An Inconvenient Truth

[snowsure]

Having studied many of the peer-reviewed articles on climate change and the causes of it, my opinion has now changed. My standpoint was one of "GW will cause GC thus ending this inter-glacial."

I have always assumed that it is AGW coinciding with, and forcing, natural cycles.

However, now that I have arrived at an opinion that GW will not cause GC, I do not feel as though anything is resolved. Instead of freezing to death I assume that we will all die due to flood, fire or plague.

Glad I spent all my time researching this!

[Devonian]

"Irrefutable" may technically be an accurate term, but it isn't synonymous with "is definitely true". New evidence turns up all the time and can cast doubt on what was previously accepted as fact, or thought to be true.

The existence of God cannot be refuted; that doesn't mean God exists. Similarly, the premise that there is no God is irrefutable, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a god.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" and "scientifically accepted" are better terms, though even then, in future a lot of contrary evidence might turn up. Probabilities favour the scenario that it won't, but you never know for certain with scientific advances.

Where I do agree is that the evidence is sufficiently large to suggest that it is worthwhile taking action to significantly reduce the extent to which humans pollute the environment.

I agree with a lot of this.

So, as I've said twice I think, I'll not use 'irrefutable' again

But, I don't agree there aren't any truths, or that there's more than a very small chance (frankly my view is there's no chance (the two lines of evidence thing) - though I accept that's not a view held here) that the rise in CO2 concentration seen in the last century or so isn't anthropogenic in origin.

Nor, by definition, are 'facts' often overturned (not since, at least, the scientific method became used widely). Thus the basics of geometry have stood the test of time and I don't think a triange with angles of greater than 180 is going to turn up any time soon (at least in two dimensions - I'm not good at multiple dimensions...). Likewise I don't think we're going to discover recent ghg's aren't anthro ghgs. This might no be irrefutable but it's silly, imo, to think what's 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'scientifically tested and accepted' is more that only very occasionally found to be wrong. For the anthro ghg idea to be wrong not only do anthro ghgs have to be found not to be happening (but how? They're irrefutable just reality) but some other equally big other source found - ie (to my mind) there would be double the CO2 we see being produced, or there is some vast unkown sink of CO2 - which somehow has been missed. No, lets not second guess those who's scientific life is to study and figure out these things.

I guess we're getting close to Gallileo syndrome territory. Those with alternative ideas tend to point to him in defense of their ideas saying 'yeah, you said that about Galileo, but he was persecuted but right'. But, the reality is, there are very few Galileos...

[Devonian]

I think you're missing my point, somewhat. I won't explain it to you like a child, because you clearly deserve more respect than that, but I do urge you to read my posts more carefully.

Oh, and btw, the founders of geometry also believed in the Soctrates principle that everything could be explained by pure thought alone without the need for experimental evidence. I'm fairly sure that that's a line you wouldn't subscribe, too, even though it was written by the same people who 'discovered' geometry.

Before I forget the tenets of geometry changed, with regards to the natural world, when Benoit Mandelbrot wrote a paper called the "Length of the Coastline of Britain" (or something like that) Natural geometry has never quite been the same, since: I'm sure you've heard of fractals . . . .

No need to be patronising.

I stopped using the word irrefutable - OK?

Now I want to see evidence, any evidence that stands test, that the rise in CO2 we've seen isn't anthropogenic in origin.

[Devonian]

I can't provide it because I can't find any. Did I ever say any different?

This is solely on the basis of that I cannot find argument in the isotope case. Every other case put forward with regard to anthropological source is suspect - in my opinion; there is enough to suspect it could be natural in origin if one ignores the isotope evidence.

As I cannot, currently, find fault with this evidence, your assertion that some CO2 concentration's have increased because of man's actions. I see no evidence for quantification of the significance of this. Only that the ratio's of said isotopes have changed.

But how can billions of tonnes of fossil fuels be burnt (at an increasing rate), producing billions tonnes of CO2 and this CO2 just vanish? Yet, at the same time (the same time) we're to believe that another vast peterbation of the CO2 cycle happens that actually account for the rise (at an increasing rate...) in CO2 concentration? And that this CO2 somehow looks as if it came from fossil fuels (but it didn't)? Imo, that's an idea that makes no sense.

[Methuselah]

But how can billions of tonnes of fossil fuels be burnt (at an increasing rate), producing billions tonnes of CO2 and this CO2 just vanish? Yet, at the same time (the same time) we're to believe that another vast peterbation of the CO2 cycle happens that actually account for the rise (at an increasing rate...) in CO2 concentration? And that this CO2 somehow looks as if it came from fossil fuels (but it didn't)? Imo, that's an idea that makes no sense.

I couldn't have put it better myself, Devonian...I appreciate where Mark is coming from regarding logic; but, what's the point of a finely-tuned logical argument if there's no supporting evidence for its conclusion?

I'm sure that lawyers and barristers have come-up with the most wonderfully concocted excursions into to logic, in defence of their client - only to lose the case on the basis of evidence, or the lack thereof?

I'd guess that that the Earth goes round the Sun is not irrefutable according to logic...But I also suspect that the supporting evidence is pretty overwhelming?

[Dawlish]

I am not saying that it's not true. Succinctly, because to be honest, I've had enough, do not claim to be 100% sure about something that you claim has a scientific basis. The authors would not claim this to be so, so why would you wish to claim this on their behalf?

And if you read through my posts you'll see I am not arguing against the obvious truths of what you say, I am arguing that the naieve perspective that anything tagged with science must, necessarily, be true by default.

That's it.

In his defence, Devonian did say that he rescinded the "irrefutable" stance, a few posts back Mark. I think he has realised that "irrefutable" is not even half-decent science. As you say, the authors of the reports that he is quoting would fall off their chairs laughing at the suggestion that their findings were irrefutable!

By the way; saying; "that's it", never finishes an argument; it just stirs your opponent into one last comment - and so it should!

Paul

Edited June 27, 2006 by Dawlish

[crimsone]

the Soctrates principle that everything could be explained by pure thought alone without the need for experimental evidence

I would subscribe to it. Of course, there would be very few human beings capable of working this way. Stephen Hawkins is one of them to some extent, as was Nikola Tesla to a greater extent.

Edited June 27, 2006 by crimsone

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

It is really interesting, BFTP and I'd like to see the figures. You couldn't post a link, or a file with the email contents in could you, to verify its provenance?

Paul

Paul

Sorry been mad at work. I have been using DATA from UAH and OHIO State university, science daily etc etc all available on internet, can't post a link as useless on computers. Indeed current data of last 8 years paints a different overall picture as stated and re 1940 being tropos peak it was up to '96 but has been easily surpassed since then. Re Devons statement he is correct re UAH satellite and its corroborated and corrected data and that is what I have used. Worth looking at graph that shows temp correlation with solar magnetic 11 and 22 year cycle, the match is stark

As we are all still on topic of CO2, certain research shows that the effect of co2 'warming' is grossly exaggerated as water vapour seems to have been cut out of the equation. I would like to post some workings out with water vapout effects added in.

GHG % in atmos Natural manmade

Water Vapour 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%

CO2 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%

METHANE 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%

NITROUS OXIDE 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%

CFCs etc 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%

total 100 99.72 0.28

On this basis it is very arguable that CO2 is not affecting/causing the warming. Again these figures and proposals are from sites/origins I have mentioned above.

Yes one must say the planet is warming...it has been for about 18000 years generally. Interesting to say the least.

regards

BFTP

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I haven't managed to dig out the isotope profiles (to connect the argument) and I wonder what sort of read they might make. I often see quantifications that best fit an argument; words such as billions or millions - however, when placed in context, this is meaningless when you consider that the mass of the atmosphere is around 5000 trillion metric tons: so for a pro-CO2/temp correlated argument to consider that billions of tons is placed into the atmosphere, it must be expected that the retort will be that it is a mere small fraction of the mass of the atmosphere.

The position to consider, in my opinion, is not the quantity of man-made chemicals free in the atmopshere (it is often incorrectly assumed the GHG's are universally distributed across our atmosphere, and it is nearly always omitted that natural process do soak up some of our mess) it is the sensitivity of the worlds ecosystem to such a change.

Thoughts, anyone?

Mark

Sorry table didn't come out as posted..chaos theory

Just throwing in a point that water vapour if factored into the equation massively dwarfs the effect of the other GHG and is nigh on totally natural. I believe the report submitted by the IPCC in 2001 in relation to GW did not factor water vapour into its equation...why? Water vapour accounts for 95% of atmospheric GHGs.

Its a fair point you raise in latter paragraph as distribution is varied around the atmosphere and I suppose that's what makes it chaotic but I suggest it is a fair point to highlight the amount of manmade forcing because that is what is being suggested is the cause of global warming. IMO 0.117% is unlikely to be the cause...CO2 is not the only GHG......

regards

BFTP

[Devonian]

Paul

Sorry been mad at work. I have been using DATA from UAH and OHIO State university, science daily etc etc all available on internet, can't post a link as useless on computers. Indeed current data of last 8 years paints a different overall picture as stated and re 1940 being tropos peak it was up to '96 but has been easily surpassed since then. Re Devons statement he is correct re UAH satellite and its corroborated and corrected data and that is what I have used. Worth looking at graph that shows temp correlation with solar magnetic 11 and 22 year cycle, the match is stark

As we are all still on topic of CO2, certain research shows that the effect of co2 'warming' is grossly exaggerated as water vapour seems to have been cut out of the equation. I would like to post some workings out with water vapout effects added in.

GHG % in atmos Natural manmade

Water Vapour 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%

CO2 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%

METHANE 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%

NITROUS OXIDE 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%

CFCs etc 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%

total 100 99.72 0.28

On this basis it is very arguable that CO2 is not affecting/causing the warming. Again these figures and proposals are from sites/origins I have mentioned above.

Yes one must say the planet is warming...it has been for about 18000 years generally. Interesting to say the least.

regards

BFTP

Got a source for these, frankly, incredible figures? Who has worked out the relative importances of the various ghg's to THREE decimal places? Is it your work? I tell you, that kind of accuracy isn't obtainable.

[Devonian]

From here as posted by Devonian as a source a few pages back.

So, Devonian, even your sources are capable of two decimal places. Even if you round BTFP figures up to the level which, apparently, you're prepared to accept, BTFP's figures still support his argument.

I can't verify nor validate those figures, however, because we don't know the source.

Not, that's not the point. The point is there are overlaps which make it hard to work out the precise effect of ghg's. It would be a strange world indeed if everything was equally hard or easy to measure.

This is a good article on the subject

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

From here as posted by Devonian as a source a few pages back.

So, Devonian, even your sources are capable of two decimal places. Even if you round BTFP figures up to the level which, apparently, you're prepared to accept, BTFP's figures still support his argument.

I can't verify nor validate those figures, however, because we don't know the source.

Again

Can't post links but google search of Global Warming and Water Vapour will bring up the sites clearlight .com etc etc. Worth reading Dr Tim PATTERSON paper on it too done in Jan 2005 can be picked up on www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx.

Devonian even if you can't accept the accuracy of the figures rounded up or down they are close and the main post is intended to HIGHLIGHT the omittance of water vapour. The IPCC totally ignored the contribution of water vapour as GHG, I am throwing up question why? There has been lots of recent research on this matter over last few years as verified by Dr Tim PATTERSON and the suggestion is that it is THE real GHG. Yes others have affect but the suggestion is very minor and would not have caused warm up of the last century of 0.6c.

BFTP

[Devonian]

OK, so if we can summarise the point as being that if distributions for a given population (in this case atmospheric gases) fit too neatly then we have to suppose error, then at what point would you accept (i) that isotope evidence, and (ii) the atmospheric gase evidence?

I presume that you can accept that 0.03% is significant for the isotope evidence, so we shall agree that we can measure the sub atomic neutrons within a specified molecule floating around a non-uniformly distributed atmosphere to 1/100th of a percent, but we can't measure the quantities of the various gases in the atmosphere to 1/1000th of a percent.

Am I correct in thinking this?

No, we're talking not about measureing the gasses (which can be done precisely), but measureing their gheffect.

Read the article. The point is that the way ghg's absorb LW radiation and the wavlengths of such absorbed radiation overlap. So, ascribing precise amount of GHeffect to each gas is difficult.

However, I am assuming that's what BFTP's table was trying to show, becuase it most certainly does not show percentage of various gasses in the atmosphere.

[Devonian]

Again

Can't post links but google search of Global Warming and Water Vapour will bring up the sites clearlight .com etc etc. Worth reading Dr Tim PATTERSON paper on it too done in Jan 2005 can be picked up on www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx.

Devonian even if you can't accept the accuracy of the figures rounded up or down they are close and the main post is intended to HIGHLIGHT the omittance of water vapour. The IPCC totally ignored the contribution of water vapour as GHG, I am throwing up question why? There has been lots of recent research on this matter over last few years as verified by Dr Tim PATTERSON and the suggestion is that it is THE real GHG. Yes others have affect but the suggestion is very minor and would not have caused warm up of the last century of 0.6c.

BFTP

Why? I'll tell you why.

Because Dr Patterson is so wrong it's difficult to know where to start. The IPCC don't ingore WV. But you need to understand WV is a feedback ghg not a forcing ghg. There is so much water on this planet it's allways available. But the amount in the atmophere is a RESPONSE to temperature not a CAUSE of temperature. How else could it be otherwise?

Also the graph shown below this comment "A second example is that of North American land temperature trends. The very close correlation between sunspot number and temperature is very clear. At present there have been literally hundreds of studies carried out showing a similar correlation." is plain wrong. Check this out to see http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf and check out especially figure 3.

There are literally only a handfull of scientists churning out this kind of stuff. Several of them provide article for TCS. Others have blogs (McIntyre, Viser) others, err, well the same names just keep cropping up.

[Methuselah]

Here's a list of all the things that have been attributed to global warming:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Is there anything that hasn't been put down to GW!

[drgl]

Here's a list of all the things that have been attributed to global warming:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Is there anything that hasn't been put down to GW!

very good!!! I don't know the accuracy of some(any) of the links but there seems to be a theory and counter theory for just abount anything and everything!!

[Dawlish]

Paul

Sorry been mad at work. I have been using DATA from UAH and OHIO State university, science daily etc etc all available on internet, can't post a link as useless on computers. Indeed current data of last 8 years paints a different overall picture as stated and re 1940 being tropos peak it was up to '96 but has been easily surpassed since then. Re Devons statement he is correct re UAH satellite and its corroborated and corrected data and that is what I have used. Worth looking at graph that shows temp correlation with solar magnetic 11 and 22 year cycle, the match is stark

As we are all still on topic of CO2, certain research shows that the effect of co2 'warming' is grossly exaggerated as water vapour seems to have been cut out of the equation. I would like to post some workings out with water vapout effects added in.

GHG % in atmos Natural manmade

Water Vapour 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%

CO2 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%

METHANE 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%

NITROUS OXIDE 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%

CFCs etc 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%

total 100 99.72 0.28

On this basis it is very arguable that CO2 is not affecting/causing the warming. Again these figures and proposals are from sites/origins I have mentioned above.

Yes one must say the planet is warming...it has been for about 18000 years generally. Interesting to say the least.

regards

BFTP

Hi BFTP,

To post a link, just go to the site, make the browser thingy blue at the top of your internet page where it says "address" and copy it (press the Ctrl key and the "C" key at the same time).

That'll store it, then go back to your netweather post and press the Ctrl key and the "V" key - het presto! Link inserted. Instead of using Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, you can click on the browser, make it blue and right click your mouse. That will give you the option of saving it.

Easy eh? Have a go. It's a skill worth using. I'd really like to see the data you've referred to; it's hard for me, or someone else, as we'd have to navigate all the sites and we still might not get the bit you mean us to see!

Hope this helps.

Regards, Paul

Edited June 29, 2006 by Dawlish

[pottyprof]

Hi BFTP,

To post a link, just go to the site, make the browser thingy blue at the top of your internet page where it says "address" and copy it (press the Ctrl key and the "C" key at the same time).

That'll store it, then go back to your netweather post and press the Ctrl key and the "V" key - het presto! Link inserted. Instead of using Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, you can click on the browser, make it blue and right click your mouse. That will give you the option of saving it.

Easy eh? Have a go. It's a skill worth using. I'd really like to see the data you've referred to; it's hard for me, or someone else, as we'd have to navigate all the sites and we still might not get the bit you mean us to see!

Hope this helps.

Regards, Paul

that is if the microshaft stuff wansts to play.. if you have some of the updates you will be that secure youll be lucky if your cursor is visible..

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Devonian

Plain wrong to your sources. Literally only a handful of scientists churning out this kind of stuff? Silly me I must be reading the same names but only spelled differently.

There is plenty of evidence out there from ice cores etc which highlight that temps globally do NOT respond to CO2 atmospheric amounts.

BFTP

Hi BFTP,

To post a link, just go to the site, make the browser thingy blue at the top of your internet page where it says "address" and copy it (press the Ctrl key and the "C" key at the same time).

That'll store it, then go back to your netweather post and press the Ctrl key and the "V" key - het presto! Link inserted. Instead of using Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, you can click on the browser, make it blue and right click your mouse. That will give you the option of saving it.

Easy eh? Have a go. It's a skill worth using. I'd really like to see the data you've referred to; it's hard for me, or someone else, as we'd have to navigate all the sites and we still might not get the bit you mean us to see!

Hope this helps.

Regards, Paul

#

Paul

Many thanks I'll try it at home as I know my work PC won't enable me to do that...thanks again

BFTP

Pete

Nice one

[Methuselah]

I must agree, that ALL pre-industrial episodes of warming were almost certainly not the result of anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. How could they have been?

That said, by way of a thought experiment: if I were to somehow quadrupel the amount of atmospheric CO2 overnight, I'm guessing (Based on some pretty concrete scientific reasoning, I think?) that the global climate would respond in a somewhat predictable way?

Can anyone put-foward a mechanism by-which an 'instant' quadrupeling of CO2 would of-itself cool the planet?

Edited July 1, 2006 by Pete Tattum

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I must agree, that ALL pre-industrial episodes of warming were almost certainly not the result of anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. How could they have been?

That said, by way of a thought experiment: if I were to somehow quadrupel the amount of atmospheric CO2 overnight, I'm guessing (Based on some pretty concrete scientific reasoning, I think?) that the global climate would respond in a somewhat predictable way?

Can anyone put-foward a mechanism by-which an 'instant' quadrupeling of CO2 would of-itself cool the planet?

No

BFTP

[Dawlish]

I must agree, that ALL pre-industrial episodes of warming were almost certainly not the result of anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. How could they have been?

That said, by way of a thought experiment: if I were to somehow quadrupel the amount of atmospheric CO2 overnight, I'm guessing (Based on some pretty concrete scientific reasoning, I think?) that the global climate would respond in a somewhat predictable way? :blink:

Can anyone put-foward a mechanism by-which an 'instant' quadrupeling of CO2 would of-itself cool the planet?

Nope. Beyond me too! It would cool the upper atmosphere, in time, but not the troposphere!

Paul

[kippure]

I must agree, that ALL pre-industrial episodes of warming were almost certainly not the result of anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. How could they have been?

That said, by way of a thought experiment: if I were to somehow quadrupel the amount of atmospheric CO2 overnight, I'm guessing (Based on some pretty concrete scientific reasoning, I think?) that the global climate would respond in a somewhat predictable way?

Can anyone put-foward a mechanism by-which an 'instant' quadrupeling of CO2 would of-itself cool the planet?

Arent there tons of methane laying doment on the sea beds around the world and isnt the cold waters that keep them stable. Only when the water warms they become dangerously unstable rise to the surface catch fire and you have a burning ocean. A by product of this reaction is alot of C02 :blink:

And with warming oceans this seems to be happening more often. Drilling on oil rigs has acidential disturbed these methene patches which are essentialy rotting vegetation from run off from land.

[Dawlish]

Arent there tons of methane laying doment on the sea beds around the world and isnt the cold waters that keep them stable. Only when the water warms they become dangerously unstable rise to the surface catch fire and you have a burning ocean. A by product of this reaction is alot of C02

And with warming oceans this seems to be happening more often. Drilling on oil rigs has acidential disturbed these methene patches which are essentialy rotting vegetation from run off from land.

There are more than "tons" Kippure, there are unbelievably vast quantities of mathane and you are right, the cold ocean depths are effectively imprisoning it.

This is one of the theorised positive feedback mechanisms of GW, and could (stress "could") cause GW to accelerate further, especially as the oceans are, possibly, warming faster than the land. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and would contribute to even more warming, even with relatively small releases.

I still can't think how releases of CO2 could possibly cool the earth.

Paul

Edited July 2, 2006 by Dawlish

[Methuselah]

I still can't think how releases of CO2 could possibly cool the earth.

Paul

No, neither can I!