There never was a global warming consensus--that was just what the Al Gore PR machine claimed. But if you want confirmation of no consensus, please read this from the American Physical Association (ya know, physicists?) from the latest edition of their peer reviewed journal (see announcement below). Here's the ballyhoo from Steve Milloy of the website JunkScience.com:
"JunkScience.com announces that the major professional society for U.S. physicists has declared that there is no scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. The American Physical Society announced in the July issue of its journal Physics & Society that it would begin on its pages a debate on the central issue of the global warming controversy -- that is, does manmade CO2 drive global climate. "This is the death knell for the falsehood spread by Al Gore and other global warming alarmists that there is any sort of consensus of scientists supporting the notion of catastrophic manmade global warming," said JunkScience.com publisher, Steve Milloy. "We are elated that we survived to see the truth emerge and that we helped bring this sea change about," added Milloy
STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY:
"With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. [Emphasis added] Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)
Friday, July 18, 2008
Confirmed: NO Global Warming Consensus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
And just listen to this propaganda:
"For the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year."
Victoria and Milloy, you get several fundamental facts wrong.
1) This is a call for a review and *debate*, and not a declaration. And in any case, it comes only from the editors of "Physics & Society," which is only one newsletter among many at the APS and comes from only one sub-section of the APS and not the APS itself. I've been following the physics community for years, and until yesterday never even heard of this newsletter.
2) If you actually read the newsletter, you'd see that in actuality what they're presenting are two papers, only one of which disagrees with the consensus. The other paper is in agreement with the consensus. So why focus on one or the other? Both papers are mathematical and unlikely to be understood by anyone without a science degree. Therefore people are going to pick the one that backs their ideology. That's all you're doing here.
3) Monckton cherry-picks his data to show a cooling trend from 2002-2008. However, if he had chosen, say, 1998-2008, you get (by linear regression) a warming trend.
4) One 8-page paper by one scientist hardly undoes the work of hundreds of scientists putting together the evidence for AGW in a thousand-page report.
5) CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, still responsible for about 30% of our earth's natural greenhouse effect (33 deg C), and it's basic common sense that more of it in the atmosphere is going to cause higher temperatures.
More errors, Victoria:
-- this paper has *not* been peer-reviewed.
-- the forum that ran this article is only one of 39 at the American Physical Society.
-- the American Physical Society today has a reiteration of their position on their front page at http://www.aps.org -- which fully backs the consensus point of view.
Please gather all the facts (and present them honestly) instead of blindly running with them in a misleading fashion.
The evidence is clear (unless you are ignorant of science). Why are so many Repos so happy to have this "i live for today" attitude? Even George Bush's EPA was forced to admit it in todays news.
"Global warming poses a health threat, EPA report says" http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/
greenspace/2008/07/global-warming.html
On a side note, it is very fitting that George Bush is going to have a sewage plant named after him in California, LOL!!
Speaking of cherry-picking, Mr. Afpel - that seems to be your forte. Anything to carry on the banner of the Religion.
CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, Mr. Afpel. Water vapor is the primary driver, at 94%.
You really need to get a job and quit trolling blogs with your religious drivel.
CO2, as you should well know if you're as educated as you claim to be, accounts for a whopping 3.618% (not 30% - or even anything close). And of that 3.618%, as you should well know, 96.775% are derived from non-human sources; only 3.225% of total CO2 results from human activity (including breathing).
Put another way, humans account for less than three and a quarter percent of of a gas that comprises three and a half percent of the gases involved in the natural cycle of global climate change.
That's pretty damn unimpressive, Davey.
Finally, right back at you:
Please gather all the facts (and present them honestly) instead of blindly running with them in a misleading fashion.
Oh. Right. You can't. That'd be against your religion.
31,000 scientists reject global warming agenda
"More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Max, CO2 is hardly a "minor" greenhouse gas. It may be small in proportion, but its true measure is its consequences. It accounts for 7 C of our planet's 33 C natural greenhouse effect -- that's 21%. Other GHGs account for 5 C more.
What is "minor" about that?
And, unlike water vapor content, CO2 and other GHGs are increasing rapidly.
Max wrote:
> And of that 3.618%, as you
> should well know, 96.775% are
> derived from non-human sources;
> only 3.225% of total CO2 results
> from human activity (including
> breathing).
Your numbers are incorrect.
Pre-industry, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were about 280 ppm. Today they are 387 ppm, of which almost all the extra is due to man's activities. That's 38%.
(Similar for methane.)
And yet, despite the 7C or 5C or whatever you want to claim, we are STILL not as warm across the globe as we were during the medieval warm period before the little ice age. Heck, there was thriving agriculture in GREENLAND for crying out loud!
Meanwhile, Al Gore continues to air condition his mansion and fly around on private jets. I'll believe that HE believes his own schtick when he starts acting like a believer and not a con-artist.
David,
Your figures are erroneous.
As noted previously:
CO2: 96.775% is derived from non-human sources; only 3.225% of total CO2 results from human activity (including breathing).
Humans account for less than three and a quarter percent of of a gas that comprises three and a half percent of the gases involved in the natural cycle of global climate change.
Note that I use the term, "natural cycle". That is because all of our planets (Earth included) undergo cyclic variations in climate as a response to fluctuating solar maximii and minimii.
You may choose to reject data that clearly demonstrate that the primary greenhouse gas on this particular planet happens to be water vapor, which ranks at 94% to 95% depending upon which data sets one wishes to believe, but most people are capable of recognizing that even at the low end of 94%, which I tend to go for, water vapor is of far greater significance than anthropegenic sources of carbon dioxide. Remember, only three percent of carbon dioxide can be attributed to human activity.
Clearly, when taken in context, it is arrogant to presume that humans, in the course of going about their daily business, exert any significant effect upon planetary cycles as a result of carbon dioxide emissions.
I grant that human activites do have an effect in terms of a negligible contribution to CO2 concentrations; the fact remains, however, that nearly 100% of all greenhouse gases are not only unrelated to human activity; human activity is powerless to significantly affect any greenhouse gas concentrations.
It doesn't matter how retrograde, how expensive, nor how well-intentioned any so-called remediative measures may be, they will have no effect whatsoever upon the normal planetary cycles of warming and cooling.
You know, at some point you really have to wonder about the AGW members. Any time you dispel one of their myths, in this case the myth of "the consensus" they get really angry and boy you better dot all your i's and cross your t's.
Ok, so Physics and Society isn't the only physicist journal. Ok, so the issue presents two papers, not just the one.
Monckton cherry picked his data? Maybe.
Physics and Society isn't THE journal, it is one of several? Wow, that certainly invalidates everything that follows.
The point is two fold.
First, maintaining that anyone who says there is no consensus on AGW is a heretic, a denyer and must be ostracized is now getting really a little silly. Clearly this was simply an attempt to silence debate, and should give one pause now as to whether AGW members are really about science, or dogma.
Second, where is all this rigorous holding the feet to the fire when it comes to HH Al Gore? I mean the last time I checked, the pontiff was caught clearly making things up with absolutely wild predictions in his movie.
Hmm, I guess its just me, but I would think that considering how AGW members really want to be taken seriously on the science tip they would act with equal scrutiny. Maybe that's too much to ask. However, absent this sort of objectivity, any argument they make against AGW being a religion is effectively disarmed. Lets face it, when you are undamming of your leaders wildest excesses, and scrupulous on details with your skeptics, its a little much to ask others not to consider you a fanatic.
gullyborg wrote:
> And yet, despite the 7C or 5C or
> whatever you want to claim, we are > STILL not as warm across the globe > as we were during the medieval warm > period before the little ice age.
The MWP was a regional phenomenon confined mostly to Northern Europe and past of North America, and not true globally.
Max, for the hundredth time: I completely acknowledge that water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Every climate scientist in the world knows this. (In fact, they discovered it.) This fact is completely incorporated into all their calculations and all their models.
OK?
But its proportion in the atmosphere, and hence its warming potential, is nearly _constant_. That's *not* true for CO2, CH4, NO2, etc.
OK?
In fact, the strong warming potential of water vapor is a problem, in that as the Earth warms (naturally or manmade), there will be increased evaporation, resulting in more water vapor in the atmosphere, resulting in a positive feedback of yet more warming.
OK?
I trust this will end your canard.
> water vapor is of far greater
> significance than anthropegenic
> sources of carbon dioxide.
You still do not seem to understand (or ignore) that the relevant factor is not how much of a gas is in the atmosphere, but its physical consequences in terms of warming. CO2, CH3, NO2, all have much higher warming potentials than water vapor, which counteracts their relatively small proportions.
Water vapor, despite being by far the dominate GHG in volume, only contributes about 50% to our natural greenhouse effect of 33C.
And again, its proportion is constant, not affected (to first order) by human activities.
> Remember, only three percent of
> carbon dioxide can be attributed > to human activity.
I'd like to know how this number is calculated.
In any case, without man the CO2 content in the atmosphere is relatively stable. Without man, it would still be about 280 ppmv. But man has increased this to 385 ppmv in the last 250 years. That's a 36% increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere.
The total CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3000 Gt. (But 50 times this in the oceans.) Worldwide production of CO2 from human activities is about 7 Gt/yr.
> human activity is powerless
> to significantly affect any
> greenhouse gas concentrations.
This is simply wrong.
See the sharp increases in CO2, CH4, and N2O in our atmosphere since 1750 and especially since 1900.
Good graph here:
IPCC 4AR WG1 FAQ 2.1 Fig 1 p 135
http://tinyurl.com/2n27cn
Otherwise, Max, what is *your* explanation for the exponential increase in these gas quantities?
r huse: Yes, details matter. Context matters. Numbers matter. Unless you're Drudge or Victoria or Steve Milloy and are just looking to score points. In that case, a simple headline of a few words might satisfy you. Many of us prefer to understand the details of a situation before making up our minds. We therefore find it necessary to dig into the claims and counterclaims and understand the details before deciding. The fact is, Victoria's title on this post is completely inaccurate and utterly false. Since many of the people who understand the details thing AGW is the most serious long-term problem ever encountered by civilization, we feel obligated to correct the record and see that the state of the science is accurately communicated.
Oh, Victoria... why have you forsaken us? :P Now there'll have to be another eternal fight between David Appell and everyone else because of his religious certainty that humans are to blame.
Anyway, good show with yet another obvious sign that AGW is a fallacious theory.
"Ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year?"
Is this a fact, hypothesis or theory? Science was mentioned below or perhaps more accurately ignorance of science.
AGW has suddenly been elevated to a theory apparently. How interesting given it based on limited historical data.
>"Since many of the people who understand the details thing AGW is the most serious long-term problem ever encountered by civilization, we feel obligated to correct the record and see that the state of the science is accurately communicated."
Good idea!
However it is odd that you seem concerned about accuracy with communication of the state of the science only now. I am not sure how long you have been involved in this issue, but if you were one of those constantly correcting the record whenever people suggested there was a consensus among scientists on AGW, bravo! If you were not one of those, then please do not expect someone to now take your earnestness about accurately communicating the state of science on this issue very seriously.
There is nothing wrong with being an adherent of a faith. Lots of people are. Its when one loses perspective that it is just that, a faith, and insist that everyone must agree based upon ones own certainty that one becomes a fanatic.
More Global Whining from the FAKE RELIGOUS ENVIRO-NUTS.
**** **** ****** DRILL FOR OIL
pete wrote:
>> "Ice is on course to disappear
>> entirely from the North Pole this >> year?"
>
> Is this a fact, hypothesis or
> theory?
This was hyped by a British newspaper, and is probably going to be the case. Sea ice extent in the Arctic is currently 111.2% of last year's level.
> AGW has suddenly been elevated
> to a theory apparently. How
> interesting given it based on
> limited historical data.
a) ALL scientific knowledge is based on limited data, and always will be. The question is whether, within the statistical uncertainty is has, it meets the hypothesis being tested.
b) Vostok ice core data goes back 420,000 yrs. How much data do you want? How much more data do you need?
r huse wrote:
> but if you were one of those
> constantly correcting the record > whenever people suggested there
> was a consensus among scientists > on AGW, bravo!
I'm not sure what your point is. There has always, of course, been a consensus on AGW. Nor was there suddenly a consensus one day that wasn't there before. It's a continuous function. The consensus has built over time -- the last 30 yrs.
> There is nothing wrong with being > an adherent of a faith.
AGW is not based on "faith" -- that's for silly religions. It's based on data observation, fact gathering, hypothesis testing, calculations, and modeling. Just like all other science that you believe.
Read the recent paper by Hafemeister and Schwartz for the scientific case for AGW, in the lastest APS newsletter that has gotten a lot of attention. You'll need to be a science major to thoroughtly understand it, though -- as it should be. This is science, after all.
David Appel
"In any case, without man the CO2 content in the atmosphere is relatively stable. Without man, it would still be about 280 ppmv."
"Since many of the people who understand the details thing.... we feel obligated to correct the record and see that the state of the science is accurately communicated."
For someone proporting to know the details of of science, the first statement is enitirely false. CO2 levels have varied significantly through the course of the last 550 million years, they seldom have been in stasis!
Theories require continual testing of hypotheses and intensive peer review. Given the complexity of climate, the science is in it's infancy.
The ice cores may cover the last 700,000 yrs +/-, but the planet is estimated at 4.5 billion yrs old.
700,000 yrs of ice cores, 150 yrs of surface temperature measurements (if acccurate), 30 yrs of atmospheric and oceanic temperature readings, amount to a mere blink of a gnats eye in the span of the earth's age.
David,
I see that you have left the NorthWestRepublican site in order to pursue efforts to convert the heathens elsewhere, and have thus landed at Victoria's site. Interesting, eh?
Now, to return to your canards:
I think we're making progress, as you at least acknowledge that water vapor is the most significant of greenhouse gases, which is a step up from your earlier position.
Now, we can look at other, minor components.
We can start with CO2, as that is the basis of your religious conviction.
In any case, without man the CO2 content in the atmosphere is relatively stable.
You should be able to do better than that - CO2 levels, like O2 levels, have never been stable. That statement is just silly.
If we look at the past few years, however, some relevant conclusions can be drawn:
We know that 97% of CO2 is not a result of human activity. Thus, 3% can be attributed to human activity (including respiration). We further know that of all greenhouse gases, CO2 represents 3.618% of the total.
Thus, we can see that human activity may account for 3% of the 4% of total greenhouse gas production for CO2. I think that we can therefore agree that this is an extremely small percentage, when taken in the context of overall gas concentrations.
Now, of course, you will go on as you always do about the supposed superior "forcing" of CO2 as opposed to, say, water vapor. That's all well and good, but it certainly doesn't suggest that humans, contributing such insignificant amounts to overall CO2 levels, can affect the planetary climate one way or the other.
Indeed, if you want to talk about "forcing" (as is usually the case), then we need to discuss the much more potent gas, CH4.
Now, we know that methane amounts to 0.360 of the present greenhouse gas mixture, yet we also know that in terms of radiative/absorptive capacity, it is among the most potent of greenhouse gases, and we know as well that 81.662% of methane is derived from "natural" sources, while human activity such as raising cattle accounts for the remainder.
Currently, studies are underway to determine the average production of methane in cattle, with an eye toward manipulating food intake in such a manner as to reduce methane emissions.
However, laudable as such scientific studies may be, they ignore entirely the fact that the primary animal source of "natural" methane emission on the planet today are termites. Clearly, we should be tackling the source of much of the 82% of "natural" methane emissions if we are to Save The Planet!
It is unclear as to how, exactly, we can deal with termites in a manner that would significantly disrupt their methane production, as it probably isn't feasible to catch them all up and fit them with tiny butt-plug filters.
Yet it is clear that if we are to Save The Planet, we must do something about the termites in order to reduce their "methane footprint".
pete wrote:
> CO2 levels have varied
> significantly through the course of > the last 550 million years, they
> seldom have been in stasis!
Pete: reread what I wrote. I wrote "relatively" stable. Of course I am aware that CO2 levels have been much higher at times in the past. But the rate of change of CO2 levels right now is several times higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years. How do you account for that if not by manmade emissions?
Pete wrote:
> 700,000 yrs of ice cores, 150 yrs
> of surface temperature
> measurements (if acccurate), 30
> yrs of
> atmospheric and oceanic
> temperature readings, amount to a > mere blink of a gnats eye in the > span of the
> earth's age.
So? The question is whether, mathematically, the variance of your data is small enough to draw conclusions.
The conclusion that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that about 2/3rds of the universe is composed of something of which we have no idea what it is -- that's based on about 50 supernova.
One need not measure every supernova out there to draw a conclusion about the universe -- and there's one supernova per second somewhere in the universe.
You need to better understand statistics and the role they play in analyzing data.
Max wrote:
> You should be able to do
> better than that - CO2 levels,
> like O2 levels, have never been
> stable. That statement is just
> silly.
I wrote RELATIVELY stable. I chose that word for a very specific reason -- it's relative to its rate of change today, which is several times higher than at any time in the last 600K yrs.
Look at IPCC AR4 WG1 FAQ2.1 FIG 1 p. 135 -- CO2 levels were essentially constant from at least 0 BCE to about 1750 BCE.
Max wrote:
> Now, of course, you will go on
> as you always do about the supposed > superior "forcing" of CO2 as
> opposed to, say, water vapor.
> That's all well and good, but it
> certainly doesn't suggest that
> humans, contributing such
> insignificant amounts to overall
> CO2 levels, can affect the
> planetary climate one way or the
> other.
You again fail to understand the difference between percentages and forcings.
Iny any physical system, a factor may be small in proportion and yet large in consequence. Arsenic is toxix in drinking water at a level of about 200 ppb. By your reasoning, arsenic couldn't possibly harm humans because it's just "too small" to have an effect. Yet you're wrong.
So, you see, percentage by volume is obviously not necessarily the important factor. In the atmosphere, different types of molecules have different effects. CO2 holds in IR radiation better than water vapor. CH4 holds it better than CO2, and NH3 even more.
You have to consider radiative forcings if you want to understand (and explain, and predict) climate, not just simple percentages.
Similarly for the pH of the oceans, which is being lowered by man-emitted CO2.
> However, laudable as such
> scientific studies may be, they
> ignore entirely the fact that the
> primary animal source of "natural" > methane emission on the planet
> today are termites.
Livestock are responsible for about 17% of worldwide methane emissions.
Termites are 15% or less (there is still a fairly large uncertainty).
In any case, there are some things we can do about livestock emissions. Not so much about termite emissions.
But still again, the question is the net forcing of anthropogenic CH4, and not its relative volume.
> Yet it is clear that if we are to
> Save The Planet, we must do
> something about the termites in
> order to reduce their "methane
> footprint".
No. Termites are a natural force that were here long before man was. Their emissions are already part of the natural ecosystem, contributing to the natural greenhouse effect.
It is the _manmade_ emissions that are causing most of the temperature increase of the last 30-100 yrs. These additional radiative forcings (and they are relatively small, ~ 2 W/m^2 out of about 1350 W/m^2 total forcing) are what's throwing things out of balance.
You again fail to understand the difference between percentages and forcings.
Actually, I have a pretty good understanding, which is why we have such a problem. It really seems to tick you off when you end up facing off against somebody with a fairly good understanding of science.
You have to consider radiative forcings if you want to understand (and explain, and predict) climate,
In the case of Global Warming, the important factor is not radiative amplification, or as you insist upon calling it, "forcing". The important issue is absorption, or net decrease in radiative capability. As you now admit, the radiative factor of the primary component of greenhouse gases (water vapor) is essentially constant. It functions more as a radiative component than as an absorptive component. I'm glad to see that you can finally agree with the science in regard to water vapor.
So we can move on:
The fact of the matter is that models no more explain or predict climate change than meteorologists can predict the weather for next week in the Pacific Northwest.
So your whole argument about understanding and predicting climate over time is completely bogus - unless you happen to adhere to the Religion.
Of course, I don't subscribe to the religious view that humans can affect planetary climate in any significant way. To me, that's just an arrogant perspective.
Taking all known greenhouse gases into consideration, the total contribution that can be attributed to human activity is just a hair over one quarter of one percent.
To claim that human activities are therefore negatively (or positively) affecting planetary climate is patently absurd - unless, of course, one's religious proclivities urge one to formulate rules for everybody else to follow.
It is clear that AGW is merely a device by which some people seek to control other people; it is merely the latest in a long and storied history in which self-appointed certifiably smart people attempt to impose restrictions upon the freedoms of other people.
As is usually the case, they employ fear-mongering as a means of establishing control.
The "science was settled" centuries ago: the Earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the Earth. That was the scientific concensus at the time.
AGW is simply more of the same.
You can talk about "forcing" of methane and carbon dioxide all you want, of course, but the fact remains that the worst case scenario regarding human contribution is negligible.
On faith alone, it all seems to make sense to the acolytes. On science alone, it fails miserably.
david appell said: to Save The Planet, we must do something about the termites in
order to reduce their "methane
jack said: No david we must do something about your "methane"
to Save The Planet, or is it the whales, or is it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I need some "ICE" for my Lemonade before it all melts.
David said
"Pete: reread what I wrote. I wrote "relatively" stable. Of course I am aware that CO2 levels have been much higher at times in the past."
So a magnitude of fifteen to twenty-fold is relatively stable???
David said
"So? The question is whether, mathematically, the variance of your data is small enough to draw conclusions."
"You need to better understand statistics and the role they play in analyzing data."
First, my point is that there is other scientific information available, which seldom seems to be focused on by AGW side of the argument. I think Gore himself criticized the focus on short term thinking in his first book, "Earth In Balance", and yet his whole supposition and focus on information to support his thesis is limited.
Forgive me for not commenting on the supernova thing. For the moment, I would like to keep my feet firmly planeted on Terra Firma.
As to understanding statistics, I am always trying to keep an open mind. But what I do understand is that in an earlier post you criticised Monckton for cherry picking his data. By limiting yourself to the last 150 yrs or 600,000 yrs are you not doing the same.
I would grant that by limiting data points and using arbitrary starting and ending points, one can greatly influence results.
> The fact of the matter is
> that models no more explain or
> predict climate change than
> meteorologists can predict the
> weather for next week in the
> Pacific Northwest.
The fact is, today's climate models back-predict the climate of the 20th century:
IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703.
http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp
This is a good indication that they are one the right track towards predicting this century's future climate. Better than any other tool, certainly.
Max wrote:
> Of course, I don't subscribe to
> the religious view that humans
> can affect planetary climate in
> any significant way. To me,
> that's just an arrogant
> perspective.
Max, you keep writing this... and yet, when challenged, you have never explained where these large increases in CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. *have* come from in the last ~100 years, if they are not manmade.
Where have they come from?
Max wrote:
> You can talk about "forcing" of
> methane and carbon dioxide all
> you want, of course, but the fact
> remains that the worst case
> scenario regarding human
> contribution is negligible.
Now THERE'S a scientific argument! "Despite the numbers and calculations you cite, you are wrong BECAUSE I SAID SO."
Brilliant, Max, just brilliant. And very intellectually impressive. You may well be on to an entirely new method of knowledge accumulation here, the stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears and deny everything in favor of your own opinion. And don't try to tell me otherwise!
> So a magnitude of fifteen to
> twenty-fold is relatively
> stable???
Exactly, in the context of the discussion of AGW. CO2 levels were nearly constant from at least 0 BCE to about 1750 BCE. AGW is occurring on the timescale of decades, and CO2 level changes per decade are some of the highest in history.
> First, my point is that there
> is other scientific information
> available, which seldom seems to be > focused on by AGW side of the
> argument.
Of course. Every climatologist knows this -- they learned it in 7th grade, with the rest of us.
You try to collect all the data you can, and you work with the data you have. There is ALWAYS more data out there that could be collected, in any scientific field, about any scientific question. The genius of the scientific method is that one can establish truths *without* collecting all possible data, but only a small subset of it.
Again, a simple demonstration from astronomy: There are roughly 10^12 supernova explosions per decade in the universe.
Yet, by gathering data on only about 50 of them, astronomers were able to make one of the most significant discoveries in decades: the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
By your reasoning, they would have to withhold judgement until they have canvassed a significant fraction of these 100 billion SN. Which would take another 1000 years, at least. (And in that time, another 10^14 new supernovas would have exploded.)
Statistics. It's all about statistics. EVERY conclusion has an uncertainty associated with it, a possible error, and that's what science is. If you collect more data you can reduce this uncertainty, but you can still get down to the 1-5% range with relatively small amounts of data. Otherwise we wouldn't know anything.
large increases in CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. *have* come from in the last ~100 years, if they are not manmade.
"Large" increases in CO2? Oh c'mon, David. CO2 is 97% non-anthropegenic in cause. 3% can be traced to human activity, and that is 3% of a gas that contributes 3.618% to the total of greenhouse gases.
As I've mentioned before, that's neglible. Moreover, if you want to talk about "forcing" as you so often seem to want to do, then you should be aware that CO2 sucks as an absorber.
CH4 is nearly 25 times more potent.
So you shouldn't be worrying about the "carbon footprint". You should be worrying about the "methane butt-print".
Of course, as again previously noted, CH4 represents only about 0.36% of today's greenhouse gases, and non-human sources account for the vast majority of the gas emission. As you've so often noted, percentages may be less important than "forcing" - in which case, CH4 is far more "important" than CO2.
Of course, you conveniently ignore scientific facts when they don't play in favor of your religious belief. Nope, the best you can manage is:
Max wrote:
> You can talk about "forcing" of
> methane and carbon dioxide all
> you want, of course, but the fact
> remains that the worst case
> scenario regarding human
> contribution is negligible.
Now THERE'S a scientific argument! "Despite the numbers and calculations you cite, you are wrong BECAUSE I SAID SO."
Well, there's certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I've refuted your data many times in many forums, noting that in fact the so-called human contribution is negligible (a 3% contribution to a minor greenhouse gas that constitutes 3.5% of total greenhouse gases is something that most sane people can consider negligible - especially when the gas (CO2, in case you've forgotten or become confused) is ineffective at trapping radiation.
If you and AlGore really were concerned about natural cycles of global warming and cooling, you'd be pushing for controls on methane emission by rounding up and butt-plugging all of the termites on the planet.
Of course, that's not feasible. So maybe you can scare people into submission by blaming it all on their "carbon footprint". You don't need to tell people the incovenient truth that CO2 is a relative non-player; that would violate the fundamental precepts of your religion.
Oh, and by the way, David -
Why is it again, exactly, that you're trolling Victoria's blog?
You used to be all over the place at NWR.
Do you troll, like, a "blog of the month" in order to spread the gospel of AGW?
Do you get paid for trolling and spreading the Word?
Really, I find it all most curious. You bombarded NWR with your vast scientific expertise and superior knowledge of all things relating to the religion of AGW, then you disappeared, and you showed up over here. How weird is that?
Is blog-trolling your only paying job, these days?
If it is, that's fine. Really. Do what you gotta do.
Max:
> "Large" increases in CO2?
CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% in the last 150 years, from 280 ppm to 387 ppm.
What is your explanation for that? Whether natural or anthropogenic. Where did all this extra CO2 come from?
Similarly, methane concentrations have increased by about 150%. How do you explain that, if not from man?
N2O: about 10%. Ditto.
Max wrote:
> As you've so often noted,
> percentages may be less important
> than "forcing" - in which case, CH4 > is far more "important" than CO2.
By "Max logic" this would be true. But a knowledgeable person would note that CO2's concentration in the atmosphere is 387 ppm, whereas methane's is only 2 ppm.
Max, you are very good at throwing around numbers. You are not very good at understanding them. The saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" was invented for people exactly like you.
MAX Redline wrote:
> Why is it again, exactly, that
> you're trolling Victoria's blog?
I fail to see how providing intelligent, detailed, rational scientific answers is "trolling."
In any case, how I spend my time is absolutely none of your damn business.
> (a 3% contribution to a minor
> greenhouse gas that constitutes
> 3.5% of total greenhouse gases is
> something that most sane people can > consider negligible
Max, how many times must this be drilled into your thick skull: PERCENTAGES ARE NOT THE ONLY RELEVANT FACTOR HERE.
Do you even begin to understand that? You've shown no signs so far.
Global warming potentials are the other important factor. Look it up.
When you do the COMPLETE calculation, and not just a silly and naive comparison of percentages, you find that anthropogenic CO2 has the largest extra forcing (about 2 W/m^2) of any factor in play.
This has been known for a long time now and has spelled out in considerable detail in any number of papers, books, and reports.
Cling to percentages if you must -- that seems to be all you have or understand. But it is hardly a complete scientific argument.
By the way, Max, have you considered writing up you "percentage" theory for publication? You would become instantly world famous. You would be offered professorships at Harvard and MIT. You would disprove the great Al Gore and his Nobel Prize and win one of your own. You would -- no kidding -- be one of the most famous scientists of the last 300 years -- the scientist who disproved AGW by a simple numerical argument.
What are you waiting for? I can suggest a half-dozen journals to which you can submit your paper, if you want.
Max, how many times must this be drilled into your thick skull: PERCENTAGES ARE NOT THE ONLY RELEVANT FACTOR HERE.
Oh, now, now, David. I've already discussed the relative capacity of CH4 and CO2, not in terms of percentages but in terms of effect.
You simply don't bother to read - or if you do, you choose to ignore the argument.
Instead, you respond by getting all huffy. Whenever anybody doesn't get with your theological program, you react like a kid in a sandbox who's been denied the use of his favorite toy dump-truck.
I fail to see how providing intelligent, detailed, rational scientific answers is "trolling."
And that would be fine, if you were capable of doing so. Unfortunately, you aren't any good at it. Instead, you resort to such lofty, intellectual tactics as noted previously.
Max, you are very good at throwing around numbers. You are not very good at understanding them. The saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" was invented for people exactly like you.
Max, how many times must this be drilled into your thick skull: PERCENTAGES ARE NOT THE ONLY RELEVANT FACTOR HERE.
Yep, that's some heavy-duty logic and intelligence you're bringing to the table, David.
Should I have typed this reply in all caps so I can be more like you?
In the spirit of Al Gore and the IPCC I now declare the science to be settled and no more debate is allowed here.
;-)
Dear Mr. Afpel,
My dad used to tell me that fewer people would pull my chain if I stopped wearing it around my neck.
.
In the spirit of Al Gore and the IPCC I now declare the science to be settled and no more debate is allowed here.
;-)
Darn it, Victoria! You're a mean mom! It was my turn to play with the toy dump-truck!
:-)
David said
"Exactly, in the context of the discussion of AGW. CO2 levels were nearly constant from at least 0 BCE to about 1750 BCE."
In parsing your words "in the context of discussion of AGW", establishes pre-determined bias. Interesting you try to restrict the discussion to alledged "Anthropogenic" Global Warming.
Some might keep an more open mind and discuss Global Warming in a larger and longer term context, covering the considerable number of warming and cooling cycles over the course of the Earth's 4.5 billion years.
It is also hard to beleive that a comprehensive scientific study would ever justify relying the period of O BC(E)to 1750 AD with any confidence level, let alone comfort with a small level of uncertainty. This given the expansive backdrop of climate change and the scientific information available, which spans 550 million years.
Of course, this assumes that one has no predetermined outcome in mind. Come to think of it maybe such "scientific" endeavor has become popular in some circles resulting in adoption by ,many of the Mann "Hockey Stick" curve, which was established in a relatively brief time frame, limited data sample, and predetermined bias in mind. And curiously, it just happened to became the centerfold for early research reports issued by the IPCC.
Of course, I can see why you would be reluctant to look at expanded scientific data base back to the Cambrian, since this mandates explaining the overall decline of CO2 from levels at least 20 times higher than those today and an examination of many variables other than CO2 as potential factors inflluencing global warming or cooling through the past 550 million years.
David said,
"You try to collect all the data you can, and you work with the data you have. .....The genius of the scientific method is that one can establish truths *without* collecting all possible data, but only a small subset of it."
And the genius and truth results from using the data collected empirically, not relying on chance correlations, nor limiting extent of data sets to narrow limits based upon pre-disposed bias.
David said,
"The fact is, today's climate models back-predict the climate of the 20th century:
IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703.
http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp
This is a good indication that they are one the right track towards predicting this century's future climate. Better than any other tool, certainly"
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant "on the right track" and "not the one track".
As recent as last December, the news media covered, albeit rather briefly, the failings of computer models and their failibility in explaining real world climate phenomena including predicted atmospheric temperature increases and ocean warming. The models even failed to predict current climate conditions using retroactive real historical data in the models.
Additionally, the credibiliy of the IPCC has been challenged because the disparity between the actual temperature range used in their models and that published in the Assessment Report you referenced above. Using a higher temperature range in the models, than that repeatly referenced in the report, obviously distorts future temperature projections.
Oops!
Sorry, Victora
I wouldn't want to upset Gore or the IPCC, by violating their supreme edict.
:)
t"MAX Redline said...
You simply don't bother to read - or if you do, you choose to ignore the argument."
So you've noticed David's little problem with reading carefully too, eh? Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed.
David Appell,
Thanks for the clear and patient explanation of the science - well played. Of course, it's lost on the deeply deluded deniers, but lurkers can easily see the rational from the ranting in these threads.
MAX Redline,
The following page was written for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
P.S. I note the author of the blog offers no correction for the clearly false title and content of this post. Why would you wish to lie in order to try and prove your point? You ultimately weaken what little case you have.
Post a Comment