Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day redewenur,

I have returned once and hung around hoping to make a contact as the email detail I have does not work. But I'm finished with the site at this point.

As to no one listening to me, when I posted regularly, I believe a number of people read the posts on this forum, including mine and they did have an impact. If anyone that holds a different view or wishes to challenge the "science" of global warming comes onto this site currently, they are subject to personal insults, belittling and very quickly leave.

I could ask you why you bother to come to this site if the only people that post are those that you agree with wholeheartedly. Surely, you can get all the propoganda relating to global warming by simply picking up a newspaper daily.

But I do note that neither yourself nor Mr Morgan is willing to take up the challenge of providing one single link to research that links CO2 increase in the atmosphere with warming. Mr Morgan did what he normally does with this type of query, he ignored it, and then added yet another insult. Telling people their belief system or "pet theories" are against reality, without any evidence to suggest they actually are, is nothing more than an insult, and the moderator for this site should have stepped in a very long time ago and removed such posts.

I do actually have people that listen to me. My research into temperature datasets has found a publisher and I've been asked and have given lectures on the subject, so I guess, not everyone is like you and simple doesn't listen to a contrary point of view.

Regardless of the views put on this site, when I posted regularly, I read them and considered them. If you want to participate in the site like this, that is the least you can do.

I'm actually not particularly frustrated by the way. Carbon credits waste billions but they don't do much damage in the scheme of things. It will only be if someone comes up with a way of attempting to lower the average world temperature that I will become greatly concerned. But since the solar cycle has entered a very quiet period, the temperatures have already moderated, my guess is in four or five years, those that rabidly followed global warming will start to look just a little foolish. Just as those that predicted large changes in ocean levels have been proved wrong with every prediction made. Eventually, extreme views not supported by basic science just start to look silly. I even saw a major article recently where Mr Gore was roundly criticised (and so he should be considering he uses research that has been condemned by a great many climatologists and has been shown to have been carried out in such a way as to ensure the desired result).

But it would have been nice for someone to have tried to line CO2 to warming just for their own benefit. It's pretty hard to support a theory so dogedly if the central tenant of the theory has no legs. But that is my opinion. I wanted to see if in attempting to discredit that opinion, others may just have learnt something.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day redewenur,

I have returned once and hung around hoping to make a contact as the email detail I have does not work. But I'm finished with the site at this point.

As to no one listening to me, when I posted regularly, I believe a number of people read the posts on this forum, including mine and they did have an impact. If anyone that holds a different view or wishes to challenge the "science" of global warming comes onto this site currently, they are subject to personal insults, belittling and very quickly leave.

I could ask you why you bother to come to this site if the only people that post are those that you agree with wholeheartedly. Surely, you can get all the propoganda relating to global warming by simply picking up a newspaper daily.

But I do note that neither yourself nor Mr Morgan is willing to take up the challenge of providing one single link to research that links CO2 increase in the atmosphere with warming. Mr Morgan did what he normally does with this type of query, he ignored it, and then added yet another insult. Telling people their belief system or "pet theories" are against reality, without any evidence to suggest they actually are, is nothing more than an insult, and the moderator for this site should have stepped in a very long time ago and removed such posts.

I do actually have people that listen to me. My research into temperature datasets has found a publisher and I've been asked and have given lectures on the subject, so I guess, not everyone is like you and simple doesn't listen to a contrary point of view.

Regardless of the views put on this site, when I posted regularly, I read them and considered them. If you want to participate in the site like this, that is the least you can do.

I'm actually not particularly frustrated by the way. Carbon credits waste billions but they don't do much damage in the scheme of things. It will only be if someone comes up with a way of attempting to lower the average world temperature that I will become greatly concerned. But since the solar cycle has entered a very quiet period, the temperatures have already moderated, my guess is in four or five years, those that rabidly followed global warming will start to look just a little foolish. Just as those that predicted large changes in ocean levels have been proved wrong with every prediction made. Eventually, extreme views not supported by basic science just start to look silly. I even saw a major article recently where Mr Gore was roundly criticised (and so he should be considering he uses research that has been condemned by a great many climatologists and has been shown to have been carried out in such a way as to ensure the desired result).

But it would have been nice for someone to have tried to line CO2 to warming just for their own benefit. It's pretty hard to support a theory so dogedly if the central tenant of the theory has no legs. But that is my opinion. I wanted to see if in attempting to discredit that opinion, others may just have learnt something.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Hi there - just stumbled upon this website looking for some answers to questions that I have. And I have to say, I'm absolutely shocked that a so called moderator would act in this fashion.

DA Morgan - RicS raises some good questions, which you summarily dismiss because he didn't cite sources, in his extraordinary post. This isn't a Masters thesis, and you could google any the questions that he raises, and you'd find a multitude of sources.

But just to make it a little easier for you. Here's two sources on how the Vostok ice cores shows conclusively that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases by 600-800 years for each of the past 3 deglaciations. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728

This was determined from the exact same information that current climate change theory is based from. Temperature and CO2 concentrations did show an excellent correlation. Times with higher temperatures had higher CO2 concentrations. Too bad people didn?t look into which variable rose first

Because like any good scientific mind knows, correlation does not necessarily equal cause and effect. And when the rise in variable A lags the rise in variable B, it's pretty obvious that variable A did NOT cause the rise in variable B. I bet I could find a pretty strong correlation between the occurrence of wet sidewalks and days with rainfall ? perhaps wet sidewalks cause it to rain???? Perhaps in the world of global warming ?science?.

I would just like to know how global warming supporters can defend against this seemingly fatal flaw in global warming science.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Welcome.

Canuck wrote:
"Here's two sources on how the Vostok ice cores shows conclusively that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases by 600-800 years for each of the past 3 deglaciations."

Two thoughts. The first is that you should go to the original work:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
which I did and read it. Note the statement:
", the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature...."

In phase does not equate with "lagged by 600-800 years.

The second thought is that its relevance, either way, is unproven. One would need to know all of the conditions that cause the change from plate tectonics to solar radiation to cloud cover to forest fires, etc. to make any decision. Heck it might even have had nothing to do with CO2 and been related to methane. We just don't know.

PS: Thanks for posting real links. They are appreciated.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Thanks for the welcome, and thank you for responding the way you did (rather than the way you responded to RicS, perhaps there is a history there that I'm not aware of).

As far as the link that you provided, I'm not sure it actually investigated whether there was a time lag between CO2 and temperature. If you would have quoted the entire sentence, people could see that the authors were quoting previous work, not the work associated with the paper itself.

"According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations. "

The papers I linked investigated timing using the actual Vostok data and found a time lag as documented by the following.
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ? 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."

and

"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ? 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."

Regardless, we have 3 studies, 2 of the studies specifically looked for time lags, and found them. Both in the 600-800 year range. The study that was only concerned with extracting the time series of both variables said that the relationship was either in phase, or lagged by less than 1000 years. Based on the outcomes of these 3 studies, I'd be inclined to say there's a definite lag.



But I have to take issue with your statement that "its relevance, either way, is unproven" Huh? Am I missing something? Evidence has been found that historic temperature increases lead historic CO2 increases, and you're not sure if it's relevant?

The entirety of global warming science is based on the key assumption that increased CO2 causes temperature to increase (which was validated by looking at the correlation of CO2 and temp within these very same ice cores). All of the GCMs use this basic assumption.

If CO2 lags temperature, this assumption falls apart. The cause and affect relationship that everybody has bet on, would be wrong. It would be reversed! Temperature would be the causation factor for increases to CO2(historically).

I would say that is very relevant.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Canuck wrote:
"But I have to take issue with your statement that "its relevance, either way, is unproven" Huh? Am I missing something? Evidence has been found that historic temperature increases lead historic CO2 increases, and you're not sure if it's relevant?"

I was less than clear. My point was that one needs the entire chain of evidence to know what caused what. Here's an example.

We believe Europe is in for a long cold winter if the Atlantic conveyor ever stops. And we believe that increasing fresh water melt from Greenland capable of doing it.

We also know that other things such as decreasing greenhouse gasses, plant die offs, plate tectonics, could also be part of the chain of events.

Just looking at one part of that chain, CO2 levels, doesn't tell us whether it was the cause or the effect. The reason for the lag might be that it too was an effect.

How would we tell if the Atlantic Conveyor stopped 100,000 years ago? I haven't a clue.

And no doubt it isn't the only such system in existence.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

Just looking at one part of that chain, CO2 levels, doesn't tell us whether it was the cause or the effect. The reason for the lag might be that it too was an effect.


So let me get this straight - you're saying that since we don't understand all historical climatological processes, we can't say whether CO2 was the cause of temperatures, or if temperatures caused CO2 to increase.

But isn't this exactly what the IPCC, Al Gore, and the rest of the global warming community is doing? Stating that when CO2 levels are high, so are temperatures, therefore CO2 is the causation factor for temperature(while ignoring the temporal aspect of the relationship)?

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
About the CO_2, we already know from physics that it is a strong Greenhouse gas. If you pumo large amounts of CO_2 in the atmosphere, then that will trap more heat in the atmosphere.

The time lag is entirely natural. Because CO_2 emissions were not the cause of the integrlacial periods. I mean it wasn't like the Neanderthals building too many powerstations that caused global warming then, or was it? smile

The climate changes because of changes in te Eart's orbit. This causes a small amout of warming, which inturn causes CO_2 levels to rise which then amplifies the initial warming by a large amount. It has been shown, b.t.w., that changes in the Earth's orbit alone cannot account for the temperature increases.


So, it is basically a matter of basic physics that CO_2 is a greenhouse gas.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Richard,

But surely if you average over the data from different stations you get a more accurate picture? I mean 0.6 ?C is very small compared to normal temperature fluctuations...

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
The question isn't whether CO2 is a GHG - as you say, we know it is.

The question is, "Do increases in CO2 have the ability be the primary driver in altering global average temperature". In other words how effective is CO2 as a GHG.

The answer to this was provided by doing a simple correlation between temperature and CO2 on ice core samples. With higher amounts of CO2, temperature increased. The only problem is, once people started to look at the timing, it was found (as you point out) that increased CO2 was not the cause of the interglacial periods.

So we can agree that CO2 was not the cause of historic warming. Then why does the IPCC and the climate change messiah, Al Gore, continue to trot out graphs of CO2 and temperature over the past 600,000 years and point out that high CO2 level coincide with the warm periods (interglacials)? Could it have anything to do with the fact that, without that graph, it might be tougher to sell dvd's, or continue to get government funding? wink

CO2 was believed to be a very effective GHG based on correlations in historical evidence (for which CO2 has now been shown to be the effect, not the cause). If you want to change gears to saying CO2 is a very effective GHG based solely on physics/chemistry, that's fine, but just be up front that this statement is based on theoretical climate science, of a system we do not even come close to fully understanding.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Canuck wrote:
"But isn't this exactly what the IPCC, Al Gore, and the rest of the global warming community is doing? Stating that when CO2 levels are high, so are temperatures, therefore CO2 is the causation factor for temperature(while ignoring the temporal aspect of the relationship)?"

You are misunderstanding what you are hearing. CO2 levels are very high now and they correlate closely with the increase in temperature. Gore is saying it, professors at every university I know are saying it too. But that doesn't mean it is the only reason temperatures can climb. If the temperature climbs for some other reason then CO2 levels likely will increase but the effect will be delayed.

We are seeing that right now where with increases in ocean acidification the natural process that sequesters CO2 in the form of carbonates is slowing. We also seeing it in the increase in release of CO2 from peat bogs and arctic tundra. If the oceans get warmer we might well see a release of methane further complicating the issue. And while methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas ... it will lag temperature because it had previously been sequestered in the form of methane ice.

So the fact that CO2 levels may have lagged temperature changes in the past is indicative of nothing in and of itself. Nor does the fact that it lagged in the past say anything with respect it the current situation.

The causes of warming and CO2 changes 100,000 years ago are not what is driving the warming engine today.

It all comes down, very simply, to the laws of chemistry and physics that can not be violated. If CO2 levels go up the temperature must too unless counteracted by some other matter of chemistry or physics of which none is known to exist as a factor.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Count Iblis II,

While the debate remains sensible, I'll respond. When it deteriorates again, bye.

My point was prove that CO2 IS a real greenhouse gas! How do we know? as you put it. Show a physics experiment that goes somewhat to replicating atmospheric conditions and that CO2 somehow traps heat. This is my point entirely.

As far as I can determine there is NO evidence that CO2 causes any warming on the earth at all. Now that is a big statement. But your amplification comment, while sounding reasonable, is not supported by the facts. A simple look at the Vostok records will show you that despite often very large increases in the CO2 levels following warming, a cooling is just as likely to occur as were the period between warming is too short for the CO2 to build up. So that does not support amplification at all, nor does any of the other paleo-climate evidence where CO2 or tempereture is known. Now there has been some terrific research relating to sunspot activity, solar magnetic fields, cosmic ray strength and temperature and they show pretty much exact matches to the rise and fall of the temperature regardless of whether the CO2 level is as it is now, very much lower or even ten times higher than it was now.

So your argument seems to be, that CO2 does cause warming, even though there is a lag, though you don't explain just how CO2 could cause warming if it is low when the warming begins and only increases after the warming. Then you say that CO2 does not cause interglacial periods. Actually it might. I'd hate to really try to argue this. My primary interest is the reason for the flips between glacial and interglacial periods. I've been studying this point for well over 30 years and I have no idea why the flips occur. As far as I've been able to research, no one else does either.

It is not necessarily solar activity. It is not necessarily a whole bunch of things. The records do not show that CO2 has anything to do with the flips as it can be going up or down when flips either way occurs, can be high or low, so I probably could say with some confidence that it does not appear that CO2 has anything much to do with it. But in combination with water vapour and a great deal of other things, it actually might have some effect on the flips (and we are talking about the dramatic change from warm to cold or cold to warm here, not movements within a glaciation or interglacial period which is what is relevant to any discussion on global warming).

To quote you:

"The climate changes because of changes in te Eart's orbit. This causes a small amout of warming, which inturn causes CO_2 levels to rise which then amplifies the initial warming by a large amount. It has been shown, b.t.w., that changes in the Earth's orbit alone cannot account for the temperature increases."

Sometimes the climate changes because of the orbit. Sometimes it doesn't. It is a factor but in determining even such things as the beginning or end of an ice age, it is just one factor. The movement of tectonic plates is far more important when you are talking about grand sweep climate changes such as ice ages such as we are in now. The last big ice age very clearly aligns with the changing positions of continents.

But the fact we are in an ice age now or not, is totally irrelevant to any discussion on global warming. Your comment says that the orbit changes, the CO2 goes up and this CAUSES warming. Yet, there is no evidence to support that statement at all, at least none that I know of. If you know of any, then take my challenge to show a link between CO2 increase and warming and provide the evidence. It does not even have to be research, just data that shows that CO2 increases matched warming on the earth and that the CO2 increase was BEFORE the warming or even that the warming seemed to accelerate because CO2 increased.

The discussion was about CO2, which is the big baddie "pollutant" and according to the UK government needs to be cut by 60% by 2050 (and then the Green group came out and said actually the cut needs to be 90%). Quite aside from what that means to anyone in Britain to get to 60%, this entire legislation is being based on the argument that there is global warming, that it is a danger to civilisation and to the viability to all life on the planet, or at least a significant proportion of it (the same Green spokesman indicated that without an 90% reduction then the Amazon rainforest will surely disappear entirely). Since the tropics stay the same or close to it in the deepest glaciation or in the warmest interglacial period, I'd like to see how that statement could be backed up at all but back to the point that the entire argument about global warming is now completely cored to the "fact" that man-made CO2 increases have caused any warming that is currently occuring on this earth and WILL cause much more extreme warming.

I simply said, "Prove it". So stating that "we already know" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and by implication in relation to the current usage of the term greenhouse gas, causes warming) all you have done is restated what is being assumed by pretty much everyone except scientists who actually study such things.

In theory CO2 is able to let through most of the energy spectrum and is able to reflect a small fraction of the energy spectrum across specific wave lengths. This has been used to "Prove" that CO2 is obviously a greenhouse gas.

The trouble is that this is a theory and there is no evidence to support that it actually does this in the real world. There is no evidence that CO2 has caused warming EVER in the past history of the earth or that it has amplified warming that is already occuring. Asking me to show research to this is asking to prove a negative. I could refer to research such as Canuck has done but it would seem that in response to this, all that happens is a restatement that we all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and because it is such simple physics, there really is no argument.

Since this is climate and that is incredibly complicated, that simplification is just too much of a simplification. But I'll accept the basic premise if you are able to show any science that actually demonstrates that CO2 should re-reflect more energy back to the earth than it would prevent from entering the earth in the first place that at least in theory CO2 is able to cause warming. But that still doesn't prove that CO2 is able to change climate. To do that you need to show some link between CO2 and warming. And that is what my challenge was. Show some link between the two. Since "we all know" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the entire debate about global warming is centred on the theory that man is the culprit and CO2 is the agent, my challenge should really be a snap.

I'll even help you. Look at a graph of temperature changes, and for the purpose of this exercise, I'll accept that the datasets are completely accurate regardless of the fact that they are very far from being reliable data at all and that unreliability ironically has been made worse by the advances of technology and automated recording. You can easily find a graph of CO2 rises for the same 120 odd year period.

In the most general terms the temperature has risen, 80% before 1940 but overall it has risen. CO2 has similarly risen. But they do not well correlate at all. Surely, your amplification theory should be noticeable in such records. As the CO2 has risen shouldn't that have increased the temperature at an accelerated rate? The trouble is the CO2 rise is pretty much a nice close to straight line trending up, yet the temperature graph has a quite steep rise until 1940, a drop for the next 40 years and then another rise. If CO2 amplification occurred, why the drop? Why did the majority of the rise occur when the CO2 was low?

If you really are serious about global warming, then such questions should cause you to think.

My point has always been that climate is about the most complicated system that man has to deal with. Unlike the origins of the universe and whether there was a big bang, or whether the universe has dark matter, etc, etc, this one actually is really very important to humans on a daily basis. Until the late 80s it got almost no funding because of the simple "fact" that "Everyone talks about the weather but no one can do anything about it". Weather was funded. Dopler radar and storm chases got at least some funding because tracking tornados saves lives. Better understandings of hurricanes also saves lives (at least it would if someone actually acted on the research and decided that levees built in an area that has to be hit by a major storm surge every few decades, should actually be made to withstand such a storm surge), so the Air Force has a wing that flys into tropical storms and met bureaus get money. They got a lot more money when their ability to predict weather actually started to be better than Uncle John's bunion.

But climate was a very underfunded area of science. Since it is so important, that really was a strange situation, especially since billions can be spent on one telescope such as the Hubble, with no pay off for humans perhaps for centuries to come. And I'm not saying here that pure research should not be funded, only that areas of science that actually affect us should get some form of priority. So who can blame the university funding admin staff, the heads of departments etc, for joining in the "global warming" bandwagon if it means that research that has long been neglected is now getting done. Of course, when it reached $3 billion out of the $9 billion the US government now funds pure research with, and the large proportion of that was into areas that have been researched already several times, or in computer modelling or super computers for computer modelling, then perhaps it isn't going to the right area at all, but that is just the social effect of an any political movement supposedly based on science.

Now I've gone off the track. Too much medication I guess. Sigh.

I'm actually not asking very much at all. Since you Count, have restated the case for CO2 being a greenhouse gas and simple physicas can't be wrong, how about any evidence at all to back this very obvious statement up. I'm not being sarcastic here. While I think you will be shocked to find just how hard it is going to be to find anything that even vaguelly approaches good science, I'd be genuinly interested in any evidence or research that supports this proposition.

And if you think I'm a voice in the dark, that Mr Morgan suggested I was, you might want to look at not only how many but who is also, often quietly, but still raising, the exact same question. Those that are also asking this question range from the co-founder of Greenpeace (whose name escapes me) to a great many scientists that actually were part of the IPCC working groups that produced the papers for the UN that state so baldly that CO2 is such a menance.

If you want to read much more interesting comments than I'm able to make, look up Dr Frederick Singer, an esteemed elder climate scientist. If you want younger, I'll be happy to provide a few names.



Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
It is precisely because of the complexity of the climate that one cannot just plot CO_2 concentraions against temperature. One has to make detailed models and validate those. Now, I've read that climate models do an excellent job in describing past climate. Of course, one can object that one can always adjust parameters in such models to fit observations. But these models are based on physics and are thus well motivated.

If you leave out the physics and just look at correlations you can't conclude anything...

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

So the fact that CO2 levels may have lagged temperature changes in the past is indicative of nothing in and of itself. Nor does the fact that it lagged in the past say anything with respect it the current situation.

The causes of warming and CO2 changes 100,000 years ago are not what is driving the warming engine today.


Two thoughts -
1st - a few posts ago you stated that we did not know what caused interglacial periods, and used that as justification to declare CO2 lagging temperature "irrelevant". Now you state that the causes of past warming and today's warming are totally different (which obviously infers that we understand the causes of both current and historical). Which is it?

2nd ? I'll buy the argument that past CO2 lags aren't relevant to understanding the current warming (although they very well may be if the warming is natural), if you agree that the past CO2/temperature correlation aren't relevant either. After all, the sword cuts both ways.


Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

It all comes down, very simply, to the laws of chemistry and physics that can not be violated. If CO2 levels go up the temperature must too unless counteracted by some other matter of chemistry or physics of which none is known to exist as a factor.


Except you forgot the all important quantification (which is sort of critical here). As I said before, the critical question isn't whether CO2 is a GHG (we know it is). The critical question is how effective CO2 is (at the concentrations we see, or are reasonably expected) at raising temperature. We simply don?t know the answer to that ? if you are aware of some study on this, please pass it along.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Hi Richard,

Some quick question (not much time today)

Isn't there a link between warming and higher CO_2 concentrations?

In the interglacials the CO_2 concentration is quite a bit larger than during the ice ages, yes? Surely that elevated concentration makes a significant contribution to the temperature?

As I wrote to a reply to another poster above, if you only look at correlations, it is very hard to conclude anything...

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
"The critical question is how effective CO2 is (at the concentrations we see, or are reasonably expected) at raising temperature. We simply don?t know the answer to that"

Assuming that we indeed don't know, then there is a reasonable possibility that the climate is sensitive to CO_2 to the extent that action to curb CO_2 emissions is warranted. That's pretty much what climate scientists are saying. This is a decision that has to be taken by politicians.

Now, how can it be that the same politician who defend spending 100s of billions to fight insurgents in Iraq (because they may cause problems in the US, although that's highly unlikely) at the same time say that because we don't know for sure how dangerous climate change is, we shouldn't do anything about that?

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: Count Iblis II
It is precisely because of the complexity of the climate that one cannot just plot CO_2 concentraions against temperature. One has to make detailed models and validate those. Now, I've read that climate models do an excellent job in describing past climate. Of course, one can object that one can always adjust parameters in such models to fit observations. But these models are based on physics and are thus well motivated.


I'm glad to hear you say you just can't look at CO2/temp correlations. But this is exactly what is held up to the public as confirmation of GW.

But onto models. Models are only as good as the basic understanding of the system they are replicating, and the response functions that the modeller inputs into the model. If we don't have the complete picture, or have the wrong response functions, well the model output will be wrong.

GCMs are not physically based models. For a physically based model, the modeller must understand all components of the system. I hope everybody here realizes that is not the case whatsoever. GCMs are simplifications, extreme simplifications, of our climate. Heck 9 forcing components are used within GCMs. Do we really think our climate is determined by the interplay of only 9 components?

You will need a lot more than a model, whose algorithms specify that increased CO2 causes temperature increases (wonder why they predict increased temperature??), to convince me that CO2 is the primary driver for the current warming.

To sum up, models tell us that CO2 is causing the temperature increase, because we told the model that in the first place!!!!

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: Count Iblis II

Assuming that we indeed don't know, then there is a reasonable possibility that the climate is sensitive to CO_2 to the extent that action to curb CO_2 emissions is warranted. That's pretty much what climate scientists are saying. This is a decision that has to be taken by politicians.

Now, how can it be that the same politician who defend spending 100s of billions to fight insurgents in Iraq (because they may cause problems in the US, although that's highly unlikely) at the same time say that because we don't know for sure how dangerous climate change is, we shouldn't do anything about that?


Ok, so this is where the science ends and the politics starts. Bush and his adventure in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with GW, so lets try to keep on track, shall we?

Why is it, when legitimate questions are raised about the science of GW, does the precautionary principle get trotted out?
As I said to DA Morgan in a PM - there's a 100% chance of the earth getting slammed by an asteroid or comet sometime in the future. Evoking the precautionary principle, perhaps we should spend a 25% of the global GDP on a planetary defense shield. After all, it could happen next year.......and yes, while it would be expensive, it would be much cheaper than if an asteroid did hit earth, which may wipe out..........100% of the global GDP.

The precautionary principle completely ignores risk analysis and management, which is critical to focus resources on the most significant issues, rather than throwing money at the latest flavour of the day.

My other beef with the precautionary principle, is it never looks at the costs, or rather, the opportunities that are lost because of the misplaced resources. 3-5 million people die from contaminated water supplies or improper sanitation every year. Another 2-3 million from malaria every year.

Here's a wild thought, let's do something about issues that are killing 5-8 million people this year, and every year into perpetuity, rather than worry about something that may, or may not happen 50 years down the road(and whose possible effects are really nothing more than conjecture at this point in time).

Last edited by Canuck; 03/17/07 08:44 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Count,

This is really refreshing. A rational, pleasant debate. Thank you. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Actually, I'd prefer it otherwise it would be a boring thread.

In paleo-climate records, CO2 levels have been all over the place during both ice ages, glaciations and interglacial periods. There was a very cold period when CO2 levels were more than ten times today's levels and rising for a time during that period.

CO2 levels really must rise on a planet with plant life and volcanos when the temperatures rise. Higher temperatures caused by solar magnetic increases means more volcanic activity. Higher temperatures means that CO2 is released from the oceans and plant life decays faster, bacteria breed quicker, etc, etc. You'd think the lag would be only a few years rather than the up to 800 but actually increasing all the plant activity by say 25% doesn't increase atmospheric CO2 all that much. The really really biggie is the oceans and since they take centuries to warm up or cool down they never reflect the current climate but rather 500 to 800 years ago. Actually, oceans also reflect climate up to 10,000 years ago and it is thought that El Ninos are caused by changes that have occurred thousands of years ago and the "movement" of the very large cool spot in the Pacific from near Chile to the west is nothing more than the Ocean slowly turning over in a bunch of very complicated vertical currents that then turn to horizontal currents or even spirals at various depths. Now that can be really confusing.

So, I can't agree that CO2, historically needs to be higher or is mostly higher during a warmer period, only that CO2 levels go up relative to the previous level after a warm period has been around for a little while.

The difference is in magnitude. The "lag" increase for want of a better term is a few percent. More later.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: Canuck

The critical question is how effective CO2 is (at the concentrations we see, or are reasonably expected) at raising temperature. We simply don?t know the answer to that ? if you are aware of some study on this, please pass it along.


DA Morgan - I'm wondering if you have a reference to how effective CO2 is at raising global temperature (that doesn't rely on historical conditions)?
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, I'm just really wondering if such work has been done.

Thanks

Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5