Climate skeptics exploiting scandal: US envoy

Feb 16, 2010
Todd Stern, US special envoy for climate change seen here in 2009, on Tuesday accused vested interests of exploiting recent scientific scandals, saying there was an overwhelming case for the world to take action.

The US pointman on climate change on Tuesday accused vested interests of exploiting recent scientific scandals, saying there was an overwhelming case for the world to take action.

Todd Stern, the US special envoy on climate issues, downplayed recent revelations about a landmark 2007 study by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that warned of dire consequences from global warming.

"What you do see sometimes is that people who have an agenda that is directed toward undermining action on climate change grab whatever tidbit they can find," Stern told reporters.

"What should not happen is that any individual mistakes, typos, whatever they might be, be taken to undermine the very fundamental record that exists from scientists all over the world and from observed data from all over the world that this is a quite serious and growing problem," he said.

The IPCC, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former US vice president Al Gore, admitted in January it could not substantiate one assertion from its 2007 report -- that global warming could melt by 2035.

Leaked emails from scientists also appeared to show attempts to hide doubts about some of the research.

Stern is leading the US side in negotiations to draft a successor to the , whose obligations for wealthy nations to cut blamed for run out at the end of 2012.

President Barack Obama sharply changed US policy when he took over in January 2009 by supporting action on .

But many lawmakers from former president George W. Bush's Republican Party oppose a US proposal to force emissions cuts, arguing it will cost jobs and disputing Obama's assertions it will help start a new green economy.

Explore further: Isolated indigenous communities of South America under threat

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Glacier alarm 'regrettable error': UN climate head

Jan 23, 2010

The head of the UN's climate science panel said Saturday a doomsday prediction about the fate of Himalayan glaciers was "a regrettable error" but that he would not resign over the blunder.

Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy

Feb 05, 2010

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

Recommended for you

Underwater elephants

13 hours ago

In the high-tech world of science, researchers sometimes need to get back to basics. UC Santa Barbara's Douglas McCauley did just that to study the impacts of the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) on cor ...

User comments : 242

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mrlewish
4 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2010
The sun has gone down. Sunrise denialist arise!
Chey
2.7 / 5 (26) Feb 16, 2010
Give it up guys. It's painfully obvious to all except the zealots and the ignorant that Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it this week is a political scam.
dachpyarvile
3.8 / 5 (23) Feb 16, 2010
No. Climate change is real. It has been real for millions of years and it will be real for millions of years more to come. Climate is always changing in many places in the world.

It has actually warmed but this warming has been statistically insignificant over the last 15 or so years.

It is just the level of so-called anthropogenic influence over climate change with which I take issue and that I dispute at present. Is it really man, CO2, or is it really something happening that would have occurred anyway? The science is not settled.

I also would like to see the politicians stay out of the science and would like to see more honest reporting and publication of the data.
John_balls
2.1 / 5 (19) Feb 16, 2010
No. Climate change is real. It has been real for millions of years and it will be real for millions of years more to come. Climate is always changing in many places in the world.

It has actually warmed but this warming has been statistically insignificant over the last 15 or so years.

It is just the level of so-called anthropogenic influence over climate change with which I take issue and that I dispute at present. Is it really man, CO2, or is it really something happening that would have occurred anyway? The science is not settled.

I also would like to see the politicians stay out of the science and would like to see more honest reporting and publication of the data.

You dispute it because you have a background in what??
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2010
One of a number of things that I do on a regular basis is to monitor atmospheric CO2 levels. I'll let you try and figure out the rest. :)
Aliensarethere
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2010
Often it is taken for granted that CO2 has some special properties that other gases do not possess. As of today only 0.038 % of the atmosphere is CO2. So for CO2 to warm the Earth, these properties must be understood by now, right ?

As far as I have read, the physical mechanism behind CO2 and warming is not well explained. It's said that CO2 absorbs infrared and near-infrared and radiates this back to Earth, but the devil is in the details. How can this tiny amount of gas have any measurable influence on the temperature ?

It has been said numerous times, look at Venus and you see what will happen if CO2 dominates the atmosphere, but on Venus the atmosphere is 96 % CO2 and the pressure is 93 times higher than on Earth at sea level. It's the pressure that gives the high temperature on Venus, not the CO2. So if you could swap CO2 out for something else, you would still have high temperatures.

Sean_W
3 / 5 (21) Feb 17, 2010
Skeptics are taking advantage of all the fraud, fake science, lies and general abuse of every possible principal of academic ethics to make climate science seem disreputable. Oh, wait... it is disreputable.

At my local university, every course begins with students signing a paper admitting that they have been advised of the seriousness of academic misconduct like plagerism, falsifying data and cheating. Too bad it is never given to professors and researchers.
TheBigYin
3.5 / 5 (19) Feb 17, 2010
You dispute it because you have a background in what??


This is the part of about the whole AGW thing I find deeply chilling. Not only are scientists telling us to believe them without question because they "obviously" know better than us, but their zealot followers are doing the same.

I prefer a world where lay people are allowed to hold experts to account. If we start moving to a society where the ability to even question someone is dependent on you personally doing years of training yourself, then I don't want to live in that society.

This is going back to no better than a religious society where we have to believe the high priests "just because they say so" so anyone daring to question or draw their own conclusions are treated as dangerous heretics.

I don't believe either side is "right" on this, but please let us retain the sort of world where the experts still have to be rigorously challenged by non-experts to justify their positions.
robertg222
2.6 / 5 (18) Feb 17, 2010
"typos" Is that the new name for fraud? Of course people can make mistakes. The mistake here was in believing that all the people in the world could be fooled all the time. It's time to stop excepting flimsy excused for the fraud in the IPCC report. I surprised we haven't heard the excuse "the dog ate my temperature data". Lets start jailing all those behind the global warming/climate change scam.
TheBigYin
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
My own favourite soundbites on AGW are:

"Scientific Consensus is not Scientific Proof"

"The reason Ad Hominem logic is used in refuting AGW criticism is because the claims are based on Ad Populam logic"
mosahlah
1.2 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2010
Jo01
3.1 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2010
@john balls

"You dispute it because you have a background in what??"

Your point is absolutely irrelevant, a valid argument or idea stays valid regardless the profession, occupation, skin color, geographic location etc. etc. The same goes for facts by the way.
Typical academic arrogance to think intelligence, inventiveness (even creativity)is reserved for academics only.

I know of a clerk who invented relativity...

J.
marjon
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
Often it is taken for granted that CO2 has some special properties that other gases do not possess. As of today only 0.038 % of the atmosphere is CO2. So for CO2 to warm the Earth, these properties must be understood by now, right ?

As far as I have read, the physical mechanism behind CO2 and warming is not well explained. It's said that CO2 absorbs infrared and near-infrared and radiates this back to Earth, but the devil is in the details. How can this tiny amount of gas have any measurable influence on the temperature ?

It has been said numerous times, look at Venus and you see what will happen if CO2 dominates the atmosphere, but on Venus the atmosphere is 96 % CO2 and the pressure is 93 times higher than on Earth at sea level. It's the pressure that gives the high temperature on Venus, not the CO2. So if you could swap CO2 out for something else, you would still have high temperatures.


Venus is closer to the sun too.
Jo01
3.1 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2010
@dachpyarvile,

"One of a number of things that I do on a regular basis is to monitor atmospheric CO2 levels."

I'm curious, is CO2 going up?

J.

marjon
3.1 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2010
One of a number of things that I do on a regular basis is to monitor atmospheric CO2 levels. I'll let you try and figure out the rest. :)

Looking at The Infrared Wall Chart from RVS, atm IR absorption bands are due to CO2 and H2O. There are more H2O absorption bands than CO2 and there is more H2O in the atm than CO2. If not, the Earth would be much colder.
fourthrocker
3.7 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2010
Give it up guys. It's painfully obvious to all except the zealots and the ignorant that Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it this week is a political scam.


What is painfully obvious is that those who can't read or understand think their opinions not only should be heard but actually matter. If you read about the so called scandal or what was said, it has absolutley no effect on the general consensus by most scientists that A) we are filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases B) they actually ARE greenhouse gases C) they don't just dissappear D) CO2 levels are higher now than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years (a LOT higher) E0 CO2 isn't the only gas we are emitting F) we are responsible for it. (Skeptics are responsible for a lot of that CO2 and hot air) How does anyone with even a gram of common sense not know that these facts add up to a change in the climate?
henryjfry
3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2010
I really don't understand peoples attitudes to this. Even if global warming isn't real surely it is only sensible to take steps as if it were (and preserve our fossil fuels for future use).
Man might not have any effect on the climate but if we go the way we are going we will poison our environment.
eachus
2.9 / 5 (18) Feb 17, 2010
How does anyone with even a gram of common sense not know that these facts add up to a change in the climate?


Sigh! I'm a statistician. Do I get a vote? What I see, and have seen, is that H2O swamps CO2 as a GHG, and that increased CO2 correlates to increased rainfall. Is that correlation due to other pollutants emitted with CO2? Possibly. But the clincher, or what should be a clincher, is the tie between rain and cosmic rays. Cosmic ray intensity is correlates directly to rainfall levels, CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature on geologic time scales.

In other words, CO2 levels are going up because it has been getting warmer since the Little Ice Age, which the climate warming fraudsters wiped out of their "hockey stick" graph. (There is also a correlation between temperatures and volcanic eruptions. Temperatures go down in that case, even when the volcano spews cubic miles of CO2. (But the effect is probably due to the volcanic dust causing more rainfall.)
anonyfront
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
Merits of the AGW arguement aside, it shouldn't matter what Todd Stern's opinion is. He's a lawyer and a political hack, not a scientist.

I'm friendly to the idea of AGW, but this article belongs on a political site, not Physorg.

@henryjfry
well said.
eachus
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2010
Lol! What is the next article I see here? http://www.physor...082.html Volcanoes increasing atmospheric CO2, followed by a global decrease in CO2 levels.
mosahlah
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2010
Oops. I meant to say, Phil Jones is beginning to come clean. Repent, and you will be forgiven.
Here's the article.
http://www.dailym...sed.html
marjon
3.1 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2010
I really don't understand peoples attitudes to this. Even if global warming isn't real surely it is only sensible to take steps as if it were (and preserve our fossil fuels for future use).
Man might not have any effect on the climate but if we go the way we are going we will poison our environment.

What steps? Global taxation destroying economies or tax cuts and fewer regulations to build nuclear power plants and incentivize new technology?
dachpyarvile
3.4 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2010
@dachpyarvile,

"One of a number of things that I do on a regular basis is to monitor atmospheric CO2 levels."

I'm curious, is CO2 going up?

J.


Absolutely levels have gone up. However, they have not risen as was believed would occur from way the original models made things look and from the IPCCs 'exaggeration factor' of between 4 and 6.

Nor has it risen as much as one would have expected from other data and even considering the past few winters. Of course, present economic situation is playing a part in this.

Something you should know, however, is that there also is a local component to CO2 levels as well as perceived global average in ppmv. There are locations where CO2 was at levels of over 500 ppmv.

In addition, CO2 level data must be averaged and normalized due to several factors including seasonality and the observed diurnal cycle.

Also, figures can differ depending on situation. This year, global CO2 levels rose ~1.71 ppmv from January 2009.
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2010
fourthrocker,

CO2 can help save the planet. In order to preserve the earth's oceans a billion years from now we must double CO2 levels within the very near future. Otherwise, we will have to thin the atmosphere by permanently sequestering N2.

If this is not done, the oceans will be evaporated into space when the Sun ramps up its fusion as has been observed in other stars on the Main Sequence. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is in three very narrow bands.

In a closed system massive levels of CO2 can be made to retain more heat that will even show up on a glass and mercury thermometer. But, the earth is not a closed system like a bell jar in a laboratory.

Additionally, levels of CO2 from anything mankind can do will never reach such levels as those in such a situation in the lab.
deatopmg
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2010
"What is painfully obvious is that those who can't read or understand think their opinions not only should be heard but actually matter. If you read about the so called scandal or what was said, it has absolutley no effect on the general consensus by most scientists that A) we are filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases B) they actually ARE greenhouse gases C) they don't just dissappear D) CO2 levels are higher now than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years (a LOT higher) E0 CO2 isn't the only gas we are emitting F) we are responsible for it. (Skeptics are responsible for a lot of that CO2 and hot air) How does anyone with even a gram of common sense not know that these facts add up to a change in the climate?"fourth'r'

This is NOT a "common sense" (a mutually agreed upon superstition - GBShaw)issue but a scientific method issue. The climate records from EAU/CRU, from NASA/GISS. and from NOAA have been unscientifically, i.e. politically, manipulated. Ref's on reques
JayK
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
I'm sure those references would be unimpeachable, deatopmq.

frenchie
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
@TheBigYin
"I don't believe either side is "right" on this, but please let us retain the sort of world where the experts still have to be rigorously challenged by non-experts to justify their positions. "
-----

Ridicoulous. You're asking for details and comprehension of a topic which like much of advanced sciences takes years to master.

Exemple:Do you understand propagation, snell's law, absorbtion, diffraction, refraction, reflection, wave-particle duality, edge effect, wave propagation in urban environment, edge effects, Maxwell's equations, Ohm's Law...and on and on i go. Few people do and those are the simpler intricacies associated with radio waves that move from your cell phone to a tower.

What is an expert? Someone's who has read wikipedia, has a BS / MS / PHD,or maybe 10/20/30+ yrs in field.We can however dumb it down. This applies to all research!

http://www.ted.co...ine.html
marjon
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2010
Ridicoulous. You're asking for details and comprehension of a topic which like much of advanced sciences takes years to master.

At a Nobel conference at Gustavus Adolphus in the early 80s, a Nobel prize winning physicist stated that if a scientist can't explain his research to a 6th grader, the scientist doesn't understand it either.
frenchie
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2010
again:

We can however dumb it down

read before writing stupid things and quoting people bigger than yourselves.
deatopmg
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2010
I'm sure those references would be unimpeachable, deatopmq.

@JayK
My ref's and their ref's have held to the scientific method. That means being totally open and transparent with data and methods so their data and methods can challenged and tested by others. This is in total opposition to the performance of the self-anointed climate experts sic working for NOAA, NASA/GISS, UEA/CRU, and other places like Penn State.

Whether CO2 is causing global warming or not, or skeptics are exploiting the scandal is irrelevant. As a scientist, it is the lying and cheating these people have done and continue to do on public money in the name of science that burns my ass. They have committed felonies and these charlatans should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And that includes envoy Stern, if he is knowingly propagating these lies.
JayK
3 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2010
Keep repeating it, deatopmq, maybe one day it will be true.
Gammakozy
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2010
The truth is irrelevant to the Leftists. They need crises, fabricated or real, to disguise their agenda, which is greater control of people's lives. That is why they are so reluctant to change their, so called, solutions to any problem even after the problem has been proven to be fabricated or grossly magnified. Just look at their solutions for poverty, unemployment, the homeless, AIDS, illiteracy, teenage and unwanted pregnancies, violence, etc., etc. Their solutions never fix the alleged problems but simply make things worse. Yet they never get rid of the failed programs. That is because their goal is simply to increase their power over people's lives. This is the tactic of Socialism, Fascism, and Communism pure and simple. The encouraging thing is that the American people have stopped being fooled and staying silent.
NameIsNotNick
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2010
Give it up guys. It's painfully obvious to all except the zealots and the ignorant that Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it this week is a political scam.


You need to get your science data from somewhere other than Fox News...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2010
"What you do see sometimes is that people who have an agenda that is directed toward undermining action on climate change grab whatever tidbit they can find,"


You mean like a certain Rajendra Pauchari, top investor in Green Energy and one of the men most directly linked with both the alarmist inaccuracies and WWF quotations included in the 2007 report?

Perhaps Mr. Gore? The first Carbon billionaire and lead demagogue of the AGW propaganda movement?

The more these people talk about scandal and ignore science (on both sides of the discussion), the longer the issue will continue to be muddied. My vested interest is in the facts. Get those to the people and let us examine those. The case will be made plain when all the information is available.
freethinking
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 17, 2010
Progressives believe without thinking what their leaders say. Al Gore said there is AGW so it cant be questioned. Obama said there is AGW so dont question it. What do progressives do when faced with evidence contrary to their beliefs. 1. Ridicule those that disagree. 2. if Ridicule doesnt work silence those that disagree. 3. if silencing doesnt work persecute those that disagree.

Evidence or logic doesnt matter to a progressive AGW believer. I asked JayK (and other AGW believers) what would it take for them to not believe in AGW. Their answer was for me to prove that a substance that we all breath, which is naturally occurring, doesnt cause AGW.

Logic and science dictate that they should show that AGW is occuring. The science for that has fallen flat, the science that purports to prove this is laughably bad.

Proving them wrong wont convince them. They have found a religion. During the next ice age, they will be still saying AGW is around the corner.
aufever
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
I have a couple of questions for the Man Caused Global Warming Alarmist. 1. What is Earth's Normal temperature? 2. Was it not warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now and what caused the earth to warm then, since we did not have the CO2 emmissions?
JayK
3 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2010
No it wasn't warmer over the globe during the MWP. That is a consistent assertion by denialists that they forget they actually have to provide data for.

As for CO2, please prove the the absorption of infrared wavelengths is false. Provide your work for partial credit. Also, provide excuses for the fact that global dimming is proven with satellite data that agrees with the calculations of wavelength absorption.
Roderick
2.6 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2010
You're wrong I'm afraid and very ignorant. When ground data was supplemented with satellite, it strengthene the case.

If guys like you were alive in the 19th century, you would have been disputing evolution.

And you all have the same profile - Anglo-Saxon right politics.

It is as good as taking DNA.

PS: 2009 was the second warmest year in the history books. Eat your conservative heart out ....
Roderick
2.6 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
Give it up guys. It's painfully obvious to all except the zealots and the ignorant that Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it this week is a political scam.


I am afraid you are only demonstrating your ignorance. Do some research and stop confusing your right wing politics with science.

As the history of science clearly shows, right wingers lose most battles ...

:)
Roderick
2.4 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2010
Guys, take your right wing politics off the board. You are just rambling. No one takes you seriously.

Best Regards,

An American in Paris.
Roderick
3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2010
Ridicoulous. You're asking for details and comprehension of a topic which like much of advanced sciences takes years to master.

At a Nobel conference at Gustavus Adolphus in the early 80s, a Nobel prize winning physicist stated that if a scientist can't explain his research to a 6th grader, the scientist doesn't understand it either.


Try explaining the General Theory of Relativity to a 6th grader.
marjon
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2010
Ridicoulous. You're asking for details and comprehension of a topic which like much of advanced sciences takes years to master.

At a Nobel conference at Gustavus Adolphus in the early 80s, a Nobel prize winning physicist stated that if a scientist can't explain his research to a 6th grader, the scientist doesn't understand it either.


Try explaining the General Theory of Relativity to a 6th grader.

I don't have to. The scientist needs to.
marjon
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
One example that NASA can't support their claims. They plan to launch a NIST calibrated radiometer to accurately measure the heat radiating from the earth. The project is called CLARREO.
If the 'science was settled', why waste the money?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2010
Exhibit 1)
If guys like you were alive in the 19th century, you would have been disputing evolution.

And you all have the same profile - Anglo-Saxon right politics.

It is as good as taking DNA.

Exhibit 2
Give it up guys. It's painfully obvious to all except the zealots and the ignorant that Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it this week is a political scam.
This is exactly the type of thing I rail against. Opposing viewpoints with radical statements and not a hint of what the situation is from either side.

Try explaining the General Theory of Relativity to a 6th grader.

It's not that tough. The math may be, but the theory and base understanding is fairly easy to explain.
freethinking
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2010
Roderick you said

As the history of science clearly shows, right wingers lose most battles.

I would rather loose on the side of truth than win on leftwing progressive causes.

BTW. Leftwing progressive causes past and present are:

Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, final solution, eugenics, AGW, etc.

Conservative causes are: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the pursuit of life liberty, and justice. etc.

I hope science is taken away from progressives with causes and agendas to push and brought back to be searchers of unbiased truth.
JayK
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2010
Ah, the classic rewrite of history. Nice.

Now we just have to wait for all of those great conservative bastions of truth to provide the next generation of scientists. Liberty University will be hiring, I'm sure.
stealthc
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2010
co2 levels were as high as 20% when life was on this planet. I would think keeping co2 levels under 2000 ppm is a fair goal, because at that level plants would grow rather well and our farming and energy from biofuels would increase drastically in efficiency. We need more co2 to put us near this threshold, we have been suffering from a world that is slowly locking away co2 into the carbon cycle and this is why the levels are much lower when you look at the levels that date back millions or more years ago.

AGW is a scam.
JayK
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2010
@stealthc:

this graph:
http://en.wikiped...0kyr.png
is why I rated your comment as a one. It appears you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
NameIsNotNick
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2010
I have a couple of questions for the Man Caused Global Warming Alarmist. 1. What is Earth's Normal temperature? 2. Was it not warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now and what caused the earth to warm then, since we did not have the CO2 emmissions?


re 2. Hard to say... no denying it was unusually warm in Greenland... but that doesn't necessarily mean it was a global phenomena... one theory suggests that it may have been a period of higher than normal solar activity (The Little Ice Age was a period of very low solar activity) which would suggest that global mean temperatures were higher. OTOH, solar activity has been unusually low recently. The solar cycle has just started to ramp up again this year so it will be interesting to see if there is an uptick in temperatures over the next decade... though even a decade is too short to measure the trend reliably.
PinkElephant
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2010
@JayK, actually stealthc is right: he's talking about hundreds of millions of years ago, as opposed to hundreds of thousands. He does deserve a "1" rating, but not for paleontological inaccuracy; rather for this:
AGW is a scam.

And also for this:
We need more co2 to put us near this threshold, we have been suffering from a world that is slowly locking away co2 into the carbon cycle...

Which misses the point: the slow changes of the past, are not the same sort of thing as the ultra-rapid changes we're bringing about. The attendant mass extinction, stress on ecosystems, human and societal costs of rapidly changing climate, rising seas, altering erosion and precipitation patterns -- the price tag is going to be ENORMOUS (and in case of lost biodiversity, incalculable.) But in the spirit of our current fiscal policies, we can just live large and let our grandchildren pick up the tab. Quite understandable...
John_balls
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2010
So, now that you guys are all scientific experts I would like to hear what other theories which are backed by a scientific consensus that you also disagree with? I'm all ears.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2010
@PinkElephant:

The rise of life, maybe. You're talking phytoplankton and lesser forms. I'm referencing the rise in advanced forms, such as higher primates that depend on certain atmospheric constraints, such as oxygen levels and temperature gradients.
marjon
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2010
So, now that you guys are all scientific experts I would like to hear what other theories which are backed by a scientific consensus that you also disagree with? I'm all ears.

What makes science great is that one person can make a discovery that destroys consensus.
Science should never be about consensus, but finding data to support or refute a theory.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2010
...

PS: 2009 was the second warmest year in the history books. Eat your conservative heart out ....


According to whom? One group says second; another says fifth. Which one is right and why? I have yet to see a cogent answer from AGW hacks.

And as to the assertion of a consensus in an above post, there is no consensus. The Media has made it falsely appear that there is one when there is not and has not been a consensus. In addition, the reviewers of the TAR certainly did not all form a consensus. The public was never told that by the IPCC, however.

As to the MWP, the same signal appears in both GISP2 and in Vostok, each at opposite poles of the globe, and it shows up in Tasmania and New Zealand proxies (both from the Southern Hemisphere) that Mann et al. misused in their latest paper.
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
Global Top 10
Warm Years (Jan-Dec) Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
2005 0.62 1.11
1998 0.60 1.08
2003 0.58 1.04
2002 0.57 1.03
2009 0.56 1.01
2006 0.56 1.01
2007 0.55 0.99
2004 0.54 0.97
2001 0.52 0.94
2008 0.48 0.86
1997 0.48 0.86

http://www.ncdc.n...t+Report
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
Found this in an NCDC/NOAA temp directory:

http://climvis.nc...5410.gif

Might want to get a gander at it before the directory is cleared.

The baseline is 1979-2000 and the years in the chart are the years 1998-2009. This is, however, for the contiguous US only. The global data STILL is offline on that server.
rwinners
4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
Give it up guys. It's painfully obvious to all except the zealots and the ignorant that Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it this week is a political scam.


Tell this to the Eskimos and polar bears. The interesting thing about this discussion is that many of us will be around to see the truth of climate change. We don't need to argue, just wait. And it doesn't look as if there will be the major actions needed to make a difference anyway. Good luck to us!
TheBigYin
3.2 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
Ridicoulous. You're asking for details and comprehension of a topic which like much of advanced sciences takes years to master.

Exemple:Do you understand propagation, snell's law, absorbtion, diffraction, refraction, reflection, wave-particle duality, edge effect, wave propagation in urban environment, edge effects, Maxwell's equations, Ohm's Law...and on and on i go. Few people do and those are the simpler intricacies associated with radio waves that move from your cell phone to a tower.


I do actually, but that's because I have three university degrees in Electronics, Physics and Electronic Materials.

It's irrelevant. The moment we start believing everything an expert says "just because" it somehow becomes too difficult for them to explain is the moment we move into dictatorship.

TheBigYin
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2010
What makes science great is that one person can make a discovery that destroys consensus.
Science should never be about consensus, but finding data to support or refute a theory.


I agree with marjon, I need to lie down.
mary_hinge
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2010
The difference in warmest years by different groups is very easily explained, you just need to read up on the way the sparsity of polar data stations are treated.
deatopmg
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
All these comments from both sides and not 1 mind has been changed.
One side uses scientifically screened evidence based theory that will evolve as new evidence becomes available and added to the argument IF it meets the scientific criteria, and the other side uses faith based logic based on rigid beliefs. Sounds to me like Galileo has a serious problem, even though many of the priests have seen with their own eyes the 4 moons orbiting Jupiter...but the planets and sun clearly still orbit the earth.

My views (important only to me) on this global warming issue have evolved over the yrs as I have researched the evidence. Now that I understand how some of the evidence has been manipulated (the whys are unimportant, ..here) to magnify the apparent warming, along with other independent scientifically testable evidences, the probability that rising CO2 levels are contributing to global warming, in any meaningful way, has become very small, i.e. p
John_balls
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2010
So, now that you guys are all scientific experts I would like to hear what other theories which are backed by a scientific consensus that you also disagree with? I'm all ears.

What makes science great is that one person can make a discovery that destroys consensus.
Science should never be about consensus, but finding data to support or refute a theory.

I agree and most of the data right now supports AGW. It's quite obvious that if we did not have a right wing denial apparatus in this country brain washing people then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So I ask again what other theories do you people take issue with that 97% of the experts in that field agree with because 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position on AGW. Has science been wrong in the past? Of course that but that is the beauty of science, the truth will prevail.
JayK
3 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2010
@John:

The only other science where the minority scientific position seems impervious to the data and the facts would be evolution/origins. Climate science denialists that believe that a single case of charges of fraud makes the entire science false is the same thing as those that point to Piltdown Man as an example of how evolution must be false.

I'm pretty sure they are the same people, actually.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
I agree and most of the data right now supports AGW.

The only data that supports this are CO2 concentrations and questionable global temperatures.
What ties it together is an incomplete computer climate model.

Yes, the truth will prevail if all data is properly peer reviewed AND published.

The Wegman report stated climate scientists were an incestuous group that peer reviewed their own work.

Also, it has been documented that Nature and Science have conspired in the past to limit access to proxy data that created the now broken hockey stick. Mann even asserted his data was proprietary at one point.

Skeptical experts like Lindzen of MIT are attacked by true believers.

Before Einstein, Newtonian mechanics was the consensus.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
@John:

The only other science where the minority scientific position seems impervious to the data and the facts would be evolution/origins. Climate science denialists that believe that a single case of charges of fraud makes the entire science false is the same thing as those that point to Piltdown Man as an example of how evolution must be false.

Not everyone who disagrees with AGW can be painted with that brush. As an open minded person I don't know which side is accurate, but my understanding of the systems and knowledge of the scope and volumes involved lends little plausibility to the AGW hypothesis, however, there's so little data that I can't ignore it.

The issue I have with fraud of any type is that it detracts from the discussion as a whole.
JayK
2.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
@Skeptic:

Then find another hypothesis and prove it. Write it up and submit it. If it isn't accepted, shove it into Sen. Inhoff's hands and he'll run around like a madman for you, demanding that the journals man up and start publishing the science.

Right now, AGW is the only hypothesis that fits all of the data, continues to fit the trends and has become the defacto theory by which future studies are determined. The only way that will change is if a strong enough alternate hypothesis is put forward and proven with as much data and support.

No one is doing that, the only thing they're doing is nitpicking and then shouting as if fraud has been proven, when in actuality, the fraud has only been implied.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
Then find another hypothesis and prove it. Write it up and submit it. If it isn't accepted, shove it into Sen. Inhoff's hands and he'll run around like a madman for you, demanding that the journals man up and start publishing the science.

I'd prefer to let the current hypothesis be proved or disproved rather than add even greater levels of obfuscation to the debate.

Also, what need is there for another hypothesis if all of this hullabaloo is referring to natural variation (an already present, competing hypothesis)?

You're correct in stating that fraud hasn't been proven, however, stagflation hadn't been proven until Carter made it manifest, and we paid dearly for that truth.
JayK
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
@Skeptic:
The rate of change from the 1850's to 1998 was so incredible and devoid of any other hypothesis of forcing that AGW became absolutely clear to climate scientists. The current stagnation of land-based temperatures and the paucity of ocean based sensing, coupled with an incredibly low solar radiation phase lends more credibility, in my eye, to the AGW theory.

Adding in the fact that the satellite data agrees, that all of the different data sets agree and that new solar forcing from increased radiation is detected and showing up in the last few months as higher global temperatures? I just don't see as how the AGW skeptics have much to go on.
frenchie
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2010

I do actually, but that's because I have three university degrees in Electronics, Physics and Electronic Materials.

It's irrelevant. The moment we start believing everything an expert says "just because" it somehow becomes too difficult for them to explain is the moment we move into dictatorship.


So basicly you have 1 degree in electrical engineering LOL. 3 degrees, more like 3 classes.
And again you and marjon totally miss my whole point with stupid retoric. lol dictatorship.

I'm not saying that you should just offhand believe everything "experts" say. People nowadays call anyone "experts" especially in all news media. Hence read Scientific papers instead of left or right wing media propaganda please. Published papers are necessarily checked to weed out bad science.

But whatever, after reading these posts, it is painfully obvious that too many of you are 1 liners who haven't given much thought to this other than which quote to copy and paste next.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2010
Published papers are necessarily checked to weed out bad science.

Not always. We're commenting on an article that speaks to this.

JayK, the only issue I have with that is that we're greatly simplifying a chaotic system without the necessary basis on which to do so. The facts very well could be in line with current observation and AGW will be validated, but, until that time I remain openly skeptical as I think there is a lot more information that we're lacking, either through our methods of observation, or just the infancy of the subject as a mainstream scientific research field.
frenchie
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
My original point was that published-paper based research usually focuses on very narrow subsections of larger subjects. What you read in the paper / articles ect are the summary, written for a non-scientific audiance. How often do you pull the pdf of the published paper? and by "you" i dont mean you personally, i mean the more general public. And of those few, how many truly understand the analysis behind the data. Only those already in the field, thus the process of peer review.

It is one thing to argue against climate change. but when opponents of it say it doesn't exist when its snowing in washington...its kinda hard to take seriously.
Rhetoric is useless to try and "sway" me which is the only thing i have heard from climate change opponents (i refuse to say denialists). Show me tangible research refuting the arguments made by the community. I'm not close minded to scientific proof, but again i am to stupid rhetoric. (which incidentily is only found in the US).
JayK
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
@Skeptic:

The theories of greenhouse gases and wavelength absorption have been around a long time and haven't gone anywhere, other than being verified time and again with current and past observations. Climate Science itself may have gained more mainstream acceptance in the '60s and '70s, but so has our knowledge of prions or the science of advanced semiconductors, yet I don't see skeptics running around claiming that microprocessors are a scam.
frenchie
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2010

Published papers are necessarily checked to weed out bad science.


Not always. We're commenting on an article that speaks to this.


That is simply untrue. Any and all academic publishing by established scientific publications is put through a review process which usually takes 6months to a year.

I encourage you to check this:
http://www.ieee.o...ess.html

the process that we electrical engineers go through mandated by IEEE for any publications in all areas of EE.
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
The difference in warmest years by different groups is very easily explained, you just need to read up on the way the sparsity of polar data stations are treated.


...which makes it a statistical variance by the application of differing statistical methodologies.

That answer already is known. Now, which one is 'right' and why? And why should we believe one over the other? These still remain unanswered as in the past.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2010
That is simply untrue. Any and all academic publishing by established scientific publications is put through a review process which usually takes 6months to a year.

IEEE mandates apply only to electrical engineers. There are no such safeguards that prevent publishing in other fields.

The theories of greenhouse gases and wavelength absorption have been around a long time and haven't gone anywhere,
And I don't doubt them. The theories behind drivers and forcings are new, the statements of how energy passes from one level of the atmosphere to another are new, there are a lot of new things in the realm of climatology.
but when opponents of it say it doesn't exist when its snowing in washington

Would you say the same of proponents that insist it's happening because fo a heat wave in Europe in 2003? Ir those who say it's happening because of an abnormal warm current in Seattle a month ago?

Your answer should be NO to all three (including your snow statement)
JayK
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
Scientists that try to use single weather events as indicators of anything other than weather should be ridiculed, just as I ridicule Anthony Watts and marjon for doing the same thing.

Climate patterns, however, are dealt with by scientists publishing in journals, and so far nearly 100% of them come to conclusions that multi-year patterns are indicative of a warming globe. The articles that disagree are typically reviewed by other scientists and found to be wrong or baseless (or both).

As for dachy, your questions don't merit answers. You'll just move the goalposts.
John_balls
3 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2010
All I want to know is what published research has been ignored by vast majority of climatologist(over 90%) who believe AGW is happening???
Is this a conspiracy? Do you guys think that their is a political motive behind this amongst the worlds scientific organizations??

John_balls
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2010
@John:

The only other science where the minority scientific position seems impervious to the data and the facts would be evolution/origins. Climate science denialists that believe that a single case of charges of fraud makes the entire science false is the same thing as those that point to Piltdown Man as an example of how evolution must be false.

I'm pretty sure they are the same people, actually.


I'm sure the vast majority are.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
Do you guys think that their is a political motive behind this amongst the worlds scientific organizations??


Yes, I do. The American Medical Association has ~20-30% of physician membership yet they claim to speak for all MDs.
What are the world's scientific organizations? How many scientists are members?
As Wegman documented in his report, climate science is incestuous with fewer than 100 scientists writing papers and reviewing them amongst themselves.

We also have James Hansen (a scientist?), from NASA, urging all sorts of political action to save the planet. Never mind the data is uncertain and incomplete. He asserts we must act NOW to save the planet!
Is it a coincidence that most studies claiming AGW as a cause were government funded?
No conspiracy here, move along.
(I thought scientists were supposed to be skeptical?)
One more thing, the IPCC is a political organization.

Check out McIntrye's fights with Nature and Science to obtain data (climateaudit.org)
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
For those who don't know how to research, here is a link to Wegman's report on Mann's hockey stick:

http://www.uoguel...port.pdf

"In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature
reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of
coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the
area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not
be as independent as they might appear on the surface."

Why was paleoclimate study important? They had to hide the medieval warm period to support their AGW claims.
JayK
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
For those that want to ignore the fact that tons of proxies were used:

http://www.realcl...y-stick/

and subsequently ignored by Wegman. You might want to take a look down at Figure 1, if you have a problem reading, like marjon.
frenchie
3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
@ Marjon.

Please do some research. its not a 100 scientists reaching a consensus, it's thousands. Your assertion that this is one big gov't conspiracy is as ludicrous as it is laughable. yes the world's countries which can't agree on anything (least of all their own climate action at copenhaguen) somehow managed to conspire to make millions!!

Occam's razor: which is more likely? consensus among broad swath of scientists in the field or international conspiracy?

----
IPCC Contributors
People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.[54]

Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments.[55]
JayK
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
For those that don't want to read realclimate.org because you're afraid of AGW cooties, there is also the NOAA reconstruction page:

http://www.ncdc.n...ons.html
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
Watch out, though. A lot of the stuff at the end of the JayK et al. link above is IPCC and CRU tainted. :)
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
...

As for dachy, your questions don't merit answers. You'll just move the goalposts.


Translation: JayK et al. haven't a clue how to answer without hanging himself. :)
marjon
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
Please do some research. its not a 100 scientists reaching a consensus, it's thousands. Your assertion that this is one big gov't conspiracy is as ludicrous as it is laughable. yes the world's countries which can't agree on anything (least of all their own climate action at copenhaguen) somehow managed to conspire to make millions!!

It is not a government conspiracy. It is 'watermelon' conspiracy. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
It is a conspiracy of 'the elites' who want more government control of the world.
This started with the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, which was heavily critiqued by Models of Doom.
I saw James Anderson at a conference in Logan, UT and he was fanatical about AGW. http://www-chem.h...rson.htm
And I listened to Lindzen at MIT refute the CO2 danger hyped by Hansen.
Also, as most papers submit for 'peer' review never have their statistical analysis checked, how can they be trusted?
marjon
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
What consensus?

A list of 'peer reviewed' articles are here:

http://petesplace...man.html
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
May I ask what the point of that list is? In particular, I haven't noticed any article that disputes AGW. Of course, if the point was to assemble an impressive-looking list of references, then give that list an utterly misleading title for propaganda purposes, then I guess I see the point...
PinkElephant
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2010
@JayK,
The rise of life, maybe. You're talking phytoplankton and lesser forms.

No, actually. See here, for example:

http://en.wikiped...xide.png

Granted, the data is rather sparse and noisy, and the various reconstructions diverge from each other significantly. But, it seems, one can conclude confidently enough that CO2 was at or above 1000 ppm between about 100 and 250 MYA. That spans the age of the dinosaurs, not just "phytoplankton and lesser forms".

Of course, back then there also were tropical jungles where today you'd find permafrost, so...
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2010
It is not a government conspiracy. It is 'watermelon' conspiracy. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
It is a conspiracy of 'the elites' who want more government control of the world.

This just goes to show how "scientific" marjon's opinions really are. Not at all political. Nay, who dares accuse marjon of not so thinly veiled partisan warfare under pretext of "skepticism"? Not I, sir, not I...
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
Skeptical experts like Lindzen of MIT are attacked by true believers.

I can't imagine why... From http://en.wikiped..._Lindzen
Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette" – an observation that was later echoed by Robyn Williams.

Respec', yo..
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
I thought 'elites' respected institutions?

MIT is considered one of the top, if not the top engineering school in the world.

Lindzen is a tenured professor at MIT.

Here is a list of papers:

http://www-eaps.m...RSL.html

"the coincidence of increasing carbon
dioxide (CO2) and the small warming over the past century hardly
establishes causality."
"2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its increase contributes to warming. It is, in
fact, increasing, and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect (mainly
due to water vapor and clouds) by about 2 percent."

"Even if we attribute all warming over the past century to man-made greenhouse
gases (which we have no basis for doing), the observed warming is only
about a third to a sixth of what models project."
"even scientific literature and institutions
have become politicized. Some scientists issue meaningless remarks ...."
http://www-eaps.m...her.html
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2010
Lindzen is a tenured professor at MIT.

How can you honestly respect anyone who still publicly doubts there's a link between smoking and cancer? I don't care if he's MIT's president; his tenure has clearly gone to his head (or perhaps his head has gone up his ass, or possibly both...)

Here's an interesting compendium regarding Lindzen's funders and affiliations:

http://www.wunder...p=200606

Gee, that guy is not at all a sold-out shill, is he? I'm shocked he hasn't already changed his name from Richard Lindzen to something like Exxon Mobil. Perhaps they haven't paid him enough yet...

LOL @ marjon
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2010
Some one said that scientists prioritize and gain more prestige if:
1. They create a new theory like quantum mechanics.
2. They can disprove an established theory.
3. Then can support an existing theory with new data.

AGW supporters seems to be at level 3 and exhibit little motivation for 2.
I didn't start the politics of AGW, Al Gore, James Hansen and the IPCC did.

One interesting sidebar is Enron's Ken Lay was a great supporter of Kyoto paling around with Clinton. Lay hoped to corner the market on natural gas, just as T. Boone was trying to do.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2010
I didn't start the politics of AGW, Al Gore, James Hansen and the IPCC did.

Not quite. Long before Gore's movie and the IPCC, the politics of AGW were launched by OPEC, in collusion with all the usual suspects including a laundry list of American oil and coal giants. Until these vested interests felt threatened by the emerging science, there was no politics, and no conspiracy, with regard to AGW.
Some one said that scientists prioritize and gain more prestige if:

Not all, and not even a majority, of all scientists are in it for prestige. Most are in it because their job also happens to be their favorite pastime. With most scientists' qualifications, if they wanted money or power, they'd do much better working for private interests (which in Lindzen's case, though, doesn't prevent him from also collecting his tenure from MIT...)
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
If it were just Lindzen one could just slide his opinion under the carpet. However, it is not just Lindzen who is a naysayer or shares similar opinions on the relationship of CO2 to the current statistically insignificant warming period.

There are those who sat on the panel of reviewers of the TAR who also were naysayers and who roundly condemned the TAR and hurled the 'fraudulent' epithet at the work of the IPCC in their reviews.

Until Climategate the public was in the dark about such things going on behind closed doors.

Oh, and PE? Thanks for that link above. I especially liked this part (which likely will disappear when someone edits it out):

While the GEOCARB Carbon dioxide levels in the most part of the Phanerzoic Eon shows a fit and resultíng climate sensitivity similar to todays values, the early Phanerozoic includes a global ice age during the Ordovician age combined with high atmospheric carbon contents based on the same project.


High CO2 & low temps. Go figure...
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
High CO2 & low temps. Go figure...

Assuming the data isn't fundamentally faulty (after all, we're talking about paleoclimate reconstructions of something that allegedly happened 500 million years ago, with lots of assumptions, interpretation, and interpolation thrown in), it's possible there was a relapse of the "snowball" phase.

Global ice age => lots of snow and ice covering the globe => ultra-high albedo. Similar to the "snowball Earth" period (look it up), and volcanic CO2 wouldn't have been efficiently cycling out of the atmosphere due to the icebox conditions. Which leads to slow but steady accumulation of CO2 until the greenhouse effect begins to counterbalance the high albedo, and causes glaciers to retreat, which kicks in positive feed-backs, which accelerates the retreat and the planet eventually exits from the snowball phase. Following which, the CO2 gets gradually sequestered out of the atmosphere.
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
Well, now this is interesting. I thought for sure that with an El Nino and rising solar irradiance that January 2010 would spike the graphs like happened in 2006. No such luck. The following chart is sitting in a NOAA tmp directory.

http://climvis.nc...8574.gif

As with the one posted above, take a look at it before the /tmp directory gets cleared.

In this one the baseline average appears to be 1979-2000 and the mean temperatures recorded in this graph appear to be for all Januaries from 1989 to 2010. Even I did not expect this last January to fall below last year's La Nina January.
TheBigYin
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
So basicly you have 1 degree in electrical engineering LOL. 3 degrees, more like 3 classes.


No, three separate university degrees from three separate universities, one undergraduate, the other two postgraduate.

I like the way you draw out your scientific conclusions not from the evidence, but from what you wish was true. You'll go far in Climate Science.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
the politics of AGW were launched by OPEC,


Where is your supporting documentation?
I think much of this started in the early 70s with Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome using environmental scare tactics for more government control.

They consider themselves the 'educated elites' who know so much more than peons.

I know this as most people who support AGW and consider themselves educated 'elites' are always claiming the world is overpopulated and they have the political solution.
marjon
2.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
I think there is one easy test to isolate the effect of CO2 in the atm.
Monitor the delta temperatures, daytime highs, daytime lows at very dry locations around the world.
If CO2 is adding heat to the local environment, the deltas should be decreasing as CO2 levels rise.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
Where is your supporting documentation?

You could start by looking at Lindzen's sponsors, and the timeline thereof, from the link I posted for you. For example:
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2010
I know this as most people who support AGW and consider themselves educated 'elites' are always claiming the world is overpopulated and they have the political solution.

LMAO

You know, most of those 'elites' probably also think that 2+2=4. Therefore, mathematics is a giant global conspiracy.

So, I guess you don't think the world is over-populated, with nearly 7 billion now, and counting. Won't it be something if all of those 7 billion used as much energy and natural resources per capita as an average American?

Or perhaps you would eschew political solutions, in favor of genocides, wars, epidemics, famine, or other "acts of god".
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
Monitor the delta temperatures, daytime highs, daytime lows at very dry locations around the world.
If CO2 is adding heat to the local environment, the deltas should be decreasing as CO2 levels rise.

I don't see why that would follow. You may be right, but I don't see how you arrive at such a conclusion. CO2 would boost maximum daytime temperature, by retro-reflecting some of the radiation emitted by the ground and risen warm air. It should boost night-time temperature as well, but whether by a commensurate, greater, or lesser amount is not obvious to me. Plus, it's not clear how you'd isolate the effects of convection and weather. If wetter locales experience greater warming (due to positive feedback from water vapor), the imbalance should affect air circulation (winds), with cyclical and seasonal patterns overlaid over everything. Monitoring average global temperature is easier than trying to glean a clean signal from a constrained locale.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
PE, Global temperature is simply a sum and average of multiple constained locales. It cannot be easier to determine global temp when, as you say, the challenges of measuring a smaller system are as great as they are.

Also, you do realize that the vast majority of climate and geological scientists have worked for an oil company at some point in time.

Even Mann and Hansen received money from Shell, and it was a far greater amount than the subject of your ire above recieved.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010

I don't see why that would follow. You may be right, but I don't see how you arrive at such a conclusion. CO2 would boost maximum daytime temperature, by retro-reflecting some of the radiation emitted by the ground and risen warm air.

CO2 (and other gases) absorb photons at specific wavelengths and radiates that energy at different, usually longer wavelengths. There is no 'reflection'.
Also, there is a limited supply of photons/sec from the sun at such wavelengths. If there is sufficient numbers of CO2 molecules to absorb all the photons, adding more CO2 will have no effect. I don't know what the concentration is, but that suggests a theoretical limit to the amount of energy that can be absorbed by CO2.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
CO2 (and other gases) absorb photons at specific wavelengths and radiates that energy at different, usually longer wavelengths. There is no 'reflection'.

I'm not sure how to explain how wrong you are, because you are missing some fundamental understandings, but WOW are you wrong.

This shows you have absolutely no understanding of the basic physics that are under discussion with global warming, such as the greenhouse effect.

Look, UV rays pass through the atmosphere and lose a certain amount of their energy to reflection, while a certain amount passes through. This is basic physics and optics. Those UV rays are absorbed by solids, and liquids to a lesser extent) or are reflected back to space as UV frequencies (concept of albedo).

The UV rays that are absorbed as HEAT. There is the key. They are then retransmitted into a cooler atmosphere as infrared, which the CO2 does absorb.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
I'm wondering, do I also need to show all of the calculations of flat waves as they strike the atmosphere at different angles causing different amounts of reflection? I would have thought that people commenting on photonics and optics would have at least had the bare minimum of education on the topic. Alas, marjon proves that my expectations are WAY too high.
rgw
not rated yet Feb 19, 2010
@TheBigYin

"What is an expert?"
'Ex' is a has been. 'Spert' is a drip under pressure.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
It's easier to monitor average global temperature, because then you don't have to try to extract the signal from under all the convection and weather effects: across the globe, these things automatically balance out in the average.

I don't know where you get your "majority" data from. And I think it would be far more likely at any rate for geologists, than climate scientists. Odd that you would conflate the two, as the disciplines are quite distinct and different both in subject matter and in methods. Also, working for a company is one thing; being a mouthpiece for hire is something else. The subject of my ire, by the way, also happens to have sold out to the tobacco industry as well. Hey, money is money; I completely understand...
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
I'm wondering, do I also need to show all of the calculations of flat waves as they strike the atmosphere at different angles causing different amounts of reflection? I would have thought that people commenting on photonics and optics would have at least had the bare minimum of education on the topic. Alas, marjon proves that my expectations are WAY too high.

This explains it quite well:

"When the photon is absorbed by the CO2, it increases the molecule's vibrational energy or is transferred as kinetic energy in collisions with other molecules, or re-emitted at same or other energy."
Follow this link for more:
http://www.hawaii...c68e5233
JayK
3 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
That isn't what you said before, marjon. Just admit you were wrong and move on, preferably somewhere else.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
I'm wondering, do I also need to show all of the calculations of flat waves as they strike the atmosphere at different angles causing different amounts of reflection? I would have thought that people commenting on photonics and optics would have at least had the bare minimum of education on the topic. Alas, marjon proves that my expectations are WAY too high.

What is a 'flat wave'?
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
@marjon, JayK,
I was under pressure from the 1000-word limit. "Retro-reflection" was sloppy language, but still in essence it's correct: energy comes off the ground or lower atmosphere, is captured by a CO2 molecule, and somewhat less than 50% of it is eventually re-radiated (at lower wavelengths, and in multiple photons) back down toward the ground -- either by the CO2 molecule itself, or by some other molecule (e.g. N2, H2O, etc.) that bumps into it and gains some of that kinetic energy. Bottom line: energy comes up, then a fraction of it "bounces back" down. The end result is that the ground and lower atmosphere get a greater net flux of photons, which is what creates a higher equilibrium temperature: the essence of the somewhat misnamed "greenhouse effect".
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
That isn't what you said before, marjon. Just admit you were wrong and move on, preferably somewhere else.

My only mistake was assuming a photon absorbed by a molecule of CO2 is emitted at a different wavelength. A 4.2um photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule is emitted at 4.2 microns.
CO2 also has other emission bands. One at 10.6 um used for CO2 lasers.
A real greenhouse, and your car, absorb IR photons at wavelengths less than 1.5 um, the cut off for glass. Objects in the car/greenhouse absorb these photons increasing their temperature, radiating at wavelengths longer than 1.5 um trapping these photons in the greenhouse/car.
This does not happen in the atmosphere.
JayK
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
Wrong again, marjon.

You even got emission vs. absorption wrong.

I don't understand why you keep trying to go on with this, you obviously don't understand the fundamentals of the physics and optics necessary to grasp what is being discussed.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
@marjon, JayK,
I was under pressure from the 1000-word limit. "Retro-reflection" was sloppy language, but still in essence it's correct: energy comes off the ground or lower atmosphere, is captured by a CO2 molecule, and somewhat less than 50% of it is eventually re-radiated (at lower wavelengths, and in multiple photons) back down toward the ground -- either by the CO2 molecule itself, or by some other molecule (e.g. N2, H2O, etc.) that bumps into it and gains some of that kinetic energy. Bottom line: energy comes up, then a fraction of it "bounces back" down. The end result is that the ground and lower atmosphere get a greater net flux of photons, which is what creates a higher equilibrium temperature: the essence of the somewhat misnamed "greenhouse effect".

Solar incident photons are absorbed coming down, too.
The photons are not trapped by the CO2. They are scattered. Just as blue photons are scattered by nitrogen giving us a blue sky.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
Wrong again, marjon.

You even got emission vs. absorption wrong.

I don't understand why you keep trying to go on with this, you obviously don't understand the fundamentals of the physics and optics necessary to grasp what is being discussed.

So you keep asserting, but not proving.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
It's easier to monitor average global temperature, because then you don't have to try to extract the signal from under all the convection and weather effects: across the globe, these things automatically balance out in the average.

That's a point of contention.

If I have two chronological data points for a monitored reaction, let's say 4pm and 5pm but all the relevant data is between those two points, how would I account for it?

This may seem like it isn't really a big deal however it is a big deal. When you smooth data you want to smooth it to a reasonable level of noise elimination as well as maintaining data coherency. If we start with a system, like the air in your house, cutting out a portion during smoothing may be in line with what we're trying to measure, however exand that to a far larger system, like your city, and you could be removing massive amounts of relevant data due to truncation and smoothing.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
My only mistake was assuming a photon absorbed by a molecule of CO2 is emitted at a different wavelength.

That's not a mistake, it's actually correct. Emission bands are important when talking about rarefied gas or lasing. But when you have lots of molecules bumping against each other, the nice clean bands get smeared out because of all the collisions involved. A blob of gas will emit pretty much all across the complete black-body spectrum (even if still biased by absorption and preferential emission bands.) It's even more the case for single-specie fluids, and yet more so for single-specie solids. Ultimately, density will determine how close a given emitter comes to an ideal black body.
Solar incident photons are absorbed coming down, too.

Absolutely. However, the peak of incoming radiation is in the visible wavelengths (which is why we've evolved to see them.) Whereas the outgoing peak is in infrared. So CO2 is more efficient in impeding cooling.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
If anyone wants an IR Wall Chart showing the IR atm transmission bands, contact Raytheon Vision Systems in Goleta, CA.
Or find an IR Handbook, page 5-70:
"Strong absorption by CO2 exists in the 2.7, 4.3 regions and the region between 11.4 um and 20 um."
If such photons increase the vibration energy (temperature) of the CO2, then that should be measurable in a dry atm.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
There, I don't need to prove you wrong, Pink Elephant just did it. I explained above the same concept. Visible and UV wavelengths are passed through the atmosphere with little absorption, while the Earth absorbs a lot of it (albedo, I mentioned that before, remember?). The Earth then retransmits the heat in the infrared wavelengths, which is readily absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
Whereas the outgoing peak is in infrared. So CO2 is more efficient in impeding cooling.

At a concentration of 350 ppm? That is parts per MILLION, .035%.
If true, then one should notice the delta temps over dry areas decreasing with increasing CO2.
Temperature swings of 40 deg F easily occur over dry deserts. In tropical regions with high H2O vapor, night temperatures are nearly the same as day.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
When you smooth data you want to smooth it to a reasonable level of noise elimination as well as maintaining data coherency.

Sure. It would be a bad idea to compute global averages if all your samples are concentrated in a single spot, or if they don't adequately sample the surface of the globe. There have been numerous studies showing that current sampling methods (using fewer measurements) still nicely reproduce the formerly higher-density records. So yes, the validity of sampling and smoothing methodology is an important subject of continued monitoring.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2010
At a concentration of 350 ppm?

Yes. It's still far short of the optical saturation limit, but integrated over a complete air column the effect is significant. (Of course, both the relative concentration and the overall air density vary depending on height in the air column.)
Temperature swings of 40 deg F easily occur over dry deserts. In tropical regions with high H2O vapor, night temperatures are nearly the same as day.

Some of this has to do with enhanced greenhouse due to high humidity, but actually a large part will be due simply to the high heat capacity of water, and also to the fact that when water condenses out of the air (e.g. creating fog or dew), it releases heat.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
There, I don't need to prove you wrong, Pink Elephant just did it. I explained above the same concept. Visible and UV wavelengths are passed through the atmosphere with little absorption, while the Earth absorbs a lot of it (albedo, I mentioned that before, remember?). The Earth then retransmits the heat in the infrared wavelengths, which is readily absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere.

Absorbed and emitted at the same wavelengths.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
Last troll feeding. The moving goalposts and the sheer copy/paste behavior is really starting to get to me.

We are not talking about surface CO2, nor low atmosphere CO2. marjon is confounding the issue by mixing it all up and trying to produce some kind of argument, which is an indication that there is nothing to be said which will stop this person except for ignoring it.
frenchie
3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2010
by flat wave, JayK means a plane wave. The approximation that at a far enough distance a spherical radiating wave will look planar in incidence.

@BigYin
I'm not a climate scientist. Thank god that would bore me. Nope i'm a EE, much more fun. Hence why i callously poked fun at the 3 topics you listed for your degree. My apology on those. It was just that those 3 topics combined can be found in all undergrad and postgrad studies of EE nowadays, my personal evidence i suppose you could say. I didn't account for the fact that you could have received said degrees a while back.

JayK
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
For those interested in the Earth transmitted energy spectra:
http://cimss.ssec...ctra.gif

Cooling rates of the spectra of trace gases:
http://www.agu.or...86.shtml
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
Some of this has to do with enhanced greenhouse due to high humidity, but actually a large part will be due simply to the high heat capacity of water, and also to the fact that when water condenses out of the air (e.g. creating fog or dew), it releases heat.

Still missing the point. If there is NO H2O, DRY AIR, does the atm temperature increase due to CO2? That could be measured by noting the delta between the high and low for a day.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,

Sure. It would be a bad idea to compute global averages if all your samples are concentrated in a single spot, or if they don't adequately sample the surface of the globe. There have been numerous studies showing that current sampling methods (using fewer measurements) still nicely reproduce the formerly higher-density records. So yes, the validity of sampling and smoothing methodology is an important subject of continued monitoring.

One need only look at the Boliva Effect to state that our current monitoring system is greatly truncating the true data sets via subjective manipulation.

Effectively, we can see and show when we are getting it wrong. Our thermometer IS broken at this point in time.

There are a few options:
1) More monitoring stations (I like this idea since I'm in the field and more money would be nice)
2) More accurate monitoring comuptations (far more difficult to certify as fact)
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
Still missing the point. If there is NO H2O, DRY AIR, does the atm temperature increase due to CO2?

You won't find any place on Earth where there's "NO H2O". Even in the driest desert, there's always significant quantities of water vapor in the air. Desert ecosystems rely on this vapor to provide them with dew overnight.

CO2's effects always operate, regardless of H2O or other greenhouse gas concentrations. To address one common misconception: CO2's absorption bands are not really masked by H2O's or any other gas. They may span similar overall intervals of the spectrum, but individual absorption lines are very narrow and the "bands" rather than being continuous, are actually "combs" of such lines. The precise absorption lines themselves seldom if ever occur at exactly the same frequency for any two distinct gases.
That could be measured by noting the delta between the high and low for a day.

As already mentioned, you'd lose the signal within the noise of weather.
JayK
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
In relation to PinkElephant's post, the calculations of line by line is here:
http://www.agu.or...86.shtml

That paper isn't a little walk in the park. Significant amounts of work were necessary to calculate the overall absorptions by the "bands".

It might also be noted, if one doesn't read the entire abstract, that their calculations were in very close approximation to the observational data.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
Marjon, arguing about somethign as well understood and proven as spectrometry of gasses is utterly ridiculous. I'm starting to understand where the application of the term denialist comes from. Some arguments you make are so utterly ridiculous as to be akin to the assertion that the holocaust didn't happen.

Be a skeptic, not a denialist.
JayK
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
But you see, Skeptic, this is exactly why I find absolutely nothing to be skeptical about in the presentation of AGW by climate scientists. Marjon is a classic example of what is put out and re-transmitted by the denialists with no actual science. It is a position only defined by its opposition to AGW, with no actual platform to base their claims.

And like it or not, your comments will always be viewed in a similar light to theirs.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
It might also be noted, if one doesn't read the entire abstract, that their calculations were in very close approximation to the observational data.

Hm, well I can't access the actual paper, but the abstract mentioned only the total flux -- not detailed spectrum -- in terms of agreement with observations. And the total flux is a bit of a cheat, since it will be the same regardless of what is in the atmosphere, as long as the average global temperature is fixed: it's just a matter of thermodynamics and black body radiation curve.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
One need only look at the Boliva Effect to state that our current monitoring system is greatly truncating the true data sets via subjective manipulation.

Why so sure it's "subjective"? From what I understand of GISS methodlology, the smoothing functions are chosen so that they reproduce past correlations between temperatures over Bolivia vs. the "neighboring" stations. It's not the same smoothing function all over the globe; it is customized to each locale being interpolated, with the customization based on prior detailed data sets.
There are a few options:

I'd add more/denser satellite observations to that list.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2010
Marjon, arguing about somethign as well understood and proven as spectrometry of gasses is utterly ridiculous. I'm starting to understand where the application of the term denialist comes from. Some arguments you make are so utterly ridiculous as to be akin to the assertion that the holocaust didn't happen.

Be a skeptic, not a denialist.

I am skeptical that CO2 is the CAUSE of any warming.
The only reason it is consider a cause is that was the only way they could get the computer model to work.
"The sensitivity of global mean temperature change to an
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not well
established."
"The radiative forcing concept is rooted in studies with general
circulation models (GCMs) that have examined climate
change in response to different kinds of radiative forcing."
http://citeseerx....type=pdf
JayK
3 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
Ah, the article is even titled exploitation, and then we have a perfect example of exploitation by taking quotes out of context.

Good jorb!
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2010
I am skeptical that CO2 is the CAUSE of any warming.
So you aren't skeptical about CO2's contribution as a greenhouse gas, to pre-existing temperatures before the Industrial Revolution?
The only reason it is consider a cause is that was the only way they could get the computer model to work.
If you accept the basic physics of CO2's optical interactions, then you must accept CO2's role in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. This is a matter of basic quantum physics, and elementary thermodynamics (energy conservation.) It has nothing to do with any computer models. Neither does the basic conclusion that raising the concentration of a greenhouse gas, will raise the equilibrium temperature at the surface. That's just a matter of basic physics and math, not any GCM.

What GCMs try to do, is derive the DEGREE of warming, plus details of various localized climate disruptions and feedbacks. You don't need models to establish the EXISTENCE of CO2-mediated warming; it's a given.
JayK
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2010
@PinkElephant:

I don't know if you've seen the other ridiculous thread where someone has challenged the theories of the greenhouse effect (atmospheric, not glass/air) but this article was pushed as something that contradicted GCC:

http://arxiv.org/...61v4.pdf

I'm browsing through it now, and the claims it makes are so ridiculous that I can't believe someone actually spent the time writing this garbage. It is nothing but strawman after strawman with some impressive looking math that doesn't actually mean anything, half the time. Page 12 is so far my favorite.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
@JayK,
Yes I've seen it, and I've read the paper you linked as well. My reaction was pretty much similar to your own. I was somewhere between amused and perplexed at the sheer inanity, including the army of strawmen it slaughters with such wild abandon, yet the obvious effort that went into it. My favorite flavor of argument (which recurs throughout): if something can't be solved analytically (i.e. reduced to a neat simple equation with an exact solution), then it's "unphysical". These people clearly have no engineering or lab (i.e. real-world) experience or background...
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
Oh, one other amusing type of "argument": you can't reliably describe the properties and behaviors of a macro-scale system, without accounting for every atom and photon involved, and all the semi-random individual electromagnetic and kinetic interactions within the [ultra-]many-body system.

Seriously, that paper ought to be required reading for any student of physics theory: as it's embodies so many examples of what NOT to do, and how NOT to argue.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2010
Why so sure it's "subjective"? From what I understand of GISS methodlology, the smoothing functions are chosen so that they reproduce past correlations between temperatures over Bolivia vs. the "neighboring" stations. It's not the same smoothing function all over the globe; it is customized to each locale being interpolated, with the customization based on prior detailed data sets.

But that isn't the case. There are hard and fast rules as to how they deal with monitoring stations. I say they are subjective as there is no verifiable standard in which the raw data is handled by organizations. So GISS is standard to GISS only, NCDC is standard to NCDC only, etc.

I agree with more denser satelite data points as well.

And like it or not, your comments will always be viewed in a similar light to theirs.

That is where alarmist comes from. You know well that I am greatly displeased from a professional and personal standpoint when the discussion ends before it began.
JayK
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2010
I also had to laugh that he attempts to disqualify climate scientists usage of perfect black-body radiation algorithms, then proceeds throughout section 2 to use perfect environment algorithms himself. He also ignored the fact that newer models are including cloud formation/reflection and actual ground albedo measurements because the black-body radiation had already been acknowledged.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
I say they are subjective as there is no verifiable standard in which the raw data is handled by organizations. So GISS is standard to GISS only, NCDC is standard to NCDC only, etc.

Then I wouldn't use the word "subjective", as these groups give pretty open, explicit, and objective explanations for why and how they "manipulate" data.

Would it be nice to harmonize these things across the world? Perhaps (but who decides on the "officially correct" methodology?) Would it be nice to remove raw data publishing and exchange restrictions imposed by certain data sources (and countries)? Definitely.

But if GISS and NCDC (and others) use different methodologies, and yet still their data sets are mutually consistent, then that's a rather strong hint that they aren't distorting the science. It's kind of the same dynamic as with different teams around the world running their versions of the same experiment, to independently confirm some new discovery.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2010
Would it be nice to harmonize these things across the world? Perhaps (but who decides on the "officially correct" methodology?) Would it be nice to remove raw data publishing and exchange restrictions imposed by certain data sources (and countries)? Definitely.

As someone else said prior, the IEEE has done this for all things electrical engineering based.

Not too complex to follow an already functional model.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
No, that isn't what PE is talking about. There is actually a benefit in the different organizations doing things differently in that the results are more independent and can therefore be judged on their own merits. The algorithms are not standard, they are proprietary. The fact that they all come to the same conclusions is a great proof of concept, not a defect.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2010
No, that isn't what PE is talking about. There is actually a benefit in the different organizations doing things differently in that the results are more independent and can therefore be judged on their own merits. The algorithms are not standard, they are proprietary. The fact that they all come to the same conclusions is a great proof of concept, not a defect.

No, I caught that piece. I was making an analogy to the IEEE standards board. In testing they'll create multiple testing methodologies and make you run ALL of them. Otherwise the UL office in China would run one test, while the UL in the US runs another, etc.

JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
Those are standards for protocols and hardware, how does that translate into anything that we're talking about?
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
Like I said, personally I have no fundamental objection to some sort of a world-standardized data set. Of course, how would one defend such a unified data set against "skeptic" allegations that a global conspiracy cooked it? And the standardization itself would be nontrivial, to say the least. So it would be nice to have, but problematic to achieve. At the same time, I don't see the absence of such standardization as somehow standing in the way of science. Yes, it does introduce subtleties and extra work for people who want to gather and use the data from all the disparate sources, but it's an inconvenience, not a show-stopper. Yet it's also why I'd prefer more satellite data: you get global coverage via consistent instrumentation/technology, instead of a hodge-podge of measurements, some of which are already pre-massaged by the respective sources in ways that aren't always completely disclosed...
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2010
What GCMs try to do, is derive the DEGREE of warming, plus details of various localized climate disruptions and feedbacks. You don't need models to establish the EXISTENCE of CO2-mediated warming; it's a given.

The question is and remains its significance.
Apparently atm CO2 played no significant role in previous warming periods. Which is why Mann had to fabricate his hockey stick graph.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
Apparently atm CO2 played no significant role in previous warming periods.
Quite wrong, CO2 has played a very significant role in previous warming periods. It is an important feedback mechanism: any time there's warming, oceans outgas CO2 into the atmosphere, which enhances greenhouse effect, and serves to further amplify warming. That's how come the minuscule changes in solar irradiation due to Milankovich orbital cycles, can result in dramatic climate shifts that underlie the ice age cycle.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2010
Here is a list of a few more skeptics for you to attack:
http://www.climat...Itemid=1
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
It is an important feedback mechanism: any time there's warming, oceans outgas CO2 into the atmosphere, which enhances greenhouse effect, and serves to further amplify warming.

How much? What are the error bars?
JayK
3 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
Hey! The first site they list for "climate science" is Anthony Watts' Kingdom of Rubarb! That really adds to the ICSC credibility. How could anyone doubt they have the best science in mind?
jgelt
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2010
It's a mean free path for radiation.
And convection goes up.
It works both ways with insulation.
For every mother's pup.

Our conduction's been declining-
we were once a molten ball.
So we will see another ice age
after all.

Stellar fusion bakes a planet orbitting a star.
On a wobbly rotisserie, we're nicely done so far.
The hot spot mainly hits it on the rotating equator.
Vapor rises, radiates, condenses elsewhere, later.

The ocean sloshes heat around, and swaps with cooler areas.
Water, in 3 phases play a thermal stradivarius.
The poles get hardly any sun, so it gets cold, I'm sorry.
But snow helps the albedo show out to Alpha Centauri.

Oh there is no global warming.
Even gormless should see.
Oh there is no global warming.
There is no free energy.

We can laugh at those witchdoctors
as they cry 'catastrophe'.
Because the universe will die a heat death-
from ENTROPY.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2010
Those are standards for protocols and hardware, how does that translate into anything that we're talking about?
It's an international board of standards. Our conversation is in regards to setting up a standard of measurement within an internationally studied field. And FYI the IEEE does have hard guidelines for research and publication as well.
That's how come the minuscule changes in solar irradiation due to Milankovich orbital cycles, can result in dramatic climate shifts that underlie the ice age cycle.

Sense of scale is needed when you refer to "miniscule" changes in the sun. 1366Watts per square meter reduced by 1 percent, over the entire surface area of the atmosphere is a multi-Petawatt calculation. That is a truly massive amount of energy contained in a "miniscule" change of 1 percent.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2010
Peer review broken?
http://www.the-sc...y/23061/

In the end they say no, but depending upon the 'peers' it is certainly fractured.
jonnyboy
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2010
@stealthc:

this graph:
http://en.wikiped...0kyr.png
is why I rated your comment as a one. It appears you have no clue as to what you are talking about.


I just love it when one of the alarmists uses information created of the IPCC, by the IPCC, for the IPCC to try and prove the IPCC's claims. Which came first: hot air from the alarmists mouths or global warming created by the hot air from the alarmists mouths, and yes JayK....this means you!!!
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2010
@john balls

"You dispute it because you have a background in what??"

Your point is absolutely irrelevant, a valid argument or idea stays valid regardless the profession, occupation, skin color, geographic location etc. etc. The same goes for facts by the way.
Typical academic arrogance to think intelligence, inventiveness (even creativity)is reserved for academics only.

I know of a clerk who invented relativity...

J.


While all this is true, think about the amount of knowledge required to investigate or criticize any other element of our technological society. I would certainly want to ask someone for their background if they were criticizing a medical procedure, or a computer security system.
JerryPark
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2010
["What you do see sometimes is that people who have an agenda that is directed toward undermining action on climate change grab whatever tidbit they can find," Stern told reporters.]

Whenever people using a lie to promote a political agenda are called out, you can be sure they will say that anyone who disagrees with them "has an agenda".

Global warming was created as a political vehicle to transfer wealth and power from the developed nations to the undeveloped nations. It has always had this agenda. It will not go away because the socialists promoting it will not go away or shut up.

But we don't have to listen to them.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2010
While all this is true, think about the amount of knowledge required to investigate or criticize any other element of our technological society. I would certainly want to ask someone for their background if they were criticizing a medical procedure, or a computer security system.

In science, there is no basis for criticism if the theory can be sustained with data.
Like Reagan used to say, trust but verify. AGW'ites have lost trust and can't verify.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2010
While I do have a little problem with the above chart to which MieyK et al. linked, I do not dispute its overall accuracy for a graph of that kind.

However, MikeyK et al. misused it to try to refute stealthc's comment above. The resolution of the graph is too low and the range of the graph's x-axis not long enough either to support or refute the point made.

I am reasonably sure that stealthc was speaking regarding early life on this earth and not the last few hundred thousand years where levels of CO2 ppmv were lower than at present. Of course, MikeyK et al. still has not answered a question asked some time ago relative to CO2 levels from the mid-Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous... :)
WithOneT
3 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2010
You call it exploiting, we call it seeing the truth.
deatopmg
Feb 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
1Very_Old_Guy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2010
It's because of this "Team finds subtropical waters flushing through Greenland fjord"
Someone is tinkering with ocean currents and screwing up the climate model. Plates are moving and earthquakes are shaking things up a bit. I don't suppose this kind of activity could cause a change in currents/climate.....oooops.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2010
"A religion is what the faith in catastrophic man-made global warming has become. It is now a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions which everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify."
http://www.realcl...494.html
It is amusing that those who give me grief about faith in God have their own faith in AGW.
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2010
Too true, that. Thanks for sharing that opinion piece. I myself do not complain when people express faith in some form of higher being. On the other hand, my dander gets up when people try to inject religion into the science or even turn it into a religion of sorts.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2010
Too true, that. Thanks for sharing that opinion piece. I myself do not complain when people express faith in some form of higher being. On the other hand, my dander gets up when people try to inject religion into the science or even turn it into a religion of sorts.

I suspect you have no objection to men of faith who were exceptional scientists, like Gregor Mendel, an Augustian monk?
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2010
No, not at all. Religion is an intensely personal matter. Many scientists have been men and women of various faiths.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2010
Interesting. Very interesting. I was made aware of some information today that may show yet another climate scandal coming the public's way.

I cannot yet confirm or deny the accuracy of the report as of yet because I need to check some things out. But, if true, it may show that the IPCC came up with a way to hide some proxy CO2 ppmv data into a smaller number for the pre-industrial age than the proxy showed.

The number claimed for the proxy data was ~345 ppmv, which would have then been dropped algorithmically to the much lower number the IPCC provided.

Once again--so as to help JayK et al. NOT misread posts again--I can neither confirm nor deny the allegation until I have looked over the entire dataset.

So, JayK et al., do not attribute to me a claim I am not actually making but am researching. I only announce it because it is important information and because I made announcments like this before which turned out to be accurate. This may not pan out but if it does... :)
marjon
1.8 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2010
When it rains it pours. At least we are seeing real science for a change:
"
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown
"
http://www.guardi...-siddall
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2010
Don't anybody actually read that guardian link that marjon provided, because marjon obviously didn't, and I wouldn't want anyone to make fun of her.

And dachy, what will you do if you're wrong?
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2010
What would I do if I am wrong? Admit my error. However, it is not me that would be wrong in this case. It would be the information that I received that would be wrong. Again misreading the posts I see... :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2010
On the matter of sea levels with respect to the IPCC and gaffs such as the one mentioned above in the Physorg article, there are scientists who have recorded a drop in sea level and no net rising of sea level around the Maldives rather than sea level increase.

Some of these scientists say that measurements have been taken by others in regions that have geological sinking going on, which introduces errors in sea level change assessments and estimates.

Something else to think about...
JayK
2 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2010
So why did you even bring it up if you're just going to blame someone else? I didn't misread, I understood exactly what you were trying to do, cast dispersions on a science you obviously don't understand nor do you have any intention of learning enough to understand it.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2010
You wish, JayK et al. Unfortunately, clicking your ruby shoes any number of times will not make your bare assertions true.

I am looking over the data now. The data is looking good for the moment. At least it is of interest. The data comes from chemical measurements of CO2 taken from various regions across North America and Europe.

Between 1816 and 1830, and again in 1940-1960, measurements of CO2 by chemical means were well above the IPCC estimates for CO2 for those times. I am looking at data right now as I type this that lists readings of between 307 and 314 ppmv, in 1955, on the low end (not counting nightly levels and averaging these readings into the data), with a corrected average of ~365 ppmv. These figures are surprising and interesting all at once.

And, I brought up what I did because the information is important. If shown correct, it may well undermine yet another piece of the IPCC version of the science. But, it isn't my data. So, pray tell, how do I get the blame?
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2010
From 1816 to 1830 chemical analysis data I am seeing ranges from ~390 ppmv to ~430 ppmv, with a 19th century average of 321 ppmv. This is very interesting, indeed!

This is especially so considering that we are currently at ~388.63 ppmv averaged, according to Mauna Loa.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2010
I just have seen some really interesting stuff involving weather balloon and rocket experiments that measured CO2 from 1897 to 1973.

These balloons and rockets measured CO2 levels in the upper Troposphere and in the Stratosphere. What I found interesting about the data from the balloon measurements is the peaking of levels of CO2 between 1928 and 1940. One year in the 1930s produced an average measurement of ~800 ppmv!

Rocket and balloon measurements give an average level of above 300 ppmv from 1959-1973.

Of course, the ice cores from that period do not show levels that high. So many questions and avenues for study and so little time...
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
Don't anybody actually read that guardian link that marjon provided, because marjon obviously didn't, and I wouldn't want anyone to make fun of her.

And dachy, what will you do if you're wrong?


What did I say?
There is some real science for a change. People publish and have the intellectual honesty to retract if they find they were in error. (Newspapers won't do that readily.)
That is the only way real scientists will ever be trusted again, if they acknowledge error and proceed.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
From 1816 to 1830 chemical analysis data I am seeing ranges from ~390 ppmv to ~430 ppmv, with a 19th century average of 321 ppmv. This is very interesting, indeed!

This is especially so considering that we are currently at ~388.63 ppmv averaged, according to Mauna Loa.


I saw a chart indicating 7000 ppm millions of years ago.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
Here is something interesting from page 229 of a report dated October 1955 in Monthly Weather Review:

Since techniques have been improving, the latest observations should be the most accurate. Duerst [12] and Kreutz [21] found values of 400 and 438.5 parts per million, respectively, from observations made in 1936 and 1939. Duerst bases his mean on 500 observations, a reasonably large number, if his techniques are correct. Kreutz made about 25,000 observations.

http://docs.lib.n...0225.pdf

My thanks to the NOAA Central Library Data Imaging Project for making the above information public.

Of course, these data could be representative only of local CO2 levels. But it still is of interest to see levels that high recorded during the years 1936 and 1939 considering what the IPCC have been telling the world.

These data tally fairly well with other data throughout the Northern Hemisphere ranging means of 290-550 ppm. Greenland: 550ppm in 1866-1879!
simba22
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
Unbelievable.
Why would anyone with half a brain deny we have a big problem. 800+ million cars, 200+ million commercial vehicles, planes, ships, power stations, cement plants, steelworks, smelters, +++++ the list goes on that were not here 100/200 years ago and man is not having an impact on the planet. Wake up - The logic is undeniable.
Forget all the B/S about being qualified/don't want fraud perpetrated/left wing/right wing/I've got three degrees/garbage.
How could anyone in their right mind deny that we should do something except "big business". Again a no-brainer. WHo loses ?
Go back into your closets and watch and beleive what you see on your televisions.
JayK
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
Simba22, it is because a paper from 1955 said that low altitude ground based CO2 observations showed an alarming value! Or because there was some ethical violations somewhere, or maybe because (insert infinitely shifting goalposts here).
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
Would that it were only 1955 papers and data! There is data amassed that goes all the way to 1973, much of which is ignored, and which even shows high altitude measurements as high or higher than current levels of CO2!

The only shifting goalposts are those of the AGW camp. "The numbers are unprecedented," they parrot. "See! We predicted that!" is the up and coming cry not far behind "runaway greenhouse!"

If enough scientists latch onto this relatively ignored and unknown CO2 data, the IPCC are going to have more problems to add to their list of ongoing accuracy problems and concerns, exaggeration factors, fudge factors and so forth.

This is major problem if even a portion of the data holds up. Levels of CO2 hanging around 500 ppm??? The ice data do not seem to show that. This may call into question the validity of ice core data regarding atmospheric CO2. If the air around Greenland had that much CO2, the question then is raised as to why these levels don't show up in cores.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2010
Folks, we need to get more climate scientists to look at the available CO2 data and not ignore any of it that is inconvenient for one's hypotheses. We need a whole lot more to look over the data and need to get the statisticians into the fray.

Everything must be examined and accounted for and the models revisited. The IPCC must be called to account. Todd Stern must be called to account.
frenchie
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2010
yes dachpyarville, cause thousands of climate scientists clearly cannot be trusted as they are part of a massive conspiracy to steal the money from the wealthy! How many scientists working on the subject and reaching a consensus will satisfy you?

Just say that you dont want to see your taxes/money spent on climate change and stop hiding being calls for "true science."

This whole thread reaks of biggotry and tin foil hats.
JayK
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2010
I really enjoy the egotistical side of the anti-AGW crowd. They really believe, just like 911 truthers, that only they know the truth and that everyone else is either blind or in on the grand conspiracy.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
I have said nothing about conspiracies. I have said nothing about not trusting thousands of scientists. You must be thinking of one of JayK/MikeyK's dachpy sockpuppets.

By the way, the 'thousands' number is inflated. Climategate showed that. One of the emails was clear that the people compiling the list should not check credentials or ask about publications as they thought that people do not care about whether or not people signing onto the statement had Ph.D.s or not.

In fact, they were directed NOT to screen the list of signatories. The list is something I would not trust too naively.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
Shorty Dachy:

"blah blah blah I never said conspiracy, derpa derpa, ClimateGate conspiracy, derp derp"

Everything you post is steeped in the tea of a conspiracy. "no one ever noticed all this data, or they actively covered it up!" is a pretty accurate summary of your latest movement of the goalposts.

And I won't even delve into the projections.
PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2010
dachpy is once again on a safari to discover the obvious. He won't rest until great effort and loads of time had been wasted. I'll be charitable, and try to save dachpy the trouble...

Measuring CO2 around industrial centers, will of course yield values much higher than at locations far from industry. (Can I have a "duh", my brothers and sisters?) That's how come certain ice cores from remote locations (such as Greenland, and Antarctica) don't reflect the high values measured over north-western Europe or north-eastern America at the time. Measurements made far and high over oceans, are more indicative of the average atmospheric concentrations. The somewhat more recent Mauna Loa data series (that starts in late 1950's) would be one example of such...

http://en.wikiped...ng_Curve
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
OK, lets see, either there is a conspiracy where thousands of scientists and scientific organizations are all agreeing to use false data and hide inconvenient facts in order to make AGW appear real, OR, those same organizations and scientists are all really dumb and are all making the exact same mistakes.

So with dachy's new "discovery," that will be hitting the newswires any second now, either he and his source are the only ones with access to Google and/or the data OR they have massive ego's that lead them to believe they're smarter and understand the climate better?

Can Mr. Occam please answer that last question?
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
PE, I also mentioned high altitude CO2 measurements. You must have missed the posts. They also are on the high end.

And, JayK et al.? Um, no. Much of the data has been ignored and left languishing on the shelves. A lot of it has not yet made it online.

I provided one example of many, that one example being on the web as part of a project to preserve data. Conspiracy has nothing to do with it.

Again, you misread and misinterpret. It is your habit, I see. Far be it from me to try to help you overcome such bad habits. It is no wonder you do not understand the bigger picture and thrive on AGW hype. :)
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
PE, I also mentioned high altitude CO2 measurements.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. But I see you're determined to waste your time regardless. By all means, good luck and bon voyage with this new lark of yours.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
Unbelievable.
Why would anyone with half a brain deny we have a big problem. 800+ million cars, 200+ million commercial vehicles, planes, ships, power stations, cement plants, steelworks, smelters, +++++ the list goes on that were not here 100/200 years ago and man is not having an impact on the planet. Wake up - The logic is undeniable.
Forget all the B/S about being qualified/don't want fraud perpetrated/left wing/right wing/I've got three degrees/garbage.
How could anyone in their right mind deny that we should do something except "big business". Again a no-brainer. WHo loses ?
Go back into your closets and watch and beleive what you see on your televisions.

The earth is a big place. ALL the world's people would fit comfortably in a land mass the size of Australia or North America. All 7 billion.
JayK
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2010
But they wouldn't have fresh water, and what they would have would be far deeper than your thinking, marjon.

Why don't you take your shallow IQ somewhere else.
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
...Measurements made far and high over oceans, are more indicative of the average atmospheric concentrations. The somewhat more recent Mauna Loa data series (that starts in late 1950's) would be one example of such...


A problem with ocean-based measurements is that CO2 is absorbed by ocean water as it passes over, having the effect of lessening CO2 available to the sensor equipment. That is another reason why Arctic and Antarctic measurements tend to be lower.

But, when Arctic atmospheric measurements in non-industrial areas are on the high side, it is a whole other ballgame. :)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
A problem with ocean-based measurements is that CO2 is absorbed by ocean water as it passes over...

More accurately, at present about 25% of anthropogenic emissions get absorbed by the oceans -- so far, until they warm up too much to absorb anything at all. The rest stays in the atmosphere, as shown by arctic core measurements and the Mauna Loa series. And oh by the way, you do realize our planet's surface is mostly (70%) water? So if you're going to measure mean atmospheric CO2, you'd better look over oceans, and not so much over land, and least of all over pollution centers...
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
I see little to no substantial evidence that the oceans are going to reach such a saturation point or even warm up to that point, only alarmism.

It is not necessarily true that the rest stays in the atmosphere (as some claim, for hundreds of years). This idea is based on incomplete and, as yet, unproven science.

The Mauna Loa series is the result of a number of adjustments and splicing of the data which may or may not be correct.

Yes, the earth is 70% water, blah, blah, blah....

Mean atmospheric CO2 must never be measured from data restricted to only the oceans and all counts and data should be taken into consideration, not just a few cherry-picked constructs. The IPCC and others of their ilk have not learned that yet--unfortunately.

Otherwise we get inaccurate results overall. I would have thought this lesson would have been learned after the flack from the other inaccurate claims that have been made... :)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
I see little to no substantial evidence that the oceans are going to reach such a saturation point or even warm up to that point, only alarmism.
Oh right, no evidence. Acidification can continue without bound, and warmer water doesn't dissolve less CO2. Also, the science of Chemistry is a fraud perpetrated by the IPCC.
It is not necessarily true that the rest stays in the atmosphere
Of course. It disappears into a parallel universe through the magical wormhole at the end of a rainbow. And Antarctic ice cores do NOT show rise in CO2 that matches well the predicted rise from known human emissions. That's all a fraud, too. Blame IPCC.
The Mauna Loa series ... may not be correct.
Sure. Also, I may actually be a flying purple people eater. Who knows?
blah, blah, blah....
Indeed.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
Acidification can continue without bound, and warmer water doesn't dissolve less CO2.

Warmer water dissolves far less CO2 than cooler water.

Not sure if the above is supposed to be some sort of twisted sarcasm or not but whatever it is, it's wrong.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
Warmer water dissolves far less CO2 than cooler water.
If you really want to convince dachpy, you'll need to show him *evidence*. See, apparently he never had any direct experience with those mythical exotic so-called "fizzy drinks". Also, throughout his extensive and intensive researches and data mining, he apparently never before happened to chance upon such an esoteric a concept as you're proposing...

I've come to understand dachpy's basic approach. It's actually nothing new. It is the classical, dictionary definition of the word: "sophistry".
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
Hey wait a minute here, what's this:
CO2 dissolves into the water and only so much can be held at a time influenced by the temperature of the water. The colder the water the more CO2 can be dissolved in the water.
Hmmm... who might have written something like that? Why, it's somebody who goes by the moniker of "dachpyarvile"!

http://www.physor...254.html

Hey dachpy, where's most of Earth cold water located: near the equator, or near the poles? Oh dachpy, old chap, where's the warming most pronounced -- both as predicted by models, and as measured empirically -- near the equator, or near the poles? Gee, what effect might something like that possibly have on ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2?

And that's before we even ponder the effects of interplay between oceans and the atmosphere. Lookie here:

http://ipsnews.ne...ws=37774
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2010
But they wouldn't have fresh water, and what they would have would be far deeper than your thinking, marjon.

Why don't you take your shallow IQ somewhere else.


The earth is 70% water. All that is required is energy to remove the salt.

Lots of ways to get that energy.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
Warmer water dissolves far less CO2 than cooler water.
If you really want to convince dachpy, you'll need to show him *evidence*. See, apparently he never had any direct experience with those mythical exotic so-called "fizzy drinks". Also, throughout his extensive and intensive researches and data mining, he apparently never before happened to chance upon such an esoteric a concept as you're proposing...

But that isn't what he said. He said the oceans will not get warm enough to hit a terminal saturation limit.

He's correct in that statement, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
Well, for one, Skeptic, it isn't a step function from absorption to saturation, which will cause all sorts of complex feedbacks, such as increased atmospheric CO2 in areas where oceans took it up, before.

And marjon, why are you still here? I'd ask what solution you have to moving that water inland to those not on the shores, but you'll move the goalposts some more. Oh, and when all of that free energy shows up for desalination plants, you might let countries like Australia know where you got it. They're having a massive problem getting fresh water to their people. You'd finally be a hero!
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2010
Well, for one, Skeptic, it isn't a step function from absorption to saturation, which will cause all sorts of complex feedbacks, such as increased atmospheric CO2 in areas where oceans took it up, before.
Neither one of us can speak to this point with any certainty.

You speak a lot about moving goalposts, that's what science is, perhaps not to the effect seen within these comments, however, moving the goal posts is part of the process by which hypotheses are validated. The goal posts have to move to prove your point, you can't just "call the game" because you think you've scored enough.
JayK
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
Science doesn't move goalposts. It defines a set of hypothesis and then provides conclusions to them. Good science takes the works of others and builds on the basis by using the citation methods.

Comment threads are not science. Marjon is using a debate technique that involves never actually addressing answers to questions, but just changes the questions over and over and over again. If this were a game, it would be equivalent to ignoring all of the points your opponent has scored while keeping your own score based on totally different criteria that you don't tell anyone else about.

If marjon would actually stick to a point, would answer questions or would even cite her opinion with reputable sources, that might be different. As it is, marjon is nothing but a useless troll masquerading behind a faux-Socratic method.
deatopmg
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2010
7 days and still no consensus. What happened to "consensus"?
deatopmg
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2010
These posts are great! - One side arguing the scientific merits of the data presented by NASA, NOAA, and UEA/CRU, the other arguing that they believe data as it has been presented without investigating where it came from, how it was homogenized, or not, and if the homogenization was necessary or correctly applied.

7 days and still no consensus. What happened to that "consensus"?
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic has it exactly right. PE is beginning to seem to me to be another MikeyK socckpuppet. He misreads posts and misunderstands the crux of an argument the same way.

All that sarcastic crap about rainbows and wormholes is a MikeyK sort of thing to write...no real need to comment further.

Soda water??? Compared to the earth system??? Are you kidding me?!? That has got to be one of the most inane things I have ever read!

Soda water contains many times the levels of CO2 ppmv than ever can be absorbed into the oceans and requires the gas to be pressurized into containers of cold water. These range in pressure from 50 PSI to much higher. The atmosphere on earth is incapable of such external pressure.

If anyone ever needed the evidence to show that PE and the MikeyK sockpuppets do not understand the science behind CO2 and gas absorption, this was it. :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
In addition, I have read some interesting material about some of the ice cores. I also have read something interesting about a substantial lag time between CO2 emission and deposition in Antarctic ice. If so, and the lag time becomes known with certainty, it will be a simple matter to shift the values of the dataset to the lag time.

Material I have read on the matter would most certainly necessitate a re-evaluation of the ice core data and also would move the values closer to actual values observed in later ice cores.

But, I should not need to remind anyone that the science certainly is not settled on such matters. Much, much more work needs to be done. But, if that work should be done and the data holds, it certainly would call the entire early Mauna Loa series into question. That is all I am saying. But, PE and all the MikeyK sockpuppets can continue to misread all they want. It has become expected of them. :)
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
Citations, please. If this is a new hypothesis and/or conclusion, where will you be submitting it for publishing: a letters, proceedings or a full journal?
marjon
2 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
Science doesn't move goalposts. It defines a set of hypothesis and then provides conclusions to them. Good science takes the works of others and builds on the basis by using the citation methods.

Comment threads are not science. Marjon is using a debate technique that involves never actually addressing answers to questions, but just changes the questions over and over and over again. If this were a game, it would be equivalent to ignoring all of the points your opponent has scored while keeping your own score based on totally different criteria that you don't tell anyone else about.

If marjon would actually stick to a point, would answer questions or would even cite her opinion with reputable sources, that might be different. As it is, marjon is nothing but a useless troll masquerading behind a faux-Socratic method.

Good science starts with questions.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
Well, for one, Skeptic, it isn't a step function from absorption to saturation, which will cause all sorts of complex feedbacks, such as increased atmospheric CO2 in areas where oceans took it up, before.

And marjon, why are you still here? I'd ask what solution you have to moving that water inland to those not on the shores, but you'll move the goalposts some more. Oh, and when all of that free energy shows up for desalination plants, you might let countries like Australia know where you got it. They're having a massive problem getting fresh water to their people. You'd finally be a hero!


It is called a pipeline or a canal. One exists from the Colorado River to Tucson, AZ for example.

A gasoline pipeline runs from TX to Phoenix.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
Well, for one, Skeptic, it isn't a step function from absorption to saturation, which will cause all sorts of complex feedbacks, such as increased atmospheric CO2 in areas where oceans took it up, before.

And marjon, why are you still here? I'd ask what solution you have to moving that water inland to those not on the shores, but you'll move the goalposts some more. Oh, and when all of that free energy shows up for desalination plants, you might let countries like Australia know where you got it. They're having a massive problem getting fresh water to their people. You'd finally be a hero!

Who said the energy was free?
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
He said the oceans will not get warm enough to hit a terminal saturation limit.

He's correct in that statement, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Let's make a rough computation, shall we? Partial pressure of CO2 in seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in temperature:

http://en.wikiped...e_note-4

Let's say the oceans warm by 1 K. This will increase partial pressure of CO2 in water by 1/16th, so about 1/32 of dissolved CO2 will outgas to equilibrate.

Assuming the ocean contains about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere:

http://www.watere...ere.html

this would mean a release of CO2 in amounts that significantly exceed the TOTAL current atmospheric content (both pre-existing natural, and total cumulative anthropogenic, combined.)

As you can see, warming the oceans by just 1 degree K has the effect of already far more than exceeding "terminal saturation".
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
Oceans are deep, have a significant thermoclines and salinity variations.
What volume of water do you claim can raise 1K?
I would suspect most of the world's sea water remains at its coldest temperature near the bottom.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2010
Actually, I need to make a correction. I was in a hurry when typing out the last post, and rushed my thoughts. Then as I was reflecting a bit more on the numbers, the calculation didn't make sense, and eventually I realized my error: I used an incorrect metaphor. The concept of partial pressure equilibrium is such that the pressure in solvent must match the pressure in air above solvent.

So, if partial pressure of CO2 in water goes up by 1/16th, to equilibrate the partial pressure in air needs to go up by 1/16th as well, relative to the pre-existing concentration in air. That means for each 1 degree K of ocean SURFACE warming (it doesn't even matter what happens at depth), CO2 in air must go up by 1/16th -- which, considering the pre-industrial concentration was about 300 PPM (roughly speaking), would amount to outgassing of about 19 PPM, or the equivalent of roughly 10 years of anthropogenic emissions at the end of last century.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2010


So, if partial pressure of CO2 in water goes up by 1/16th, to equilibrate the partial pressure in air needs to go up by 1/16th as well, relative to the pre-existing concentration in air. That means for each 1 degree K of ocean SURFACE warming (it doesn't even matter what happens at depth), CO2 in air must go up by 1/16th -- which, considering the pre-industrial concentration was about 300 PPM (roughly speaking), would amount to outgassing of about 19 PPM, or the equivalent of roughly 10 years of anthropogenic emissions at the end of last century.

Also, the capacity of the air to hold water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, increases, non-linearly, with temperature. How does that play into the total partial pressure?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
As you can see, warming the oceans by just 1 degree K has the effect of already far more than exceeding "terminal saturation".


At what level of the ocean? The oceans are far from homogenous in their temperature and pressure at depth.

And in regards to your correction, wouldn't that be another explanation for the "following" of CO2 outgassing as it related to temperature change? Basically you explained why the statement that CO2 outgassing from the oceans makes the temp warmer is false. In order for the outgassing to occur the ocean temp must rise first.

Yet another equilibrium mechanism. As the CO2 exits solution it will bring the lion's share of the energy with it. Convection and conduction are far unvalued in the Earth's heat budget.
PinkElephant
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2010
@marjon,
Also, the capacity of the air to hold water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, increases, non-linearly, with temperature. How does that play into the total partial pressure?
You're misunderstanding the concept of *partial* pressure. It refers to the pressure of each component of the atmosphere, in isolation (e.g. what the pressure of the atmosphere would be, if all other gases except for CO2 magically vanished.) The partial pressure of CO2 in air is independent from the partial pressure of H2O in air.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
Basically you explained why the statement that CO2 outgassing from the oceans makes the temp warmer is false. In order for the outgassing to occur the ocean temp must rise first.
The second sentence is correct. The first sentence is a non-sequitur. Yes, warming of oceans causes outgassing of CO2 into atmosphere. This raises CO2 concentration in air, which boosts the atmospheric greenhouse, which causes further warming, which causes further outgassing, and so on. At each cycle of this process, if you imagine it as cyclical, there are diminishing returns (i.e. less incremental heating, and less incremental outgassing) -- because the relationship between CO2 concentration and greenhouse effect is sublinear (it's logarithmic) -- so the process stabilizes at an overall higher temperature.
Yet another equilibrium mechanism.
Actually, it's a positive feedback mechanism. However, equilibrium is reached eventually.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2010
@marjon,
Also, the capacity of the air to hold water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, increases, non-linearly, with temperature. How does that play into the total partial pressure?
You're misunderstanding the concept of *partial* pressure. It refers to the pressure of each component of the atmosphere, in isolation (e.g. what the pressure of the atmosphere would be, if all other gases except for CO2 magically vanished.) The partial pressure of CO2 in air is independent from the partial pressure of H2O in air.

Can't be independent if pressure is constant.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2010
Can't be independent if pressure is constant.
The total atmospheric pressure is a simple sum of the partial pressures of all the gases in the atmosphere. And it's not constant: ask any meteorologist.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2010
@PE,

Yes, warming of oceans causes outgassing of CO2 into atmosphere. This raises CO2 concentration in air, which boosts the atmospheric greenhouse, which causes further warming, which causes further outgassing, and so on.

And you're completely ignoring sequestration brought on by temperature, increased partial pressure affect on temperature, volume reduction or increase of the total atmosphere brought on by temperature and as affected by polarization of the magnetic field etc.

There's a helluva lot that you're either ignoring or ignorant of at play than just CO2 in and out of the ocean.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2010
Dalton's Law of Partial Pressure:
http://library.th...ton.html
Nice experiment.
Demonstrates the need to include water vapor pressure as well.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2010
Demonstrates the need to include water vapor pressure as well.
Are you really THAT dumb? Do you really NEVER read the sites you actually link to? Or am I talking with a bot here? From the TOP of your linked page, and I quote:
Dalton's Law of Partial Pressure:
The pressure of a mixture of gases is equal to the sum of the pressures of all of the constituent gases alone.

Mathematically, this can be represented as:
PressureTotal = Pressure1 + Pressure2 ... Pressuren
Partial pressure of any component does not depend on any other component. Partial pressure of CO2 is independent of H2O.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2010
@Skeptic_Heretic,
And you're completely ignoring sequestration brought on by temperature
You mean, by plants? They rot faster in warmer temperatures, too, releasing CO2 back into the air quicker. I don't think there's any NET sequestration here. If anything, melting permafrost and reactivated peat bogs in the tundra release massive pulses of CO2 and CH4, providing an extra and powerful positive feedback.
increased partial pressure affect on temperature
Huh?
volume reduction or increase of the total atmosphere brought on by temperature and as affected by polarization of the magnetic field
What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2010
Dalton's Law of Partial Pressure:
http://library.th...ton.html
Nice experiment.
Demonstrates the need to include water vapor pressure as well.

In this experiment, if the temperature of the water increases, vapor pressure of the water increases, decreasing the partial pressure of the hydrogen.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2010
In this experiment, the total pressure is constrained, artificially, to equal 1 bar.

In our planet's atmosphere, there's no artificial constraint that says atmospheric pressure must be fixed at a given level.

The atmosphere can grow or shrink depending on the equilibrium between emission and absorption of gases at the surface (and, to a trivially small extent, erosion/accretion through solar wind, meteoroids, and comet trails.)

In addition, the average atmospheric pressure rarely manifests exactly at any particular location; the local pressure is a driver of weather, and changes frequently with passing fronts.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2010
PE,

I think you are confusing barometric pressure with standard atmospheric pressure. If in doubt, ask a meteorologist. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2010
What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?


As I said
There's a helluva lot that you're either ignoring or ignorant of at play than just CO2 in and out of the ocean.

Now that's not to say you're ignorant of fact but there is a lot more to this particular piece of the AGW hypothesis that is usually glossed over for ease of communication to sophisticated laymen.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2010
There's a lot more to any process than is relevant to a given set of outcomes, but it doesn't mean we must get lost in irrelevant tangents.

For example, consider adiabatic behavior of a volume of gas. Does the detailed turbulence, ratio of elastic to inelastic collisions, the variety of molecular vibration modes, the spectrum of heat emission and absorption, the mean free path of molecules, and so on and so forth, have any effect on the basic relationship between volume, pressure, and temperature (PV=nRC)?

Stuff like thermal expansion of the atmosphere, varying magnetic fields, and so on and so forth, has no significant impact on the basic dynamic governing CO2 outgassing and resorption by land and oceans through climatic heating/cooling cycles.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2010
The ideal gas law is: PV = nRT. (T in units of K)
Let T1 = 273.15, Pa = atm press, Vi initial vol.
P1 = pp CO2; P2 = pp remaining dry gas, P3 = pp H20; n1 # of CO2, n2 # of dry gases, n3 # H@0.
Pa = P1+P2+P3;
(1) (P1+P2+P3)Vi = (n1+n2+n3)RT1; assume dry air: P3 = 0, n3 = 0;
T2 = 300K
(2) (P1+P2+P3)V2 = (n1+n2+n3)RT2
n3 is not equal to zero.
Solve (1) for n1, substitute in (2). Solve for P1.
What affects P1?

Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
Stuff like thermal expansion of the atmosphere, varying magnetic fields, and so on and so forth, has no significant impact on the basic dynamic governing CO2 outgassing and resorption by land and oceans through climatic heating/cooling cycles.
And your evidence for this statement?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
Stuff like thermal expansion of the atmosphere, varying magnetic fields, and so on and so forth, has no significant impact on the basic dynamic governing CO2 outgassing and resorption by land and oceans through climatic heating/cooling cycles.
And your evidence for this statement?

And your evidence AGAINST this statement? I'm not about to attempt proving a negative. If you're proposing a positive mechanism, let's hear it.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
I'm not making a hardline stance here. I'm saying there's an affect, you agree and further quantify it, you have the point to prove as an absolute.

You agree with my statement that there's an effect, so prove that it's of no consequence.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
@marjon,
What affects P1?
V, n1, and T. Nothing else.

Don't believe me? Do your math yourself, and see what nonsense it is.
stealthc
1 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2010
I rated you a one, life has been on earth more than 400 million years. Try looking a little further back and you will see the levels are much higher.

@stealthc:

this graph:
http://en.wikiped...0kyr.png
is why I rated your comment as a one. It appears you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

stealthc
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2010
the data is getting shown to be fraudulent over and over again -- climategate was only the beginning, all of these ipcc studies are based on junk data that has been manipulated and skewed to make people buy the impoverishing stoneage conditions these pompous fools would have people live in.
stealthc
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
First these con-artists at the un get their foreign banker buddies to crash the stock market, next they get you to pay up the a$$ for everything with their carbon tax, which is the death of the middle class, then they declare world government since they've figured out a way to control majority of the money. I won't be part of this scam, these people are trying to con us all into servitude to them using the environment as an excuse to get what they need to build a world government and police grid. This is not how I want to live, no thank you.