Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Antarctica shows no signs of warming up

Well it is known that CO2 has a reletively high rediative forcing index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg

Canuck has finally hit this one on the head - "Can such work be done?" The answer is NO. We don't know enough, there are far too many variables, to think that we can "Predict" whether or not GW is happening. The only thing that is known is that things are changing raoidly and we are nitpicking over who's right and who doesn't know do-do. If we were smart, we would err on the side of Caution. If we were smart.

Read up on how that was determined. Those are estimated to be the radiative forcings since 1850. How did they estimate them? Modelling, which was built upon a historic relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Like I posted previously, it has now been shown that CO2 lags temperature - which means CO2 is NOT the cause of historic increased temperatures. Which means those forcings are wrong

Wolfman - see my previous post on the precautionary principle.

Over the past 150 years, the magnetic north pole has wandered more than 1100 km, and may end up in Siberia in 50 years. The strength of the earth's magnetic shield has dropped 10% over the same period. Perhaps something we're doing is affecting the magnetic shield? Perhaps we should err on the side of caution. If we were smart that is.

You don't throw resources at an issue until you understand it. Risk management 101.

Canuck you seem to making an argument, to paraphrase, something like this.

You claim that cigarette smoking causes cancer but I can clearly demonstrate times in the past when people have died from cancer who didn't smoke. And people have smoked and not died of cancer. And not a single scientist can definitively say the exact mechanism by which any cancer is formed much less the mechanism by which cigarette smoke causes cancer.

And if not that is certainly how I interpret what you've written.

So let me answer the question for you because you would be absolutely right. Dead from emphysema and lung cancer but right.

How important is it to you to be right while watching the planet get warmer and people dying?

Smart people, to paraphrase Wolfman, think we need to stop wasting time and stop smoking so damned many cigarettes. And still the cemeteries fill with people like you. Go figure.

Morgan - when science debates devolve to throwing around insults, it's pretty obvious science has left the debate. It's usually also an indicator of when the person throwing the insults has no other options available.

I'm taking the fact that you're resorting to calling me unintelligent, is an indication that you do not have knowledge of a study that has determined how effective CO2 is at altering global temperatures (without using historical data)?



Well besides the little complication that, that hundreds, if not thousands, of studies have conclusively proved a link between smoking and cancer, or the fact that there is no possible way that cancer rates can be the causation factor for smoking - your analogy is completely improper.
You're trying to compare understanding an occurrence in millions of examples - where there can be endless combinations of causation factors (due to millions of cancer cases), with understanding the reasons behind a single system response(global warming), which can have only one set of causation factors. Don't you see a little issue with that?




It's not about me being right. I don't have some self need to prove myself superior to others by either "being right", or insulting other's intelligence. My concern is misplaced resources, and the 5-8 million people that are dying each and every year, from preventable causes. I'll repeat these deaths aren't what "might" happen, they are happening right now. These are 5-8 million people, and millions of others who fall sick, who desperately need development within their countries. Whether you like it or not - higher standard of living = longer life expectancy = development = fossil fuel use.

My other concern is science. What happens when the earth doesn't rise the 4 degrees predicted? What happens when food production doesn't sink like a stone? What happens when oceans don't rise 10 feet? What happens when malaria doesn't strike us all dead? What happens when deserts don't take over the earth? What happens when floods and pestilence don't take over? I'll tell you what will happen, the general public will forever lose faith in science. The public will no longer see science as objective, they will see it as something that is able to be influenced, and even guided, by a political agenda.

A critical component of the scientific method is supposed to be debate. One of the first things that made me start researching global warming, was the complete intolerance of differing opinions. It was the first sign, to me, that global warming has left the realm of science, and into the realm of ideologies. I'm sorry to say DA Morgan, you exemplify this - anybody who offers up a contrarian opinion, you attack. That, Sir, is not science.

Because of the gusto at which contrarians are attacked with, I'm starting to believe more and more that global warming is more about anti-capitalist, anti-globalization agendas than science itself.

Canuck wrote:
"Well besides the little complication that, that hundreds, if not thousands, of studies have conclusively proved a link between smoking and cancer, or ...."

And hundreds of not thousands of studies have EQUALLY and conclusively proven the link between out current situation and global warming.

There are just some people, who log on using different IDs in an attempt to hide their identity who don't like that too much.

Canuck writes:
"I'm starting to believe more and more that global warming is more about anti-capitalist, anti-globalization agendas than science itself."

If so then you are a few things I won't stretch the fabric by mentioning here. I have quite a few shares of stock, am a member of the Board of two corporations, and have more than a few capitalist accoutrements including a very nice little 50' sailboat. You don't seem to get much right when you make things up but keep on trying. So far you've only reached the level of humorous.

That's not true, see here.

Then please, provide a reference to a study that has shown the effectiveness of CO2 in terms of raising global temperature (without using historical data). Note that I'm not looking for something that says CO2 is a GHG (we know it is), but how effective it is. If you can't provide such a reference, please say so.



You have to be kidding me - this is what you're resorting to? Care to share with me what my other "identities" are? I'm sure this website can track IP's. The simple fact is, that the first time I've posted to this site (and visited as well) was late last week.

I've spent some time reading historical threads here - Morgan, can you actually engage in debate whatsoever, without resorting to character assassination? This is acceptable behaviour for a moderator????



Where did I equate the global warming movement with you? I'm sorry, but perhaps you should seek help for your illusions of grandeur - I highly doubt you're the driving force behind the global warming movement. But regardless, you could throw out that you're Donald Trump, and it still wouldn't mean anything. The power of the internet gives people the ability to make false statements without ever having to back them up. It also allows supposed moderators to throw out blatant lies about people posting under multiple identities.

And I think I've reached much further than just the level of humorous. I've asked questions (and provided supporting links) surrounding the validity of the cause/effect relationship of CO2/temperature. You summarily dismissed it as "irrelevant", then ignored some postings, and when pressed, turned to character assassination.

And this is supposed to be a science board??

Hi Count, thanks for responding.

I've read that argument before, and have a rather significant issue with it...I'll do my best to explain it here.

So we've established that some other process starts the globe warming (T=0y). The author you linked to then purports that at T=800y, that initial process stops (entirely), and the warming is taken over by CO2 (even though that is the first time that CO2 starts to actually rise). And what possible reasoning is given for this the initial warming process ending, and the CO2 warming starting at t=800y? Let's take a look at the linked article.

"The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

Apparently no reason, other than "could have been".

WTF? This is nothing more than grasping at straws. I guess it's plausible that the initial process stopped abruptly at T=800 and CO2 immediately became the dominant warming process (albeit at low C02 levels). But I have to think it's much more plausible that the initial process, continued along for the entirety of the 5000 years, warming the globe. Was CO2 a factor? I'm sure it was.....but again, CO2 being a GHG is not the question. The question is the magnitude of effect CO2 had on global temperatures.

Increases in temperature significantly lead CO2 concentration increases. This calls into question the CO2/temperature cause/effect relationship that has been used in every single GCM to date. It will take more that "it could have been" to prove that CO2 is the primary driver in raising global temperature.

Canuck wrote:
"I've read that argument before, and have a rather significant issue with it...I'll do my best to explain it here."

I've got a better idea than you trying to explain it.

Why don't you point us to a government lab or university report that supports your statements.

What you wrote is unsupported and unsupportable.

G'day Count,

I think you were quoting a Wiki entry about CO2 lag and CO2 somehow eventually being the dominant force. Whoever wrote that had absolutely no understanding of the Vostok data or any other ice core data at all. In the 600,000 odd years of the Vostok data the CO2 lagged 60 to 800 years regardless of whether the temperature was a rise or a fall. There a great many little peaks and troughs that are far lass than 800 years and several warming trends that are greater than 800 years.

For the theory to be even remotely plausible, then the CO2 would start to effect temperature in such a way that the temperature increase would accelerate. This is not borne out by the data. The CO2 warming after the lag would "smooth" out the period by preventing drops during a general warming trend. But it doesn't at all. The temperature drops and funnily enough the CO2 then drops.

It isn't that the lag relates only to rises only when there is a boundary between glaciation and interglacial period. It happens at all times. It isn't that the lag seems to be in any way related to further increases in temperature after the 800 years. It doesn't. You just need to look at the graphs, any graphs will do, to see that the theory just doesn't hold true at all.

But if you add in solar influence to the graphs, you will find a almost perfect correlation between flucuations in the sun's magnetic field and temperature, with the rise or fall being just after a rise or fall of the solar magnetic field. So if you have two different inputs into a system, both claimed to have an influence, and one follows the system change, which means it just could not be the cause of the system change, nor even an influence after it reached some critical increase after the lag (since the data does not support this even in the tiniest degrees), and another that pretty much always matches the system change being almost simultaneous but never lagging, what one is more likely to be the one actually influencing the system?

Regardless of the insults that are now starting to crop up again, perhaps you would like to show just one set of research that actually links CO2 in the atmosphere with warming. That should be extremely easy if Global Warming is so well established that the science discussion is really over.

As to erring on the side of caution, the trouble is, assuming man-made global warming, is not being cautious, it is a way to condemn massive parts of the world to death, starvation or at least poverty. By all means develop cleaner power. That will be good for the environment. After all we can't keep burning oil for ever. I understand we can power the earth for about 800 years on currently known coal reserves but oil really has well and truly reached its peak. But there is no point in developing say solar power where it actually just transfers the burning of fossil fuels from the ultimate power user to the solar power equipment generator. This too uses finite resources but in this case it consists of rare earth materials PLUS the energy needed to create not very good solar power generation (solar cells not the far more efficient concentration of heat) is very likely to be equal to the savings at the user end. That's not what I would call a good trade off. But have you ever used solar cells? You either spend a huge amount or you end up with choicing what electricity appliances should be available. That's a pretty pathetic choice.

I'm still waiting for someone to actually show just one little bit of proof that CO2 causes warming. Unfortunately, the insults are back so I fear that I'm not going to see an answer.


Regards


Richard

Which statements? Be specific rather than referring to the opening line.

Is it my statement that increases in CO2 lag temperature increases historically, by 800 years +-200 y? I've already posted links to 2 studies on this.
Or was it the remaining portion of my post which was in response to an opinion piece (written by somebody tied to the global warming industry), who stated that it doesn't matter if CO2 lagged temperature, because the remainder of the warming "could have" been caused by CO2. I suppose it could have, the remaining warming could have been caused by excess warming due to excess animal flatulence as well. Just because something "could have" happened, doesn't mean it did happen.

Something started the warming, the idea that this process abruptly stopped at t=800, and CO2 warming took over for the remaining of the warming smacks of desperation. It makes no sense whatsoever. I don't need a "government lab or university report" to tell me an argument contained within an opinion piece is flawed. Logic and critical thought takes care of that.


Morgan - are you still thinking I'm some other poster logging in under different names? I challenge you to back this up, show us all the IP addresses of my supposed "identities", and trace them back to show the relationship. Otherwise, please apologize and retract your allegation. An apology about calling me unintelligent would also be appreciated.

Also, please answer my previously posted question. Can you find a published study that has determined the effectiveness of CO2 at raising global temperatures, without relying on historical conditions? Because, otherwise, what you've written in various posts on this board, is "unsupported and unsupportable".

Canuck/RicS/JLowe

Which statements?

Any statements!

Nothing you state as though it was accepted fact is indeed anything other than dribble.

Greenland is melting. Coincidence?
Arctic ice is melting. Coincidence?
Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up. Coincidence?
The Yang Tse is drying up. Coincidence?
Glaciers in South America are disappearing. Coincidence?
Glaciers in Africa are disappearing. Coincidence?
Glaciers in Southern Asia are disappearing. Coincidence?

Amazing acts of god ... disappearing ice and no warming.
Earlier springs and no warming.
Later falls and no warming.

Which one of the trinity will appear to accept the Nobel Prize for proving that ice melts without application of heat?

There is a simple truth that you can not ignore unless you wish to call in faith-based melting. Nothing can violate the laws of chemistry and physics ... nothing. CO2 levels can not increase without an affect.

DA you wrote:

"CO2 levels can not increase without an affect."

In some ways carbon dioxide is a sideline. Levels of other things we are putting into the air pose just as big a threat. Not necessarily through global warming. Some control over the amount of stuff we put into the atmosphere is probably the ultimate goal. I tend to agree with what someone said in England. The exaggerated scenarios often used to illustrate GW have the potential to re-enforce many people's mistrust of science. So be careful DA.

I've stated before and I'll state yet again ... I've no use for fanatics on either side of the political spectrum.

I don't get my news from the right wing or the left wing. I go to peer reviewed journals.

Since I can't post them here on SAGG I post related articles from available websites.

Morgan - if your attempts at character assassination weren't so pathetic, they'd be funny. Either post the IP addresses proving I'm the three people you think I am, or stop with the feeble diversionary tactics.



The FACT is that in historical records CO2 increases lag temperature increases. I posted the links before, I'll do it here again in case you forgot http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728
From your posts it's quite obvious that you simply do not understand how correlation may not necessarily equal causation. When one factor A lags factor B both on the rise, and the fall - it's more likely than not, that factor A does not cause factor B. Why is that so hard for you to understand? This is basic science.


Greenland melting tells us nothing about the reason for the warming


Artic ice melting tells us nothing about the reason for the warming


Antarctic ice shelves breaking up tells us nothing about the reason for the warming


Yang Tse? Never heard of it. Perhaps you mean Yangtze. If it is drying up, it tells us nothing about the reason for the warming


Glaciers disappearing in South America, tells us nothing about the reason for the warming


Glaciers disappearing in Africa, tells us nothing about the reason for the warming


Glaciers disappearing in Southern Asia, tells us nothing about the reason for the warming.

Do you see a pattern here Morgan - you're focussed on the symptoms without caring what the cause is.



Let me make something very clear for you, since you've apparently missed it in my previous 12 posts. I'm not arguing that warming is not happening. The question is how much of the current warming is caused by increases in CO2? The fact that ice is melting doesn't mean a thing when you're trying to find the source of the warming.
Don't you see the difference there??? Please tell me you see the difference.



Honestly, how simplistic are you? Suggesting that CO2 is not the primary driver in the present warming, is NOT suggesting that the laws of chemistry and physics are violated. All I'm doing is suggesting that there may be another process at work. And for this I'm attacked like a Holocaust denier?

Here's a little hint Morgan - the world isn't black or white. There's a few shades of grey as well.

Canuck wrote:
"Greenland melting tells us nothing about the reason for the warming"
"Artic ice melting tells us nothing about the reason for the warming"
Antarctic ice shelves breaking up tells us nothing about the reason for the warming
Glaciers disappearing in South America, tells us nothing about the reason for the warming
Glaciers disappearing in Africa, tells us nothing about the reason for the warming
Glaciers disappearing in Southern Asia, tells us nothing about the reason for the warming.

Are you acknowledging that warming is taking place?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

Ummm, Morgan - did you read my last post? Or any of my posts?

Here's a quote if you missed it
"I'm not arguing that warming is not happening."

Isn't that clear enough for you? If not. YES, I acknowledge that warming is taking place. Happy now?

What I do question is (ready for another quote?)
"how much of the current warming is caused by increases in CO2?"

I have repeated this in almost every single post. I find it hard to believe you've somehow missed it.


Now that I answered your question. Perhaps you will answer mine (which I've asked numerous times, and you've chosen to ignore numerous times). Can you reference a study that has determined CO2 is able to be the primary cause of the current warming, without relying on historical data??

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

Geez, no wonder Vancouver has never won a Stanley Cup, this guy just doesn't get it. Something's going on that is rapidly destroying our ecosystem. No, we can't pinpoint what we've done to upset the applecart, but if we don't do something soon, our grandchildren will be choking on fumes and starving.
My son has travelled through Tokyo. Downtown, the Traffic Cops have "Oxygen Stations" where they can catch their breath. I think I speak for most people on this forum when I say, "Derrr".