years ago were between 6000 and 7000 ppm or at most 20 times today's levels.
You are correct that the earth's average temperatore was about 10 degrees warmer than today's average (12d c (53.6d f) vs 22d c (71.6d f)) The hypervolcanic central ridge traversing the Pangea Supercontinent land mass was the source of most of the CO2 at that time. This CO2 source was far from clean though. The volcanos spewed more than clear CO2, there was also aeromatic ash and other aerosols that acted to block the solar radiation from reaching the biosphere. The atmospheric ash clouds acted as a cooling agent which didn't allow the gases to act to their full potential (much like a nuclear winter scenereo would cast us into a several years long winter like condition by smoke and dust kicked up be the explosions acting to block out the sunilght). But even though there was a vast ammount of sunlight being blocked by the ash, temperatures still rose (CO2/CH4 at your service). The factors are day time solar input (1) + night time reflectance blocking (CO2, CH4) (2) - upper atmospheric Albedo (3) = net temp gain or loss. Part 1 of the equation is constant or near enough to be neglegable, Part 2 is the ammount of atmospheric gasses present to prevent temperature reradiation to space (think of a 1 way mirror that allows heat in but not out), and part 3 is the ammount of solar blocking particulate matter (soot, clouds etc) which prevent the solar radiation from reaching the surface (like a coat of sunblock on the other side of the one way mirror).
Things didn't warm up as much as might be expected with a 7000ppm CO2 level because much of the solar radiation couldn't reach the surface.

4) I agree with you completely. The climate variations do seem to be getting greater with more energetic swings. We can have no effect on the ammount of solar imput the Earth receives. The Sun is what it is and should remain as constant as it has, during the previous 500 million years, for the next 500 million years and beyond. The only thing we can do is to minimize the ammount of reflectance on the inside of the one way mirror. Ensure that as much heat can escape as possible.
We are the only creatures on this great planet that have the intellect to be able to act to minimize our effect on the environment but still choose not to act.

jluetjen wrote:1) Yes it seems to be the case that CO2 is higher when temperature is higher, and lower when temperature is lower. But that doesn't describe causality, but rather only suggests correlation. To put it differently, I haven't seen anything that has convinced me that increasing CO2 is causing the temperature to go up is a better theory than increasing temperature is causing CO2 to go up.

It is indisputable that we are adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. This is measurable, especially near sources, and is obvious in the sense that nobody is able to suggest where else much of the carbon we burn is going. Also indisputable are the absorption and transmission characteristics of CO2, and the fact that its greenhouse properties are easily tested experimentally, in controlled laboratory conditions. What is observed is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing at the amount and rate expected given our carbon output (this is just physics, not dependent on any simulations). And it is observed that the temperature rise is consistent with the predictions given by simple physics and the measured greenhouse gas concentrations. Again, no simulations required. Given that, it is hard to find a rational alternative to the idea that increased anthropogenic greenhouse gases (including CO2) are a significant component of the observed average global temperature increase.

2) Sure greenhouses make the enclosed space warmer. But that's a long way from proving that the greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere are making the Earth's climate get warmer. Earlier I pointed out that CO2 makes up a minuscule portion of the Earth's atmosphere, especially when compared with Mars or Venus. I don't care if you double or triple the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, it's still a tiny portion of the mix. We're talking about the small numbers here -- they tend to be noisy.

Why would they be noisy? The actual concentration of CO2 is huge compared with our ability to make the measurement- by many orders of magnitude. Also large is the percentage change seen over the last 50 years- a 16% increase. That is, the resolution of our measurements is very fine compared with the magnitude of those measurements. The S/N is very high. The point is, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas. Small changes in concentration translate to large changes in trapped heat. This is easily tested in the lab. Arguing that CO2 isn't important because it only makes up a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere makes no sense. People with certain heart problems take digoxin, which is therapeutic over a very narrow dosage. Just a little too low and it doesn't help. Just a little too high and it's deadly. Or maybe you'd like to drink a bit of botulin toxin or tetrodotoxin? That will completely disrupt your body chemistry in parts per billion concentrations- much less than the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Mars has a similar amount of CO2 in its atmosphere to what Earth has, the difference being in proportion. And Mars has a greenhouse effect from its CO2 just like the Earth does.

3) In the past the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere was 100's of time higher then it is now, (and the world's continents were collected into one land mass, the Earth was younger, etc. etc.) and the world was about about 10 degrees warmer then it is now. Each of those factors is acknowledged to have contributed to the increase in temperature. Combined they totaled 10 degrees. I don't understand how the increase in CO2 by 2X alone is going to have a disproportionate impact on the Earth's temperature.

Nobody knows what the CO2 concentration was millions of years ago. That is estimated by models, most of which place the highest levels at about 10 times today's (with large uncertainties). The most extreme model (GEOCARB 3) places the maximum ancient CO2 concentration at less than 20 times today's. And it is important to recall that CO2, while a potent greenhouse gas, is far less of one than others, such as water vapor and methane. So to figure the correlation between ancient temperatures and CO2, you'd also need to know about other greenhouse gases. Just a small reduction in water vapor concentrations, for instance, would more than offset a fairly large increase in CO2. If you go back hundreds of millions of years, the entire atmosphere was different, and was operating under different regulatory mechanisms.

At this point I trust the historical data more then the complex models.

That is misplaced trust. There is no "historical" data going back more than a few thousand years. And that data is reasonably well correlated to the climate models. Models which, for the most part, are only being used to project a few centuries into the future. Long term data, for millions of years, is all from proxies which are known to have large uncertainties in most cases.

4) Speaking of noisy. The earth's temperature goes up and it goes down. This variation appears to be getting larger. You can dismiss the data as being on too large of a time scale to be meaningful, but if the larger scale data is getting noisier, there is no way that the smaller scale numbers will not be getting noisier. So the reality that I'm seeing is that on a long time scale our planet's climate is getting more variable, as a result I would expect the same to occur on smaller scales.

What data are you using to draw this conclusion? Variations certainly seem to be getting larger over the last decades, which is predicted by the models given an increase in average global temperature. But I don't know you can draw this conclusion over a much longer period.

hydroresearch wrote:Here is a link to the reference . The original study was done by (Wood, 1909). Go to the section on Real greenhouses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect.

Well, if you want to use Wikipedia as a reference, you can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse, which says something rather different.

Note that other than Wood, the other references say that both air trapping and radiative blocking are components in how real greenhouses work, which is what I said as well. And it is not clear that Wood's experiment was a good model of real greenhouses, either. His experiment would seem to significantly increase the absorption over actual greenhouses (walls and floor painted black), and considerably reduce the area available for radiative loss (just the ceiling). So I'm still comfortable enough with the term "greenhouse effect" as it is actually used.

Keep in mind that in the earths atmosphere the C02 content is very minor compared to water vapor which is a significantly more important greenhouse gas and is handled very poorly by the models.

Water vapor is handled fine in terms of calculating its effect on heat balance. What still needs work is projecting how the changing climate affects water vapor, and whether ultimately this becomes a positive or negative feedback mechanism. But water vapor hasn't been observed to change much, unlike CO2, so for short term projections it can probably be treated as constant.

There are many other references documenting the miss use of the term greenhouse effect in regards to C02 or climate impacts but it sounds like your mind is made up.

As to the models handling water vapor well, again I believe you are mistaken. Have you had a chance to read any of the Senate report yet? I know its long but the references may give you a better understanding of why more and more climatologist are finally coming around to the fact that the models are still too crude to make major policy decisions on. I still say that a temperature increase of 8 degrees C is highly unrealistic and inappropriate for APOD. Carl Sagen once stated "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I am just not seeing the models performing on a reliable enough level to cause such hysteria.

I am all for reducing our carbon footprint as well as keeping our overall impact to a minimum. Unfortunately our biggest problem is population growth, but thats a whole different subject. I just hate to see rash decisions based on under performing climate models. The construction of over 30 new nuclear power plants in the US is just one example.

Thanks again for your comments.

Chris Peterson wrote:

hydroresearch wrote:Here is a link to the reference . The original study was done by (Wood, 1909). Go to the section on Real greenhouses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect.

Well, if you want to use Wikipedia as a reference, you can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse, which says something rather different.

Note that other than Wood, the other references say that both air trapping and radiative blocking are components in how real greenhouses work, which is what I said as well. And it is not clear that Wood's experiment was a good model of real greenhouses, either. His experiment would seem to significantly increase the absorption over actual greenhouses (walls and floor painted black), and considerably reduce the area available for radiative loss (just the ceiling). So I'm still comfortable enough with the term "greenhouse effect" as it is actually used.

http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias ... low-e.html

Normal glass is a relatively poor reflector & good absorber of IR light. A double pane of normal glass with an insulating air gap in between IS REQUIRED to prevent warm radiant energy from either leaving (in winter) or entering (in summer).

However, glass can be doped to make it a good reflector & poor absorber of IR light. A single pane of doped glass IS SUFFICIENT to prevent warm radiant energy from either leaving (in winter) or entering (in summer).

Tropospheric CO2 resembles normal glass in being a poor reflector & good absorber of IR light. However, Tropospheric CO2 is thick enough to effectively act as a double pane (with insulating air gap) so as to prevents warm surface radiant energy from leaving into cold space.

Tropospheric CO2 simulates a greenhouse with double paned normal glass
but NOT a greenhouse with single paned glass (either normal or doped).

There are some devastating arguments against AGW:

1) Sir Fred Hoyle is one of the current alarmists (yes I know he's dead) who also partook in the Global Cooling scare 30 years ago. They promoted exactly the same agenda as today’s alarmists, but had a different reason.
"...hopelessly compromise the future...This is why our modern generation must take action to avoid catastrophe, an ultimate catastrophe besides which the problems that concern people, media, and government from day to day are quite trivial…There is no chance of avoiding another ice age, unless we take deliberate action to prevent it."

2) There is no way to disprove AGW, thus it is not a scientific theory, it is a belief. Every scientific theory can be disproved by observation.

3) There is no statistical correlation between temperature changes since the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century and the beginning of the industrial revolution in the middle of the 19th century. The temperatures have been slowly increasing without any correlation to the industrial age, just as one would expect after a deep low point. The cause of the Maunder Minimum is debated, but it did coincide with a cessation of suspots.

4) The earth is not currently warming, and has not since about 2000. It did appear to reach a peak, after the Maunder Minimum, around 2000. At each peak along the way, one can always say that the years leading up to the peak, and the years immediately after the peak, are the warmest on record. For example, the alarmists will tell us that 2009 is the ninth warmest year on record, so what? And arctic sea ice is at the seventh lowest year on record? Exactly what one would expect from a 2000 peak.

5) The Sun is in an extraordinary period of quiet. If this continues there are very good scientific explanations of why the earth will enter a new Minimum, just as it did 400 years ago.

Redbone wrote:There are some devastating arguments against AGW:

Devastating? Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning!

1) Sir Fred Hoyle is one of the current alarmists (yes I know he's dead) who also partook in the Global Cooling scare 30 years ago.

So? This demonstrates nothing except that some scientists 30 years ago, using data from 30 years ago, and climate theory from 30 years ago (which was very. very primitive compared with what we know today) came to a wrong conclusion. That's like arguing that we shouldn't believe the world is spherical today because once upon a time people came to the conclusion it was flat.

2) There is no way to disprove AGW, thus it is not a scientific theory, it is a belief. Every scientific theory can be disproved by observation.

There are an infinite number of ways to disprove AGW. For instance, you could make a radical change in the CO2 output and observe if there is any change in warming. You could kill of nearly all humans. You could demonstrate that the heating is coming from something else.

3) There is no statistical correlation between temperature changes since the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century and the beginning of the industrial revolution in the middle of the 19th century.

This is just a made up statement. All you have to do is look at the global temperature rise and CO2 level rise and the increase around the time of the Industrial Revolution can't be missed. Correlation isn't causation, so this doesn't mean that the Industrial Revolution started the warming (although it is evidence), but to deny correlation completely is absurd.

The temperatures have been slowly increasing without any correlation to the industrial age, just as one would expect after a deep low point.

The important point is that temperatures have not been increasing steadily. What is attracting attention, and what has generated the concern, is that the rate of increase has increased substantially since we started increasing our carbon output. If it was a slow, linear increase the situation would be different.

4) The earth is not currently warming, and has not since about 2000.

That is debatable, but even if it's true, it isn't particularly useful. If you look at the annual temperature pattern riding on the decadal average over the last few hundred years, you get multi-year periods that show a rise, and multi-year periods that show a decline. But all of this continues to follow an long term upward trend. We'd need a lot more than a few years of cooling to demonstrate that global warming is over. And past trends suggest that isn't likely to happen.

5) The Sun is in an extraordinary period of quiet. If this continues there are very good scientific explanations of why the earth will enter a new Minimum, just as it did 400 years ago.

Actually, the current solar minimum isn't all that extraordinary. It has persisted a few months longer than most, but so have other minimums. How "extraordinary" this is depends on the solar behavior over the next few years, and how much of an effect it will have on climate depends on its behavior over the next few hundred. It's absurdly premature to look at current solar activity and start talking about a new minimum like the Maunder. Talk about alarmism!

Nope, nothing remotely devastating in your arguments, just the same old, long refuted factual errors and strawmen. It reminds me of the arguments from the crowd that thinks we never made it to the Moon.

There is a reason that the vast majority of climate scientists consider AGW real: a large amount of evidence supports that conclusion.

I have to agree on point 5

5) The Sun is in an extraordinary period of quiet. If this continues there are very good scientific explanations of why the earth will enter a new Minimum, just as it did 400 years ago.

Actually, the current solar minimum isn't all that extraordinary. It has persisted a few months longer than most, but so have other minimums. How "extraordinary" this is depends on the solar behavior over the next few years, and how much of an effect it will have on climate depends on its behavior over the next few hundred. It's absurdly premature to look at current solar activity and start talking about a new minimum like the Maunder. Talk about alarmism!

It sounds very similar to the alarms of a possible Ice Age that was predicted in the 70's but didn't come to pass. The trends indicate longer periods of moderate heating followed by shorter periods of moderate cooling followed by more (but slightly longer periods of moderate warming, with the warming trends generally lasting longer than the cooling trends, thereby causing a net increase in average tepmerature over the long period.

BMAONE23 wrote:I have to agree on point 5

5) The Sun is in an extraordinary period of quiet. If this continues there are very good scientific explanations of why the earth will enter a new Minimum, just as it did 400 years ago.

Actually, the current solar minimum isn't all that extraordinary. It has persisted a few months longer than most, but so have other minimums. How "extraordinary" this is depends on the solar behavior over the next few years, and how much of an effect it will have on climate depends on its behavior over the next few hundred. It's absurdly premature to look at current solar activity and start talking about a new minimum like the Maunder. Talk about alarmism!

It sounds very similar to the alarms of a possible Ice Age that was predicted in the 70's but didn't come to pass. The trends indicate longer periods of moderate heating followed by shorter periods of moderate cooling followed by more (but slightly longer periods of moderate warming, with the warming trends generally lasting longer than the cooling trends, thereby causing a net increase in average tepmerature over the long period.

After Chris's childish little tantrum, it's hard to maintain a serious adult discussion, but what I am pointing out here is that the earth experienced a deep low several centuries ago, called the Maunder Minimum. The earth has been warming, gradually, since then. We would expect to see exactly the behavior that we are seeing, the longer stronger warm periods, because the earth is still recovering from a deep low. That will change. When it will change? Your guess is as good as mine, but keep an eye on the solar sunspot activity, it's a lot more likely to influence our climate than CO2. As far as just how extraordinary is this solar minimum, well, NASA calls it the most significant in 100 years, making it, as an event, a lot more significant than the very modest warming trend of the 80s and 90s, which is no different than any other since the Maunder Minimum 400 years ago.

Redbone wrote:...but what I am pointing out here is that the earth experienced a deep low several centuries ago, called the Maunder Minimum. The earth has been warming, gradually, since then. We would expect to see exactly the behavior that we are seeing, the longer stronger warm periods, because the earth is still recovering from a deep low.

Why would we expect to see the current behavior? It is not at all obvious to me, and good climate models predict otherwise. Clearly the majority of climate scientists think the current situation is more complicated as well. It sounds to me like you're just stating your opinion, without any scientific basis.

Even treating the temperature trend in the simplistic way you propose, your observations make no sense. If you take a system that is stable, allow it a period of cooling (as in the Maunder Minimum), and then let it return to its stable state, you will see an asymptotic return of the temperature to normal. But what we are seeing is an increase in the rate of temperature increase as we get farther from the Maunder Minimum- completely opposite what a simple physical system would do. Other effects must be involved here.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Redbone wrote:...but what I am pointing out here is that the earth experienced a deep low several centuries ago, called the Maunder Minimum. The earth has been warming, gradually, since then. We would expect to see exactly the behavior that we are seeing, the longer stronger warm periods, because the earth is still recovering from a deep low.

Why would we expect to see the current behavior? It is not at all obvious to me, and good climate models predict otherwise. Clearly the majority of climate scientists think the current situation is more complicated as well. It sounds to me like you're just stating your opinion, without any scientific basis.

Even treating the temperature trend in the simplistic way you propose, your observations make no sense. If you take a system that is stable, allow it a period of cooling (as in the Maunder Minimum), and then let it return to its stable state, you will see an asymptotic return of the temperature to normal. But what we are seeing is an increase in the rate of temperature increase as we get farther from the Maunder Minimum- completely opposite what a simple physical system would do. Other effects must be involved here.

Asymptotic? Simplistic? When laymen start throwing around terms that they vaguely understand, it’s hard to have a serious discussion. Perhaps this is intentional on your part so that you can always claim that you meant something else when disproved.

1) Would you expect the temperature to rise asymptotically to the Y axis versus time on the X? I would, because the effect(s) that cause the minimum would wear off gradually, and as they diminished the temperatures would rise faster and faster until an equilibrium maximum was reached. A more active sun would cause this type of reaction, as each year the sun was more active than the year before. Somewhat analogous to a house fire or a chain reaction that starts slowly and gains speed.

2) Or would you expect the temperature to rise asymptotically to the X axis versus temperature on the Y? This is what would be expected on the recovery from a short acting cooling event like a volcanic eruption, or an asteroid hit, where the temperature would be roughly correlated to the amount of particulates, which would decay off logarithmically, initially very fast, then slowly reverting back to the baseline. Roughly analogous to an inverted bell curve.

Cheers.

Hi, check this out, 1 VOLCANO MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.


And on the other hand, we put out 27 billion tons of CO2/yr but we have at any time 3600 billion tons of C02 in our atmosphere. So our man made C02 is only 0.75% of "natural" C02. It seems difficult to understand how such a small addition will lead to "catastrophic" consequences.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... olcano.php

Mark

As I look back on this discussion, I noticed a significant choice of language on the AGW side..

...and good climate models predict...

...the majority of climate scientists...

...is the output of a well regarded model...

...their output is the solution of a large number of equations that have physical bases...

...There is no evidence at all of bad science, of fraud, of bias....

... Few disagree that recent global warming is occurring ....

It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. The AGW advocates want us to blindly believe these models which are too difficult for laymen (or in fact anyone who isn't a believer) to understand. We just need to believe them. Can't you see the crowd cowering in amazement in front of the "Great and Wonderful Oz (Gore)?!" "Don't mind that man behind the curtain!"

Until finally someone (the Child in the Emperor's New Clothes or Toto in The Wizard of Oz) finally point out the obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA

I don't care how complex or highly regarded the models or the scientist are -- if what they are saying defies common sense, I don't buy it.

jluetjen said... I don't care how complex or highly regarded the models or the scientist are -- if what they are saying defies common sense, I don't buy it.

Many things that scientists say defy common sense. That's why they get the big bucks.

If you disregard what scientists are saying, then you taking what is essentially a religious position (in the sense that you are stating a belief, unshakable and unprovable.)

I prefer to listen to the UNcommon sense of scientists. That's how I learn.

Rob

Redbone wrote:1) Would you expect the temperature to rise asymptotically to the Y axis versus time on the X? I would, because the effect(s) that cause the minimum would wear off gradually, and as they diminished the temperatures would rise faster and faster until an equilibrium maximum was reached.

Using your simplistic model, which assumes the Maunder Minimum reduced solar output and caused a temperature drop, I would expect an initial rapid drop in global temperature, asymptotically approaching a lower equilibrium temperature. When the minimum ended and solar output returned to normal, I'd expect an initial rapid rise in global temperature, asymptotically approaching the original equilibrium temperature. That is basic physics. If the temperature doesn't follow that profile (and in fact, it does not), it means that something more complex is going on.

Chris Peterson wrote:"... it means that something more complex is going on.

A deliberate corporate plot to open up the Arctic shipping lanes year 'round? An Act of God which will close Babylon's shipping ports? A software glitch?

mark swain wrote:And on the other hand, we put out 27 billion tons of CO2/yr but we have at any time 3600 billion tons of C02 in our atmosphere. So our man made C02 is only 0.75% of "natural" C02. It seems difficult to understand how such a small addition will lead to "catastrophic" consequences.

Well, we didn't just boost the concentration by 0.75% and walk away, did we? That's 0.75% per year.

What kind of diet do you have? Say, 2000 calories per day? How about we bump that by 0.75% each year. In 50 years you'll be eating close to 3000 calories per day. That could certainly be "catastrophic" for you!

The point is, the increase in CO2 is cumulative. The Earth's atmosphere is in reasonable equilibrium. If something like CO2 goes up a little, feedback mechanisms act to reduce it. That works until something big happens to knock the system into a new equilibrium point. A long period of global volcanic activity, for instance. These kinds of equilibrium shifts are seen all through the climate record, going back millions of years. They don't happen very often, but when they do, the results can be dramatic (and certainly "catastrophic" to many species). Since we started putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution, the CO2 level has increased from less than 300ppm (which was stable for thousands of years) to nearly 400ppm, and the rate continues to rise as well. That's a big change in a short time, and the concern that it may push the current climate out of equilibrium is completely valid.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:"... it means that something more complex is going on.

A deliberate corporate plot to open up the Arctic shipping lanes year 'round? An Act of God which will close Babylon's shipping ports? A software glitch?

[*]

I don't think it will close the shipping ports...just force their relocation closer to the manufacturing centers thereby lowering shipping costs and cost of goods in general. It will ilkely also turn most port cities into cities resembling Venice creating tourism.

BMAONE23 wrote: I don't think it will close the shipping ports...just force their relocation closer to the manufacturing centers thereby lowering shipping costs and cost of goods in general. It will ilkely also turn most port cities into cities resembling Venice creating tourism.

Excellent. My coveted FerrariAqua wheels/floats closer to acquisition. Farewell, faithful moped?

jluetjen wrote:I don't care how complex or highly regarded the models or the scientist are -- if what they are saying defies common sense, I don't buy it.

Fine, just as long as you realize that this position is inherently irrational and unscientific. The Universe is full of things that really defy common sense: Special Relativity, much of General Relativity, quantum mechanics. Yet only the extreme fringe doubts these things are real. Most of what we know about the Universe came about because some clever person didn't let "common sense" get in the way of actual observation and theorizing.

Be careful what you call "common sense" as well. The reason I have a high level of confidence that AGW is real is precisely because the arguments and evidence are consistent with "common sense" as I see it. Seriously, what could be more obvious than (1) we release CO2 into the atmosphere, (2) the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, (3) CO2 selectively traps long wavelength IR, (4) QED: the temperature rises. It doesn't take any great leap of faith to see how inherently reasonably this chain of logic is.

hi, Chris

We haven,t just added to the global Co2. We knocked all the global tree,s down for farming.. which has double effect, over 300 years worth... What ever we do now, will take years to see any changes.. It has not properly snowed here in England, nor have we had a hard winter for well over 20 years. It just rains all the time.. If that happens in my life time, whats going to happen in the next 20 years? I dread to think what a hurricane 3 thousand miles across, will do to Florida. And i believe this will happen.

Mark

Hi Chris,

Have you had a chance to check out the senate report yet? I haven't heard you make any comments regarding it or its references.

By the way I love your website!

Richard

Chris Peterson wrote:

jluetjen wrote:I don't care how complex or highly regarded the models or the scientist are -- if what they are saying defies common sense, I don't buy it.

Fine, just as long as you realize that this position is inherently irrational and unscientific. The Universe is full of things that really defy common sense: Special Relativity, much of General Relativity, quantum mechanics. Yet only the extreme fringe doubts these things are real. Most of what we know about the Universe came about because some clever person didn't let "common sense" get in the way of actual observation and theorizing.

Be careful what you call "common sense" as well. The reason I have a high level of confidence that AGW is real is precisely because the arguments and evidence are consistent with "common sense" as I see it. Seriously, what could be more obvious than (1) we release CO2 into the atmosphere, (2) the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, (3) CO2 selectively traps long wavelength IR, (4) QED: the temperature rises. It doesn't take any great leap of faith to see how inherently reasonably this chain of logic is.

Actually Einstein's theories had to wait many years before they were proven. But with the dawn of the Atomic Age, proof of gravitational lensing, the refinement of the gravitational constant and other discoveries, my understanding is that he has been substantially proven in most cases. But in the case of Einstein, he did a lot of very complex work to come to a very simple solution. It's one of these things where it's always been there, but it took the wise man to recognize it. But note that he was able to summarize much of his work into a very short, pithy rule. And it has withstood the test of time.

So far no the AGW crowd has failed to accomplish the same. Sure CO2 and temperatures have increased. That proves nothing except that they appear to move in a similar fashion over the short term. The reason that this fails the common sense test is because if CO2 was the cause of global warming because of it's greenhouse abilities, then the change in temperature should always follow significant changes in CO2. Not just in the geologically miniscule time frame of the last 100's or 1000's of years, but also across 10,000's and millions. The fact is that CO2 was 100's of time higher in the past, for a long time, but yet the temperature only was about 10 degrees warmer flies directly in the face of your statement that a 2x or 4x increase in CO2 is going to cause our temperature to go up by 2 degrees. If that were true, it would suggest that the relationship has a declining impact as CO2 goes up, which doesn't make sense if CO2 is as strong of a thermal containment as you suggest. Because if another 4X is going to increase the temperature by 2 degrees, or maybe even 4 degrees -- you've already increased the Earth's temperature by 6 out of the 10 degrees, and you're nowhere near the magnitude of CO2 concentration that we had in Earth's past. It just doesn't work unless there are other factors which can overwhelm the influence of CO2! But that is not what AGW are advocating. They are saying that CO2 is THE driver for world temperature.

But by virtue of saying that the models are complex suggests a couple of things...
1) The more variables in the model, the relatively less significant the impact of CO2 is. If it really is 60% or 80% of the cause for global warming, you wouldn't need a complex model! You could model it directly with CO2, but as I've shown above, that method doesn't work.

2) That leaves us with the conclusion that CO2 may be only one of a number of variables involved in climate change. If this is the case, then A) Gore is wrong and B) managing CO2 may not be an efficient way of managing the process. This is especially true if we don't understand what the primary drivers are for climate change. Doing something (anything! as our politicians are suggesting) to try to drive the process is not the right answer in a world of limited resources. In fact it is the wrong answer since it will just waste those limited resources accomplishing nothing.