106 replies to this topic

[The Average Joe]

Thanks Ape, good post. The chemicals I was wondering about from volcanism were bromine and chlorine, both of which are bad for ozone. All volcano types emit them. The question is how do you quantify their impact? How do you quantify the ozone depletion impact? Those are questions that are just now being asked in relation to GW.  When science is able to say with 95% certainty that GW is 10% ozone depletion, 20% solar variation, 5% cosmic radiation, 30% orbital variation and 10% co2 forcing (which would be insignificant), then I will believe them.

 

I urge you to look into the rampant misuse of raw datasets. it is not just an extremely rare occurrence. The satellite record is the most accurate we have, but it is a very short timeline.  It shows far less warming than predicted. Proxys are fine, and I certainly trust them to a point, but there are a lot of cross proxy blending and proxy "adjustments" (funny, those adjustments always make it seem we are warming more and faster...odd that).  Add in siting abnormalities (cough Marysville) and "smoothing" for vast areas where there is no measurement device and your "warming" starts falling into margin of error territory. Certainly not a crisis. BTW, America has only 6.6% of the global landmass, and only 2% of the global surface area, but guess where most of the measuring sites are... That won't skew GLOBAL numbers much...

 

Merry Christmas!

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Reading thru all these posts is fairly entertaining.  Some defend the science, some claim it's all a hoax, some post lists of irrelevant questions, some say it's all motivated by political corruption, some say the data is wrong, but no one seems to be able to set all the rhetoric aside and look at the basics and arrive at some fundamental conclusions.  Just a couple of thoughts:

 

- The deniers claim the current warming trend is part of some natural cycle.  For clarification, a "cycle" is a phenomenon where the magnitude varies up and down at somewhat regular intervals.  The rate at which temperatures are now rising is unprecedented, so can not be part of any kind of a cycle, let alone a natural one.  The same is true regarding CO2 levels.  The rate of increase of CO2 is unprecedented, so again, is not part of any cycle.   The Keeling Curve (CO2 concentration) actually shows two cycles in the data.  There is a daily cycle, and an annual cycle.  The causes for both are well known and understood.  The accelerating concentration increase is not cyclic and begs for an explanation.  Ice core data shows that the CO2 concentration increase began about the same time as the industrial revolution was getting underway.  Seems like the likely culprit. 

 

-  Connecting the dots seems rational.    Industrial revolution ---> increased CO2 concentration ---> greenhouse effect ---> climate change. 

 

-  When people are involved in some kind of disaster, at some point when the situation becomes dire, they won't care what the causes are.  They'll try anything to fix it.  For example, if people are in a burning building and the fire is getting closer to them, do you think they're standing around arguing about what caused the fire?  No.  They're trying to come up with anything that will help them put out the fire, or escape, or survive in some way.   Folks...the planet is "on fire".  It just hasn't arrived in your neighborhood yet.  Stand by... 

[Chris]

Hey GOG, here's that chart again, maybe third time is the charm...?   And so funny that you call us the "deniers".  So funny, and yet so sad....   Chris

 

 

50 million years ago, CO2 at about 500 ppm...
100 million years ago, CO2 at about 1800 ppm....
200 million years ago, CO2 at about 1500 ppm....
300 million years ago, CO2 at about 300 ppm....
400 million years ago, CO2 at about 3500 ppm...
500 million years ago, CO2 at about 4800 ppm....

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Chris - appreciate you sending the chart.  Please show me the point on the graph where the rate of CO2 increase is the same as what we've seen in the past 120 years.  And then show where it's a cyclic phenomenon.  I can't find it on the graph.

 

I can help with the math to evaluate these data if needed.  It involves calculus and derivatives.   

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Hey Chris - one more thing...I apologize to you for using the term "deniers".  I'd like to avoid ideological references so we can just focus on the data. If there is another term that better describes your view and state of mind, let me know what it is and I'll use it in the future.

[The Average Joe]

You miss the point completely. And you hang your entire argument on the fact that CO2 is increasing. I have never stated that CO2 is not increasing, it is. So what? Nor have I stated that man is not a cause of that increase. What I am refuting in that it has any significant impact on GW. Show the proof. We know from ice core proxies that CO2 lags hundreds of years behind temperature. Chris has linked a chart that shows CO2 and temperature do not correlate significantly over geologic timescales.

 

The planet is not on fire. It is having a modest temperature increase that is certainly not unprecedented. The temperature varied much more only a few hundred years ago during the LIA and MWP. No excess CO2 then...

 

Again, your argument falls flat because there is no EVIDENCE to support your claim that CO2 is an evil greenhouse gas that forces temperatures to increase, especially in observed concentrations. HOWEVER, there is basic scientific fact that temperature change will change the behavior of a gas. AND there is plenty of evidence of temperature swings without CO2 forcing and CO2 swings without manmade interference. When you can accurately describe the natural processes responsible for these "phenomenon"  then we can eliminate some pretty substantial variables in the inaccurate GW models.

 

Again, if the Earth temp increases by 1 or even 2 degrees (regardless if caused by man or not) so what?  That is not unprecedented. Much larger swings have happened in the past. We would do far better as a species with a warmer planet than a colder one. And remember, colder is more common historically than warmer. I feel pretty fortunate to live in this interglacial period.  I get to enjoy Yosemite without glaciers!

 

As for irrelevant questions, apparently you have your ideological blinders on as those are entirely relevant questions any scientist should ask before claiming CO2 to be the driving force in climate. That you are unable to answer the most basic of them indicates the weakness of your argument.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Hi Joe, Comments back to you:

-  I miss the point? Hardly.  I think you're missing my point. The issues isn't a change in temperature by a few degrees. The issue is the increasing rate at which the temperature and CO2 concentrations are changing. My posts have been consistent regarding this (scroll back and note the word "rate" always appears). To view this phenomenon, there are two math analyses that will reveal the effect clearly. Either do a Fourier transform of the data and observe the data rate change in the frequency domain.  Alternatively, you can take the 1st and 2nd derivatives (manipulations done with calculus) of the raw data to reveal the accelerating rate of change. The accelerating rate of change is unprecedented and is what has scientists worried. Will temperatures arrive at some level that will have devastating economic effects on some portions of the world? Can we mitigate these effects to a manageable level? All of it is worrisome.

-  Where is the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Arrhenius first theorized it in the late 1800's. Alexander Graham Bell discussed it in some of his work in the early 1900's.  Recent in-depth studies are far too complex to post verbatim in this forum.  Read this article - http://geosci.uchica...TodayRT2011.pdf   It provides conclusive evidence regarding the link between CO2 and the greenhouse effect (I've read it and agree with the author's conclusions)

-  You are correct when you say, "...there is basic scientific fact that temperature change will change the behavior of a gas. These phenomena are described by Charles' Law (1787) and Guy-Lussac's Law (1809).  In addition, if you reduce the temperature of a gas below it's boiling point, a change of state occurs.  It becomes a liquid. However, none of these behavioral changes have anything to do with the discussion of the greenhouse effect or climate change and as such, are irrelevant.

 

-  Finally, the climate change issue is particularly troublesome when the effects eventually cause serious economic and social problems in parts of the world.  One simple example - as the planet warms, ocean levels will rise (they already are) and substantial portions of land mass will go underwater.  Think what will happen when parts of Florida become inundated.  The people who lose property (real and personal) will expect the gov't to provide relief and compensation.  FEMA will rush in and money will rain down.  Money, BTW, that comes from everyone's pocket via taxes.  Once our kids figure out they're inheriting a global mess, they're going to be furious.

 

[Chris]

Chris - appreciate you sending the chart.  Please show me the point on the graph where the rate of CO2 increase is the same as what we've seen in the past 120 years.  And then show where it's a cyclic phenomenon.  I can't find it on the graph.

 

I can help with the math to evaluate these data if needed.  It involves calculus and derivatives.   

Come on GOG, you keep talking about Calculus, Fourier transforms, Keeling, derivatives, and offering to help us do the math.....?  The math, it's been done already but you are ignoring it.  Keeling is only since the late 50's and only on one place on Earth.  CO2 has only been measured by instruments for a very short time in human history.  Your rate has only been measured since when...?  The 1960's or late 50's..?   You AGW fan boys are looking at such a small data set, incomplete of course, and in such a short period of time and coming to grand conclusions and speculations that we are doomed because of CO2 and it is all man's fault.  Chris

 

p.s.  I did take a year of calculus in college and did very well thank you.   And you can keep calling me a "denier" and I'll keep calling you guys "AGW fan boys" 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Chris - We have direct data describing atmospheric CO2 concentration that extends back about 800,000 years.  The last 57 years (referred to as the Keeling Curve) showed the concentration increasing and the rate of increase was also increasing (2nd derivative).  This is the unprecedented part.  A curve fit shows the data to be logarithmic and not exponential or sinusoidal, which means that extrapolations will continue to rise at an ever increasing rate.  Not good news. 

 

The first notable result of the warming will be a rise in the mean sea level.  It's already started.  This change will have substantial economic impact.  Forward thinking governments and agencies are already making plans to address rising sea levels.  See this link - http://sealevel.clim...responses/plans  for a list of states and specific planning that is being done.  Backward thinking governments, agencies, and 3rd world countries will just sit there and watch the water rise thinking it's the work of some divine power.  They will be SOL and looking at the 1st world countries to come and literally bail them out.  Who is going to cover the costs?  As I've said before, GW isn't an environmental problem, it's an economic problem.

 

One last thought and perhaps an update for you regarding the way CO2 concentration data is currently being collected.  There are a little more than 200 CO2 monitoring stations around the world.  The ownership and operation of them is divided among NOAA, NASA, foreign governments, universities, and private corporations. Even Exxon-Mobile has one.  The public data published from all of them correlate well.  So any thoughts about the data being "manipulated" and "skewed" to favor some ideological result is most likely a myth.  The monitoring equipment uses NDIR (non-dispersive infra-red) absorption sensors to determine CO2 levels.  A couple of the more advanced stations also include gas chromatography capabilities.  Most of the stations undergo hourly calibration to assure accuracy.The company I work for manufactures NDIR sensing elements at our German division, so I get an inside look.

[Chris]

Hey GOG.....  How is this for "backward" thinking.....?   Can't think of any human beings around during the times listed below to influence the CO2 concentration.....  Or maybe all of those Dinosaurs really had a penchant for passing gas....?   A lot of gas...!  Or maybe it was Volcanism, the tilt of the Earth, ice ages, warming events, the proximity of the Earth to the Sun, or maybe just the Sun alone...?   Sure was not humans, not then, not now.  If anything, we need to build CO2 generators all over the planet to rebuild back to historical levels.....!  This current CO2 downtrend has me worried....!

 

50 million years ago, CO2 at about 500 ppm...

100 million years ago, CO2 at about 1800 ppm....

200 million years ago, CO2 at about 1500 ppm....

300 million years ago, CO2 at about 300 ppm....

400 million years ago, CO2 at about 3500 ppm...

500 million years ago, CO2 at about 4800 ppm....

 

And you can entertain yourself all you want with talk of 2nd derivatives, logs, sines, cosines, tangents, rates, or curves (from only a 50 year data set) but it means nothing because the chart below proves your theory wrong.  Every time.  And if you work for a company that sells sensors to detect CO2 in the atmosphere does that not mean you have some skin in this game, this shell game, this scam....?   Interesting..... Chris  

 

 

[nomad]

Chris, Joe and GoG should get a room and blast the heat and a/c at the same time and see who comes out alive!

[2 Aces]

Shhh...let them continue to *troll each other*....with any luck this fascinating thread can go another year or so !!!

[The Average Joe]

-  I miss the point? Hardly.  I think you're missing my point. The issues isn't a change in temperature by a few degrees. The issue is the increasing rate at which the temperature and CO2 concentrations are changing.
 
The "rate" of temperature change is not increasing. The rate of CO2 addition is. Soooo?

-  Where is the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
 
I never asked for evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  I am well aware of that property. It is a far less effective greenhouse gas than say, oh, water vapor or methane.
 
-  You are correct when you say, "...there is basic scientific fact that temperature change will change the behavior of a gas.  However, none of these behavioral changes have anything to do with the discussion of the greenhouse effect or climate change and as such, are irrelevant.
 
Not so. Since oceans are responsible for 90% of the atmospheric carbon removal, and CO2 solubility in liquid  changes with temperature, it is relevant.
 
-  Finally, the climate change issue is particularly troublesome when the effects eventually cause serious economic and social problems in parts of the world.  One simple example - as the planet warms, ocean levels will rise (they already are) and substantial portions of land mass will go underwater. 
 
Yes, they are rising. Approximately 9 inches every 100 years.  Historically, the oceans have risen over 360 feet since the last ice age.  Meh. Plenty of ruins underwater already. Over hundreds of years, people/civilization will adapt. This is NOT like the immediate re-population of refugees..   see chart here:  http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c7fadafb970b-pi  Note the "rapid" rise in the 1950s.
 
Nor is the "rate" of change of sea levels or temperature unprecedented. (Bold mine)
 
In example was an analysis that Emiliani published in 1975 of some deep-sea cores from the Gulf of Mexico. Thanks to unusually clear and distinct layers of silt, he found evidence of a remarkable event around 11,600 years ago: a rise of sea level at a rate of meters per decade.(42) Another compelling example was a 1981 study of a few sediment cores that had accumulated very rapidly, giving excellent time resolution. They showed a startling cooling around 11-12,000 years ago — as much as 7-10°C in less than a thousand years — before the warming resumed. One expert warned that temperatures in the past had sometimes jumped 5°C in as little as 50 years.(43*)
 
As for getting a room, isn't that what the forums are here for? Certainly open to all for discussion. What's your take Nomad? Any particular argument you find compelling?

Troll? Dang. And here I thought I was offering compelling questions and thoughtful argument. <sigh> Oh well, time to get back under the bridge for the Folsom Trolls Anonymous meeting...
 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Hi Chris,   couple thoughts:

 

-  I'm not proposing a theory.  Simply reviewing data.  No theory involved.

 

-  You aren't seeing the difference between "magnitude" and "rate of change".  This is a fundamental in differential calculus. 

 

-  You are correct.  The idea that a division of my company manufactures CO2 sensor components doesn't put much of my skin in the game.  However, It gives me access to insights a layman might not have. 

 

-  Finally, arguing validity of data and causes of the phenomenon is moot at this point.  Climate change and warming effects are underway...now.  The issue is how do we react to it.  The GW effects will create significant strain on economic systems that most of the world is ill equipped to handle.  It's going to be a big problem.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe,  the inconsistency of your posts is a little irritating.  I'll cite one example:

 

In one post you say, "...there is no EVIDENCE to support your claim that CO2 is an evil greenhouse gas..."

 

In a more recent post, you say, "I never asked for evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  I'm well aware of that property."

 

Make up your mind.

 

Look,  it's clear we'll never agree.  Maybe we should get together in 10 years and see what's going on with these issues.  I'm patient and can wait.  Talk to you then.