50 Days To Save The World

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

No, GW,not quite as you suspect.

Many 'deniers', as you call them (us) don't take a whole raft of man made induced positive climate temperature feedback assumptions surrounding CO2 as fact. On that basis 'we' cannot be in denial of what is, by such definition, still just a hypothesis that depends upon such assumptions verifying in the real world.

Edited November 4, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

What about that time way back, when most of Planet Earth's landmasses were in one lump called Pangea?? Wasn't the land (at one time) largely concentrated close to the equator, both poles being open water? Could that situation not account for a warmer epoch - irrespective of atmospheric GHG concentrations?

That said GHGs were/are still GHGs...

[Gray-Wolf]

What about that time way back, when most of Planet Earth's landmasses were in one lump called Pangaea?? Wasn't the land (at one time) largely concentrated close to the equator, both poles being open water? Could that situation not account for a warmer epoch - irrespective of atmospheric GHG concentrations?

That said GHG's were/are still GHGs...

This is why I choose to focus upon time periods which are not too far removed from our current continental positioning and 'setup'.

We will never 'replicate' perfectly our current configuration of land vs water so as to ensure that circulatory systems are not that dissimilar to todays but if we stay close to today (geologically speaking) surely we are better able to draw reasonable comparisons?(the joy of the big brush strokes again).

If we stay as close to our current global setup as possible then the only differences that there will be are the atmospheric mix of gasses (Surely many of the periodic, natural drivers were the similar throughout recent geological time and so too the planetary forcings) so any major difference temps would surely hint at a causal relationship with the atmospheres potential to hold onto ,or shed, heat with that particular 'blend' of atmosphere?

Again I would say that if any 'major driver' could be brought forward as being at play in each of the epoch with temps anoms (that would also cause the extent and longevity of the global temp Anom) I would certainly listen to it and be willing to update my understanding if I found it a more plausible 'causal factor' than the 'greenhouse' effect in producing the temp anoms.

[jethro]

But if we apply your broad brush strokes, the recent warming will disappear. Nothing in the historical records gives the details we have about today, the last 200 years probably wouldn't even register a blip - how do we therefore know today is unique when comparing to the broad brush strokes of yesteryear?

[Methuselah]

Thanks for that, Ian...I do believe that we are on a similar wavelength... :unsure:

I only used that example to show that, even as 'believers' (however sceptical we are) in the AGW theory, we already know that the Globe has been warmer (far warmer!) before, and that said warming often had sod-all to do with atmospheric CO₂. It's just that such facts are not the earth-shattering AGW-theory-busting thoughts of inspired genius that some of the 'sceptics' seem to think...

My question concerns the here and now: to what extent does our additional carbon-dioxide have on global temperatures? And, until someone shows me some proper scientific peer-reviewed evidence that anthropogenic CO₂ is not a greenhouse gas, I'll continue to 'assume' that it is...

And, I ask again: what are the negative feedbacks that climatologists are mistakenly assuming to be positive? It seems a fair question.

But if we apply your broad brush strokes, the recent warming will disappear. Nothing in the historical records gives the details we have about today, the last 200 years probably wouldn't even register a blip - how do we therefore know today is unique when comparing to the broad brush strokes of yesteryear?

That, Jethro, is a fair question.

But, what do we do? By that logic, both the Little Ice-Age and the MWP will also disappear??

[laserguy]

That, Jethro, is a fair question.

But, what do we do? By that logic, both the Little Ice-Age and the MWP will also disappear??

Um,I thought the MWP already had disappeared off a certain 'hockeystick'?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I know I said I wasn't going to continue this particular aspect of the debate, but I'm going to suppress my exasperation and try one last time.

I know C-Bob has me as a broken record and V.P. is awaiting evidence of CO2's past impact on temps (hope I'm right there though I'd thought that I'd covered that ground as far as anyone can with the data available?) but I cannot move on from my 'sticking point' of past climates that illustrate that where CO2 was high, temp was also elevated....

I think the key to what you are saying here is in parentheses - "I'd covered that ground as far as anyone can with the data available."

The point is that the available data are not sufficient to draw the conclusions that you are drawing.

Using the reliable data from the past 100 years we cannot conclusively prove that the current warming is anything to do with man's activities, but the current assumption is that man has an effect. That effect has not been quantified - that is to say that there are quite wildly varying assumptions as to the degree of our influence.

Your conclusion that CO2 amplified warming in the past is based upon the assumption that CO2 is amplifying warming now, but how much is that amplification?

Since the paleoclimatological data are not detailed enough to reliably resolve timeframes of 500 years, let alone only 100 years, how can they be used as a comparison with the present day?

We can't derive conclusions about CO2's effects from paleoclimatological data without first assuming that the conclusions we have drawn from the last 100 years' data are correct.

So basically you are saying that paleoclimatological data proves CO2 causes warming because modern data proves CO2 causes warming, which is proved by the paleoclimatological data.

It is not logically sound - it is a circular argument.

Your final sentence - "where CO2 was high, temp was also elevated" - is not in dispute. Clearly, CO2 and temperatures peak with some kind of correlation. But, correlation does not prove causation!

I sit in front of my computer while I'm cooking dinner - these events are correlated. Does my sitting in front of the computer cause my food to cook?

V.P. and C-Bob may find it easier to convince me as to why the relationship between temp/CO2...cannot be extended to into geological time if they brought forward drivers that are imposing enough...to explain the climates that we see...without relying [on] GHG's, and their properties, to maintain them.

We have brought forward drivers that are imposing enough. We know for a fact that hysteresis is an absolutely integral part of the climate system.

With the leaky integrator we have shown that it is possible to recreate 20th Century temperature trends using nothing but natural factors and the basic principal of hysteresis to an accuracy of greater than 90% .

While me may not have proven anything, we have shown a scientifically plausible alternative hypothesis.

We do not expect you to stop believing in AGW and go with the leaky integrator idea on this basis, but you have shown a reluctance to even explore the idea.

If you were genuinely interested in alternative hypotheses - if you really wanted to find some more optimistic explanation for current warming trends - then you would be interested in this.

However, you cling to the idea that CO2 is the main driver like a drowning man clinging to a piece of driftwood, unwilling to reach a hand out to the lifeboat because he "knows" he's going to drown.

I'm not suggesting that you let go of your ideas and embrace ours, but, like the man and his driftwood, you could always climb aboard the boat and bring them with you.

CB

Edited November 4, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

But if we apply your broad brush strokes, the recent warming will disappear. Nothing in the historical records gives the details we have about today, the last 200 years probably wouldn't even register a blip - how do we therefore know today is unique when comparing to the broad brush strokes of yesteryear?

I do understand your drift 'J' but what are to to do otherwise?

If we are 'priming' the planet for warming (by increasing it's GHG/aerosol/particulate emissions) then all that 'priming' will sit up in the atmosphere for upwards of 100yrs.

If , over that 100yrs, we have 'natural cycles' that heat us up will we shed that 'heat' as easily or will it tend to accumulate (in part)?

If it accumulates then what is to stop the carbon cycle feedbacks we see in the 'milankovich cycles' starting to occur?

If we (science) can figure that ,at our closest approach to the sun at our winter solstice, we are now further away from the sun than at our 'optimum' then surely the 1,000yrs arctic cool down from that 'optima' gives us a ballpark figure as to how much our 'average' heat budget reduces as we pull away from that optimum (at those GHG levels) and also the level of GHG 'forcing' to overcome and reverse that trend over a 100yr period at the increasing distance from the sun?

For the period of the 'cool down' trend in the Arctic we have nothing other than 'natural drivers' affecting things.The past 100yrs of reversal of this trend we have had 'natural' and 'us'. If the 'natural' is the same flavour as the preceding 1000yrs then we can just see 'us' can we not?

If we are helping the planet to warm then we will fall foul of earth carbon cycle 'warming' feedbacks (permafrost melt,ocean sink dysfunction,forestry sink failures, dry land carbon release etc) which will dwarf our current GHG releases.If our 'releases' do trap some of the earth's heat then what will those releases enable the earth to 'trap'?

EDIT: Sorry C-Bob, didn't see your post.

I do not reject either your efforts or findings and I am happy to accept them but this still does not alter our placing a known amount of 'bad stuff' above our heads to have whatever impact it will have.

I think the planet is a slow beastie to respond to some forcings because of the 'checks and balances' it has built in but if we know that we are increasing the atmospheres potential to hold onto heat do we not expect, at some point, to start to witness it do just that with the impacts on our 'carbon cycle' I have sketched in above?

Edited November 4, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

EDIT: Sorry C-Bob, didn't see your post.

I do not reject either your efforts or findings and I am happy to accept them but this still does not alter our placing a known amount of 'bad stuff' above our heads to have whatever impact it will have.

I think the planet is a slow beastie to respond to some forcings because of the 'checks and balances' it has built in but if we know that we are increasing the atmospheres potential to hold onto heat do we not expect, at some point, to start to witness it do just that with the impacts on our 'carbon cycle' I have sketched in above?

Why is CO2 "bad stuff"?

What impact will it have?

How do we know how much warming is attributable to CO2?

If you don't reject VP's and my findings, and are even happy to accept them, then where does CO2 fit into this picture?

You're still clinging to the idea that CO2 is Bad and is primarily responsible for warming - you're trying to make it sound like you're far more open than you actually are.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Why is CO2 "bad stuff"?

What impact will it have?

How do we know how much warming is attributable to CO2?

If you don't reject VP's and my findings, and are even happy to accept them, then where does CO2 fit into this picture?

You're still clinging to the idea that CO2 is Bad and is primarily responsible for warming - you're trying to make it sound like you're far more open than you actually are.

CB

S'not just CO2 though is it? From Ozone,through sulphate's,through CO, through CO2,Methane,soot all good in some ways but ,as the paper on their interactions show, all bad in the wrong proportions and mixes.

I hold in mind GHG's because I cannot forget they're GHG's.

I am surely not supposed to forget either that they're there or what they do in order to find alternatives to warming scenarios am I?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Assumed positive feedbacks aren't necessarily real at the expense of negative one's. It is entirely possible that assumed (stand alone) positive feedbacks just don't exist full stop. In other word there is just no such feedback.

Edited November 4, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Admiral_Bobski]

S'not just CO2 though is it? From Ozone,through sulphate's,through CO, through CO2,Methane,soot all good in some ways but ,as the paper on their interactions show, all bad in the wrong proportions and mixes.

I hold in mind GHG's because I cannot forget they're GHG's.

I am surely not supposed to forget either that they're there or what they do in order to find alternatives to warming scenarios am I?

Alright then, if you want to play it that way then just re-read those questions replacing "CO2" with "GHG"? Any answers to those questions?

Are you supposed to forget GHGs? No. You're supposed to be open-minded. You're supposed to be willing to accept the possibility that some or all of what you know is wrong.

It's no wonder you can't find other explanations for warming if you're unwilling to play Devil's Advocate.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Assumed positive feedbacks aren't necessarily real at the expense of negative one's. It is entirely possible that assumed (stand alone) positive feedbacks just don't exist full stop. In other word there is just no such feedback.

Then how do we explain the 'Milankovich cycles' CO2 spikes as we become closer/more favourably aligned to the suns energy?

As I witness the evidence CO2 levels rise as temp rises (ice melts more land is re-exposed to the carbon cycle, more permafrost melts and CO2/methane is released,ocean warming leading to Cathrite losses/carbon sink losses etc.). As temp falls so do CO2 levels (more land lost from the 'carbon cycle' due to ice cover).

If you can explain the relationship we see between temp and CO2 in another way then now might be the time to expose me to it (seeing as I'm in a receptive mood).

C-Bob

"It's no wonder you can't find other explanations for warming if you're unwilling to play Devil's Advocate."

I truely would wish to see things without harping back to GHG's.I really would like to be able to expunge them from my fears for our future as it does not make for comfortable viewing with them in the equation (and on past records).

Take a look through the 'science thread' for the number of earth generated theories I have put forward/debated over the years for climate impacts(Esp. EMF and heating due to forced currents during CME strikes)

I think Jethro and I have both mooted that our own magnetosphere may promote global impacts that we neither measure or understand.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Then how do we explain the 'Milankovich cycles' CO2 spikes as we become closer/more favourably aligned to the suns energy?

As I witness the evidence CO2 levels rise as temp rises (ice melts more land is re-exposed to the carbon cycle, more permafrost melts and CO2/methane is released,ocean warming leading to Cathrite losses/carbon sink losses etc.). As temp falls so do CO2 levels (more land lost from the 'carbon cycle' due to ice cover).

If you can explain the relationship we see between temp and CO2 in another way then now might be the time to expose me to it (seeing as I'm in a receptive mood).

C-Bob

"It's no wonder you can't find other explanations for warming if you're unwilling to play Devil's Advocate."

I truely would wish to see things without harping back to GHG's.I really would like to be able to expunge them from my fears for our future as it does not make for comfortable viewing with them in the equation (and on past records).

Take a look through the 'science thread' for the number of earth generated theories I have put forward/debated over the years for climate impacts(Esp. EMF and heating due to forced currents during CME strikes)

I think Jethro and I have both mooted that our own magnetosphere may promote global impacts that we neither measure or understand.

So your argument is that you've played Devil's Advocate before and not been convinced, therefore there is no point in playing Devil's Advocate any more?

Well, nobody can fault me for giving it one last try. I guess this discussion is over then.

CB

[Methuselah]

I know that we've all wandered off-topic, but the 'feedback' problem intrigues me...

1) Without +ive feedback, it's hard to see how Ice-Ages begin and end so fast: can Milankovitch cycles account for such a rapid response to such a gradual forcing?

2) Without -ive feedback, how does the globe maintain any king of (however dynamic) equilibrium at all?

And, the LI hypothesis alo has me intrigued. Not because I think it's necessarily right (GHGs are still GHGs and IMO need including; they are there in the real world, whether we like it or not?) but because it demonstrates the simple fact that GW episodes can be accounted for without recourse to GHGs being a main driver...

[jethro]

The problem with +feedback and AGW is that it was assumed it would amplify GHG's - simple terms - warmer atmosphere leading to warmer oceans, leading to greater evaporation, leading to trapping of more heat, leading to warmer atmosphere, blah, blah, blah.

This basic interruption of the hydrological cycle is how the models come up with the big temperature increases in the future, CO2 cannot cause much warming on it's own, it relies upon water vapour.

In reality, the latest research suggests this is not happening, the increased cloudiness which was supposed to trap the extra heat/prevent it radiating to space is shown so far, to be a false assumption.

How this equates to Milankovitch cycles is anyone's guess, I did read a paper recently which showed that the rapidity of change was sparked by ice melt, salinity and the diversion of ocean currents, in turn leading to changes in pressure belts/weather and monsoons.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ice-age-terminations-orbital-cycles-ocean-circulation-and-shifting-monsoons

Apologies for the source of this Pete but I haven't time to see if it's now available for free on the net, last I looked it was still pay to view.

[Methuselah]

Thanks for the link, J. I agree that palaeoclimates are a fascinating subject, and that understanding them is key to accounting for natural events. However, it doesn't address the potential problems relating to our unremitting emission of CO₂?

Yes, in the past, CO₂ increases (except perhaps when the result of extraordinary levels of outgassing...Another subject for research?) had to have been the result of a feedback process; that much I take on board. But IMO, and however self-limiting a process it is, our additional CO2 must cause some degree of warming...But, having said that (and hats-off to Mr Landscheidt!) a lot of peeps (including most sceptics? and moi ) have been very surprised by the current Solar minimum, which throws yet another driver into the mix ??

PS: I'd always assumed cloud-feedback to be negative; as that's what I was taught???

[jethro]

But IMO, and however self-limiting a process it is, our additional CO2 must cause some degree of warming...But, having said that (and hats-off to Mr Landscheidt!) a lot of peeps (including most sceptics? and moi ) have been very surprised by the current Solar minimum, which throws yet another driver into the mix ??

PS: I'd always assumed cloud-feedback to be negative; as that's what I was taught???

I think the problem is not so much that CO2 cannot cause warming, it's more to do with the degree of warming it can cause. If you forget about the 30 year averages we're supposed to stick to for a minute, and look back to the start of the industrial age, that's when changes should have been more noticeable.

As we all know, CO2 as a GHG has the properties of diminishing returns, the more you add, the less effect it has. So, even though emission levels were lower back then, they would have had more impact upon temperature. We were in a period of low Solar activity back then, the world was a colder place but it very quickly (relatively speaking) warmed up to a period in the '20's + 30's of temperatures comparable to today. Personally, I think this was in part caused by CO2, those first increased levels were more meaningful to the temperature record, than the latter day ones.

What happened next was a period of cooling not fully explained by changes in Solar output. If we take the period of 1940 - 1970's ish it's clear that as well as the increasing CO2 there was a large increase in aerosols from various sources, the air quality was appalling in many places. It is only after the clean air acts were passed, when aerosols began to diminish, that temperatures began rising again.

The difference in temperature between today and the '20's + '30's is I believe more representative of the degree of warming which can be attributed to CO2 - not a lot.

The problems (as far as I'm concerned) with the theory of AGW is that feedbacks are assumed to be positive - Pete, you were taught that clouds were a negative feedback - the IPCC assume them to be positive feedback, that's how we get the large temperature increases projected for the future.

If all feedbacks in nature were positive, we'd have boiled away out of existence a long time ago, so why does the current theory on climate only make a cursory acknowledgement of the possibility of negative feedback but then continue to produce images of the future based on solely positive ones?

[laserguy]

If all feedbacks in nature were positive, we'd have boiled away out of existence a long time ago, so why does the current theory on climate only make a cursory acknowledgement of the possibility of negative feedback but then continue to produce images of the future based on solely positive ones?

It's like the guy at the centre of the drugs v alcohol/tobacco row - say what your masters don't want to hear and you're in trouble. Imagine if the concensus (ha ha,that's a good one) stated that our paltry emissions actually had zero effect, and that from a climate perspective we could chuck as much as the stuff into the air as we liked? Now wouldn't that chuck a spanner in the 'works'? Seriously,in the face of undeniable global cooling would we be encouraged to do just that to try to halt the slide? 150 years of steadily climbing emissions and... nothing's 'happened' that anyone can say with any kind of authority and confidence that's out of the ordinary in the scheme of things,and that's assuming that the figures are accurate - something which no-one can agree upon. Huge reasons to cut emissions (and therefore consumption),but the supposed implications for and the involvement of climate in the whole mess makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. No,really.

[Methuselah]

What global cooling?

[laserguy]

What global cooling?

'Would' is the key word in my sentence to which you refer,Pete! Other than that,you know I'm right,right??

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

It's like the guy at the centre of the drugs v alcohol/tobacco row - say what your masters don't want to hear and you're in trouble. Imagine if the concensus (ha ha,that's a good one) stated that our paltry emissions actually had zero effect, and that from a climate perspective we could chuck as much as the stuff into the air as we liked? Now wouldn't that chuck a spanner in the 'works'?

This is another bit I don't really get. In the great IPCC/Hadley/world government global warming conspiracy what possible benefit is there to any governments to persist in fabricating an AGW agenda ? The notion that they want to use it as a cunning ruse to raise taxes is laughable, the costs and difficulties to the current economic status quo (and if there's one thing politicians like it's an economic status quo), presented by AGW theories absolutely dwarf any potential 'money making scheme' opportunities. If there's one thing you can be sure of it's that the G7 (and the G20) would absolutely fall over themselves to back any credible rebuttal of AGW because that would mean they (and their big business lobbyists) could get back to the serious business of exploiting everyone/everything without the millstone of 'destroying the world via the climate' hanging round their necks.

[jethro]

But there is the rather important issue of the impending fossil fuel crisis. The world isn't ready for a fossil fuel free existence, it's a dwindling resource in an energy hungry world. Green taxes to save us from drastic climate change are/can be funnelled into green technology, thus neatly creating a crisis to fund another very important and real crisis, which the governments of the world haven't given enough time, consideration or investment to. We all pay for their blind dependence and belief in a infinite supply of a finite resource.

That's not conspiracy theory, just my take on the current situation.

[Methuselah]

'Would' is the key word in my sentence to which you refer,Pete! Other than that,you know I'm right,right??

Soz mate...I was in 'banter' mode. :lol:

[laserguy]

Soz mate...I was in 'banter' mode.

No problem,Pete. I was in 'ranter' mode !

This is hilarious,and has more than a ring of truth!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1225577/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-When-twin-religions-global-warming-shopping-collide-.html

Edited November 6, 2009 by laserguy