PDA

View Full Version : Interesting graphic of 'deniers' vs. consensus



c1ue
12-08-09, 05:32 PM
But of course it misses the other possible position:

AGW, but not primarily due to CO2

Still worth looking at.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

friendly_jacek
12-14-09, 07:25 PM
But of course it misses the other possible position:

AGW, but not primarily due to CO2


Actually, if you read the consensus conclusions they clearly state that what drives climate change is the variation of earth's orbit.

The CO2 just makes it worse, a prolonged aftershock affect.

Thus, the extra man-made CO2 will vastly exaggerate the natural response to climate change. It's very intuitive if one actually thinks about.

Diarmuid
12-14-09, 07:38 PM
Actually, if you read the consensus conclusions they clearly state that what drives climate change is the variation of earth's orbit.

The CO2 just makes it worse, a prolonged aftershock affect.

Thus, the extra man-made CO2 will vastly exaggerate the natural response to climate change. It's very intuitive if one actually thinks about.

Hogwash here are the assumptions and workings of the hypothesis there is nothing intutuive about them

Global Warming 101

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/Blue-Marble-Earth.jpg
Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (”IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.
Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO<sub>2</sub>, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.
Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)
Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO<sub>2</sub> is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>.)
BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipition systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.
Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here (http://www.drroyspencer.com/article-satellite-and-model-evidence-against-manmade-global-warming.php) you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.
Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years —

friendly_jacek
12-15-09, 01:36 AM
Hogwash here are the assumptions and workings of the hypothesis there is nothing intutuive about them


Unfortunately, the text you typed or more likely pasted in is incorrect as no one assumes earth temp is constant. We know from evidence that both earth temp and CO2 concentrations fluctuate wildly (see the link in the first post).
So we know that earth temp and CO2 concentrations are highly associated.
The only problem is figuring out cause and effect.

I suggest burning as much fossil fuels as possible and see what happens. Wait, ... we are doing it already!

Kimmons
12-15-09, 10:13 AM
Just how much longer do you guys think we can continue to consume this same amount of fossil fuel before it:

A. Begins to run out or
B. Costs so much more that consumption is curbed.

Doesn't peak oil dictate that this problem will take care of itself (assuming it really was a problem in the first place)?;)

Ghent12
12-15-09, 12:57 PM
Just how much longer do you guys think we can continue to consume this same amount of fossil fuel before it:

A. Begins to run out or
B. Costs so much more that consumption is curbed.

Doesn't peak oil dictate that this problem will take care of itself (assuming it really was a problem in the first place)?;)
Exactly the point, I think. The transition from pre-petroleum to a petroleum society saw unprecedented growth in every aspect of life. The transition to a post-peak-petroleum world will be difficult, as we steadily lose access to an amazing advantage in life, but petroleum is not the only godsend on Earth.

Besides, if the first part of the petroleum age brought us from the 1800's to where we are now, then the second part, even a decline, will allow for still-significant advancement.

c1ue
12-15-09, 02:19 PM
Unfortunately, the text you typed or more likely pasted in is incorrect as no one assumes earth temp is constant. We know from evidence that both earth temp and CO2 concentrations fluctuate wildly (see the link in the first post).
So we know that earth temp and CO2 concentrations are highly associated.

The problem is the past examples aren't consistent with the assertion that temperature and CO2 levels are highly associated.

There have been long periods in the past where CO2 was much higher yet much of the earth was in an Ice Age.

There have been periods where temperatures peaked but were falling for hundreds of years even as CO2 levels went up.

There is certainly some relationship between temperature and CO2 due to ocean outgassing, but it is quite unclear from the historical record if it is temperature driving CO2 or CO2 driving temperature nor what all the other factors are.

The 1.5 degree/100 year trend, for example, could itself be driving up overall CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As noted in other posts, the man-made portion of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 3.2% of all atmospheric CO2 which in turn makes the man made CO2 contribution to the atmosphere 0.012% - a very small number.

friendly_jacek
12-15-09, 03:09 PM
The problem is the past examples aren't consistent with the assertion that temperature and CO2 levels are highly associated.

Of course they are highly associated, just look at the figure 2 in your link (Vostok ice core data).



There have been long periods in the past where CO2 was much higher yet much of the earth was in an Ice Age.

There have been periods where temperatures peaked but were falling for hundreds of years even as CO2 levels went up.

Because the association in shorter time scale is harder to see due to the additional factors ie vulcanic or man made ash and sulfates emission, sun activity, clouds, ground covering, earth orbit, etc, etc.

Have you heard of global dimming? If not, google for it.

The problem with GW haters is that they don't understand the GW hypothesis and try to dispel it by simplifying to the very lay terms and then shoot holes in the simplified concept.

This is exactly what evolution bashers do.

friendly_jacek
12-15-09, 03:52 PM
One more thought. These CO2 and temp charts remained me stock charts. For a good reason. There are numbers of positive and negative feedbacks with different delays generating oscillations of different frequency. The temp and CO2 concentration is an example of positive feedback, just like investors piling on stocks with good momentum (ie oil or gold now). The negative feedback (I don't know what that would be in GW) kicks in when temp and CO2 concentration is excessive just like economy craters when commodities are too expensive (July 2008).

c1ue
12-15-09, 05:07 PM
Of course they are highly associated, just look at the figure 2 in your link (Vostok ice core data).


The association is one of lagging though. If CO2 lags temperature, then does that mean it is temperature causing the CO2 as opposed to the other way around?

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

Secondly association is not causation.


The problem with GW haters is that they don't understand the GW hypothesis and try to dispel it by simplifying to the very lay terms and then shoot holes in the simplified concept.

I've laid out my understanding of the entire AGW-CO2-catastrophe thesis; it is anything but simple.

If anything, it is the higher CO2 = higher temperature thesis which is simple.

But if my understanding is incorrect, then show me either what is wrong in my understanding of the AGW-CO2-catastrophe thesis or show that all of the stages are well documented, proven, and reasonable assertions.

Dr.No
12-15-09, 07:37 PM
Climategate - could anyone have come up with a more imaginative (less ridiculous) name for it?

Regarding the chart below - notice the highly unusual period of >stable and mild< climate for the past 10 thousand years - which just happens to coincide with the period of time where humans developed permanent settlements and labor specialization - which lead to technology and what we call modern civilization? (Note that recent history is represented at the right side of the chart.)

So we have 'climate-gate'? - are something like 90 percent of leading scientists world-wide in on a giant scam? Is all the climate data fabricated, or only a minor portion of it? Is most of the data still valid? Although there is a strong tendency for people to either believe in all conspiracy theories or none, it may very well be that - in reality - some are true and some are mostly or entirely nonsense. There are many shades of gray, not only black and white.

Forged data or not - to me - the more important question than whether it is getting hotter is whether the climate is becoming destabilized. Why is that of crucial importance? Because humans have experienced an extremely uncommon and exceptionally stable climate throughout the past 10 millennia, and it is this which allowed permanent settlements, agriculture, and advanced technology to develop. If the climate is about to >return to a normal state< (which is a very chaotic state compared with the very biased and short-sighted view held by most people regarding what normal really is), the interesting question is whether modern civilization will survive that looming return to normal?

The climate is likely to become much more chaotic, and >either< substantially colder >or< warmer. What may recently have started the likely irreversible process of destabilizing the unusual and delicate balance that enabled such an exceptionally stable and mild climate for the past 10 thousand years? While the unusual climatic stability surely would have ended on its own (at some point), it seems reasonable to think that the extremely fast increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century has caused the global climate to begin its potentially catastrophic shift away from calm and mild conditions toward chaotic normalcy appreciably sooner than otherwise would have been the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Scientific_organizations

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs023.snc3/11065_208397727476_620197476_3615344_3950083_n.jpg
http://itulip.com/images/misc/Vostok-ice-core.jpg (http://itulip.com/images/misc/Vostok-ice-core.jpg)
(http://itulip.com/images/misc/Vostok-ice-core.jpg)

friendly_jacek
12-16-09, 01:08 AM
The association is one of lagging though. If CO2 lags temperature, then does that mean it is temperature causing the CO2 as opposed to the other way around?

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

Secondly association is not causation.

Now, Clue, have I said that CO2 CAUSED increase in the temp? Don't put worlds in my mouth. You credibility melts away with that action.

So, we have a close association, but not necessarily a causation. To repeat the main GW thesis, temp cycles are caused by orbit instability and variation in solar energy radiated at earth. The initial rise of CO2 is secondary to the increase in temp, but as the CO2 builds in, it produces even higher increase in temp (positive feedback) that persists even though the solar energy goes down, just like a runaway stock bubble without fundamentals. Eventually the fundamentals catch up via negative feedback (they always do, don't they?) and the temp and CO2 goes down (rapidly=market crash) and the next cycle starts (if there are no humans producing emissions or central bankers producing liquidity). Notice that the currents readings on CO2 are much higher than ever recorded on the Vostok cores (thanks Dr No). This is just like Greenspan/Bernanke giving the extra liquidity in the last 20 years). Are we surprised that the gold is going up and up? Not in itulip circles, right? We expect the gold to go to $2000 or even more, right? Well, with the current reading of CO2, the global temps will go much much higher before crashing down later (who knows when, probably 1,000s or 10,000s years later).

Hopefully the stock analogy will make it easier for itulipers, who seem to struggle with the GW thing.

c1ue
12-16-09, 03:03 AM
Forged data or not - to me - the more important question than whether it is getting hotter is whether the climate is becoming destabilized. Why is that of crucial importance? Because humans have experienced an extremely uncommon and exceptionally stable climate throughout the past 10 millennia, and it is this which allowed permanent settlements, agriculture, and advanced technology to develop. If the climate is about to >return to a normal state< (which is a very chaotic state compared with the very biased and short-sighted view held by most people regarding what normal really is), the interesting question is whether modern civilization will survive that looming return to normal?

The climate is likely to become much more chaotic, and >either< substantially colder >or< warmer.

I'm not sure what you are saying: that humans cause climate change and are responsible for the present 'optimum' period? If so then you seem to imply that more CO2 is good?

Or are you saying that the past 10 millenia of human caused climate change was good but now further change is bad?


To repeat the main GW thesis, temp cycles are caused by orbit instability and variation in solar energy radiated at earth. The initial rise of CO2 is secondary to the increase in temp, but as the CO2 builds in, it produces even higher increase in temp (positive feedback) that persists even though the solar energy goes down, just like a runaway stock bubble without fundamentals. Eventually the fundamentals catch up via negative feedback (they always do, don't they?) and the temp and CO2 goes down (rapidly=market crash) and the next cycle starts (if there are no humans producing emissions or central bankers producing liquidity). Notice that the currents readings on CO2 are much higher than ever recorded on the Vostok cores (thanks Dr No).

The thesis as you write it above is not what is considered the consensus; the consensus has clearly and consistently laid both the rise in temperature to man made CO2 as well as the as-yet unseen acceleration of temperature increases to CO2 and its ancillary changes.

The problem is still that the entire positive feedback thesis is unproven either historically or empirically/observationally.

You have still failed to provide cogent examples or proof of the forcing in question.

As for current CO2 readings vs. Vostok, there are plenty of other historical examples of CO2 levels which were unquestionably much higher. Vostok is merely interesting because it is more detailed and has less 'noise'.

The full timeline:

2622

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

From this graph which clearly shows CO2 levels in the Ordovician era of 4000 ppm (vs. present 385 ppm or so) - also the Ordovician Ice Age and die-off.

Several other spikes (up and down) in CO2 seem poorly correlated with temperature.

In fact the last 150 million years shows a consistent fall in CO2 from over 1000 ppm to the 'base' levels of 250+ ppm of the modern era - without a corresponding temperature change of any type for the first 2/3rds (100 million years).

Thus again I reiterate - there seems little proof that climate is either extraordinarily sensitive to CO2, experiences positive feedback due to CO2, or is unstable.

The Vostok cores by your own criteria are invalid due to differences in CO2 levels, but the past higher CO2 levels (vs. today) would be perfectly valid.

santafe2
12-16-09, 03:59 AM
The association is one of lagging though. If CO2 lags temperature, then does that mean it is temperature causing the CO2 as opposed to the other way around?

Secondly association is not causation.

I've addressed this earlier tonight and you're of course, correct. But earlier scenarios have nothing to do with the current one unless you're prepared to offer a change in the earth's orbit as a current force. The CO2 lag issue is a complete red herring. The only reason one would bring it up is to obfuscate the issue.

Science demonstrates causation. If you disagree, please prove that 50% additional CO2 does not force warming.

c1ue
12-16-09, 06:51 AM
Science demonstrates causation. If you disagree, please prove that 50% additional CO2 does not force warming.

I've never said that 50% more CO2 wouldn't cause warming due to this additional CO2's GHG effect.

What I've said is - it is not clear that the present warming trend is mostly due to man-made CO2.

Furthermore that even if it were - the effects of this 50% more CO2 is no more than an additional 1.5 degrees/100 years.

The 2.5 degree/100 years, 4 degree/100 years, 7 degree/100 year 'projections' from the IPCC are due to the carbon forcing/positive feedback. This is what I've repeatedly noted is neither evidenced from past behavior nor from empirical evidence.

Since the Copenhagen goal seems to be to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees/100 years, it would seem that this point is extremely important.

The typical warming argument is to assume CO2=GHG=warming=IPCC projections. It is the last portion which is the most problematic.

raja
12-16-09, 10:17 AM
Just how much longer do you guys think we can continue to consume this same amount of fossil fuel before it:

A. Begins to run out or
B. Costs so much more that consumption is curbed.

Doesn't peak oil dictate that this problem will take care of itself (assuming it really was a problem in the first place)?;)
I agree.

I just don't want to see the Financial Elite get richer in the interim on something that may be a scam.

friendly_jacek
12-16-09, 04:01 PM
The thesis as you write it above is not what is considered the consensus; the consensus has clearly and consistently laid both the rise in temperature to man made CO2 as well as the as-yet unseen acceleration of temperature increases to CO2 and its ancillary changes.


Of course it is. Go ahead and reread the link you posted in the first post.

You mean you are fighting a concept you did not get familiar with?

Of course there is a lot of politics involved in GW (notice that it goes both ways: same people are paid to promote GW and some other people are paid, and probably more, as energy lobby has deep pockets, to discredit it), but we are talking science now.

c1ue
12-16-09, 07:59 PM
Of course it is. Go ahead and reread the link you posted in the first post.

You mean you are fighting a concept you did not get familiar with?

Of course there is a lot of politics involved in GW (notice that it goes both ways: same people are paid to promote GW and some other people are paid, and probably more, as energy lobby has deep pockets, to discredit it), but we are talking science now.

The long term orbital cycles are assumed to be totally irrelevant to the present behavior as the CO2 GHG effect and forcing override the long term orbital down trend. This is actually rather odd given that there was a Little Ice Age recently, but regardless the forcing is the issue isn't it?

Again I am asking for pointers showing that the forcing is either experimentally, empirically, or historically demonstrated. The Vostok cores don't show this - the CO2 effects are all clearly lagging the temperatures. The paleo record also doesn't show this - there is no consistent correlation between CO2 changes and temperature changes even with much higher CO2 levels and/or temperature changes.

NASA just made a press announcement stating that a retasking of the AIRS satellite shows CO2 is much more uneven than is presently assumed (by the 'settled' science), but amusingly enough then inserts a Dr. Dessler from Texas A & M to conflate the headline into: NASA says positive water vapor feedback observed.

Of course the actual value of the feedback isn't stated; I so far have not been able to find the original publication (if it exists).