>>>>The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
the good news, the CCX, chicago carbon exchange, the place where carbon credits would be "traded", went under oct 22, the 2 biggest losers in this "fiasco"... al gore and goldman sachs, took it in the shorts! better news, the tea party took over congress, the environmental retards in congress had their last meeting yesterday.
the bad news, i spent thanksgiving week in vegas, hoping to escape the cold, it was 20F below average all week there, i froze my ass there before i lost it there!
@M4GW Lord Monckton is not someone I would trust. He already lies about his credentials (he's not part of the house of lords, he wasn't Thatchers science advisor).
With MIT I think you are referring to Lindzen, a scientist who has a a lot of trouble with proving his hypothesis.
And what are you exactly referring with sunspots, the sun and historic cycles? (by the way common knowledge is often wrong)
Also I asked for sources, these are just a few terms...
@CollinMaessen Lord Monckton inherited the title Lord from his father. He does not sit in the House of Lords because the number of them allowed to do this was reduced, but he is still keeps his title. He has not claimed to be a science advisor. He was a policy advisor to Mrs. Thatcher. Exactly what hypoesis are you trying to prove - that man-made CO2 brought about the end of the last ice age, and the one before that, and the one before that?
@Miltongarden I know those are Monckton credentials. The examples I gave was what he has claimed or did not dispute (he's often introduced as the chief science advisor for Thatcher). The following page has most of the claims listed with sources:
What are you on about with the ice age remarks? I never made such a claim in this comment section. And the comments you are responding have nothing to to with those subjects.
@CollinMaessen Well I think they have everything to do with it. You seem to agree with the idea of AGW - Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming which means man-made greenhouse warming. At the end of each ice age most of the ice melted so the climate must have got a lot warmer. How did the men (and women) alive at those times make this happen?
@Miltongarden Firstly AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Secondly what happened during and between the ice ages had nothing to do with human activity. Short story: orbital changes caused a cooling/warming trends, feedbacks got triggered, and reinforced the trend. Details here:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature. htm
Our current emissions of CO2 makes CO2 a forcer and not a feedback:
@CollinMaessen Well yes, I meant "global" not "greenhouse" - a mistake on my part.
Secondly you have defeated your own argument. You state that CO2 lags behind temperature (rises?) Our current emissions do not force anything. If they did the globe would not have been cooling for the past ten years while CO2 emissions have been rising and we would not have had global cooling all through the post war economic boom. Use your eyes and check out what is actually happening in the real world!
@Miltongarden I have not defeated my own argument. Please take a good look at what i mean with feedback and forcer. And please follow up on the links I've provided. They are perfectly clear on what happened and what's currently happening.
@CollinMaessen I doubt it. Anyway, I would rather look out of the window and see for myself what the weather/climate is like or go outside and experience it. Also, I can learn about the rest of the world because there are regular international weather updates on TV. The sky is blue and grass is green. No amount of "science" will convince me otherwise.
@Miltongarden So if I understand you correctly you don't care what I bring to the table, you are just going to dismiss it. And so you can't even be bothered to check if I'm making my point correctly with the sources provided...
That really reminds me of someone sticking their fingers in their ears and making noises. I may not agree with someone but at least I follow up on their sources to see if they support their argument and if the sources are credible.
@CollinMaessen Why do you direct people to sites like sceptical science? These only advocate the alarmistic view and do not present an objective view of the science by cherrypicking the studies in support of AGW.
Try to find something for example about the CO2 record from the Greenland Ice Core on sceptical science. I don't think you will find it.
@robbieopen I recommend that website as it gives a good representation of what's in the science and admits very openly when things are unknown or we are unsure about things. And if you read the sources they cite and verify them in the literature it becomes obvious they are not misrepresenting or cherry picking.
Again, have you read my links? I posted this:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature. htm
This is just one of the articles/pages where they talk about/reference the Vostok record.
@CollinMaessen If Antarctic (global) temperatures go up many Emperor Penguins die, but if the temperatures go down most of them survive. At least that is what science thinks.
So the amount of Emperor Penguins lags temperature. More penguins survive colder periods. So more penguins cause amplified cooling.
I hope you see how ridiculous all of that sounds. Replace Penguins by CO2 and cooling by warming. Same ridiculous story.
@CollinMaessen So the best thing to do is direct people to both a good alarmistic and sceptical website and let the reader decide for himself which story he thinks is the most plausible one.
@robbieopen I am not a scientist. I do believe in the theory of Pavlov's dog. Follow what is being rewarded and you will get to the truth. Supporting global warming is rewarded with additional grants to build a stronger case. Scientists who do not subscribe to global warming are left on the outside looking in at the money trough.
@robbieopen Apologies for my belated response. Had a guest visiting and got swamped at work.
I posted the following link in a comment:
skepticalscience. com/past-and-future-of-greenland-ice-sheet. html
In it you can see there's a good reason why Greenland ice cores are rarely used for tracking atmospheric CO2. During warm periods it's very susceptible to melting, so the record is not as reliable as the antarctic (and a lot shorter, longest that I'm aware of is +/-120.000 years).
@CollinMaessen "During warm periods it's very susceptible to melting"
Finally someone who admits that the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) is very susceptible to melting during warmer periods. That is very rare that someone does that.
We are currently in a warm period. So yes the GIS will melt a little bit. Shall we bet, that the GIS was smaller during the Medieval Warm Period.
By the way, if you think they aren't adressing this question. You can ask them this very question and even suggest they add this data/information to their site. They are very open to suggestions and feedback.
@robbieopen Do you even read the sources I gave you? And explanation to you question is given with citations of several research papers that explain the mechanisms involved. The link I'm talking about is the following:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature. htm
They explain that as the oceans warm up they can't hold as much CO2. Which is a well known phenomenon. So as the oceans warm they act as the main release mechanism for the release of CO2 during warming.
@CollinMaessen Of course I read your sources, but unfortunately you are providing old news to me. So I know the CO2 temperature lag and why that is.
I hope you will read my provided article about computermodels. And if you are ready for just another inconvenient truth I can provide you with simple evidence why CO2 causes just a minor response to climatic temperature using peer-reviewed evidence from NASA itself.
@robbieopen What do you mean by “finally someone who admits that Greenland ice sheet is very susceptible to melting”? With the right conditions that has not been uncommon at all in our planets history. That's a very well known fact/phenomenon in the scientific literature.
And it's also well known that Greenland was warmer during the MWP. Again, nothing new in the scientific literature.
@robbieopen However, this does not mean that current melting is normal or not caused by us. A lot of research we are doing today says that current expected warming can cause a partial collapse. Which would give a sea level rise of about 6 meters:
@CollinMaessen If Greenland was warmer during MWP (as you acknowledge yourself) and the Ice Sheet must have shrunk(-en) more than today because of the warmer temperatures. Can you explain to me where the partial collapse was that did produce a sea level rise of about 6 meters during that period?
@CollinMaessen Correction: The paper (Nature article) does not speak about the GIS only. My mistake. Therefore I removed my last comment. But yes in a warmer world there will be less ice. Still does not prove that CO2 caused it, because CO2 rose only to 300 ppm during the last Interglacial (IG). Can 20 ppm extra cause a 1-2°C temperature rise. Does not make sense, does it? More proof that CO2 does not cause significant warming, because with current CO2-levels it should have been very hot by now.
@robbieopen And yes CO2 plays a big role in our climate. If you take a look at how CO2 interacts with other greenhouse gasses and track these in the different records we have, there is a very strong correlation. Again something that's very well documented in the scientific literature (but your claim is so broad I can't give you a single good article that explains this).
@CollinMaessen "And yes CO2 plays a big role in our climate"
For plants YES, but to climate it only plays an insignificant role. Of course there is a correlation, because of the lag of CO2 to temperature as you point out yourself. CO2 almost never stays far behind temperature.
But can you tell me how much climate will warm when CO2 doubles from 280 - 560 ppm when nothing else changes in the atmosphere?
@robbieopen Also what are you on about with the Anagnostopoulos 2010 paper? It's not proof for your claim that “The only evidence for CO2 to amplify global temperature comes from GCM computer models.”. That's not the subject the paper looks at. It takes a look if current models can be used in direct application for regional management/predictions. In other words if the resolution of the models is high and accurate enough at those scales to make those kind of predictions (which they aren't).
@CollinMaessen The Anagnostopoulos 2010 paper discusses clearly that computermodel (CM) evidence is not evidence. The predictions made by CM are simply not reliable.
If CO2 turns out to be a global amplifier by CMs it is very questionable that this is true, because some CM says so.
I am sorry, that you don't see that or can figure it out yourself.
@robbieopen The melting period mentioned in the paper I cited for the partial collapse of the greenland ice sheet is 400 years. That's with a temperature rise of 1-2C, and nothing more.
The medieval warm period was about 400 years long and was a localized phenomenon. Not to mention that globally the world was a lot cooler than it is today. We only saw melting in the southern part of the ice sheet (small area).
@robbieopen The paper only looks at the temperature at the time and compares it with the expected predicted temperature increase. Where are you getting the claim from that 20ppm would cause a 1-2C temperature rise?
And CO2 does play a significant role. The processes behind the mechanisms that brings us in and out of an ice age are well understood. The amount of heat CO2 traps is also known and can be calculate. Also how CO2 plays a role during this is also quite well understood.
@CollinMaessen "Warmists always claim that the mechanisms during deglaciation are well understood. Also the amount of heat CO2 traps is also known and can be calculated. The role of CO2 during these processes is also well understood."
They keep repeating that like mantras. Everything is so well understood. Is it really?
I don't think so.
I shall try to explain, but somehow I feel it will be pointless.
@CollinMaessen "Where are you getting the claim from that 20ppm would cause a 1-2C temperature rise?"
Simple: How high were CO2 levels during the last interglacial (IG) period and how high were they on average during the current IG period.
The continents, currents, volcanic activity etc. were not that different 125 kya and decreased ice albedo can only be happening by higher temperatures caused by some sort of temperature amplification. In your opinion probably CO2. The difference: 20ppm CO2.
@robbieopen The increase from a doubling of CO2 is quite easy to calculate. For a doubling of CO2, not accounting for any other feedbacks or forcers, gives a temperature increase between 1-2.2C. However, total warming would be between 2-4.5C
Also you say that CO2 is not far behind a temperature increase. Due to the time it takes to warm the ocean to release it's CO2 in such a scenario. The lag is 1000 years
@CollinMaessen "1-2.2°C (1.6°C average) rise by CO2 only."
So in your opinion a doubling of CO2 causes a 24% temperature increase by CO2 only. How plausible is that?
The total warming induced by CO2 only in the atmosphere is 6.6°C.
Read Schmidt et al 2010 - Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. (A NASA paper)
In fact the total CO2 attribution has always been 15% and suddenly in this paper it is increased to 20%. Anyway that does not matter. Skeptical science is wrong.
@CollinMaessen One can calculate what the amount of warming will be with 2XCO2. At least 70% of the greenhouse warming by CO2 comes from the first 40 ppm due to the logarithmic effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
That is 4.62° for the first 40 ppm. From there one has only three doublings left (40 - 80 - 160 - 320)
(6.6-4.62)/3=0.66°C for every next doubling by CO2 only.
How can 0.66°C cause a temperature rise of 2-4.5°C in total. 300-700% of positive feedbacks.
@CollinMaessen Besides if everything about CO2 is so "well understood". Why does science still not really know how much the Earth will warm by CO2 only when CO2 is doubled (280 to 560 ppm). Even you come up with an estimate of 1-2.2°C. Well that is "well understood"!
Science does not even know how much the Earth will warm including all the feedbacks (2-4.5°C). Again that is "well understood".
Nothing is well understood about CO2 and its effects on global climate.
@robbieopen And the paper does not clearly state the models are unreliable. They were testing the models, who were developed for global predictions, on a local scale. And in that area they are not reliable enough. I told you this in my previous comment. Could you point me to the exact part of the paper where they say what you claim they say?
And again, models aren't used to prove the CO2 feedback in deglaciation.
@robbieopen May I suggest that you don't edit what I say when you put it in quotation marks. And if you do, in the very least mark your edits. As with your edits you make me say things I never said.
And yes (de)glaciation processes are well understood. We can confirm these effects with the records we have available in nature. Also the source I provided gives a basic expose of it. If you want to learn more about this I recommend using that page, and it's terminology, to get more information.
@robbieopen As explaining the entire process in several 500 character comments is not doable. I cannot do the subject justice in this format. If you have a specific point to make with one of the processes involved, I'll gladly take a look at it and discuss you on it. However, the entire process of (de)glaciation is just to big to tackle.
@CollinMaessen Deglaciation is nothing more than a combination of decreased ice albedo, milankovitch forcings and mainly increased water vapour that account for all of (just 5-6°C globally) the temperature increase. CO2 and CH4 only account for a very small fraction to temperature.
Remember that the rainforests are around on this planet for millions of years. So it is highly questionable if global temperatures really vary so much globally during glacial oscillations.
@robbieopen You mention yourself that radiative forcing is a logarithmic calculation, and use it to make one of your points. So why is it strange that it's not a 50% increase? And skeptical science uses the accepted formula for CO2, which you can find on wikipedia. Which is even used by sceptics. This is the reason your entire calculation baffles me.
The very NASA paper you mention uses that very same formula. Not to mention it adds a few caveats on how they calculated the warming percentages.
@CollinMaessen "So why is it strange that it's not a 50% increase?" That is very simple, because the temperature increase will be a linear one then with each and every doubling. 0 - 5.31 - 10.625 - 21.25 - 42.5 - 85 - 170 - 340 You have 7 doublings in this example. The biggest effect is in the first 40 ppm. In this example that are 4 doublings. For the mechanism behind this calcualtion I refer to "9,25 working (at AGW) watts" (google) Forget about the 9,25 figure. That is misleading.
@CollinMaessen It is not 50%, because one will get a 3.3°C for the first 40ppm. Leaving 3.3°C for only 3 doublings accounting for 1.1°C for every doubling, while in the first four doublings the temperature increase would be 3.3/4=0.83°C for every doubling. And that is impossible, because the biggest temperature increase happens with the first 40ppm of CO2. My 70% effect was a very conservative estimate. It is more likely to be 80%.
@robbieopen Now here you ask a really good question:
“Why does science still not really know how much the Earth will warm by CO2 only when CO2 is doubled (280 to 560 ppm). Even you come up with an estimate of 1-2.2°C. Well that is "well understood"!”
The key point to understand is climate sensitivity. Which is a part of the formula that is used for those temperature increase calculations. This number is pegged down in a range, so this has as a result the calculation also gives a range.
@CollinMaessen I haven't even mentioned climate sensitivity. I only asked a simple question how much temperature would change leaving out all other feedbacks. Climate sensitivity is mainly a discussion about cloud feedbacks today in the scientific community.
You avoid the real issue here. CO2 accounts for 20% of the total greenhouse effect. (Shmidt et al 2010) That is just 6.6°C. From this figure one can easily calculate the real temperature change. At least I present solid figures.
@robbieopen The reason this is a range is because we haven't yet reached a consensus on what the exact figure is. Although it's being narrowed down slowly. Now this is a very complex subject, so I need to refer to skeptical science again for the details:
@CollinMaessen "The reason this is a range is because we haven't yet reached a consensus on what the exact figure is. Although it's being narrowed down slowly."
I have asked you a very simple question. How much does the temperature change by CO2 only when nothing else changes. You came up with an estimate 1-2.2°C. While in your opinion everything was so wel understood. Even this simple question can not be answered with an exact figure.
@robbieopen And about the Anagnostopoulos et al 2010 paper. It seams I wasn't very clear in my explanation, sorry for that. My contention with you about this paper is how you infer the conclusion from it that GCMs are not reliable. The point of the paper was that GCMs are not reliable for direct application. And many of the points they raise, and let me stress this point, I agree with. GCMs are not designed to do what they asked them to do in this paper.
@robbieopen If you had asked me these questions I would have told you from the start that GCMs are not good at this. Climate scientists know this, and check their GCMs and runs for these known shortcomings. Not to mention that between the models there can be a huge difference in what they are good at.
If you want to know my position in more detail I recommend the following
You refer to the same article (Anagnostopoulos 2010 paper) I think I am doing circular reasoning with you that leads to nowhere. I came up with this article.
@robbieopen The basis for (de)glaciation is indeed the milankovitch cycles. What I mean with complex are all the details about the processes involved. They make it complex and they are nessecary to appreciate and understand what is going on. That's why I said I can't do it justice in a 500 character comment.
@robbieopen And being around for millions of years doesn't mean they were static and in their current state. For example there were periods that the amazon was bigger or smaller
Another thing you need to realise is that the equator generally does not experience the same rate of cooling/warming as the rest of the globe. Which is also the reason why we see more warming currently at the poles than near the equator. If you want to understand what I'm referring to, please look up polar amplification
I don't know where to start to correct you, but let's start somewhere. First of all: You should not pretend that I don't know anything about climate. I know that the equator does not experience the same rate of cooling/warming.
However according to Caillon et al 2003 (Science Vol 299): "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing."
The equator warms and cools sufficiently according to Caillon during glacial osccillations because of CO2 amplification. Remember this is just a statement that has never been really proved to be true. It is assumed. That is not science but belief. Sorry!
Polar temperatures: Let's see if the Arctic really is so "unusually" hot with unprecedented temperatures: Climate4you - Polar Temperature and look at the first and tenth graph you see. Nothing really unusual about it.
@robbieopen With WUWT as a source I understand why your calculations didn't make sense. Please don't use him as a source as he gets a lot of the science wrong (like sea ice claims).
As such I don't know where even to start whit the errors in the article you are referencing. Now please understand the following: basing your argument on an article that tries to debunk the entire climate models, by referencing a simple online model. With inputting numbers, is not the way to go for your information.
WUWT as a source. Who are you to determine which source I am allowed to use or not. You are constantly directing people to SkepticalScience. A source that does not give you any answers to the really important questions, because the debate would be over when they start to do so.
Is it an error that warming rate by CO2 only will be the same from every doubling. 50-100 or 320-640 or 780-1560 and so on. Climate scientists do agree that 2xCO2 results in same temp-increase.
The fact that you still keep relying on computermodels after all the mispredictions they made in the past. Here is another beautiful fact why models are not the tools to project or predict future climate. Just listen to Roy Spencer only.
watch?v=yh89RHWiamM
watch?v=LUma8YI5sDo&feature=related
watch?v=W_y9MrrLiRo
I would recommend you to read and verify "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW Montford and read how corrupt climate science really is.
@robbieopen Also every climate forcer/feedback has a climate sensitivity associated with it. It's explained in the article I pointed you to. There you can see the explanation why it's a range. And that all forcers/feedbacks are being studied and honed.
However, most importantly. They have been studied and tested against previous climates. To corroborate the numbers they get. If you change the numbers like you did, not a single model would work.
@robbieopen And as we are basing the climate sensitivity numbers on what we have seen in the planets history we cannot pin this down like you want it to. It's a lot of work to corroborate these numbers, gather the data and test them against the different climates we've had. This inbuilt uncertainty gives a range. It's explained in the article I linked you to.
Climate sensitivity: Good of you to bring it up. How can a temperature increase by 0.62-0.83°C (depending on percentage CO2 attribution to total greenhouse effect) cause a 2-4.5°C temperature rise?
Do we have a climate sensitivity of 323(241)-726(542)% of extra feedbacks in the climate system? You see the numbers are overexaggerated by the IPCC and their supporting scientists. 1.2-1.5°C temp rise with 2xCO2 is much more likely to happen.
@robbieopen I don't pretend that you don't know anything about climate. My disagreement with you is about the conclusions you draw from research papers and evidence. And some of the sources you use. If I thought it was the case that you don't know anything I would say so directly.
The reason I address certain topics or point you to certain known phenomenon has to do with how you construct your arguments.
@CollinMaessen " is about the conclusions you draw from research papers and evidence"
Sorry again, but there is no real evidence for human made climate change in the peer-reviewed literature. Just present me one paper. Just one that clearly shows the evidence of antropogenic CO2 increase that caused the 20th century warming.
“Remember that the rainforests are around on this planet for millions of years. So it is highly questionable if global temperatures really vary so much globally during glacial oscillations.”
This sentence was the direct reason why I mentioned polar amplification. As this made it seem you were unaware of the phenomenon or were misinterpreting something.
@CollinMaessen More statements from Caillon et al. watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8 (Sorry M4GW)
Clearly they do not only take a look at Antarctic warming. And you should not lead me to Realclimate. If I lead you to WUWT or any other sceptical website you almost immediately dismiss the info. Fine, but stop lead me to these websites and start to present me some peer-reviewed studies. So far you haven't done that. And btw scientists agree that 2xCO2 would lead to 1.2°C by CO2 only.
@robbieopen Did you take a look at how they made those graphs? The first one is a combined graph of the arctic and antarctic. Something you should not do. The arctic warms a lot more than the antarctic. And the warming in the antarctic that has scientists concerned is in the western peninsula.
The last graph “Antarctic long meteorological data series” makes me wonder why he picked those stations. With a look at the data he uses it looks like he's making misleading graphs/trends.
@robbieopen I didn't say you may not use WUWT, I pleaded you not to use him and gave an example why. Hence the word please in that sentence...
Seriously, just listen to Roy Spencer alone? He is an intelligent design proponent.. That should give you a hint. Not to mention he uses rhetoric and conjecture in those videos. And the people in those videos is one motley crew to say the least. Fred Singer for example denied the health risks of passive smoking, calling it “junk science”. Sound familiar?
@CollinMaessen "He is an intelligent design proponent -Fred Singer calling it “junk science” "
Are you lowering yourself to ad hominem attacks now? Will you please stay on topic?
Robert T. Bakker - The man who caused a paradigm shift in palaeontologic thinking is a true believer in God and on sundays he even preaches in church.
Einstein practised religion as well. He was a Jew. Just google images: Albert Einstein Synagoge
Sorry for the inconvenience! Still in for some more pain?
@robbieopen I've told you time and time again that the number for an doubling of CO2 is 1-2.2°C, not 0.62-0.83, I don't use that figure. I've explained why and how we get that number. And I've pointed out that if we would use a different climate sensitivity for CO2 nothing would make sense anymore. And I've provided you with sources that give a very detailed explanation so you can understand where I'm coming from.
@CollinMaessen That number 1.2°C seems to come from a paper by James Hansen from 1984. Yes that number is 26 years old and currently that number is being disputed by some smart people who actually do some thinking. I am not the only one in this. Sorry.
In your opinion nothing makes sense when these numbers would not be what you want them to be. Well that is your problem. Not mine.
@robbieopen So you keep trying to argue about something that's not part of my argument. And demanding that I explain those figures. Figures that are not peer reviewed, and often you say that part of the calculation is based upon your own opinion. Offering no real reason or sources why this opinion is the correct one. So I'm done with you talking about that.
@CollinMaessen "So I'm done with you talking about that."
Inconvenient truth, mister?
1-2.2°C temp increase by CO2 only would mean that CO2 attribution of total greenhouse effect would be 39% if I would take the average 1.6°C. Sorry, but CO2 attribution is roughly 20% according to the latest paper, but apparently people are not allowed to think for themselves anymore according to you. They have to follow other people who think they know something blindfoldly.
@CollinMaessen And are you trying to dispute that each and every doubling of CO2 will not cause the same temperature response?
I would suggest you do a little bit of more climate research and find out that inconvenient fact for yourself. I could give you some links, but you will dismiss it anyhow.
@CollinMaessen "Just one that clearly shows the evidence of antropogenic CO2 increase that caused the 20th century warming" My question.
And you came up with a paper about Stable isotope ratio mass spectometry by Ghosh. The paper is about determining the amount of C and O to calculate/measure CO2 content and temperature respectively from proxies.
It says nothing about anthropogenic CO2 causing the 20th century warming. Yes we caused a 40% CO2 increase in the atmosphere. That I agree.
@CollinMaessen But no this paper does not proof that CO2 causes unusual global warming or says anything about that at all in the content. I asked for a paper that specifically claims and proofs that CO2 has caused the 20th century warming. Unequivocally!
@CollinMaessen The second link you presented is something to reject immediately. Reason: "The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C" is reason enough.
Or the Earth has warmed 2°C since 1850. That means the Earth has warmed 1.1°C from 1850-1880 (in 30 years), because after 1880 the Earth warmed 0.9°C according to Nasa Giss. If that is the case global warming is completely natural and we shouldn't be worrying too much about it.
Total geenhouse effect is 33°C (Schmidt et al 2010).
@robbieopen “Yes we caused a 40% CO2 increase in the atmosphere. That I agree.”
Which was the point why I cited that paper. As a lot of people dispute the fact we caused the increase I always include this paper when someone asks to cite papers that show we are the cause.
The reason I cited the other paper was because you can access it publicly. I rather would have cited “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997”.
@CollinMaessen Well I have a good one for you: Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS by Griggs & Harries 2006
It is a paper comparing three different satellite data with a lot of noise and troubles.
@robbieopen And I specifically said “infrared spectrum” when I cited that paper. It shows the differences in infrared absorption of our atmosphere due to greenhouse gases. And shows that due to CO2 emissions the radiative forcing has increased by about 3.52 W/m2. Which is a lot.
You asked:
“Just one that clearly shows the evidence of antropogenic CO2 increase that caused the 20th century warming.”
@CollinMaessen Radiative forcing is a term used by the IPCC. Before that it didn't probably exist in the climate community. But from that radiative forcing increase of 3.52 W/m2 one should be able to calculate the overall temperature increase. I am not a specialist in that, but from Wiki I get this calculation 0.8*3.52= 2.8°C
Well I have to disappoint you, but Earth experienced a mere 0.7-0.9°C temp increase in the last 100 years or so.
@robbieopen No, there are plenty of research papers uit there that discuss this. One of the main reasons it takes a while for the planet to respond to a increase in CO2 is that the oceans absorb a lot of the heat.
@robbieopen I've read the paper and as far as I can remember they don't mention the equator. Neither does Greenman when citing that paper. Secondly I didn't say only antarctic warming, I said predominantly (he does mention other regions).
And yes I have pointed you to several peer reviewed papers, remember this one for example?:
-Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage.
This paper uses a statistical approach to the problem. There is nothing wrong with that at all. But when I use a statistical or simple approach for CO2 warming I get a lot of critique and people use words like "utterly asinine".
Did you know that during the last interglacial CO2 levels did not exceed 300ppm? How would you explain that extraordinary warming 125 kya?
@CollinMaessen Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage. by Kopp
"While the change in global mean temperature is uncertain, sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific and Atlantic were about 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels." Your point is?
The equator gets warmer in the literature whether you like it or not. It's a fact. How can a rainforest deal/cope with a 1-2°C drop in temps? IPCC starts to worry biodiversity when it gets a little bit warmer.
@CollinMaessen Polar amplification: Well that paper by Kopp et al showed clearly a 1-2°C sea surface temperature increase while the poles were 3-5°C warmer.
During glacial oscillations polar temperature fluctuates some 10-12°C (Vostok ice core data). According to Kopp et al it will have an effect at the equator. A 2-4°C fluctuation. Is the rainforest able to cope with these temperature oscillations? More proof that the equator-temperature changes according to the peer-reviewed literature.
@robbieopen Oh ffs, you keep making arguments I don't make. Please stop straw manning me. I never said there is no warming at the equator. This very debate about polar amplification was started when you said “Remember that the rainforests are around on this planet for millions of years. So it is highly questionable if global temperatures really vary so much globally during glacial oscillations.”
Again, I never said there is no warming at the equator.
@CollinMaessen Obviously you are having a tough time with me, because you start to think that I am straw manning you. Well I am not straw manning you.
Because it is highly questionable if warming at the equator is a fact. Can the rainforests cope with a temp fluctuation of 2-4C? I have my doubts about that.
And yes I will try to formulate my sentences a little better than I did previously. Sorry for that.
@robbieopen You said "The equator gets warmer in the literature whether you like it or not." And several like it.
Have I anywhere in my replies to you said that the equator doesn't warm? What I said was that there was a difference in the amount of warming: polar amplification. That's it.
So don't be so smug with your "obviously you are having a tough time with me, because you start to think that I am straw manning you".
As that first sentence comes across as straw manning.
@robbieopen Do you have a source for the claim that “scientists agree that 2xCO2 would lead to 1.2°C by CO2 only”.
Nice of you to return to computer model evidence, but you've been raising that point constantly. I always told you that they aren't the sole basis for my argument. Not to mention that there's a huge problem if they cannot prove anything:
@CollinMaessen "Do you have a source for the claim that “scientists agree that 2xCO2 would lead to 1.2°C by CO2 only”."
Watch on Youtube first 15 minutes or so: watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60
Lindzen: On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling 1998: "In the absence of feedbacks ... surface temperature response to doubling CO2 is 1.2°C.
That number will be under scrutiny not so far into the future. I am not the only one who disagrees.
@robbieopen Without actually looking at the research papers and data where they are basing these numbers on it's hard for me to track down the calculation. But what I suspect is that they use more up to date figures than I did, or we are missing something with the 2C to 1.2C conversion he did (even ignoring that, the 1.2C number is a calculation in itself).
@robbieopen Again, you make it seem like I say something that I don't. The “junk science” referred to the previous sentence about passive smoking, not intelligent design as you make it seem with how you quote me.
And intelligent design is a lot more than just religion. It says the theory of evolution is false and is not possible. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
@robbieopen The point I was making was that a lot of the people you are referring to have a history of going against evidence. Even when they've been shown to be wrong time after time. It does not mean they current position is wrong, but it is an indication about how they deal with contrary evidence. I was trying to make you think about who you are citing and basing your opinion on.
@CollinMaessen And I have to disappoint you again. I do not base my opinion on anything. I ask questions and try to search for answers on these questions. So far established climate science has not given me any satisfactory answers to my questions.
1.2°C Look for Hansen et al (1984) Climate processes and climate sensitivity. Or Hansen et al (?) Climate sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases.
@robbieopen “ I do not base my opinion on anything.” that's not true. You base your opinion on the questions you have and research you have done: “I ask questions and try to search for answers on these questions”
Again with the suggestive quoting. The meaning of the sentence changes a lot when you include the next sentence: “The point I was making was that a lot of the people you are referring to have a history of going against evidence. Even when they've been shown to be wrong time after time”
I've had discussions on the climategate emails and there was nothing in the emails that indicated that their science was based on a fraud, hoax or wrong. If you do have one example of it then I'm willing to listen.
@CollinMaessen Phil Jones wrote in an email......>>>The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
@CollinMaessen Skeptical Science-com is managed by John Cook who is not a meteorologist or climate scientist. He studied some physics at some obscure university in Australia and set himself up as a blogger. The guy is just another garden variey global warming ideologue.
Yet John Cook claims all his blog posts are not his own but all "peer reviewed" scientific literature. John Cook fails to mention the "peers" are all suspect idealogues themselves and probably corrupt..
@DuctapePenguin lol guys you know if you accept the AGW religion feel free to change your lifestyle. It's false doctrine but everyone seems to need a placebo sometime. Sun spots do more to affect the weather than humans.
@DuctapePenguin So your response is calling me gullible, post a music video with no science content and slander John Cook and other scientists.
Also the blogs says they investigate claims on the basis of what's in the scientific literature, that's something different than you are claiming. And they do a terrific job of translating the science into something understandable. If you were appraised of what is in the literature, you would be aware of that.
@CollinMaessen did you know they are spraying you with POISON under the guise of fixing manmade warming?
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF GREENHOUSE WARMING1992 "losses of millions of lives acceptable" "most cost-effective to spray barium and aluminum" = georgia guide stones maintain population at 500,000,000
= they are killing you gullible wanker!!! ;D wake the fck up!!! search chemtrails the whole world on bio attack, if you had a brain you would be aware but your head is up yer asss, lol!
@CollinMaessen "The point I was making was that a lot of the people you are referring to have a history of going against evidence."
Is that also true for Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Ian Clark, David Bellamy, Freeman Dyson, Zbiegniew Jaworowski, Antonino Zichichi, David Bromwich, Hendrik Tennekes, Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Nir Shaviv, Sami Solanki, Jasper Kirkby, George Kukla, Rhodes Fairbridge, William Gray, Hal Lewis and 31000 others more?
@robbieopen And you actually cited the petition project... If you take a look at the qualifications they cite you might notice that most of them aren't scientists:
@CollinMaessen You should not believe everything what Greenman3610 tries to propagate. His videos are very cleverly and professionally made, but they contain a lot of flaws and misleadings.
Besides they are full of ad hominem attacks. He uses the word "Denier" way too often. I asked him several times why he continues to use such Orwellian language if the case for global warming is so strong. Just present the scientific evidence.
@robbieopen I agree with greenman on this one, the petition project is not a valid list of scientists. You can check the page I cited from the website itself where the qualifications are listed. It's a list with a lot of problems and not one that helps you make your argument.
@CollinMaessen About the "junk science" I wanted to put the whole sentence in my comment, but I ran out of characters. That is why I shortened your reference. It referred to the whole sentence.
And no I don't know what intelligent design is. But can you explain something to me please.
Why does allopatric evolution (speciation) take many more years than sympatric speciation? Processes behind it are exactly the same.
- The Fire Salamander Source for New Species (PDF)
@robbieopen I raised the point of intelligent design for one of the scientists you cited as a signal that there might be a problem with how he treats evidence. Especially evidence that goes against a position he has on a scientific subject. For me such things raise red flags.
@robbieopen It's not an inconvenient truth. I've tried to explain it to you several times, but you keep ignoring it and eventually return to the same point. Even the citation of 20% is not accurate (take a hard look at the paper you cited to figure out why).
And here's the part I was referring to (and I thought you had mentioned it more often, but you didn't, apologies for that):
My 70% effect was a very conservative estimate. It is more likely to be 80%.
@CollinMaessen Attribution of the present-day TGE - Schmidt et al 2010: "We conclude that, given the uncertainties, that water vapor is responsible for just over half, clouds around a quarter and CO2 about a fifth of the present-day total greenhouse effect." CO2 roughly 20% ( a fifth). Correct me if I am wrong.
If one takes a good look at the paper it looks like it may be less than 20% attribution. It was 15% for a long time, but these scientists raised the CO2 attribution with ~5%.
@robbieopen If you read the paper they did not just raise it. And they did put in several stipulations on the number, one of them being: “Additionally, we also note that our adjusted radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 is 4.1 W/m2, roughly 10% larger than the canonical estimate of 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m2 [IPCC, 2001; Myhre et al.,1998]. This might then lead to an ∼10% overestimate of its role (i.e., a percent or two in Table 1)”
You kept saying it is 20%, when it should have been about 20%.
@CollinMaessen 70% or 80% are wrong estimates. My apologies for that. For 320 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere the warming effect by CO2 for the first 40 ppm only is somewhere between 60-65%. You can derive that from different logarithmic greenhouse gas warming graphs.
- logarithmic effect of co2 WUWT ( Third graph - Modtran based from University of Chicago)
- junkscience com /Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2. png
- klimaatgek. nl CO2 sensitivity (1st and 2nd graph)
@robbieopen Also I'm not referencing the same article. The first link, which discusses strengths and weaknesses (it's an editorial) references your Anagnostopoulos et al 2010 paper. Again I don't 100% agree. But they give valid points in that article and mention all the reservations I have with the Anagnostopoulos et al 2010.
The second link I provide gives a very good rundown on climate models and their limitations and how you can, and currently should, use them. With this one I agree.
So nice to see this song again. I guess the last time I saw it was LAST winter! Manmade global warming is so the elites can harvest our money and control us. Control us akin to body scanning. I can't wait for a state to secede. You and your friends come too, strong men. We can all keep to ourselves and make stuff.
I want to keep going, maybe I should start my own site. Al Gore and a few others had the ChicagoClimateExchange (CCX) set up, trading carbon would have made them trillionares, and they would have spread as much as they could have around for political cotribs. It's rather unusual to see a company close it's doors just a couple days after a political election isn't it?
Lets get real here, I love our earth too, I have to live on it just like everyone else. We don't need any new laws or taxes.
Another thing, if you have a degree in climatology, your basically a weatherman looking for a job, if you don't look like Chikage Windler (weather babe in MN) your not going to get the big money TV job. So create a crisis and live off the Gov $. Just make sure you shut any contradicting theorys down or you'll be working at McD's --- would you like fries with that? The peope who haven't adapted C.C. as a religion know better, and are sick of funding our own demise.
@M4GW Thats my point, if you look like Chikage you get a sweet six figure income as a TV metearologist - look like me, if I was some sort of scientist, I'd have voted D.- to keep my free ride going!
BTW, Love the work your doing, don't give up, also I really do want to come drink some beer in the woodstove motorhome!
Us conservatives want to protect the planet too, but we believe in doing things that actually work instead of things that make us feel good about ourself.
Lets say that global warming is real, and humans are the cause, is that a calamity? Or is it the earth and climate adapting to the extra numbers of people that depend on the earth to survive? It has been proven that crops are more productive with higher CO2, and warmer temps opens millions of square miles of unhabitated land for people 2 Lv
Powerful voice, great video, Two nice pork chops, The croppie boy!!
I bet yous enjoyed yourselves making that video.
bloodandsnatters 2 months ago
Cimategate emails are funny....
>>>>The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
DuctapePenguin 11 months ago 2
Why would Al Gore be talking about massive floods on the coasts, and then buy a mansion on the coast?
1eyednewt 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@1eyednewt A congressman just stated on CSPAN that the co2 level's are higher then they where 15,000,000 million years
ago, and that at that time we lost almost all the ice. They state 75 to120 feet of water was added to the ocean.
This is at the door beloved right now. add holes in the Ozone, nuclear fallout in the ice cores. on and on. we
got big problems kids. hugs LUVBUG
Read my blog on Global Warming: globalwarmingtimes.blogspot.com
livingproofof 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Great video, but why do you only hold up two fingers?
MiddleAgedMinnesotan 1 year ago
Glad they finally let you put this up, though this would of had hundred of thousands of views by now...
evenesteven 1 year ago
where did all the global warming politicans go now the world seems to be entering a mini ice age?
thirteendreams 1 year ago
the good news, the CCX, chicago carbon exchange, the place where carbon credits would be "traded", went under oct 22, the 2 biggest losers in this "fiasco"... al gore and goldman sachs, took it in the shorts! better news, the tea party took over congress, the environmental retards in congress had their last meeting yesterday.
the bad news, i spent thanksgiving week in vegas, hoping to escape the cold, it was 20F below average all week there, i froze my ass there before i lost it there!
mrbadx19 1 year ago
@M4GW And who are these sources that say it's going to get cooler?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen MIT, Lord Monckton, Sunspots, the Sun, Historic cycles, common knowledge, etc.
M4GW 1 year ago
@M4GW Lord Monckton is not someone I would trust. He already lies about his credentials (he's not part of the house of lords, he wasn't Thatchers science advisor).
With MIT I think you are referring to Lindzen, a scientist who has a a lot of trouble with proving his hypothesis.
And what are you exactly referring with sunspots, the sun and historic cycles? (by the way common knowledge is often wrong)
Also I asked for sources, these are just a few terms...
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Lord Monckton inherited the title Lord from his father. He does not sit in the House of Lords because the number of them allowed to do this was reduced, but he is still keeps his title. He has not claimed to be a science advisor. He was a policy advisor to Mrs. Thatcher. Exactly what hypoesis are you trying to prove - that man-made CO2 brought about the end of the last ice age, and the one before that, and the one before that?
Miltongarden 1 year ago
@Miltongarden I know those are Monckton credentials. The examples I gave was what he has claimed or did not dispute (he's often introduced as the chief science advisor for Thatcher). The following page has most of the claims listed with sources:
sourcewatch. org/index. php?title=Christopher_Monckton
What are you on about with the ice age remarks? I never made such a claim in this comment section. And the comments you are responding have nothing to to with those subjects.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Well I think they have everything to do with it. You seem to agree with the idea of AGW - Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming which means man-made greenhouse warming. At the end of each ice age most of the ice melted so the climate must have got a lot warmer. How did the men (and women) alive at those times make this happen?
Miltongarden 1 year ago
@Miltongarden Firstly AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Secondly what happened during and between the ice ages had nothing to do with human activity. Short story: orbital changes caused a cooling/warming trends, feedbacks got triggered, and reinforced the trend. Details here:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature. htm
Our current emissions of CO2 makes CO2 a forcer and not a feedback:
skepticalscience. com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced. htm
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Well yes, I meant "global" not "greenhouse" - a mistake on my part.
Secondly you have defeated your own argument. You state that CO2 lags behind temperature (rises?) Our current emissions do not force anything. If they did the globe would not have been cooling for the past ten years while CO2 emissions have been rising and we would not have had global cooling all through the post war economic boom. Use your eyes and check out what is actually happening in the real world!
Miltongarden 1 year ago
@Miltongarden I have not defeated my own argument. Please take a good look at what i mean with feedback and forcer. And please follow up on the links I've provided. They are perfectly clear on what happened and what's currently happening.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I doubt it. Anyway, I would rather look out of the window and see for myself what the weather/climate is like or go outside and experience it. Also, I can learn about the rest of the world because there are regular international weather updates on TV. The sky is blue and grass is green. No amount of "science" will convince me otherwise.
Miltongarden 1 year ago
@Miltongarden So if I understand you correctly you don't care what I bring to the table, you are just going to dismiss it. And so you can't even be bothered to check if I'm making my point correctly with the sources provided...
That really reminds me of someone sticking their fingers in their ears and making noises. I may not agree with someone but at least I follow up on their sources to see if they support their argument and if the sources are credible.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Why do you direct people to sites like sceptical science? These only advocate the alarmistic view and do not present an objective view of the science by cherrypicking the studies in support of AGW.
Try to find something for example about the CO2 record from the Greenland Ice Core on sceptical science. I don't think you will find it.
Any idea why not????
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I recommend that website as it gives a good representation of what's in the science and admits very openly when things are unknown or we are unsure about things. And if you read the sources they cite and verify them in the literature it becomes obvious they are not misrepresenting or cherry picking.
Again, have you read my links? I posted this:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature. htm
This is just one of the articles/pages where they talk about/reference the Vostok record.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Sorry, but I think I have not made myself pretty clear.
I was talking about CO2 levels from the Greenland Ice Cores and not about the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Every CO2 graph one looks at is from Antarctica. I would like to see one from Greenland. Where is it on Skeptical Science or Realclimate?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Yes I used to read a lot at Skeptical Science, but I could not find the answers on questions I was looking for.
I had to go to Sceptical sites to find the information that are for the Alarmist inconvenient truths. That was the point why I became a sceptic.
The alarmists are losing the game, because they don't present the complete picture on these alarmistic websites.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen CO2 lags temperature. Of course I read that part.
One question remains: Where is the factual proof that CO2 acts as an amplifier during deglaciation?
I only read some statements in these papers from scientists, but I cannot find the data or evidence to examine it myself.
I can make some statements myself, but who is going to believe me when I provide no evidence for it?
This is a good one: The amount of Antarctic Emperor Penguins control average global temperature! (LOL)
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen If Antarctic (global) temperatures go up many Emperor Penguins die, but if the temperatures go down most of them survive. At least that is what science thinks.
So the amount of Emperor Penguins lags temperature. More penguins survive colder periods. So more penguins cause amplified cooling.
I hope you see how ridiculous all of that sounds. Replace Penguins by CO2 and cooling by warming. Same ridiculous story.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen So the best thing to do is direct people to both a good alarmistic and sceptical website and let the reader decide for himself which story he thinks is the most plausible one.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I am not a scientist. I do believe in the theory of Pavlov's dog. Follow what is being rewarded and you will get to the truth. Supporting global warming is rewarded with additional grants to build a stronger case. Scientists who do not subscribe to global warming are left on the outside looking in at the money trough.
coldwarvet75 1 year ago
@robbieopen Apologies for my belated response. Had a guest visiting and got swamped at work.
I posted the following link in a comment:
skepticalscience. com/past-and-future-of-greenland-ice-sheet. html
In it you can see there's a good reason why Greenland ice cores are rarely used for tracking atmospheric CO2. During warm periods it's very susceptible to melting, so the record is not as reliable as the antarctic (and a lot shorter, longest that I'm aware of is +/-120.000 years).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "During warm periods it's very susceptible to melting"
Finally someone who admits that the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) is very susceptible to melting during warmer periods. That is very rare that someone does that.
We are currently in a warm period. So yes the GIS will melt a little bit. Shall we bet, that the GIS was smaller during the Medieval Warm Period.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen There are several data sets available, and they are easy to track down (several are mentioned on the sites I posted).
Just a simple search on the internet gave me this paper:
onlinelibrary. wiley. com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.47.issue4.6.x/pdf
By the way, if you think they aren't adressing this question. You can ask them this very question and even suggest they add this data/information to their site. They are very open to suggestions and feedback.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Do you even read the sources I gave you? And explanation to you question is given with citations of several research papers that explain the mechanisms involved. The link I'm talking about is the following:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature. htm
They explain that as the oceans warm up they can't hold as much CO2. Which is a well known phenomenon. So as the oceans warm they act as the main release mechanism for the release of CO2 during warming.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen If melting of the GIS was not that unusual in the past. Why should it be so unusual today?
Do you think CO2 was the cause for the melting? And why do you think CO2 plays such a big role in climate? It really does not.
The reason why CO2 lags temperature is one of those reasons. The only evidence for CO2 to amplify global temperature comes from GCM computermodels.
-A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data by Anagnostopoulos et al 2010
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Of course I read your sources, but unfortunately you are providing old news to me. So I know the CO2 temperature lag and why that is.
I hope you will read my provided article about computermodels. And if you are ready for just another inconvenient truth I can provide you with simple evidence why CO2 causes just a minor response to climatic temperature using peer-reviewed evidence from NASA itself.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen What do you mean by “finally someone who admits that Greenland ice sheet is very susceptible to melting”? With the right conditions that has not been uncommon at all in our planets history. That's a very well known fact/phenomenon in the scientific literature.
And it's also well known that Greenland was warmer during the MWP. Again, nothing new in the scientific literature.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
Comment removed
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen However, this does not mean that current melting is normal or not caused by us. A lot of research we are doing today says that current expected warming can cause a partial collapse. Which would give a sea level rise of about 6 meters:
nature. com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08686.html
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen If Greenland was warmer during MWP (as you acknowledge yourself) and the Ice Sheet must have shrunk(-en) more than today because of the warmer temperatures. Can you explain to me where the partial collapse was that did produce a sea level rise of about 6 meters during that period?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Correction: The paper (Nature article) does not speak about the GIS only. My mistake. Therefore I removed my last comment. But yes in a warmer world there will be less ice. Still does not prove that CO2 caused it, because CO2 rose only to 300 ppm during the last Interglacial (IG). Can 20 ppm extra cause a 1-2°C temperature rise. Does not make sense, does it? More proof that CO2 does not cause significant warming, because with current CO2-levels it should have been very hot by now.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And yes CO2 plays a big role in our climate. If you take a look at how CO2 interacts with other greenhouse gasses and track these in the different records we have, there is a very strong correlation. Again something that's very well documented in the scientific literature (but your claim is so broad I can't give you a single good article that explains this).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "And yes CO2 plays a big role in our climate"
For plants YES, but to climate it only plays an insignificant role. Of course there is a correlation, because of the lag of CO2 to temperature as you point out yourself. CO2 almost never stays far behind temperature.
But can you tell me how much climate will warm when CO2 doubles from 280 - 560 ppm when nothing else changes in the atmosphere?
Reasonable question I think.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Also what are you on about with the Anagnostopoulos 2010 paper? It's not proof for your claim that “The only evidence for CO2 to amplify global temperature comes from GCM computer models.”. That's not the subject the paper looks at. It takes a look if current models can be used in direct application for regional management/predictions. In other words if the resolution of the models is high and accurate enough at those scales to make those kind of predictions (which they aren't).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen The Anagnostopoulos 2010 paper discusses clearly that computermodel (CM) evidence is not evidence. The predictions made by CM are simply not reliable.
If CO2 turns out to be a global amplifier by CMs it is very questionable that this is true, because some CM says so.
I am sorry, that you don't see that or can figure it out yourself.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen The melting period mentioned in the paper I cited for the partial collapse of the greenland ice sheet is 400 years. That's with a temperature rise of 1-2C, and nothing more.
The medieval warm period was about 400 years long and was a localized phenomenon. Not to mention that globally the world was a lot cooler than it is today. We only saw melting in the southern part of the ice sheet (small area).
Which is a huge difference in how and why.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen The paper only looks at the temperature at the time and compares it with the expected predicted temperature increase. Where are you getting the claim from that 20ppm would cause a 1-2C temperature rise?
And CO2 does play a significant role. The processes behind the mechanisms that brings us in and out of an ice age are well understood. The amount of heat CO2 traps is also known and can be calculate. Also how CO2 plays a role during this is also quite well understood.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "Warmists always claim that the mechanisms during deglaciation are well understood. Also the amount of heat CO2 traps is also known and can be calculated. The role of CO2 during these processes is also well understood."
They keep repeating that like mantras. Everything is so well understood. Is it really?
I don't think so.
I shall try to explain, but somehow I feel it will be pointless.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "Where are you getting the claim from that 20ppm would cause a 1-2C temperature rise?"
Simple: How high were CO2 levels during the last interglacial (IG) period and how high were they on average during the current IG period.
The continents, currents, volcanic activity etc. were not that different 125 kya and decreased ice albedo can only be happening by higher temperatures caused by some sort of temperature amplification. In your opinion probably CO2. The difference: 20ppm CO2.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen The increase from a doubling of CO2 is quite easy to calculate. For a doubling of CO2, not accounting for any other feedbacks or forcers, gives a temperature increase between 1-2.2C. However, total warming would be between 2-4.5C
skepticalscience. com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
Also you say that CO2 is not far behind a temperature increase. Due to the time it takes to warm the ocean to release it's CO2 in such a scenario. The lag is 1000 years
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "1-2.2°C (1.6°C average) rise by CO2 only."
So in your opinion a doubling of CO2 causes a 24% temperature increase by CO2 only. How plausible is that?
The total warming induced by CO2 only in the atmosphere is 6.6°C.
Read Schmidt et al 2010 - Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. (A NASA paper)
In fact the total CO2 attribution has always been 15% and suddenly in this paper it is increased to 20%. Anyway that does not matter. Skeptical science is wrong.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen One can calculate what the amount of warming will be with 2XCO2. At least 70% of the greenhouse warming by CO2 comes from the first 40 ppm due to the logarithmic effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
That is 4.62° for the first 40 ppm. From there one has only three doublings left (40 - 80 - 160 - 320)
(6.6-4.62)/3=0.66°C for every next doubling by CO2 only.
How can 0.66°C cause a temperature rise of 2-4.5°C in total. 300-700% of positive feedbacks.
AGW is a hoax.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Besides if everything about CO2 is so "well understood". Why does science still not really know how much the Earth will warm by CO2 only when CO2 is doubled (280 to 560 ppm). Even you come up with an estimate of 1-2.2°C. Well that is "well understood"!
Science does not even know how much the Earth will warm including all the feedbacks (2-4.5°C). Again that is "well understood".
Nothing is well understood about CO2 and its effects on global climate.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And the paper does not clearly state the models are unreliable. They were testing the models, who were developed for global predictions, on a local scale. And in that area they are not reliable enough. I told you this in my previous comment. Could you point me to the exact part of the paper where they say what you claim they say?
And again, models aren't used to prove the CO2 feedback in deglaciation.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I suggest you read the first few paragraphs of the conclusion from the Anagnostopoulos 2010 paper.
Unbelievable that the message still is not clear for someone who deals with science.
I am not going to discuss any further about the details of the CO2 feedback during deglaciation.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen May I suggest that you don't edit what I say when you put it in quotation marks. And if you do, in the very least mark your edits. As with your edits you make me say things I never said.
And yes (de)glaciation processes are well understood. We can confirm these effects with the records we have available in nature. Also the source I provided gives a basic expose of it. If you want to learn more about this I recommend using that page, and it's terminology, to get more information.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen As explaining the entire process in several 500 character comments is not doable. I cannot do the subject justice in this format. If you have a specific point to make with one of the processes involved, I'll gladly take a look at it and discuss you on it. However, the entire process of (de)glaciation is just to big to tackle.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Deglaciation is nothing more than a combination of decreased ice albedo, milankovitch forcings and mainly increased water vapour that account for all of (just 5-6°C globally) the temperature increase. CO2 and CH4 only account for a very small fraction to temperature.
Remember that the rainforests are around on this planet for millions of years. So it is highly questionable if global temperatures really vary so much globally during glacial oscillations.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen You mention yourself that radiative forcing is a logarithmic calculation, and use it to make one of your points. So why is it strange that it's not a 50% increase? And skeptical science uses the accepted formula for CO2, which you can find on wikipedia. Which is even used by sceptics. This is the reason your entire calculation baffles me.
The very NASA paper you mention uses that very same formula. Not to mention it adds a few caveats on how they calculated the warming percentages.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "So why is it strange that it's not a 50% increase?" That is very simple, because the temperature increase will be a linear one then with each and every doubling. 0 - 5.31 - 10.625 - 21.25 - 42.5 - 85 - 170 - 340 You have 7 doublings in this example. The biggest effect is in the first 40 ppm. In this example that are 4 doublings. For the mechanism behind this calcualtion I refer to "9,25 working (at AGW) watts" (google) Forget about the 9,25 figure. That is misleading.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen It is not 50%, because one will get a 3.3°C for the first 40ppm. Leaving 3.3°C for only 3 doublings accounting for 1.1°C for every doubling, while in the first four doublings the temperature increase would be 3.3/4=0.83°C for every doubling. And that is impossible, because the biggest temperature increase happens with the first 40ppm of CO2. My 70% effect was a very conservative estimate. It is more likely to be 80%.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Now here you ask a really good question:
“Why does science still not really know how much the Earth will warm by CO2 only when CO2 is doubled (280 to 560 ppm). Even you come up with an estimate of 1-2.2°C. Well that is "well understood"!”
The key point to understand is climate sensitivity. Which is a part of the formula that is used for those temperature increase calculations. This number is pegged down in a range, so this has as a result the calculation also gives a range.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I haven't even mentioned climate sensitivity. I only asked a simple question how much temperature would change leaving out all other feedbacks. Climate sensitivity is mainly a discussion about cloud feedbacks today in the scientific community.
You avoid the real issue here. CO2 accounts for 20% of the total greenhouse effect. (Shmidt et al 2010) That is just 6.6°C. From this figure one can easily calculate the real temperature change. At least I present solid figures.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen The reason this is a range is because we haven't yet reached a consensus on what the exact figure is. Although it's being narrowed down slowly. Now this is a very complex subject, so I need to refer to skeptical science again for the details:
skepticalscience. com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
But I'll gladly go into those details if you have a specific point on this subject.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "The reason this is a range is because we haven't yet reached a consensus on what the exact figure is. Although it's being narrowed down slowly."
I have asked you a very simple question. How much does the temperature change by CO2 only when nothing else changes. You came up with an estimate 1-2.2°C. While in your opinion everything was so wel understood. Even this simple question can not be answered with an exact figure.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And about the Anagnostopoulos et al 2010 paper. It seams I wasn't very clear in my explanation, sorry for that. My contention with you about this paper is how you infer the conclusion from it that GCMs are not reliable. The point of the paper was that GCMs are not reliable for direct application. And many of the points they raise, and let me stress this point, I agree with. GCMs are not designed to do what they asked them to do in this paper.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen If you had asked me these questions I would have told you from the start that GCMs are not good at this. Climate scientists know this, and check their GCMs and runs for these known shortcomings. Not to mention that between the models there can be a huge difference in what they are good at.
If you want to know my position in more detail I recommend the following
1) informaworld. com/smpp/section?content=a928044622&fulltext=713240928
2) pdfserve.informaworld. com/233206__928044062.pdf
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "If you want to know my position in more detail I recommend the following
1) informaworld. com/smpp/section?content=a928044622&fulltext=713240928
2) pdfserve.informaworld. com/233206__928044062.pdf"
You refer to the same article (Anagnostopoulos 2010 paper) I think I am doing circular reasoning with you that leads to nowhere. I came up with this article.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen The basis for (de)glaciation is indeed the milankovitch cycles. What I mean with complex are all the details about the processes involved. They make it complex and they are nessecary to appreciate and understand what is going on. That's why I said I can't do it justice in a 500 character comment.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And being around for millions of years doesn't mean they were static and in their current state. For example there were periods that the amazon was bigger or smaller
Another thing you need to realise is that the equator generally does not experience the same rate of cooling/warming as the rest of the globe. Which is also the reason why we see more warming currently at the poles than near the equator. If you want to understand what I'm referring to, please look up polar amplification
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Part 1
I don't know where to start to correct you, but let's start somewhere. First of all: You should not pretend that I don't know anything about climate. I know that the equator does not experience the same rate of cooling/warming.
However according to Caillon et al 2003 (Science Vol 299): "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing."
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Part 2
The equator warms and cools sufficiently according to Caillon during glacial osccillations because of CO2 amplification. Remember this is just a statement that has never been really proved to be true. It is assumed. That is not science but belief. Sorry!
Polar temperatures: Let's see if the Arctic really is so "unusually" hot with unprecedented temperatures: Climate4you - Polar Temperature and look at the first and tenth graph you see. Nothing really unusual about it.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen With WUWT as a source I understand why your calculations didn't make sense. Please don't use him as a source as he gets a lot of the science wrong (like sea ice claims).
As such I don't know where even to start whit the errors in the article you are referencing. Now please understand the following: basing your argument on an article that tries to debunk the entire climate models, by referencing a simple online model. With inputting numbers, is not the way to go for your information.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Part 3
WUWT as a source. Who are you to determine which source I am allowed to use or not. You are constantly directing people to SkepticalScience. A source that does not give you any answers to the really important questions, because the debate would be over when they start to do so.
Is it an error that warming rate by CO2 only will be the same from every doubling. 50-100 or 320-640 or 780-1560 and so on. Climate scientists do agree that 2xCO2 results in same temp-increase.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Part 4
The fact that you still keep relying on computermodels after all the mispredictions they made in the past. Here is another beautiful fact why models are not the tools to project or predict future climate. Just listen to Roy Spencer only.
watch?v=yh89RHWiamM
watch?v=LUma8YI5sDo&feature=related
watch?v=W_y9MrrLiRo
I would recommend you to read and verify "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW Montford and read how corrupt climate science really is.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Also every climate forcer/feedback has a climate sensitivity associated with it. It's explained in the article I pointed you to. There you can see the explanation why it's a range. And that all forcers/feedbacks are being studied and honed.
However, most importantly. They have been studied and tested against previous climates. To corroborate the numbers they get. If you change the numbers like you did, not a single model would work.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And as we are basing the climate sensitivity numbers on what we have seen in the planets history we cannot pin this down like you want it to. It's a lot of work to corroborate these numbers, gather the data and test them against the different climates we've had. This inbuilt uncertainty gives a range. It's explained in the article I linked you to.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Part 5
Climate sensitivity: Good of you to bring it up. How can a temperature increase by 0.62-0.83°C (depending on percentage CO2 attribution to total greenhouse effect) cause a 2-4.5°C temperature rise?
Do we have a climate sensitivity of 323(241)-726(542)% of extra feedbacks in the climate system? You see the numbers are overexaggerated by the IPCC and their supporting scientists. 1.2-1.5°C temp rise with 2xCO2 is much more likely to happen.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Part 6 (End)
I can send you a PM if you would like to know how I got the 0.62-0.83°C temp increase by CO2 only. It is hard to do that in 500 or 1000 characters.
I have to tell you. I don't want to debate via PMs and will only send you one message with the calculations how I got these numbers.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I don't pretend that you don't know anything about climate. My disagreement with you is about the conclusions you draw from research papers and evidence. And some of the sources you use. If I thought it was the case that you don't know anything I would say so directly.
The reason I address certain topics or point you to certain known phenomenon has to do with how you construct your arguments.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen " is about the conclusions you draw from research papers and evidence"
Sorry again, but there is no real evidence for human made climate change in the peer-reviewed literature. Just present me one paper. Just one that clearly shows the evidence of antropogenic CO2 increase that caused the 20th century warming.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen For example:
“Remember that the rainforests are around on this planet for millions of years. So it is highly questionable if global temperatures really vary so much globally during glacial oscillations.”
This sentence was the direct reason why I mentioned polar amplification. As this made it seem you were unaware of the phenomenon or were misinterpreting something.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen The Caillon et al paper is predominantly taking a look at antarctic warming (as the vostok record he's analysing is from that region):
icebubbles.ucsd. edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
realclimate. org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
So what exactly are you on about with the equator?
(btw, your quote is from page 3, column 3, paragraph 1)
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen More statements from Caillon et al. watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8 (Sorry M4GW)
Clearly they do not only take a look at Antarctic warming. And you should not lead me to Realclimate. If I lead you to WUWT or any other sceptical website you almost immediately dismiss the info. Fine, but stop lead me to these websites and start to present me some peer-reviewed studies. So far you haven't done that. And btw scientists agree that 2xCO2 would lead to 1.2°C by CO2 only.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Did you take a look at how they made those graphs? The first one is a combined graph of the arctic and antarctic. Something you should not do. The arctic warms a lot more than the antarctic. And the warming in the antarctic that has scientists concerned is in the western peninsula.
The last graph “Antarctic long meteorological data series” makes me wonder why he picked those stations. With a look at the data he uses it looks like he's making misleading graphs/trends.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen And remember: Computermodel evidence is no evidence.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I didn't say you may not use WUWT, I pleaded you not to use him and gave an example why. Hence the word please in that sentence...
Seriously, just listen to Roy Spencer alone? He is an intelligent design proponent.. That should give you a hint. Not to mention he uses rhetoric and conjecture in those videos. And the people in those videos is one motley crew to say the least. Fred Singer for example denied the health risks of passive smoking, calling it “junk science”. Sound familiar?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "He is an intelligent design proponent -Fred Singer calling it “junk science” "
Are you lowering yourself to ad hominem attacks now? Will you please stay on topic?
Robert T. Bakker - The man who caused a paradigm shift in palaeontologic thinking is a true believer in God and on sundays he even preaches in church.
Einstein practised religion as well. He was a Jew. Just google images: Albert Einstein Synagoge
Sorry for the inconvenience! Still in for some more pain?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I've told you time and time again that the number for an doubling of CO2 is 1-2.2°C, not 0.62-0.83, I don't use that figure. I've explained why and how we get that number. And I've pointed out that if we would use a different climate sensitivity for CO2 nothing would make sense anymore. And I've provided you with sources that give a very detailed explanation so you can understand where I'm coming from.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen That number 1.2°C seems to come from a paper by James Hansen from 1984. Yes that number is 26 years old and currently that number is being disputed by some smart people who actually do some thinking. I am not the only one in this. Sorry.
In your opinion nothing makes sense when these numbers would not be what you want them to be. Well that is your problem. Not mine.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen So you keep trying to argue about something that's not part of my argument. And demanding that I explain those figures. Figures that are not peer reviewed, and often you say that part of the calculation is based upon your own opinion. Offering no real reason or sources why this opinion is the correct one. So I'm done with you talking about that.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "So I'm done with you talking about that."
Inconvenient truth, mister?
1-2.2°C temp increase by CO2 only would mean that CO2 attribution of total greenhouse effect would be 39% if I would take the average 1.6°C. Sorry, but CO2 attribution is roughly 20% according to the latest paper, but apparently people are not allowed to think for themselves anymore according to you. They have to follow other people who think they know something blindfoldly.
The numbers just do not fit.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen And are you trying to dispute that each and every doubling of CO2 will not cause the same temperature response?
I would suggest you do a little bit of more climate research and find out that inconvenient fact for yourself. I could give you some links, but you will dismiss it anyhow.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "often you say that part of the calculation is based upon your own opinion"
Sorry, but I can back it up with peer-reviewed science. So it certainly is not my opinion and actually I try to do some thinking.
Present me a quote of mine where I clearly state that this is my opinion please.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbiopen One paper? OK here we go.
We know that we are causing the increase in CO2:
bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
And we can see the changes the increased CO2 is causing in the infrared spectrum:
ams.confex. com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
There are dozens of papers out there taking a look at the climate and finding the same results.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "Just one that clearly shows the evidence of antropogenic CO2 increase that caused the 20th century warming" My question.
And you came up with a paper about Stable isotope ratio mass spectometry by Ghosh. The paper is about determining the amount of C and O to calculate/measure CO2 content and temperature respectively from proxies.
It says nothing about anthropogenic CO2 causing the 20th century warming. Yes we caused a 40% CO2 increase in the atmosphere. That I agree.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen But no this paper does not proof that CO2 causes unusual global warming or says anything about that at all in the content. I asked for a paper that specifically claims and proofs that CO2 has caused the 20th century warming. Unequivocally!
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen The second link you presented is something to reject immediately. Reason: "The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C" is reason enough.
Or the Earth has warmed 2°C since 1850. That means the Earth has warmed 1.1°C from 1850-1880 (in 30 years), because after 1880 the Earth warmed 0.9°C according to Nasa Giss. If that is the case global warming is completely natural and we shouldn't be worrying too much about it.
Total geenhouse effect is 33°C (Schmidt et al 2010).
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen “Yes we caused a 40% CO2 increase in the atmosphere. That I agree.”
Which was the point why I cited that paper. As a lot of people dispute the fact we caused the increase I always include this paper when someone asks to cite papers that show we are the cause.
The reason I cited the other paper was because you can access it publicly. I rather would have cited “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997”.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Well I have a good one for you: Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS by Griggs & Harries 2006
It is a paper comparing three different satellite data with a lot of noise and troubles.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen What is exactly the"a lot of noise and troubles" in the three different satellite data according to you?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And I specifically said “infrared spectrum” when I cited that paper. It shows the differences in infrared absorption of our atmosphere due to greenhouse gases. And shows that due to CO2 emissions the radiative forcing has increased by about 3.52 W/m2. Which is a lot.
You asked:
“Just one that clearly shows the evidence of antropogenic CO2 increase that caused the 20th century warming.”
So I gave you one paper showing it.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Radiative forcing is a term used by the IPCC. Before that it didn't probably exist in the climate community. But from that radiative forcing increase of 3.52 W/m2 one should be able to calculate the overall temperature increase. I am not a specialist in that, but from Wiki I get this calculation 0.8*3.52= 2.8°C
Well I have to disappoint you, but Earth experienced a mere 0.7-0.9°C temp increase in the last 100 years or so.
Yes climate sensitivity. I know.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Pardon? "Radiative forcing is a term used by the IPCC. Before that it didn't probably exist in the climate community."
Sure...
journals.ametsoc. org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1985)042%3C1677:ROTNCC%3E2.0.CO;2
I hope you do realise that the IPCC was founded in 1988.
And about the difference in warming. It takes time to warm a planet. It's not an instant effect.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Name of that paper please? Having difficulties to find it.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Response of the NCAR Community Climate Model to the Radiative Forcing by the Naturally Occurring Tropospheric Aerosol 1985.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "And about the difference in warming. It takes time to warm a planet. It's not an instant effect."
"A CO2 molecule is radiatively active in the atmosphere no matter how it got there." -Richard Alley.
"It is not an instant effect" is an assumption based on belief.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen No, there are plenty of research papers uit there that discuss this. One of the main reasons it takes a while for the planet to respond to a increase in CO2 is that the oceans absorb a lot of the heat.
journals.ametsoc. org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
It's not an assumption, we can measure this and see the same behaviour with past climate change.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I've read the paper and as far as I can remember they don't mention the equator. Neither does Greenman when citing that paper. Secondly I didn't say only antarctic warming, I said predominantly (he does mention other regions).
And yes I have pointed you to several peer reviewed papers, remember this one for example?:
nature. com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08686.html
Also I mentioned that the skepticalscience website I referenced contains a lot of my citations.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I will come back to your papers and links you provided. Haven't got the time for them right now.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen
-Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage.
This paper uses a statistical approach to the problem. There is nothing wrong with that at all. But when I use a statistical or simple approach for CO2 warming I get a lot of critique and people use words like "utterly asinine".
Did you know that during the last interglacial CO2 levels did not exceed 300ppm? How would you explain that extraordinary warming 125 kya?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage. by Kopp
"While the change in global mean temperature is uncertain, sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific and Atlantic were about 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels." Your point is?
The equator gets warmer in the literature whether you like it or not. It's a fact. How can a rainforest deal/cope with a 1-2°C drop in temps? IPCC starts to worry biodiversity when it gets a little bit warmer.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Polar amplification: Well that paper by Kopp et al showed clearly a 1-2°C sea surface temperature increase while the poles were 3-5°C warmer.
During glacial oscillations polar temperature fluctuates some 10-12°C (Vostok ice core data). According to Kopp et al it will have an effect at the equator. A 2-4°C fluctuation. Is the rainforest able to cope with these temperature oscillations? More proof that the equator-temperature changes according to the peer-reviewed literature.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Oh ffs, you keep making arguments I don't make. Please stop straw manning me. I never said there is no warming at the equator. This very debate about polar amplification was started when you said “Remember that the rainforests are around on this planet for millions of years. So it is highly questionable if global temperatures really vary so much globally during glacial oscillations.”
Again, I never said there is no warming at the equator.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Obviously you are having a tough time with me, because you start to think that I am straw manning you. Well I am not straw manning you.
Because it is highly questionable if warming at the equator is a fact. Can the rainforests cope with a temp fluctuation of 2-4C? I have my doubts about that.
And yes I will try to formulate my sentences a little better than I did previously. Sorry for that.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen You said "The equator gets warmer in the literature whether you like it or not." And several like it.
Have I anywhere in my replies to you said that the equator doesn't warm? What I said was that there was a difference in the amount of warming: polar amplification. That's it.
So don't be so smug with your "obviously you are having a tough time with me, because you start to think that I am straw manning you".
As that first sentence comes across as straw manning.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen But you haven't answered the question. Can the rainforest cope with a 2-4°C drop and increase?
If yes why worry about a future warming of maybe 1-2°C?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Do you have a source for the claim that “scientists agree that 2xCO2 would lead to 1.2°C by CO2 only”.
Nice of you to return to computer model evidence, but you've been raising that point constantly. I always told you that they aren't the sole basis for my argument. Not to mention that there's a huge problem if they cannot prove anything:
en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Computer_simulation#Computer_simulation_in_science
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "Do you have a source for the claim that “scientists agree that 2xCO2 would lead to 1.2°C by CO2 only”."
Watch on Youtube first 15 minutes or so: watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60
Lindzen: On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling 1998: "In the absence of feedbacks ... surface temperature response to doubling CO2 is 1.2°C.
That number will be under scrutiny not so far into the future. I am not the only one who disagrees.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Without actually looking at the research papers and data where they are basing these numbers on it's hard for me to track down the calculation. But what I suspect is that they use more up to date figures than I did, or we are missing something with the 2C to 1.2C conversion he did (even ignoring that, the 1.2C number is a calculation in itself).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I will get back to you on the two links you gave me later this evening. Haven't forgotten about them.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Again, you make it seem like I say something that I don't. The “junk science” referred to the previous sentence about passive smoking, not intelligent design as you make it seem with how you quote me.
And intelligent design is a lot more than just religion. It says the theory of evolution is false and is not possible. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen The point I was making was that a lot of the people you are referring to have a history of going against evidence. Even when they've been shown to be wrong time after time. It does not mean they current position is wrong, but it is an indication about how they deal with contrary evidence. I was trying to make you think about who you are citing and basing your opinion on.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen And I have to disappoint you again. I do not base my opinion on anything. I ask questions and try to search for answers on these questions. So far established climate science has not given me any satisfactory answers to my questions.
1.2°C Look for Hansen et al (1984) Climate processes and climate sensitivity. Or Hansen et al (?) Climate sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen “ I do not base my opinion on anything.” that's not true. You base your opinion on the questions you have and research you have done: “I ask questions and try to search for answers on these questions”
Again with the suggestive quoting. The meaning of the sentence changes a lot when you include the next sentence: “The point I was making was that a lot of the people you are referring to have a history of going against evidence. Even when they've been shown to be wrong time after time”
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "Even when they've been shown to be wrong time after time”
People make mistakes. What about the graph by Mann et al. That was a big mistake. He never apologized for it.
What about climategate? All the involved scientists never apologized for that as well. They keep claiming: Not guilty.
You should read the resignation by Hal Lewis:
Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society on telegraph co uk
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Yeah people make mistakes. But the people you cited keep being wrong on the science time and time again. Those are the people you cite.
What graph by mann et al?
And I claim bullshit on climategate and the resignation by Hal Lewis who wasn't even active with research on climate.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "And I claim bullshit on climategate and the resignation by Hal Lewis who wasn't even active with research on climate."
I think we are done here. You are in denial of the truth and clearly, clearly you have adopted a religion.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen ....
I've had discussions on the climategate emails and there was nothing in the emails that indicated that their science was based on a fraud, hoax or wrong. If you do have one example of it then I'm willing to listen.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Phil Jones wrote in an email......>>>The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
DuctapePenguin 11 months ago
@DuctapePenguin Have fun:
skepticalscience. com/Freedom-of-Information-FOI-requests-climate-scientists.htm
CollinMaessen 11 months ago
@CollinMaessen Skeptical Science-com is managed by John Cook who is not a meteorologist or climate scientist. He studied some physics at some obscure university in Australia and set himself up as a blogger. The guy is just another garden variey global warming ideologue.
Yet John Cook claims all his blog posts are not his own but all "peer reviewed" scientific literature. John Cook fails to mention the "peers" are all suspect idealogues themselves and probably corrupt..
DuctapePenguin 11 months ago 4
@DuctapePenguin lol guys you know if you accept the AGW religion feel free to change your lifestyle. It's false doctrine but everyone seems to need a placebo sometime. Sun spots do more to affect the weather than humans.
LeHauteGryphon 4 months ago
@CollinMaessen you sound like a gullible person. Here's a video for you watch?v=ORyzsMZPPUg
DuctapePenguin 11 months ago
@DuctapePenguin So your response is calling me gullible, post a music video with no science content and slander John Cook and other scientists.
Also the blogs says they investigate claims on the basis of what's in the scientific literature, that's something different than you are claiming. And they do a terrific job of translating the science into something understandable. If you were appraised of what is in the literature, you would be aware of that.
CollinMaessen 11 months ago
@CollinMaessen did you know they are spraying you with POISON under the guise of fixing manmade warming?
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF GREENHOUSE WARMING1992 "losses of millions of lives acceptable" "most cost-effective to spray barium and aluminum" = georgia guide stones maintain population at 500,000,000
= they are killing you gullible wanker!!! ;D wake the fck up!!! search chemtrails the whole world on bio attack, if you had a brain you would be aware but your head is up yer asss, lol!
SprayOClockNews 3 months ago in playlist More videos from M4GW
@CollinMaessen "The point I was making was that a lot of the people you are referring to have a history of going against evidence."
Is that also true for Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Ian Clark, David Bellamy, Freeman Dyson, Zbiegniew Jaworowski, Antonino Zichichi, David Bromwich, Hendrik Tennekes, Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Nir Shaviv, Sami Solanki, Jasper Kirkby, George Kukla, Rhodes Fairbridge, William Gray, Hal Lewis and 31000 others more?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And you actually cited the petition project... If you take a look at the qualifications they cite you might notice that most of them aren't scientists:
petitionproject. org/qualifications_of_signers.php
/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen You should not believe everything what Greenman3610 tries to propagate. His videos are very cleverly and professionally made, but they contain a lot of flaws and misleadings.
Besides they are full of ad hominem attacks. He uses the word "Denier" way too often. I asked him several times why he continues to use such Orwellian language if the case for global warming is so strong. Just present the scientific evidence.
I never got a reply from him.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I agree with greenman on this one, the petition project is not a valid list of scientists. You can check the page I cited from the website itself where the qualifications are listed. It's a list with a lot of problems and not one that helps you make your argument.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen About the "junk science" I wanted to put the whole sentence in my comment, but I ran out of characters. That is why I shortened your reference. It referred to the whole sentence.
And no I don't know what intelligent design is. But can you explain something to me please.
Why does allopatric evolution (speciation) take many more years than sympatric speciation? Processes behind it are exactly the same.
- The Fire Salamander Source for New Species (PDF)
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Here's an introduction to intelligent design:
en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Intelligent_design
And I'm not familiar enough with evolutionary biology to answer your speciation question.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I don't believe in Intelligent Design. So why bother getting to know it better? I think my time can be better spend.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I raised the point of intelligent design for one of the scientists you cited as a signal that there might be a problem with how he treats evidence. Especially evidence that goes against a position he has on a scientific subject. For me such things raise red flags.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen It's not an inconvenient truth. I've tried to explain it to you several times, but you keep ignoring it and eventually return to the same point. Even the citation of 20% is not accurate (take a hard look at the paper you cited to figure out why).
And here's the part I was referring to (and I thought you had mentioned it more often, but you didn't, apologies for that):
My 70% effect was a very conservative estimate. It is more likely to be 80%.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Attribution of the present-day TGE - Schmidt et al 2010: "We conclude that, given the uncertainties, that water vapor is responsible for just over half, clouds around a quarter and CO2 about a fifth of the present-day total greenhouse effect." CO2 roughly 20% ( a fifth). Correct me if I am wrong.
If one takes a good look at the paper it looks like it may be less than 20% attribution. It was 15% for a long time, but these scientists raised the CO2 attribution with ~5%.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen If you read the paper they did not just raise it. And they did put in several stipulations on the number, one of them being: “Additionally, we also note that our adjusted radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 is 4.1 W/m2, roughly 10% larger than the canonical estimate of 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m2 [IPCC, 2001; Myhre et al.,1998]. This might then lead to an ∼10% overestimate of its role (i.e., a percent or two in Table 1)”
You kept saying it is 20%, when it should have been about 20%.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Schmidt et al 2010: You are correct about the quote, but if you read after that quote ......
Do I need to say more?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen The text you are referring to: “Overall, we estimate that these biases could change
the final attributions for water vapor, clouds and CO2
by up to 5%, but it is difficult to be precise”
They are talking about the uncertainty range that's in the number you quoted. What's your point?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen 70% or 80% are wrong estimates. My apologies for that. For 320 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere the warming effect by CO2 for the first 40 ppm only is somewhere between 60-65%. You can derive that from different logarithmic greenhouse gas warming graphs.
- logarithmic effect of co2 WUWT ( Third graph - Modtran based from University of Chicago)
- junkscience com /Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2. png
- klimaatgek. nl CO2 sensitivity (1st and 2nd graph)
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Also I'm not referencing the same article. The first link, which discusses strengths and weaknesses (it's an editorial) references your Anagnostopoulos et al 2010 paper. Again I don't 100% agree. But they give valid points in that article and mention all the reservations I have with the Anagnostopoulos et al 2010.
The second link I provide gives a very good rundown on climate models and their limitations and how you can, and currently should, use them. With this one I agree.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And here's one page referencing the Greenland ice cores:
skepticalscience. com/past-and-future-of-greenland-ice-sheet. html
So what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
So nice to see this song again. I guess the last time I saw it was LAST winter! Manmade global warming is so the elites can harvest our money and control us. Control us akin to body scanning. I can't wait for a state to secede. You and your friends come too, strong men. We can all keep to ourselves and make stuff.
Elizruth 1 year ago
I want to keep going, maybe I should start my own site. Al Gore and a few others had the ChicagoClimateExchange (CCX) set up, trading carbon would have made them trillionares, and they would have spread as much as they could have around for political cotribs. It's rather unusual to see a company close it's doors just a couple days after a political election isn't it?
Lets get real here, I love our earth too, I have to live on it just like everyone else. We don't need any new laws or taxes.
waults 1 year ago
Another thing, if you have a degree in climatology, your basically a weatherman looking for a job, if you don't look like Chikage Windler (weather babe in MN) your not going to get the big money TV job. So create a crisis and live off the Gov $. Just make sure you shut any contradicting theorys down or you'll be working at McD's --- would you like fries with that? The peope who haven't adapted C.C. as a religion know better, and are sick of funding our own demise.
waults 1 year ago 2
@waults 2 out of 3 meteorologists DON'T believe in Global Warming.
Saw it on Nightline on ABC.
M4GW 1 year ago
@M4GW Thats my point, if you look like Chikage you get a sweet six figure income as a TV metearologist - look like me, if I was some sort of scientist, I'd have voted D.- to keep my free ride going!
BTW, Love the work your doing, don't give up, also I really do want to come drink some beer in the woodstove motorhome!
waults 1 year ago
@waults sounds good
M4GW 1 year ago
Us conservatives want to protect the planet too, but we believe in doing things that actually work instead of things that make us feel good about ourself.
Lets say that global warming is real, and humans are the cause, is that a calamity? Or is it the earth and climate adapting to the extra numbers of people that depend on the earth to survive? It has been proven that crops are more productive with higher CO2, and warmer temps opens millions of square miles of unhabitated land for people 2 Lv
waults 1 year ago 4
@waults In a greenhouse plants are more productive with more CO2. Out in the field the story is slightly different:
watch?v=XmcPBKCRplQ
Greenman3610 also made a on the subject:
watch?v=g093lhtpEFo
CollinMaessen 1 year ago