For those of you who are skeptical about ocean acidification but are nevertheless interested in what ocean scientists say, I recommend this three part lecture (first part, additional parts in the related videos):
Ocean acidification happens when the natural balance between calcium carbonate sequestration and the influx of CO2 is upset. That happens when the level of CO2 rises rapidly. Thus, it's dependent on the rate of change, not just on the absolute amount of CO2 in the air or the temperature. It will balance itself out in the end, but that will take on the order of thousands of years. Too long for corals, which need time to adapt to higher acidity levels.
@cupera1 Nope, while the MWP saw some warm regional climate, globally the temps today are higher than the MWP as shown by hugely detailed and comprehensive "national academies climate reconstructions" available online
@TheDisproof I am amazed that you have detailed temp records from the MWP that show that todays temps are warmer!!! When we have farms and vineyards in Greenland again them we will have fully recovered from the LIA.
The same consensus of scientist that shout AGW now are the same bunch that said it was global cooling in the 70's. They were predicting glaciers to the Dakotas by the year 2000. With that record of accuracy in predictions why believe them now?
@cupera1 While the MWP saw some warm regional climate e.g. greenland, globally the temps today are higher than the MWP as shown by hugely detailed and comprehensive "national academies climate reconstructions" available online. Please look at them. On the 1970's: A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
@Disproof Evidence of the MWP has been found from the Arizona deserts to China so the "local" event story is bogus. I am glad that you did find that the consensus of scientist in the 70's did support global cooling. To say that todays bigger group of fools are any better then the old group of fools is not helping your case. With the GC that has happened in the last 10 years and confirmed by East Anglia CRU shows that the dire predictions are just as false as the ones made in the 70's
@cupera1 Nope: A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly MORE papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). Whether the MWP was warmer or not (the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions said it wasn't warmer than today globally), the fact is that the factors that caused past warm periods are not present in sufficient amounts to explain the current warming.
Respond to this video... 1972 – Kukla-Mathews publishes in Science, an article about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes a letter to Nixon in 1972, specifically warning about global cooling.
1973 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (ad hoc Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of 42 of the most prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
@cupera1 "apparently there was consensus about cooling"-not according to the peer reviewed papers-A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly MORE papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to co2 (Peterson 2008).Have you confused predictions with past?
SHAME! Science is made of better stuff - it is suppose to be objective - SHAME! Now no one can trust Science, well this stuff is not real science, so real scientists who actually don't falsify or manipulate data (Climate emails) should defrock these fanatics - SHAME!
yes there have been warmer periods and colder periods in the earths history,,no one denies that,its fact,,but global warming,or meltdown is a seperate thing,its a modern thing,we have only be industrialiized for 150 years or so,,can anyone deny that all our wars ,,atomic bomb tests,planes cars and industry on an unprecedented scale does no damage,,add to this the destrution of the green belts ,,we cannot not sustain the way we live,,as much as i hate to admit it ,,it comes with a price to pay.
When the earth orbit is closer to the sun, it is more stable and result in a so recognized as normal more stable climate. But when the earth's is further away from the sun(which is where we are at present), the earth's rotation become weaker and it wobbles which cause or shift climate from one region to another. It is really that simple! We human are helpless to mother nature, live with it! We are at its mercy!!!
No sane person denies that there is natural climate variability. What this debate is about is an anomalous temperature rise that has only been detectable since the late 20th century that was predicted by climatologists long before that time from the known physical properties of CO2, and which cannot be explained by any of the known natural factors that cause climate change. It can, however, be fairly accurately accounted for by the measured increase in greenhouse gasses. The numbers match.
What a bunch of HOG WASH! The guy claimed that in the 1800 and 1900s the human effect had influenced global warming. Our civilazation was in its infancy as comparing to today's world, our modern day vastly out paced the yesteryears and yet the human effect is less than those 100 years ago. THINK ABOUT THIS TREE HUGGERS!
I'll elaborate if you can't draw the conclusion between industrialisation and clear cutting -> decreased carbon recycling in the air and increased emissions.
Good point emenot. It's very convenient the AGW proponents use graphs only going back to the end of the little ice age (some 200 years) to now. Cherry-picking the start time will always show warming from that era.
The Earth's history has seen between 4000 and 7000 ppm CO2 (compared to 380 now) without a tipping point, boilover and was much warmer than today (even though the CO2 didn't follow these trends) and plant, animal life thrived. AGW is essentially bunked.
Heh, cherry picking, that's rich coming from a global warming skeptic. Try and look at, say, a Fred Singer lecture (I suggest his Auburn one) with as little bias as you can. Now that's cherry picking.
The reason the graphs go back about 200-250 years is that that is the time of the industrial revolution. Before then, there were no anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.
AGW may be down in the public perception, but climatologists don't agree. Even Singer was forced to admit that it seems to be true.
Werecow, there appears to be AGW but it's very difficult to discern from the natural noise. IPCC have fraudulently enhanced their figures to say that CO2 is a poison and to tax us on it, when even farmers use it in their greenhouses to max plant growth.
Peter Spencer in Australia is on hunger strike because the Kyoto crap and CO2 scare stopped him using his land, which is now worthless and can't be legally sold.
Sad as that may be, it's not an argument against the validity of the science.
Accusing the IPCC of fraud is a serious accusation. If you look at the literature, the IPCC roughly matches the consensus there. So if you say the IPCC is fudging their data, you're essentially saying there's a giant conspiracy of scientists. Can you back that up with evidence from an independent source? If anything, the experts on the skeptics side are quite notorious for cherry picking their data.
Difficult to point you, an AGW advocate, somewhere you won't cry foul or bias, but here goes.
Prof. McKitrick & Steve McIntyre debunked Mann's hockey stick, later a US Senate committee declared the hockey stick fraud , which the IPCC used extensively.
Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman is a railroad engineer that has massively conflicting business interests in UK & India using carbon credits to gain financially by removing his steelworks from the UK costing thousands of jobs (cont)..
A US Senate committee has no authority in science. Science is not decided by vote, and not by politics.
The "debunking" of Mann's hockeystick was a critique that was refuted by further studies. Many different studies have since independently come to the same conclusion using different methods.
You don't need to go by the IPCC if you don't trust them. It's just a summary. Just go to the climatology literature, and don't rely on the public press for your info.
Mann's hockey stick was comprised of tree ring data, which has many problems and can't be used for temperature. Besides, McIntyre found he excluded data and hid it, also the program made hockey sticks out of any random data.
The hockey stick removed the MWP and the LIA, which clearly show up in 6144 global bore holes and stalagmite samples.
I can't find one study that doesn't criticise the hockey stick.
Like I said, it's been confirmed by multiple independent sources, focusing, among other things, on bore cores, corals, ice cores and stalagmites.
Every important study gets its fair share of criticism, but what's important is whether that criticism holds up. If you can't find a single study that accepts the hockey stick graph now, I can say with absolute confidence that you're not looking at the science literature. Practically no one disputes this anymore.
And just for the record, the only reason I'm defending AGW is that I've been browsing the literature to make sense of the debate, and have been trying to sift through all the obfuscation from both sides of the political spectrum to find out what the actual science says. I try to steer away from environmentalist sources. I haven't even seen or read Gore's work besides a TED talk. In fact, I actively avoid it because I want to try to remain as objective as I can and I know he has an agenda.
.. and moving that business to India, where he gains more carbon credits.
There are only 53 REAL scientists working for the IPCC, however most of the 2500 they claim work for them aren't even scientists. It's a politically generated and driven organisation.
Originally the IPCC scientists reported no problems with the climate, but Phil Jones removed their reports.
Why not just watch something from Lord Monckton:
watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto
No, he's not paid by big oil. His lectures are excellent.
Monckton is just about the most unreliable source you could have cited. I can respect some of the skeptics, but that man is a true quack.
But even if everything you just wrote is true, that doesn't negate the fact that the IPCC report reflects the literature, which I can tell you haven't even glanced at. Since the 80s, you can find barely any publications by climatologists that dispute AGW. And this is true across the globe. Explain that?
So should I cite Bob Carter instead, or are you just so one-sided you cherry-pick your teachers?
It's difficult to publish a paper against AGW as it's often quashed by those who don't believe it. The IPCC have their own internal peer-review process and block all others.
Well over 30,000 scientists have signed petitions against AGW.
Ah, the petition. I was hoping you'd bring that up. Go to the petition website, select 20 names at random, and look up their credentials. If you find any practicing (i.e. a publication within the past decade or so) climatologists in there, let me know, because I've googled about 50 and I have yet to find one (though I know there are a couple on there). Many of the people on there have no more than a BSc degree, and most of them are not climate scientists. Of the remainder, few are active.
It doesn't take a climatologist to tell us about the climate, as many need geologists to help them.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there's nothing unusual about the rate or magnitude of warming that's occurred last century either.
AGW is a fact, albeit such a minor one it's difficult to distinguish from the natural noise, and definitely not catastrophic like the IPCC has claimed. In fact, even the IPCC has been forced to town it down in their figures lately.
Geologists are an important part of climate research as they are familiar with processes like sedimentation, etc.. Similarly, we need astronomers to tell us about things like solar activity. Climatologists are the ones who study the dynamics of climate, which is quite a different thing. Why do you think this is a separate field of study?
Yeah... Wiki is generally pretty reliable on science matters, but with a heavily politicized topic like this, I'd be careful with that, too. Either way, always good to follow up on citations.
I mean, are you trying to refute that there were much warmer periods than today, many times in the past? The polar bears should have been extinct long ago:
watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
.. because you and Al baby don't know better. The hockey stick is proven bunk just about everywhere, except for a few silly, uneducated and lonely hangers-on. Much like the Moon landing hoax proponents.
Earth's past is littered with 10-20x CO2 without a runaway greenhouse, and we didn't do that either.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Any paleoclimatologist can tell you that there have been hotter periods in the past. And of course there are natural factors influencing climate. But it's been a while since we've seen as rapid a rise in temperature as the current one, and the known natural factors don't account for the current warming unless you factor in human emissions.
You can keep repeating the hockey stick is debunked nonsense, but that doesn't make it any more true.
BTW, just to give you an idea of how I came to my conclusions: the first and so far only popular science book I've actually read on this topic came from a Dutch skeptical paleoclimatologist (Kroonenberg). He's agnostic about whether there is a warming trend, and he argues that it may not be anthropogenic, and that it may be a good thing considering the ice age that is coming our way 20000 years from now. I went into this a skeptic, and I'm not exactly what you'd call a raving environmentalist.
...but I'm a science geek, and I'll dive into anything that captures my attention. When I actually started looking at the literature, I came to quite a different conclusion. It took some time and effort, but I now feel confident enough to say that I have a reasonable overview of what is going on forasfar as that is possible for a non-expert. What I find odd, though, is how skewed the public perception of this debate actually is, so that's what I'm looking into right now.
...and so far, I've seen deception on both sides, but by far the most egregious comes from the skeptics side. I have to say, I felt a bit cheated when I read more about this. The media have completely lost the scientific credibility on this issue, and politicians on both sides are promoting outright lies, half truths, or simple misinformation. It's really quite bad. I've seen science being distorted before, but never this bad. The literature is the only reliable thing there is.
Been a while? The same rates of warming from 1975 to 2000 can be seen at 1860-1880 and 1910-1940. Nothing unusual.
If any paleoclimatologist can tell us that it was much warmer in the past, why did Mann remove the MWP from his hockey stick?
The only reason people think it's warming is because it's been doing that since 1820, the end of the Little Ice Age. We didn't do it because it's pre-industrial revolution. So how did that start without all that deadly CO2 I wonder..
This is kinda weird... I can't comment on it's reliability since it's an online article and no author is given, but the article doesn't even support what you were saying, nor do the comments. For example, the conclusion states: "The rapid rise in global temperature is unmatched in the last million years. Normally, and when the Earth has warmed after an ice age, it is a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. "
...and earlier on above the second graph, it says: "This rapid rise in temperature is unmatched in the last million years, and even then, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. Our human ( anthropogenic ) actions have ramped up the rate of change not evidenced in any record, and we are leaving ourselves very little time to adapt. "
I didn't care for the article, which is probably erroneous, I was referring to the graph (#2) which was used by Rajendra Pachauri in a presentation at Copenhagen.
Ah, I think I get it now. You do realize why the standard measurement for measuring climate change is 30 years or more, right (actually, >35 would be best if you ask me)? You have to smooth our natural short term interdecadal variability. For an overview of contributing century-scale factors, see: w3 climate. unibe. ch / ~stocker / papers/stocker96nato . pdf (stupid youtube comment filter)
I dare say the graph is accurate but I didn't bother reading the article. The graph shows the warming rates between 1975-2000 is nothing unusual compared to 1860-1880 and 1910-1940. In fact, those early warming rates occurred long before heavy industrial pollution, and the Earth climbed out of the little ice age without any anthropogenic cause whatsoever.
It's unusual because it's consistent over the long term (>30 years), and it is speeding up, as the graph illustrates. You'll note that none of the warming spells in that graph show that same consistency. Furthermore, there are natural explanations for most (if not all) of the large scale trends. We lack such an explanation today; it can't be the sun, because the stratosphere does not show the required warming effect. It can't be urban heat islands, because oceans show the same thing. And so on.
Most of the early data is corrupted by stations that have been moved or subsequently urbanised. Even NASA's James Hansen was caught massaging data for GISS. Imagine the problems in other countries.
But that graph is over the instrumental record. Had we instruments thousands of years ago I bet we'd see similar peaks.
Not forgetting we see very large swings up and down in all the ice core data, at even greater rates and magnitudes than today. Again, nothing unusual.
The graphs in this vid show inferred temperature from ice core data. Temp is still lagging behind the CO2 emissions today and therefore not the best comparison measure. Look at the CO2 measurements:
nordpil. com / static / images / carbon dioxide and_temperature_historic_trends_full. png The highest value on the Vostok graph is 290ppm CO2. The current measured value is 380. Does that count as odd?
You'll see that during the long warm trend in our time the CO2 is still rising, or catching up. It may also seem that because we're adding some CO2 that it appears to begin leading temp. Not sure. I wish it was more detailed.
Yeah, sorry, youtube was being a bitcA, so I tried a few things and I guess I botched up the link.
This series is about the notion that CO2 lags behind temp, right? That's true IF CO2 is not the initial driving force behind temperature change. If solar forcing is at work, for example, you first increase temp, an then CO2 is released from the oceans, which causes further warming, and so on. Today, however, the CO2 itself is the driver, and it will cause warming, which will release more CO2, etc.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect and right now is virtually saturated, which means doubling or quadrupling will have minimal temp effect. Remember that in Earth's past 10-20x the current amount of CO2 never caused runaway greenhouse. BTW:
wattsupwiththat. files. wordpress. com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09. pdf
It's an excellent file noting the problems with NOAA/GISS data.
"right now is virtually saturated" - It's not. We can see that from the satellite data (IRIS, IMG), which show an increased effect at the wavelengths that greenhouse gasses such as CO2 absorb as their measured levels in the atmosphere rise. The measurements are consistent with the theoretical predictions. We would find no such increase if the CO2 effect was saturated.
CO2 or any molecule that's good at trapping heat is just as good at losing it. What you're seeing in those absorbtions is natural heat transfer through convection.
Its commonly known that CO2s radiative return response is logarithmic with increasing concentration. The physics dictate that the temperature response curve of the atmosphere will be getting flatter as CO2 increases. Earth has also had much higher concentrations of CO2 in past history, & we didnt go into runaway then.
I get that... You said the CO2 effect was saturated. If so, you would not see a larger greenhouse effect at those specific wavelengths that CO2 best absorbs, as the amount of CO2 increases. But we do see that, and this means saturation has not been reached at this point. The point here is that the effect still grows as we continue to measure more CO2 in the atmosphere. You can't explain that through convection alone, and it matches theoretical predictions.
It's not going to matter. CO2 absorbs heat, loses it again within hours and returns to the cycle. With more CO2 there will be more competition for each molecule to absorb the same amount of heat. This is why it's a logarithmic scale.
Heated air carrying CO2 lofts into the atmosphere and radiates the heat back into space, where it circulates down to lower levels to continue the convection.
With enough evaporation, more clouds, more albedo, less heat etc.
You seem to be missing the point... Let me try to be clearer. The atmosphere is not a single layer of gas. As infrared radiation moves up through the atmosphere, more of it is absorbed by each layer. Each molecule that absorbs a photon can reradiate it in any direction, or it can be turned into kinetic energy. When re-radiated, some of it goes down towards the surface (greenhouse), and some goes up into higher layers of the atmosphere. As you get up, the layers get thinner, and evt. (cont)
(...) the radiation can escape into space. It's in those thin layers from which radiation can escape that adding more CO2 has an effect, and so the height at which most of the heat energy escapes rises. The effect continues until the higher layers radiate as much of the energy into space as is coming in. That's when you equilibrium, and that's when you have saturation of the entire atmosphere. Until that time, the higher layers send some of their re-radiated heat down (cont)
(...) into the lower levels that is not compensated for by the escaping heat, and so there is more energy coming in than there is going out, and there's still a greenhouse effect. It doesn't matter whether any of the lower layers are saturated, because it's the radiation of heat from the upper layers into space that ultimately determine the heat balance. At those high altitudes, we can still detect an increasing rate of absorption, which means that at those levels, the effect is not saturated.
Climate models are the problem. They don't follow anywhere near what actually happens in observations - they're just expensive toys.
With layers of CO2, it's like layers of translucent paint. The first has the big colour impact, the second less and so on. The final layer collects practically all the radiation and is closest to the cold of space, and hottest so it remains there until it cools and circulates down, that's how the heat fails to build and eventually escapes.
I just told you it doesn't, and I pointed you to a paper earlier that shows that it doesn't (there are more). Calling climate models "expensive toys" is silly. In this context, the only reason they matter in the first place is because they make predictions about the rate of absorption that have been confirmed by measurements of different parts of the atmosphere. No offense, but if all you can present is incredulity, then this conversation is useless and I suggest we just agree to disagree.
BTW, I don't mean to suggest that convection doesn't occur... Obviously, convection currents are important, but they are factored into the calculations.
Of course convections occur, I didn't even notice I might misconstrue that.. :)
When it all comes down to it, CO2 has still been some 10-20x higher in the past and even in ice ages, with no runaway greenhouse. I doubt it has much forcing after the first 100ppm as seen on the logarithmic scales. There's something much more overwhelming at work, possibly Solar magnetic/ cloud albedo / water vapour / cosmic rays. That's what I'm leaning on but need more proof of it.
The point is not that saturation can't occur, it's that we can tell that it hasn't occurred from measurements that confirm the predictions that are made. As for solar/etc forcing, those factors are also taken into account for the models, and they don't explain the current warming trend unless you also take into account the CO2 effect. Clouds are the trickiest, and I'll grant you that there's some uncertainty there, but as the models become more accurate, the predicted effect does not diminish.
Knowing that our global CO2 footprint is some 30Bn tons, and using the IPCC's bloated figures, it would require 1Tn tons of CO2 not to go into the atmosphere to reduce global temp by 1C.
That would require the world to return to the caves, no cars, buses,industry - or campfires - for 30 years!!
Using corrected figures would increase that to 200 years.
So when these morons walk away from Jokenhagen promising to reduce the global temp by 1.5C, you know it's just another tax.
Nobody who has a sense of realism is saying that we can tackle this issue all at once, or even that we can tackle it completely. But we can reduce the scale of it, need to take steps towards reducing our emissions now. The longer you wait, the more unmanageable the problem will become. Cleaner energy and more efficient tech (e.g. LEDs for lighting and so on) will be beneficial to the environment, as well as to many businesses and other end users. It'll also lead to technical innovations.
I'm all for cleaning up our act, such as SO2, CO, NO, sludge and general particulates, but since CO2 is vital for life, and plants grow better the more there is, I can see no greater crime than CO2 sequestration and destroying economies on the back of a bloated lie.
We've been in a cooling phase for 9 years now and we should wait another 10 to see what happens. It may only cost +0.02C. Industry will become efficient all by itself due to future limited resources.
There's a point of CO2 saturation at which plants grow optimally. After that it has a negative impact. Ecologists inform us that we're quite close to that point.
As for destroying economies, that's not an issue. We're talking about less than 3% of GBP, most of it spent by wealthy nations. It'd delay economic growth by a few months.
It might throw a bit of a wrench in Exxon's plans, though.
Those ecologists are essentially wrong. Some plants don't benefit too well with over 1000ppm CO2, which also depends on nutrient levels considering they grow faster. However most do well up to and beyond 1200ppm. Remembering that O2 is also required for photosynthesis, and extra CO2 causes plants to require less water:
watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA
Even 3% GDP will hurt our economies and do nothing to reduce temp. Imagine what despot Robert Mugabe would do with a share of that.
Right, I was inaccurate in that statement, sorry. I guess I should've read that again before I posted as it's a fairly complex story of many different feedback effects. It's a long one, so bear with me:
I looked it up, and here's the argument:
First off, a study by Shaw et al that showed that, taking into account not just CO2 concentrations but many of the other effects predicted from AGW (rain, wind, heat), root growth in plants was suppressed. (cont.)
Another factor is that some plants produce fewer defensive chemicals against parasites. These parasites are found more frequently on plants growing at higher ppms of CO2 because they lived longer and produced more offspring, and they actually consume more plant material under these conditions. Furthermore, parasites like pine beetles are more likely to survive the winter when temperatures are wamer, and they return in force the next spring. We're already seeing the resulting devastation. (cont.)
It's possible the extra plant material may offset the extra material eaten. Parasites most often have natural enemies that would also benefit from more of their own food source eg, aphids & ladybugs. However, this benefit reduces during a plague until the excess is overcome.
Slower growing plants appear to be more affected, however nature has always managed to keep this in check during warmer periods, or those plants would be extinct.
Nature has provided dramatic changes in dichotomy far outstretching man's abilities in the past. If the Jurassic warms and CO2 goes up, it's the same thing. If CO2 suddenly plummets, as it has in the past then everything has to adapt likewise.
In today's climate there's nothing unusual about the rate or magnitude of change that's happened in the past.
Only media says "scientists say global warming faster than feared..", usually without naming the scientists.
Under normal circumstances, the ocean has ways of maintaining its neutral pH level, for instance, through CaCO3 compensation. This process, however, works on the order of thousands of years. The problem is that the equilibrium is upset by a rapidly incoming excesses of CO2 that the oceans have not had time to adapt to.
Aside from accusations of scientific fraud, how do you explain a graph like this one: maps. grida. no/library/files/global-ocean-acidification_001. jpg
There's no panic here, just observations. I have a strong interest in science (I basically spend all my waking learning about it), and a very strong aversion to pseudoscience and public misinformation. I can see in the literature that there's no real debate here, and it's so freaking obvious where the misinformation is coming from. The PR tactics (the lists of "scientists" with no relevant education, no original work) are so recognizable to anyone who's familiar with other antiscience movements.
If this were truly a scientific debate, skeptics would be doing original work, and publishing peer reviewed material to make their case in the science arena. Instead, all they do is critique existing studies, and this debate takes place almost exclusively in the public forum. They rely on terribly flawed polls to fight a science issue. Why? Have you ever seen any legitimate scientific debate done that way? I'm not sure if you know the Discovery Institute, but does this not look eerily familiar?
Most of the experts on the skeptics side have no training in climate science whatsoever. Many don't have ANY science training. Yet they feel free to call the whole of the climatological community a bunch of liars and quacks. Is that normal? Of course not! It speaks of immense hubris, and it betrays a complete lack of intellectual integrity. Look at the points you brought up. The entirety of the climatological community would have to be thoroughly incompetent not to have taken them into account.
You say you have a strong aversion to propaganda, yet you still sound like a newspaper headline.
You ask skeptics to do original work, but Trenberth, who works for the IPCC tries to debunk Lindzen and Choi, because he's got the ultimate motivation, no problem, no job.
Climate science is not an absolute necessity. A geologist to read core samples is just as effective.
The powers that be don't tell you that CO2 was 10-20x higher in the past WITHOUT runaway greenhouse. Why?
You claim to hate conspiracy theories, yet your hypothesis here is apparently that the whole community of atmospheric scientists is involved in one.
And yes, climate science is necessary to understand climate. Why the hell do you think this is a separate field of study? A geologist reading core samples can only tell you roughly what happened in the past, not how the climate currently operates. You don't ask a paleontologist about the intricacies of molecular biology, for much the same reason.
The vast majority of climate scientists aren't involved in a conspiracy, really just a handful, and many others too lazy to do the research - or even basic thinking.
To work on the current climate sure, climatology is gaining ground, but past climates can tell us much about the planet's climate sensitivity, which appears to be very solid.
Even a 10 year old can understand that with CO2 so high in the past without runaway greenhouse, that levels today present no problem.
Yeah, exactly. So a ten year old can figure it out because it's so simple, but the whole of the climatological community can't. Sorry, but I'm a bit skeptical of that one. After reading that, I don't think you have a clue of how complex climatology really is.
Why not look at the funding behind the major skeptic think tanks and faces? If anyone has a motive to mislead the public, it's those people. Many of them have an actual track record of doing so.
The problem with climatology is it's always moving and therefore complicated. No wonder they use erroneous models and I don't blame them for trying.
However, the VAST majority of humanity don't even know the LIA existed, or the WMP. Neither are disputed by science. The IPCC had a duty of care to ensure previously validated data stood firm, but enter the Mann stick and the IPCC's blind eye.
The major skeptics who CAN voice up are now retired.
How are they erroneous? They use simplifying assumptions, all models do.
The Mann study was not only vindicated by the NAS and practically all other prestigious science institutes after following up on McIntyre's critique, but it was confirmed by many different independent studies. As for the LIA and the MWP, they have nothing to do with the current climate change. It's also warmer now that it was at the height of the WMP when you look at global temperatures, rather than just local ones, btw.
Vostok is a LOCAL measurement from one site. That's why I clearly indicated you need GLOBAL temperature reconstructions. THAT's what global climate change is about.
Vostok is just ONE of the 6144 core samples worldwide that confirm the MWP exists, and that it was warmer than today. How many times I need to tell you and you need to ignore that I dunno. That ALONE proves you're a woman.
Even if you believe it wasn't global, the MWP is missing from the hockey stick.
The IPCC don't tell you that CO2 was way higher in the past without a runaway greenhouse. That should tell you something in the IPCC is wrong, but you ignore it. Women!!
Heh. My penis disagrees with you. But way to go all-out on the misogyny, you manly son of a gun you.
Oh, and the MWP is not obvious in the hockey stick is BECAUSE it wasn't global. It was mostly confined to the northern hemisphere. Therefore it is flattened out in the global temperature reconstructions. The same goes for the LIA. Look it up. Perfect ten for showing your lack of understanding of what you're actually debating.
Once McKitrick re-introduced the CENSORED data found in the files, the MWP reappeared. I know you'll say that's bull, but Mann apparently used data ONLY from the Northern Hemisphere, which is where YOU say the MWP was centralised.
So where the fuck is it in the hockey stick? Gone - same as the LIA.
I already did. I just happen to have read up on what followed, and the outcome of the debate and subsequent independent analyses of different data sources do not support the claims of skeptics at all. Every one of them supports Mann's original conclusions. The NAS has affirmed the hockey team, as has every other major scientific body. Deal with it.
You're just lying, and so is the site you're getting the info.
To know that CO2 was higher in the past, even during ice ages without correlation to temp, WITHOUT a runaway greenhouse ever, and somehow this doesn't raise alarm bells to you in regards to Mann and what the IPCC tell you (or don't), is just ludicrous.
We went over this. Climate is measured over decades, not years. The minimum preferred time span is 30 years. Cherry picking one anomalously hot year is dishonest at best. If you had any understanding of this topic you'd know why this is a ridiculous argument
Even without the spike the trend in recent years is level or falling.
google "pachauri graph" and you'll find one he used in a presentation. Why not cherry pick that to bits:
From 1860-1870, 1910-1940 is the same rate as 1980-2000. Pachauri cherry-picks his "trends" to make it appear more disastrous, but anyone can see through that.
And this one. Chance of an ice age?:
w. lavoisier. com. au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4. php
I thought you were smarter than the rest of the YouBoob detectives, so I'll let you explain to the world:
How is it that several times in Earth's past there was up to 20x the CO2, we had no runaway greenhouse or tipping point, 20x CO2 in the Jurassic with no acidified oceans where the delicate aragonite corals first originated and still no runaway greenhouse?
CO2 is not the only thing that influences climate, and nobody ever claimed that it is. The sun was fainter back then, and you had a single large continent which changes atmospheric currents. It's funny how you insist on bringing up the Jurassic, but you fail to mention that it actually was actually quite a bit hotter for most of that epoch than it is today.
(cont) At the end of the Jurassic, as Pangea began to break up and volcanism increased, spewing out a lot of CO2, there was a large temp rise, ocean acidification, and a corresponding mass extinction event, for which I've already given you a citation. Here's another, this time about land plants: w. sciencemag. org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5432/1386
As for your "paid to panic" comment, I find that very offensive coming from a person who dances at the whims of Exxon's assclowns without a second thought. If you want to know who's getting paid the big bucks here, why don't you do a little digging. I make a grand total of €700,- a month, being an MSc student and lacking a full time job. I spend whatever time I have left reading up on science. From what I've read so far, I don't think you can say the same.
"The Triassic-Jurassic boundary marks a major faunal mass extinction, but records of accompanying environmental changes are limited".
In any case, the Triassic and Jurassic were a boon to plants, animals and corals, which occurred all by itself after the Permian glacial extinctions. Those corals evolved and din't die. High CO2 likely due to volcanoes.
There's not enough fossil fuel to drive CO2 as high as 7000ppm, since we're past peak oil.
Gee, I wonder why you chose not to post the next part: "Paleobotanical evidence indicates a fourfold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and suggests an associated 3° to 4°C "greenhouse" warming across the boundary. These environmental conditions are calculated to have raised leaf temperatures above a highly conserved lethal limit, perhaps contributing to the >95 percent species-level turnover of Triassic-Jurassic megaflora."
3 and 4deg happens overnight and it's nothing. Besides, I would have run outta room. It matters little what they "calculate" as many plants happy with their current environment either die off or evolve. The Jurassic was some 80My long and enough time for many species to adapt.
I suggest that volcanic activity and noxious gases would have played a part.
Many plants today coming from arid regions fare very well in the tropics, probably because they've been there before.
We're not talking about 1 night stands, we're talking about 3 or 4 degrees Celcius of global average temperature rise. That's very significant.
The Jurassic era was a long era, but it was gradually cooling down for most of that time. The temp rise near the end is much more rapid. But yes, volcanic gasses may well have played a part.
As for plants having "been there before", that's no reason to assume that they're still well adapted to that type of environment. The fact is that many are not.
I suggest you try the following experiment:
- take a penguin
- throw it off the edge of a tall cliff
- see how well it does in the air
Or, alternatively:
- take a polar bear
- dump it in a tropical rain forest
- see how well adapted it is
(Outcome predicted to be hilarious on some levels, but tragic on others.)
i.e. the point is not that all plant species will go extinct. Some will not. Some will still be well adapted. Some won't be. They'll go extinct. And extinctions often affect eco-systems in unexpected ways. You can't just look at the harmless examples and extrapolate from there, you have to look at the whole picture.
Again, that's a decade, which is too short to mention climate change because there are decadal cycles that can throw off the stats. We're now in a natural cooling phase, which was predicted as far back as 1981(!) by Schneider et al, and which he warned was a potential source of confusion for the public.
So on the one hand you're arguing that CO2 does not cause the increase in acidity, but on the other hand, all your natural explanations for the measured increase that was predicted by the models rely on an increase in CO2? Ehrm, what?
In the oceans, there's a buffering reaction between the sea floor basalts and sea water. Sea water has a local and regional variation in pH (7.8 to 8.3). It should be noted that pH is a log scale and that if we are to create acid oceans, then there is not enough CO2 in fossil fuels to create oceanic acidity because most of the planets CO2 is locked up in rocks.
When we run out of rocks on Earth or plate tectonics ceases, then we'll have acid oceans.
What exactly do you think is meant by acid oceans? Mind you, we're talking about a 0.3-0.5 pH decrease. As for the amount of CO2 being inadequate to cause it, you can assert that, but without an unrefuted peer reviewed study in a reputable journal (e.g. science, nature), it's a meaningless assertion. Here's one that says you're wrong:
w. up. ethz. ch / people / ngruber / publications / orr_nat_05. pdf
Once upon a time they called it Global warming, then when temps dropped inexplicably to their fabled God, they called it Climate Change to cater for up and down. Eventually they called it Energy security, and even passed a bill on it. But that pretty much failed. Now they call it Ocean Acidification, which is the last bastion and where you're stuck.
Science, Nature aren't reputable as they've consistently refused to publish dissenting papers on AGW. That's simple bias.
lol... the two most respected science journals in the entire world aren't reputable. OK man. I guess that tells me all about what your criteria for accepting a source are. Sorry, but I think that ends our conversation right there.
Science, Nature are no longer reputable as per their refusal to publish dissenting scientific views. That's exactly why it's been difficult for anti-AGW scientists to publish their papers.
You don't understand how the planet's history applies today. It's all to simple. There's NEVER been a runaway greenhouse, which you continue to ignore and the IPCC won't tell you, even with some 20x the CO2.
The process of removing CO2 from the atmosphere via the oceans has led to carbonate deposition (i.e. CO2 sequestration).
The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reactions (as shown by Walker et al. 1981).
Then there's a study performed in Europe that showed that during the 2003 heat wave, CO2 uptake dropped sharply as temperatures rose. This casts some doubt on whether increased CO2 would have any effect under a warmer climate.
There is also the problem that many plant ecosystems depend on rivers that are fed by glaciers. As the glaciers run dry, the well does too, and the plants die. (cont.)
On average, glacier mass has been decreasing for decades and projections are that they will last for only a few more decades. And of course, increased droughts generally mean more forest fires and reduced plant growth.
The problem with ecology is that many of these plants are adapted to a specific environment. When that environment changes rapidly, life can't keep up and adapt. Evolution takes time. (cont.)
So, combined with these other facts, the greenhouse effect can actually suppress growth. And of course, the result of this is less CO2 reuptake, and therefore a positive feedback. And this is just plant growth, of course. As noted in this thread and also this video series, the increased acidity of the oceans is beginning to show as well, and it will have a nasty effect on many ecosystems.
BTW, just to give credit where it's due: I took these examples from a vid by greenman3610 because I remembered it as a good summary, though I think he's taken it down atm to rework it.
The vast majority of plants support extra CO2, and even those with limited capability of it's use for extra, still show improvement.
Water in the oceans shouldn't become too acidic as even carbonated water from a bottle contains vast CO2 concentrations, which the oceans never could support, has a PH of about 5 and almost no carbonic acid, even though it still contains sodium.
There are also natural sparkling springs where life thrives.
Argument from incredulity wrapped in a muddled straw man. You don't need to dissolve the entire atmosphere into the oceans to change their pH, so your percentages are highly misleading. What happens is that the natural equilibrium is upset. And anyone who thinks a tiny percentage of something can't do harm is invited to drink a 0.03% solution of HCN (note: please don't). Right now, the measured change is less than 0.1 units on the pH scale, but projections range from 0.3 to 0.5 units.
Just to clarify that point, the atmospheric concentrations are atmospheric concentrations. What we're talking about are the oceans, so atmospheric percentages are meaningless.
I'll rephrase that then. The oceans hold 70x more CO2 than the atmosphere. Even if all manmade CO2 were to be absorbed by the oceans, the difference would be from 2.66% to 2.67% at most. Trivial and harmless.
Notably, during the Cambrian era, when there was 10-20x the CO2 is where the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis. Similarly, in the Jurassic with 10-20x CO2 is when the delicate aragonite corals came into being.
So basically you're saying that, oceanic scientists are completely oblivious to the laws of chemistry. And when they use complex models to arrive at predictions for increased ocean acidity, and those predictions are now becoming verifiable, you can dismiss these out of hand with a back of the envelope calculation because the models are too simplistic. Doesn't that strike you as a bit ironic?
As for the Cambrian and the Jurassic, I hope you realize that the species that were alive then are not the same as those alive today. When life has time to adapt, it tends to do so. It's when levels rise too rapidly that you have to worry. There are also marked extinction events which are correlated with increasing acidity level estimates. For instance, there is this: w . schweizerbart. de/resources/downloads/paper_previews/59335. pdf (triassic/jurassic boundary marine extinction event)
Extinction events such as 65Ma are catastrophic and have nothing to do with climate.
There's nothing unusual abaout the rate and magnitude of change today compared to the past and the 0.0009% of anthropogenic CO2 is causing an almost immeasurable difference. Particulates would do worse.
As per the oceans in the Cambrian when there was 10-20x the CO2 is where corals began. I rest my case.
You're thinking of the Cretatious/Tertiary boundary. The Jurassic/Triassic boundary lies at 199.6Ma and was not linked to an obvious calamity other than climate change preceding the breakup of pangea. There is some speculation of asteroid impacts. More likely, the event is related to massive volcanic eruptions, which would exert their effect mainly through their impact on climate.
I already addressed your point on the Cambrian; it's the perturbed equilibrium that matters here.
Quantitatively, CO2 is only the seventh-largest of the substances in the oceans that could in theory alter the acid-base balance, so that in any event its effect on that balance would be minuscule. Qualitatively, however, CO2 is different from all the other substances in that it acts as the buffering mechanism for all of them, so that it does not itself alter the acid-base balance of the oceans at all.
As expected from coming out of an ice age, glaciers will retreat in dry conditions. Projections are from inaccurate models and are not predictions, and can't compete with observations.
However, paleontologists always describe past climate as being warm and wet, cold and dry. Higher temps rarely mean increased drought providing sufficient water available for evaporation.
C4 crops have evolved to make better use of solar radiation, but C3 crops haven't, that fare better with CO2.
It's normal for glaciers to retreat when coming out of an ice age. Paleontologists always refer to past climates as warm and wet, cold and dry. Higher temps don't mean drought providing adequate evaporation is available.
C4 plants evolved to use solar radiation more efficiently, where C3 plants haven't yet, and benefit greatly from extra CO2.
It's possible that higher temperatures in leaf litter increased microbial activity essentially increasing CO2 levels which masked expected uptake.
Glaciers are fed by snowy mountains which naturally recede after an ice age and also in dry climates. As seen on Kilimanjaro, the snow melt is due to excessive deforestation reducing moisture and therefore snowfall. The mountain is always -7C, where the cap is being ablated by dry winds.
Kilimanjaro's glacier is not a representative example, as the decline of its glacier is more likely caused by deforestation. Mid and high altitude glaciers across the globe have (on average) been in decline for decades now. Something is causing that change, and it can't all be explained by wind erosion.
The glacial melt is caused by many factors. Just coming out of an ice age with increased solar activity, less snow due to less water vapour because of deforestation, or a local drought for several years.
Just because a glacier is high in the mountains, doesn't mean the local climate isn't arid. Changes would have occurred to put them there in the first place, and changes remove them again.
You're talking about local climate, but the point is that glaciers are retreating across the board. Local climate variations would not be likely to give results so consistent with model predictions.
Like I said before, I expect to see something melt after having come out of an ice age in the 1800's. Melting is what glaciers do naturally, they're fed by snowy mountains.
Forget the models. Meteorologists worldwide use models to inaccurately predict the weather for a week, and yet somehow you're perfectly trusting in them predicting anything, including glacier life of all things, some 50 years into the future. That's just silly.
And you honestly think that the models do not factor in natural warming factors when they make predictions about alpine glacier melting?
The weather/climate confusion is really an amateur fallacy. Predicting global climate is about averages, long term This is basically the same as saying that, since physicians can't predict the exact height of an individual person, they can't give good estimates of mean height trends for the next year. This is just first year college statistics.
It's possible the higher temp increased microbial activity in leaf litter creating more CO2 and masking the expected uptake.
I would expect glacier melt just coming out of an ice age which we are. Glaciers are fed by snowy mountains. In the case of Kilimanjaro where the temp never exceeds -7C, deforestation has reduced water vapour and therefore the ice cap is being ablated by dry winds over decades.
BTW, as for the reliability of the ground stations: did you know that an analysis of temperature change was conducted with just the stations that Watts designated as reliable? Virtually no change in the data.
This makes little sense to me. Maybe I misunderstood, but help me out: Watts was the one who was complaining about the reliability of these stations, in order to attack the reliability of the global warming consensus. Why would he then evaluate them with a metric he obviously doesn't trust?
Even if it were true that the ground stations are systematically off, nobody is relying solely on ground stations anymore. Satellite measurements, ocean measurements, etc all show the same thing.
They had to be evaluated the same way. To understand the algorithms, placement problems etc., especially to restore the original past data which didn't come from satellite in the first place.
See, NOAA have some of the raw data, GISS at NASA massaged it a bit, and placement problems caused by UHI effects screwed the data. He had to go out and survey hundreds of stations to ensure the problems were known.
THIS IS A FACT! ITS PROVEN, THEIR ARE NUMEROUS EVIDENCES!
grunder20 4 weeks ago
well discussed... nice facts..
thegreeensky 2 months ago
For those of you who are skeptical about ocean acidification but are nevertheless interested in what ocean scientists say, I recommend this three part lecture (first part, additional parts in the related videos):
watch?v=0KgRpJxWQDw&feature=related
werecow2003 2 years ago
Or this one, which is more introductory: watch?v=kQMZfCKuFIQ&NR=1
werecow2003 2 years ago
In the Medieval Warming Period and the Holocene warm period were far warmer than it is now and there was no ocean acidification
cupera1 1 year ago
Ocean acidification happens when the natural balance between calcium carbonate sequestration and the influx of CO2 is upset. That happens when the level of CO2 rises rapidly. Thus, it's dependent on the rate of change, not just on the absolute amount of CO2 in the air or the temperature. It will balance itself out in the end, but that will take on the order of thousands of years. Too long for corals, which need time to adapt to higher acidity levels.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@cupera1 Nope, while the MWP saw some warm regional climate, globally the temps today are higher than the MWP as shown by hugely detailed and comprehensive "national academies climate reconstructions" available online
TheDisproof 7 months ago
@TheDisproof I am amazed that you have detailed temp records from the MWP that show that todays temps are warmer!!! When we have farms and vineyards in Greenland again them we will have fully recovered from the LIA.
The same consensus of scientist that shout AGW now are the same bunch that said it was global cooling in the 70's. They were predicting glaciers to the Dakotas by the year 2000. With that record of accuracy in predictions why believe them now?
cupera1 7 months ago
@cupera1 While the MWP saw some warm regional climate e.g. greenland, globally the temps today are higher than the MWP as shown by hugely detailed and comprehensive "national academies climate reconstructions" available online. Please look at them. On the 1970's: A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
TheDisproof 6 months ago
@Disproof Evidence of the MWP has been found from the Arizona deserts to China so the "local" event story is bogus. I am glad that you did find that the consensus of scientist in the 70's did support global cooling. To say that todays bigger group of fools are any better then the old group of fools is not helping your case. With the GC that has happened in the last 10 years and confirmed by East Anglia CRU shows that the dire predictions are just as false as the ones made in the 70's
cupera1 6 months ago
@cupera1 Nope: A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly MORE papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). Whether the MWP was warmer or not (the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions said it wasn't warmer than today globally), the fact is that the factors that caused past warm periods are not present in sufficient amounts to explain the current warming.
TheDisproof 6 months ago
1974 – Office of Climate Dynamics opened.
1978 -Carter signs Climate Program Act, partly due to a number of SEVERE WINTER experiences the preceding winters.
cupera1 6 months ago
Respond to this video... 1972 – Kukla-Mathews publishes in Science, an article about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes a letter to Nixon in 1972, specifically warning about global cooling.
1973 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (ad hoc Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of 42 of the most prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
cupera1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cupera1 "apparently there was consensus about cooling"-not according to the peer reviewed papers-A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly MORE papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to co2 (Peterson 2008).Have you confused predictions with past?
TheDisproof 6 months ago
sigh.. werecow..
That same old and tired Exxon oil company shill reply is wearing a bit thin.
If you knew anything about fuels, you'd understand that Ethanol based fuels have less energy and produce more CO2 than equivalent petroleum.
Save the planet? Suuuuure..
MrOllyK 2 years ago
The science conspiracy reply is wearing a bit thin as well.
werecow2003 2 years ago
If all data are not forth coming, then this scientific debate is not worth the paper which it is written on! CHECK MATE!!!
emenot 2 years ago
SHAME! Science is made of better stuff - it is suppose to be objective - SHAME! Now no one can trust Science, well this stuff is not real science, so real scientists who actually don't falsify or manipulate data (Climate emails) should defrock these fanatics - SHAME!
northmeister 2 years ago
yes there have been warmer periods and colder periods in the earths history,,no one denies that,its fact,,but global warming,or meltdown is a seperate thing,its a modern thing,we have only be industrialiized for 150 years or so,,can anyone deny that all our wars ,,atomic bomb tests,planes cars and industry on an unprecedented scale does no damage,,add to this the destrution of the green belts ,,we cannot not sustain the way we live,,as much as i hate to admit it ,,it comes with a price to pay.
markkenworthy 2 years ago
When the earth orbit is closer to the sun, it is more stable and result in a so recognized as normal more stable climate. But when the earth's is further away from the sun(which is where we are at present), the earth's rotation become weaker and it wobbles which cause or shift climate from one region to another. It is really that simple! We human are helpless to mother nature, live with it! We are at its mercy!!!
emenot 2 years ago
Did human cause the last climate change 10,000 years ago. I wonder what we were using for that diaster......
emenot 2 years ago
No sane person denies that there is natural climate variability. What this debate is about is an anomalous temperature rise that has only been detectable since the late 20th century that was predicted by climatologists long before that time from the known physical properties of CO2, and which cannot be explained by any of the known natural factors that cause climate change. It can, however, be fairly accurately accounted for by the measured increase in greenhouse gasses. The numbers match.
werecow2003 2 years ago
What a bunch of HOG WASH! The guy claimed that in the 1800 and 1900s the human effect had influenced global warming. Our civilazation was in its infancy as comparing to today's world, our modern day vastly out paced the yesteryears and yet the human effect is less than those 100 years ago. THINK ABOUT THIS TREE HUGGERS!
emenot 2 years ago 2
Think about deforestation.
I'll elaborate if you can't draw the conclusion between industrialisation and clear cutting -> decreased carbon recycling in the air and increased emissions.
ShaunBon 2 years ago
Look at the figures at 14:54.
ShaunBon 2 years ago
Good point emenot. It's very convenient the AGW proponents use graphs only going back to the end of the little ice age (some 200 years) to now. Cherry-picking the start time will always show warming from that era.
The Earth's history has seen between 4000 and 7000 ppm CO2 (compared to 380 now) without a tipping point, boilover and was much warmer than today (even though the CO2 didn't follow these trends) and plant, animal life thrived. AGW is essentially bunked.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Heh, cherry picking, that's rich coming from a global warming skeptic. Try and look at, say, a Fred Singer lecture (I suggest his Auburn one) with as little bias as you can. Now that's cherry picking.
The reason the graphs go back about 200-250 years is that that is the time of the industrial revolution. Before then, there were no anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.
AGW may be down in the public perception, but climatologists don't agree. Even Singer was forced to admit that it seems to be true.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Werecow, there appears to be AGW but it's very difficult to discern from the natural noise. IPCC have fraudulently enhanced their figures to say that CO2 is a poison and to tax us on it, when even farmers use it in their greenhouses to max plant growth.
Peter Spencer in Australia is on hunger strike because the Kyoto crap and CO2 scare stopped him using his land, which is now worthless and can't be legally sold.
If he dies his blood is on the IPCC's hands.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Sad as that may be, it's not an argument against the validity of the science.
Accusing the IPCC of fraud is a serious accusation. If you look at the literature, the IPCC roughly matches the consensus there. So if you say the IPCC is fudging their data, you're essentially saying there's a giant conspiracy of scientists. Can you back that up with evidence from an independent source? If anything, the experts on the skeptics side are quite notorious for cherry picking their data.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Difficult to point you, an AGW advocate, somewhere you won't cry foul or bias, but here goes.
Prof. McKitrick & Steve McIntyre debunked Mann's hockey stick, later a US Senate committee declared the hockey stick fraud , which the IPCC used extensively.
Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman is a railroad engineer that has massively conflicting business interests in UK & India using carbon credits to gain financially by removing his steelworks from the UK costing thousands of jobs (cont)..
MrOllyK 2 years ago
A US Senate committee has no authority in science. Science is not decided by vote, and not by politics.
The "debunking" of Mann's hockeystick was a critique that was refuted by further studies. Many different studies have since independently come to the same conclusion using different methods.
You don't need to go by the IPCC if you don't trust them. It's just a summary. Just go to the climatology literature, and don't rely on the public press for your info.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Mann's hockey stick was comprised of tree ring data, which has many problems and can't be used for temperature. Besides, McIntyre found he excluded data and hid it, also the program made hockey sticks out of any random data.
The hockey stick removed the MWP and the LIA, which clearly show up in 6144 global bore holes and stalagmite samples.
I can't find one study that doesn't criticise the hockey stick.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Like I said, it's been confirmed by multiple independent sources, focusing, among other things, on bore cores, corals, ice cores and stalagmites.
Every important study gets its fair share of criticism, but what's important is whether that criticism holds up. If you can't find a single study that accepts the hockey stick graph now, I can say with absolute confidence that you're not looking at the science literature. Practically no one disputes this anymore.
werecow2003 2 years ago
And just for the record, the only reason I'm defending AGW is that I've been browsing the literature to make sense of the debate, and have been trying to sift through all the obfuscation from both sides of the political spectrum to find out what the actual science says. I try to steer away from environmentalist sources. I haven't even seen or read Gore's work besides a TED talk. In fact, I actively avoid it because I want to try to remain as objective as I can and I know he has an agenda.
werecow2003 2 years ago
.. and moving that business to India, where he gains more carbon credits.
There are only 53 REAL scientists working for the IPCC, however most of the 2500 they claim work for them aren't even scientists. It's a politically generated and driven organisation.
Originally the IPCC scientists reported no problems with the climate, but Phil Jones removed their reports.
Why not just watch something from Lord Monckton:
watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto
No, he's not paid by big oil. His lectures are excellent.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Monckton is just about the most unreliable source you could have cited. I can respect some of the skeptics, but that man is a true quack.
But even if everything you just wrote is true, that doesn't negate the fact that the IPCC report reflects the literature, which I can tell you haven't even glanced at. Since the 80s, you can find barely any publications by climatologists that dispute AGW. And this is true across the globe. Explain that?
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
So should I cite Bob Carter instead, or are you just so one-sided you cherry-pick your teachers?
It's difficult to publish a paper against AGW as it's often quashed by those who don't believe it. The IPCC have their own internal peer-review process and block all others.
Well over 30,000 scientists have signed petitions against AGW.
Wiki: List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I don't trust Wiki much either, but this has references.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Ah, the petition. I was hoping you'd bring that up. Go to the petition website, select 20 names at random, and look up their credentials. If you find any practicing (i.e. a publication within the past decade or so) climatologists in there, let me know, because I've googled about 50 and I have yet to find one (though I know there are a couple on there). Many of the people on there have no more than a BSc degree, and most of them are not climate scientists. Of the remainder, few are active.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
It doesn't take a climatologist to tell us about the climate, as many need geologists to help them.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there's nothing unusual about the rate or magnitude of warming that's occurred last century either.
AGW is a fact, albeit such a minor one it's difficult to distinguish from the natural noise, and definitely not catastrophic like the IPCC has claimed. In fact, even the IPCC has been forced to town it down in their figures lately.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Geologists are an important part of climate research as they are familiar with processes like sedimentation, etc.. Similarly, we need astronomers to tell us about things like solar activity. Climatologists are the ones who study the dynamics of climate, which is quite a different thing. Why do you think this is a separate field of study?
werecow2003 2 years ago
Yeah... Wiki is generally pretty reliable on science matters, but with a heavily politicized topic like this, I'd be careful with that, too. Either way, always good to follow up on citations.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
I mean, are you trying to refute that there were much warmer periods than today, many times in the past? The polar bears should have been extinct long ago:
watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
.. because you and Al baby don't know better. The hockey stick is proven bunk just about everywhere, except for a few silly, uneducated and lonely hangers-on. Much like the Moon landing hoax proponents.
Earth's past is littered with 10-20x CO2 without a runaway greenhouse, and we didn't do that either.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
No, that's not what I'm saying. Any paleoclimatologist can tell you that there have been hotter periods in the past. And of course there are natural factors influencing climate. But it's been a while since we've seen as rapid a rise in temperature as the current one, and the known natural factors don't account for the current warming unless you factor in human emissions.
You can keep repeating the hockey stick is debunked nonsense, but that doesn't make it any more true.
werecow2003 2 years ago
BTW, just to give you an idea of how I came to my conclusions: the first and so far only popular science book I've actually read on this topic came from a Dutch skeptical paleoclimatologist (Kroonenberg). He's agnostic about whether there is a warming trend, and he argues that it may not be anthropogenic, and that it may be a good thing considering the ice age that is coming our way 20000 years from now. I went into this a skeptic, and I'm not exactly what you'd call a raving environmentalist.
werecow2003 2 years ago
...but I'm a science geek, and I'll dive into anything that captures my attention. When I actually started looking at the literature, I came to quite a different conclusion. It took some time and effort, but I now feel confident enough to say that I have a reasonable overview of what is going on forasfar as that is possible for a non-expert. What I find odd, though, is how skewed the public perception of this debate actually is, so that's what I'm looking into right now.
werecow2003 2 years ago
...and so far, I've seen deception on both sides, but by far the most egregious comes from the skeptics side. I have to say, I felt a bit cheated when I read more about this. The media have completely lost the scientific credibility on this issue, and politicians on both sides are promoting outright lies, half truths, or simple misinformation. It's really quite bad. I've seen science being distorted before, but never this bad. The literature is the only reliable thing there is.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Been a while? The same rates of warming from 1975 to 2000 can be seen at 1860-1880 and 1910-1940. Nothing unusual.
If any paleoclimatologist can tell us that it was much warmer in the past, why did Mann remove the MWP from his hockey stick?
The only reason people think it's warming is because it's been doing that since 1820, the end of the Little Ice Age. We didn't do it because it's pre-industrial revolution. So how did that start without all that deadly CO2 I wonder..
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Could you point me to where you got those warming rate figures from so that I can evaluate them?
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
w . global-greenhouse-warming . com/global-temperature . html
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I'll read the article and get back to you, thanks. This is for the 1860-1880/1975-2000 parallel, right?
werecow2003 2 years ago
This is kinda weird... I can't comment on it's reliability since it's an online article and no author is given, but the article doesn't even support what you were saying, nor do the comments. For example, the conclusion states: "The rapid rise in global temperature is unmatched in the last million years. Normally, and when the Earth has warmed after an ice age, it is a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. "
werecow2003 2 years ago
...and earlier on above the second graph, it says: "This rapid rise in temperature is unmatched in the last million years, and even then, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. Our human ( anthropogenic ) actions have ramped up the rate of change not evidenced in any record, and we are leaving ourselves very little time to adapt. "
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
I didn't care for the article, which is probably erroneous, I was referring to the graph (#2) which was used by Rajendra Pachauri in a presentation at Copenhagen.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
OK... but what's your point... is it inaccurate?
werecow2003 2 years ago
Ah, I think I get it now. You do realize why the standard measurement for measuring climate change is 30 years or more, right (actually, >35 would be best if you ask me)? You have to smooth our natural short term interdecadal variability. For an overview of contributing century-scale factors, see: w3 climate. unibe. ch / ~stocker / papers/stocker96nato . pdf (stupid youtube comment filter)
werecow2003 2 years ago
and also w3 . atmos. ucla. edu / tcd / PREPRINTS / MGEGEC. pdf , which is a bit more recent.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
I dare say the graph is accurate but I didn't bother reading the article. The graph shows the warming rates between 1975-2000 is nothing unusual compared to 1860-1880 and 1910-1940. In fact, those early warming rates occurred long before heavy industrial pollution, and the Earth climbed out of the little ice age without any anthropogenic cause whatsoever.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
It's unusual because it's consistent over the long term (>30 years), and it is speeding up, as the graph illustrates. You'll note that none of the warming spells in that graph show that same consistency. Furthermore, there are natural explanations for most (if not all) of the large scale trends. We lack such an explanation today; it can't be the sun, because the stratosphere does not show the required warming effect. It can't be urban heat islands, because oceans show the same thing. And so on.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Most of the early data is corrupted by stations that have been moved or subsequently urbanised. Even NASA's James Hansen was caught massaging data for GISS. Imagine the problems in other countries.
But that graph is over the instrumental record. Had we instruments thousands of years ago I bet we'd see similar peaks.
Not forgetting we see very large swings up and down in all the ice core data, at even greater rates and magnitudes than today. Again, nothing unusual.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
"Hansen was caught massaging data"... Are we talking about climategate now?
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
If you want to see climate swings similar or worse than today..
watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
MrOllyK 2 years ago
The graphs in this vid show inferred temperature from ice core data. Temp is still lagging behind the CO2 emissions today and therefore not the best comparison measure. Look at the CO2 measurements:
nordpil. com / static / images / carbon dioxide and_temperature_historic_trends_full. png The highest value on the Vostok graph is 290ppm CO2. The current measured value is 380. Does that count as odd?
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Probs with the link - needs underscores between "carbon dioxide and". Graph is difficult to make out as nothing's overlaid.
Check this series:
joannenova. com. au/global-warming/ice-core-graph
You'll see that during the long warm trend in our time the CO2 is still rising, or catching up. It may also seem that because we're adding some CO2 that it appears to begin leading temp. Not sure. I wish it was more detailed.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Yeah, sorry, youtube was being a bitcA, so I tried a few things and I guess I botched up the link.
This series is about the notion that CO2 lags behind temp, right? That's true IF CO2 is not the initial driving force behind temperature change. If solar forcing is at work, for example, you first increase temp, an then CO2 is released from the oceans, which causes further warming, and so on. Today, however, the CO2 itself is the driver, and it will cause warming, which will release more CO2, etc.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Try it again, it should work.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect and right now is virtually saturated, which means doubling or quadrupling will have minimal temp effect. Remember that in Earth's past 10-20x the current amount of CO2 never caused runaway greenhouse. BTW:
wattsupwiththat. files. wordpress. com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09. pdf
It's an excellent file noting the problems with NOAA/GISS data.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
"right now is virtually saturated" - It's not. We can see that from the satellite data (IRIS, IMG), which show an increased effect at the wavelengths that greenhouse gasses such as CO2 absorb as their measured levels in the atmosphere rise. The measurements are consistent with the theoretical predictions. We would find no such increase if the CO2 effect was saturated.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
CO2 or any molecule that's good at trapping heat is just as good at losing it. What you're seeing in those absorbtions is natural heat transfer through convection.
Its commonly known that CO2s radiative return response is logarithmic with increasing concentration. The physics dictate that the temperature response curve of the atmosphere will be getting flatter as CO2 increases. Earth has also had much higher concentrations of CO2 in past history, & we didnt go into runaway then.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I get that... You said the CO2 effect was saturated. If so, you would not see a larger greenhouse effect at those specific wavelengths that CO2 best absorbs, as the amount of CO2 increases. But we do see that, and this means saturation has not been reached at this point. The point here is that the effect still grows as we continue to measure more CO2 in the atmosphere. You can't explain that through convection alone, and it matches theoretical predictions.
werecow2003 2 years ago
See here, for example: w . nature. com / nature / journal / v410 / n6826 / abs / 410355a0.html
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
It's not going to matter. CO2 absorbs heat, loses it again within hours and returns to the cycle. With more CO2 there will be more competition for each molecule to absorb the same amount of heat. This is why it's a logarithmic scale.
Heated air carrying CO2 lofts into the atmosphere and radiates the heat back into space, where it circulates down to lower levels to continue the convection.
With enough evaporation, more clouds, more albedo, less heat etc.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
You seem to be missing the point... Let me try to be clearer. The atmosphere is not a single layer of gas. As infrared radiation moves up through the atmosphere, more of it is absorbed by each layer. Each molecule that absorbs a photon can reradiate it in any direction, or it can be turned into kinetic energy. When re-radiated, some of it goes down towards the surface (greenhouse), and some goes up into higher layers of the atmosphere. As you get up, the layers get thinner, and evt. (cont)
werecow2003 2 years ago
(...) the radiation can escape into space. It's in those thin layers from which radiation can escape that adding more CO2 has an effect, and so the height at which most of the heat energy escapes rises. The effect continues until the higher layers radiate as much of the energy into space as is coming in. That's when you equilibrium, and that's when you have saturation of the entire atmosphere. Until that time, the higher layers send some of their re-radiated heat down (cont)
werecow2003 2 years ago
(...) into the lower levels that is not compensated for by the escaping heat, and so there is more energy coming in than there is going out, and there's still a greenhouse effect. It doesn't matter whether any of the lower layers are saturated, because it's the radiation of heat from the upper layers into space that ultimately determine the heat balance. At those high altitudes, we can still detect an increasing rate of absorption, which means that at those levels, the effect is not saturated.
werecow2003 2 years ago
(...) Also, I should point out that this is included in all current climate models that are of any consequence.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Climate models are the problem. They don't follow anywhere near what actually happens in observations - they're just expensive toys.
With layers of CO2, it's like layers of translucent paint. The first has the big colour impact, the second less and so on. The final layer collects practically all the radiation and is closest to the cold of space, and hottest so it remains there until it cools and circulates down, that's how the heat fails to build and eventually escapes.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I just told you it doesn't, and I pointed you to a paper earlier that shows that it doesn't (there are more). Calling climate models "expensive toys" is silly. In this context, the only reason they matter in the first place is because they make predictions about the rate of absorption that have been confirmed by measurements of different parts of the atmosphere. No offense, but if all you can present is incredulity, then this conversation is useless and I suggest we just agree to disagree.
werecow2003 2 years ago
BTW, I don't mean to suggest that convection doesn't occur... Obviously, convection currents are important, but they are factored into the calculations.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Of course convections occur, I didn't even notice I might misconstrue that.. :)
When it all comes down to it, CO2 has still been some 10-20x higher in the past and even in ice ages, with no runaway greenhouse. I doubt it has much forcing after the first 100ppm as seen on the logarithmic scales. There's something much more overwhelming at work, possibly Solar magnetic/ cloud albedo / water vapour / cosmic rays. That's what I'm leaning on but need more proof of it.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
The point is not that saturation can't occur, it's that we can tell that it hasn't occurred from measurements that confirm the predictions that are made. As for solar/etc forcing, those factors are also taken into account for the models, and they don't explain the current warming trend unless you also take into account the CO2 effect. Clouds are the trickiest, and I'll grant you that there's some uncertainty there, but as the models become more accurate, the predicted effect does not diminish.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Knowing that our global CO2 footprint is some 30Bn tons, and using the IPCC's bloated figures, it would require 1Tn tons of CO2 not to go into the atmosphere to reduce global temp by 1C.
That would require the world to return to the caves, no cars, buses,industry - or campfires - for 30 years!!
Using corrected figures would increase that to 200 years.
So when these morons walk away from Jokenhagen promising to reduce the global temp by 1.5C, you know it's just another tax.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Nobody who has a sense of realism is saying that we can tackle this issue all at once, or even that we can tackle it completely. But we can reduce the scale of it, need to take steps towards reducing our emissions now. The longer you wait, the more unmanageable the problem will become. Cleaner energy and more efficient tech (e.g. LEDs for lighting and so on) will be beneficial to the environment, as well as to many businesses and other end users. It'll also lead to technical innovations.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
I'm all for cleaning up our act, such as SO2, CO, NO, sludge and general particulates, but since CO2 is vital for life, and plants grow better the more there is, I can see no greater crime than CO2 sequestration and destroying economies on the back of a bloated lie.
We've been in a cooling phase for 9 years now and we should wait another 10 to see what happens. It may only cost +0.02C. Industry will become efficient all by itself due to future limited resources.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
There's a point of CO2 saturation at which plants grow optimally. After that it has a negative impact. Ecologists inform us that we're quite close to that point.
As for destroying economies, that's not an issue. We're talking about less than 3% of GBP, most of it spent by wealthy nations. It'd delay economic growth by a few months.
It might throw a bit of a wrench in Exxon's plans, though.
werecow2003 2 years ago
^GDP, of course, not GBP, and that's on average.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Plus, you're forgetting about some of the other drawbacks of CO2, such as the acidification of water, which we are beginning to see now.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Those ecologists are essentially wrong. Some plants don't benefit too well with over 1000ppm CO2, which also depends on nutrient levels considering they grow faster. However most do well up to and beyond 1200ppm. Remembering that O2 is also required for photosynthesis, and extra CO2 causes plants to require less water:
watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA
Even 3% GDP will hurt our economies and do nothing to reduce temp. Imagine what despot Robert Mugabe would do with a share of that.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Right, I was inaccurate in that statement, sorry. I guess I should've read that again before I posted as it's a fairly complex story of many different feedback effects. It's a long one, so bear with me:
I looked it up, and here's the argument:
First off, a study by Shaw et al that showed that, taking into account not just CO2 concentrations but many of the other effects predicted from AGW (rain, wind, heat), root growth in plants was suppressed. (cont.)
werecow2003 2 years ago
Another factor is that some plants produce fewer defensive chemicals against parasites. These parasites are found more frequently on plants growing at higher ppms of CO2 because they lived longer and produced more offspring, and they actually consume more plant material under these conditions. Furthermore, parasites like pine beetles are more likely to survive the winter when temperatures are wamer, and they return in force the next spring. We're already seeing the resulting devastation. (cont.)
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
It's possible the extra plant material may offset the extra material eaten. Parasites most often have natural enemies that would also benefit from more of their own food source eg, aphids & ladybugs. However, this benefit reduces during a plague until the excess is overcome.
Slower growing plants appear to be more affected, however nature has always managed to keep this in check during warmer periods, or those plants would be extinct.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
You're creating a false dichotomy. They may be able to survive it, but they point is that their growth is inhibited, not enhanced as you said.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Nature has provided dramatic changes in dichotomy far outstretching man's abilities in the past. If the Jurassic warms and CO2 goes up, it's the same thing. If CO2 suddenly plummets, as it has in the past then everything has to adapt likewise.
In today's climate there's nothing unusual about the rate or magnitude of change that's happened in the past.
Only media says "scientists say global warming faster than feared..", usually without naming the scientists.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Under normal circumstances, the ocean has ways of maintaining its neutral pH level, for instance, through CaCO3 compensation. This process, however, works on the order of thousands of years. The problem is that the equilibrium is upset by a rapidly incoming excesses of CO2 that the oceans have not had time to adapt to.
Aside from accusations of scientific fraud, how do you explain a graph like this one: maps. grida. no/library/files/global-ocean-acidification_001. jpg
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow, like I said, anthropogenic CO2 is only 3% of the 0.03% of the atmospheric CO2.
If we ignore giving our CO2 (0.0009%) to the trees and put it all in the oceans, which hold 70x the atmospheric CO2, we barely cause a blip.
That graph is 99.9% natural causes, which the IPCC won't tell you.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
What are these 99.9% natural causes then?
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Decaying leaf litter, bushfires, animal ruminations, and by far the most, the oceans put out CO2. Man made CO2 is a tiny fraction.
In case you haven't noticed, temp started to rise long before CO2 in 1800, and our 0.0009% contribution to the atmosphere is a piffle.
Global CO2 is a rice grain in the middle of the dinner table, and man's contribution is 3% of THAT!
Why the damn panic? Have you been sucked in by the propaganda? You're obviously intelligent enough to know better.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
There's no panic here, just observations. I have a strong interest in science (I basically spend all my waking learning about it), and a very strong aversion to pseudoscience and public misinformation. I can see in the literature that there's no real debate here, and it's so freaking obvious where the misinformation is coming from. The PR tactics (the lists of "scientists" with no relevant education, no original work) are so recognizable to anyone who's familiar with other antiscience movements.
werecow2003 2 years ago
If this were truly a scientific debate, skeptics would be doing original work, and publishing peer reviewed material to make their case in the science arena. Instead, all they do is critique existing studies, and this debate takes place almost exclusively in the public forum. They rely on terribly flawed polls to fight a science issue. Why? Have you ever seen any legitimate scientific debate done that way? I'm not sure if you know the Discovery Institute, but does this not look eerily familiar?
werecow2003 2 years ago
Most of the experts on the skeptics side have no training in climate science whatsoever. Many don't have ANY science training. Yet they feel free to call the whole of the climatological community a bunch of liars and quacks. Is that normal? Of course not! It speaks of immense hubris, and it betrays a complete lack of intellectual integrity. Look at the points you brought up. The entirety of the climatological community would have to be thoroughly incompetent not to have taken them into account.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
You say you have a strong aversion to propaganda, yet you still sound like a newspaper headline.
You ask skeptics to do original work, but Trenberth, who works for the IPCC tries to debunk Lindzen and Choi, because he's got the ultimate motivation, no problem, no job.
Climate science is not an absolute necessity. A geologist to read core samples is just as effective.
The powers that be don't tell you that CO2 was 10-20x higher in the past WITHOUT runaway greenhouse. Why?
MrOllyK 2 years ago
You claim to hate conspiracy theories, yet your hypothesis here is apparently that the whole community of atmospheric scientists is involved in one.
And yes, climate science is necessary to understand climate. Why the hell do you think this is a separate field of study? A geologist reading core samples can only tell you roughly what happened in the past, not how the climate currently operates. You don't ask a paleontologist about the intricacies of molecular biology, for much the same reason.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
The vast majority of climate scientists aren't involved in a conspiracy, really just a handful, and many others too lazy to do the research - or even basic thinking.
To work on the current climate sure, climatology is gaining ground, but past climates can tell us much about the planet's climate sensitivity, which appears to be very solid.
Even a 10 year old can understand that with CO2 so high in the past without runaway greenhouse, that levels today present no problem.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Yeah, exactly. So a ten year old can figure it out because it's so simple, but the whole of the climatological community can't. Sorry, but I'm a bit skeptical of that one. After reading that, I don't think you have a clue of how complex climatology really is.
Why not look at the funding behind the major skeptic think tanks and faces? If anyone has a motive to mislead the public, it's those people. Many of them have an actual track record of doing so.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
The problem with climatology is it's always moving and therefore complicated. No wonder they use erroneous models and I don't blame them for trying.
However, the VAST majority of humanity don't even know the LIA existed, or the WMP. Neither are disputed by science. The IPCC had a duty of care to ensure previously validated data stood firm, but enter the Mann stick and the IPCC's blind eye.
The major skeptics who CAN voice up are now retired.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
How are they erroneous? They use simplifying assumptions, all models do.
The Mann study was not only vindicated by the NAS and practically all other prestigious science institutes after following up on McIntyre's critique, but it was confirmed by many different independent studies. As for the LIA and the MWP, they have nothing to do with the current climate change. It's also warmer now that it was at the height of the WMP when you look at global temperatures, rather than just local ones, btw.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Mann's hockey stick was bludgeoned, but Nature reports the NAS didn't like the way it was used.
However, it's still erroneous:
watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
It was always warmer during the MWP. Even Vostok shows this:
w. foresight. org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3. png
Being a "prestigious" institute doesn't buffer them from being wrong.
The LIA and WMP have everything to do with the current CONCEPT of climate change, which the VAST majority of humans don't know exist.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Vostok is a LOCAL measurement from one site. That's why I clearly indicated you need GLOBAL temperature reconstructions. THAT's what global climate change is about.
But yeah. I'm done arguing now.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Vostok is just ONE of the 6144 core samples worldwide that confirm the MWP exists, and that it was warmer than today. How many times I need to tell you and you need to ignore that I dunno. That ALONE proves you're a woman.
Even if you believe it wasn't global, the MWP is missing from the hockey stick.
The IPCC don't tell you that CO2 was way higher in the past without a runaway greenhouse. That should tell you something in the IPCC is wrong, but you ignore it. Women!!
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Heh. My penis disagrees with you. But way to go all-out on the misogyny, you manly son of a gun you.
Oh, and the MWP is not obvious in the hockey stick is BECAUSE it wasn't global. It was mostly confined to the northern hemisphere. Therefore it is flattened out in the global temperature reconstructions. The same goes for the LIA. Look it up. Perfect ten for showing your lack of understanding of what you're actually debating.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Once McKitrick re-introduced the CENSORED data found in the files, the MWP reappeared. I know you'll say that's bull, but Mann apparently used data ONLY from the Northern Hemisphere, which is where YOU say the MWP was centralised.
So where the fuck is it in the hockey stick? Gone - same as the LIA.
Look it up, you'll be surprised.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I already did. I just happen to have read up on what followed, and the outcome of the debate and subsequent independent analyses of different data sources do not support the claims of skeptics at all. Every one of them supports Mann's original conclusions. The NAS has affirmed the hockey team, as has every other major scientific body. Deal with it.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
That tells me two things.
You're just lying, and so is the site you're getting the info.
To know that CO2 was higher in the past, even during ice ages without correlation to temp, WITHOUT a runaway greenhouse ever, and somehow this doesn't raise alarm bells to you in regards to Mann and what the IPCC tell you (or don't), is just ludicrous.
There's one thing you need to do now one-eye..
Don't exhale.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Get an education.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Try to find a graph that shows a trend in global warming as opposed to cooling SINCE 1998 as per below:
righttruth. typepad. com/.a/6a00d83451c49a69e201053665b6f1970c-popup
Bet you can't.
Note: you may need to remove spaces and a single %20 in the link.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
We went over this. Climate is measured over decades, not years. The minimum preferred time span is 30 years. Cherry picking one anomalously hot year is dishonest at best. If you had any understanding of this topic you'd know why this is a ridiculous argument
minnesota.publicradio. org/collections/special/columns/updraft/content_root/1nasa-2007. jpg
Note the tiny, anomalous spike at 1998.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Even without the spike the trend in recent years is level or falling.
google "pachauri graph" and you'll find one he used in a presentation. Why not cherry pick that to bits:
From 1860-1870, 1910-1940 is the same rate as 1980-2000. Pachauri cherry-picks his "trends" to make it appear more disastrous, but anyone can see through that.
And this one. Chance of an ice age?:
w. lavoisier. com. au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4. php
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I already addressed that, an I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
I thought you were smarter than the rest of the YouBoob detectives, so I'll let you explain to the world:
How is it that several times in Earth's past there was up to 20x the CO2, we had no runaway greenhouse or tipping point, 20x CO2 in the Jurassic with no acidified oceans where the delicate aragonite corals first originated and still no runaway greenhouse?
Are you so brainwashed, blinkered, paid to panic?
MrOllyK 2 years ago
CO2 is not the only thing that influences climate, and nobody ever claimed that it is. The sun was fainter back then, and you had a single large continent which changes atmospheric currents. It's funny how you insist on bringing up the Jurassic, but you fail to mention that it actually was actually quite a bit hotter for most of that epoch than it is today.
werecow2003 2 years ago
(cont) At the end of the Jurassic, as Pangea began to break up and volcanism increased, spewing out a lot of CO2, there was a large temp rise, ocean acidification, and a corresponding mass extinction event, for which I've already given you a citation. Here's another, this time about land plants: w. sciencemag. org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5432/1386
werecow2003 2 years ago
As for your "paid to panic" comment, I find that very offensive coming from a person who dances at the whims of Exxon's assclowns without a second thought. If you want to know who's getting paid the big bucks here, why don't you do a little digging. I make a grand total of €700,- a month, being an MSc student and lacking a full time job. I spend whatever time I have left reading up on science. From what I've read so far, I don't think you can say the same.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
From ScienceMag:
"The Triassic-Jurassic boundary marks a major faunal mass extinction, but records of accompanying environmental changes are limited".
In any case, the Triassic and Jurassic were a boon to plants, animals and corals, which occurred all by itself after the Permian glacial extinctions. Those corals evolved and din't die. High CO2 likely due to volcanoes.
There's not enough fossil fuel to drive CO2 as high as 7000ppm, since we're past peak oil.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Gee, I wonder why you chose not to post the next part: "Paleobotanical evidence indicates a fourfold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and suggests an associated 3° to 4°C "greenhouse" warming across the boundary. These environmental conditions are calculated to have raised leaf temperatures above a highly conserved lethal limit, perhaps contributing to the >95 percent species-level turnover of Triassic-Jurassic megaflora."
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
3 and 4deg happens overnight and it's nothing. Besides, I would have run outta room. It matters little what they "calculate" as many plants happy with their current environment either die off or evolve. The Jurassic was some 80My long and enough time for many species to adapt.
I suggest that volcanic activity and noxious gases would have played a part.
Many plants today coming from arid regions fare very well in the tropics, probably because they've been there before.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
We're not talking about 1 night stands, we're talking about 3 or 4 degrees Celcius of global average temperature rise. That's very significant.
The Jurassic era was a long era, but it was gradually cooling down for most of that time. The temp rise near the end is much more rapid. But yes, volcanic gasses may well have played a part.
werecow2003 2 years ago
As for plants having "been there before", that's no reason to assume that they're still well adapted to that type of environment. The fact is that many are not.
I suggest you try the following experiment:
- take a penguin
- throw it off the edge of a tall cliff
- see how well it does in the air
Or, alternatively:
- take a polar bear
- dump it in a tropical rain forest
- see how well adapted it is
(Outcome predicted to be hilarious on some levels, but tragic on others.)
werecow2003 2 years ago
i.e. the point is not that all plant species will go extinct. Some will not. Some will still be well adapted. Some won't be. They'll go extinct. And extinctions often affect eco-systems in unexpected ways. You can't just look at the harmless examples and extrapolate from there, you have to look at the whole picture.
werecow2003 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
werecow..
.."Cherry picking one anomalously hot year is dishonest at best"..
Here's a graph without the 1998 El-Nino spike. Still cooling, which the IPCC don't tell you, and CO2 doesn't seem to care:
icecap. us/images/uploads/CRUT3V_and_MSU. jpg
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Again, that's a decade, which is too short to mention climate change because there are decadal cycles that can throw off the stats. We're now in a natural cooling phase, which was predicted as far back as 1981(!) by Schneider et al, and which he warned was a potential source of confusion for the public.
werecow2003 2 years ago
So on the one hand you're arguing that CO2 does not cause the increase in acidity, but on the other hand, all your natural explanations for the measured increase that was predicted by the models rely on an increase in CO2? Ehrm, what?
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
In the oceans, there's a buffering reaction between the sea floor basalts and sea water. Sea water has a local and regional variation in pH (7.8 to 8.3). It should be noted that pH is a log scale and that if we are to create acid oceans, then there is not enough CO2 in fossil fuels to create oceanic acidity because most of the planets CO2 is locked up in rocks.
When we run out of rocks on Earth or plate tectonics ceases, then we'll have acid oceans.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
What exactly do you think is meant by acid oceans? Mind you, we're talking about a 0.3-0.5 pH decrease. As for the amount of CO2 being inadequate to cause it, you can assert that, but without an unrefuted peer reviewed study in a reputable journal (e.g. science, nature), it's a meaningless assertion. Here's one that says you're wrong:
w. up. ethz. ch / people / ngruber / publications / orr_nat_05. pdf
werecow2003 2 years ago
Oh, and you'll note that that study addresses the buffering effect as well.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Once upon a time they called it Global warming, then when temps dropped inexplicably to their fabled God, they called it Climate Change to cater for up and down. Eventually they called it Energy security, and even passed a bill on it. But that pretty much failed. Now they call it Ocean Acidification, which is the last bastion and where you're stuck.
Science, Nature aren't reputable as they've consistently refused to publish dissenting papers on AGW. That's simple bias.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
lol... the two most respected science journals in the entire world aren't reputable. OK man. I guess that tells me all about what your criteria for accepting a source are. Sorry, but I think that ends our conversation right there.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Science, Nature are no longer reputable as per their refusal to publish dissenting scientific views. That's exactly why it's been difficult for anti-AGW scientists to publish their papers.
You don't understand how the planet's history applies today. It's all to simple. There's NEVER been a runaway greenhouse, which you continue to ignore and the IPCC won't tell you, even with some 20x the CO2.
You have a one-track mind. It's been tedious.
-- END TRANSMISSION --
MrOllyK 2 years ago
werecow..
The process of removing CO2 from the atmosphere via the oceans has led to carbonate deposition (i.e. CO2 sequestration).
The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reactions (as shown by Walker et al. 1981).
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Then there's a study performed in Europe that showed that during the 2003 heat wave, CO2 uptake dropped sharply as temperatures rose. This casts some doubt on whether increased CO2 would have any effect under a warmer climate.
There is also the problem that many plant ecosystems depend on rivers that are fed by glaciers. As the glaciers run dry, the well does too, and the plants die. (cont.)
werecow2003 2 years ago
On average, glacier mass has been decreasing for decades and projections are that they will last for only a few more decades. And of course, increased droughts generally mean more forest fires and reduced plant growth.
The problem with ecology is that many of these plants are adapted to a specific environment. When that environment changes rapidly, life can't keep up and adapt. Evolution takes time. (cont.)
werecow2003 2 years ago
So, combined with these other facts, the greenhouse effect can actually suppress growth. And of course, the result of this is less CO2 reuptake, and therefore a positive feedback. And this is just plant growth, of course. As noted in this thread and also this video series, the increased acidity of the oceans is beginning to show as well, and it will have a nasty effect on many ecosystems.
werecow2003 2 years ago
BTW, just to give credit where it's due: I took these examples from a vid by greenman3610 because I remembered it as a good summary, though I think he's taken it down atm to rework it.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Hmpf, OK, last post:
No, scratch that, it's still up: "don't it make my green world brown"
watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
The vast majority of plants support extra CO2, and even those with limited capability of it's use for extra, still show improvement.
Water in the oceans shouldn't become too acidic as even carbonated water from a bottle contains vast CO2 concentrations, which the oceans never could support, has a PH of about 5 and almost no carbonic acid, even though it still contains sodium.
There are also natural sparkling springs where life thrives.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Try to grow a coral in carbonated water.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
When it comes to ocean acidification, we need to take a close look at the numbers.
0.03% of the atmosphere is rare CO2 and 3% of that is manmade.
3% of 0.03% = 0.0009% of current atmospheric CO2 is manmade.
Total atmospheric CO2 is like a grain of rice at the dinner table. Manmade is just 3% of THAT!
Even the IPCC claim in AR4 that 98.5% of CO2 is reabsorbed globally.
I don't know how anyone can think a piddling 0.0009% will cause any kind of acidification, ever.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Argument from incredulity wrapped in a muddled straw man. You don't need to dissolve the entire atmosphere into the oceans to change their pH, so your percentages are highly misleading. What happens is that the natural equilibrium is upset. And anyone who thinks a tiny percentage of something can't do harm is invited to drink a 0.03% solution of HCN (note: please don't). Right now, the measured change is less than 0.1 units on the pH scale, but projections range from 0.3 to 0.5 units.
werecow2003 2 years ago
Just to clarify that point, the atmospheric concentrations are atmospheric concentrations. What we're talking about are the oceans, so atmospheric percentages are meaningless.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
I'll rephrase that then. The oceans hold 70x more CO2 than the atmosphere. Even if all manmade CO2 were to be absorbed by the oceans, the difference would be from 2.66% to 2.67% at most. Trivial and harmless.
Notably, during the Cambrian era, when there was 10-20x the CO2 is where the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis. Similarly, in the Jurassic with 10-20x CO2 is when the delicate aragonite corals came into being.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
So basically you're saying that, oceanic scientists are completely oblivious to the laws of chemistry. And when they use complex models to arrive at predictions for increased ocean acidity, and those predictions are now becoming verifiable, you can dismiss these out of hand with a back of the envelope calculation because the models are too simplistic. Doesn't that strike you as a bit ironic?
werecow2003 2 years ago
As for the Cambrian and the Jurassic, I hope you realize that the species that were alive then are not the same as those alive today. When life has time to adapt, it tends to do so. It's when levels rise too rapidly that you have to worry. There are also marked extinction events which are correlated with increasing acidity level estimates. For instance, there is this: w . schweizerbart. de/resources/downloads/paper_previews/59335. pdf (triassic/jurassic boundary marine extinction event)
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Extinction events such as 65Ma are catastrophic and have nothing to do with climate.
There's nothing unusual abaout the rate and magnitude of change today compared to the past and the 0.0009% of anthropogenic CO2 is causing an almost immeasurable difference. Particulates would do worse.
As per the oceans in the Cambrian when there was 10-20x the CO2 is where corals began. I rest my case.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
You're thinking of the Cretatious/Tertiary boundary. The Jurassic/Triassic boundary lies at 199.6Ma and was not linked to an obvious calamity other than climate change preceding the breakup of pangea. There is some speculation of asteroid impacts. More likely, the event is related to massive volcanic eruptions, which would exert their effect mainly through their impact on climate.
I already addressed your point on the Cambrian; it's the perturbed equilibrium that matters here.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Quantitatively, CO2 is only the seventh-largest of the substances in the oceans that could in theory alter the acid-base balance, so that in any event its effect on that balance would be minuscule. Qualitatively, however, CO2 is different from all the other substances in that it acts as the buffering mechanism for all of them, so that it does not itself alter the acid-base balance of the oceans at all.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
werecow..
As expected from coming out of an ice age, glaciers will retreat in dry conditions. Projections are from inaccurate models and are not predictions, and can't compete with observations.
However, paleontologists always describe past climate as being warm and wet, cold and dry. Higher temps rarely mean increased drought providing sufficient water available for evaporation.
C4 crops have evolved to make better use of solar radiation, but C3 crops haven't, that fare better with CO2.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
werecow..
It's normal for glaciers to retreat when coming out of an ice age. Paleontologists always refer to past climates as warm and wet, cold and dry. Higher temps don't mean drought providing adequate evaporation is available.
C4 plants evolved to use solar radiation more efficiently, where C3 plants haven't yet, and benefit greatly from extra CO2.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
werecow..
It's possible that higher temperatures in leaf litter increased microbial activity essentially increasing CO2 levels which masked expected uptake.
Glaciers are fed by snowy mountains which naturally recede after an ice age and also in dry climates. As seen on Kilimanjaro, the snow melt is due to excessive deforestation reducing moisture and therefore snowfall. The mountain is always -7C, where the cap is being ablated by dry winds.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Kilimanjaro's glacier is not a representative example, as the decline of its glacier is more likely caused by deforestation. Mid and high altitude glaciers across the globe have (on average) been in decline for decades now. Something is causing that change, and it can't all be explained by wind erosion.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
The glacial melt is caused by many factors. Just coming out of an ice age with increased solar activity, less snow due to less water vapour because of deforestation, or a local drought for several years.
Just because a glacier is high in the mountains, doesn't mean the local climate isn't arid. Changes would have occurred to put them there in the first place, and changes remove them again.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
You're talking about local climate, but the point is that glaciers are retreating across the board. Local climate variations would not be likely to give results so consistent with model predictions.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Like I said before, I expect to see something melt after having come out of an ice age in the 1800's. Melting is what glaciers do naturally, they're fed by snowy mountains.
Forget the models. Meteorologists worldwide use models to inaccurately predict the weather for a week, and yet somehow you're perfectly trusting in them predicting anything, including glacier life of all things, some 50 years into the future. That's just silly.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
And you honestly think that the models do not factor in natural warming factors when they make predictions about alpine glacier melting?
The weather/climate confusion is really an amateur fallacy. Predicting global climate is about averages, long term This is basically the same as saying that, since physicians can't predict the exact height of an individual person, they can't give good estimates of mean height trends for the next year. This is just first year college statistics.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
It's possible the higher temp increased microbial activity in leaf litter creating more CO2 and masking the expected uptake.
I would expect glacier melt just coming out of an ice age which we are. Glaciers are fed by snowy mountains. In the case of Kilimanjaro where the temp never exceeds -7C, deforestation has reduced water vapour and therefore the ice cap is being ablated by dry winds over decades.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
BTW, as for the reliability of the ground stations: did you know that an analysis of temperature change was conducted with just the stations that Watts designated as reliable? Virtually no change in the data.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
Quoting Watts:
"To rate the quality of the station siting characteristics, we used the same metric developed by NOAAs National Climatic
Data Center to set up the Climate Reference Network (CRN).".
This is probably one of the reasons the data looks the same, using only reliable sites that NOAA uses.
Even my country has problems with messy data. Imagine Asia??
Histogram smoothing will also account for lack of variation, especially on 500 pixel graphs.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
This makes little sense to me. Maybe I misunderstood, but help me out: Watts was the one who was complaining about the reliability of these stations, in order to attack the reliability of the global warming consensus. Why would he then evaluate them with a metric he obviously doesn't trust?
Even if it were true that the ground stations are systematically off, nobody is relying solely on ground stations anymore. Satellite measurements, ocean measurements, etc all show the same thing.
werecow2003 2 years ago
werecow..
They had to be evaluated the same way. To understand the algorithms, placement problems etc., especially to restore the original past data which didn't come from satellite in the first place.
See, NOAA have some of the raw data, GISS at NASA massaged it a bit, and placement problems caused by UHI effects screwed the data. He had to go out and survey hundreds of stations to ensure the problems were known.
My previous link will show the results.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
And how do you explain atmospheric (satellite, weather balloon, etc) and oceanographic data showing the exact same thing?
werecow2003 2 years ago
Also werecow..
500 peer-reviewed papers not supporting AGW. Special reference search for "Rebuttals:".
w . populartechnology . net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting . html
MrOllyK 2 years ago