Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Either this highly-astute observation is being ignored, or it's produced a silence that approaches deafening:

Fallacy 2: Let's say we allow the assumption that CO2 is amplifying. The argument being made is that CO2 amplifies temperature due to an increase in incoming solar energy due to a orbital tilt change.

Yet still more questions arise:

Why did not temperatures continue to rise as CO2 levels kept rising? i.e. Why did temperatures fall even as CO2 levels rose?

Since CO2 is only an amplifier - there must have been some other force which caused both the rise to the peak and the fall from the peak since increasing CO2 levels are clearly unrelated to either the rise or fall.

However if CO2 is a dampener - then the data is very consistent. The effects of a dampener would be overridden (read delayed) until the incoming energy increase is offset enough to be negative. The rise of levels of the dampener lagging the peak could then be explained by the pass through cycle time between incoming energy levels hitting temperature and the dampener reducing temperature effects. Throw a brick up in the air for a real life example of a dampener in action. Also see 3)

If the YouTube video posted by santafe2 was intended to sway open-minded critical thinkers, there's a big matzo-ball hanging out there at the moment. On the face of it, 300+ years of falling temperatures in a rising-CO2 environment (in the banded range in the video's plot) seems to constitute a contradiction of the AGW theory (unless someone can posit a theory that the rate of temperature decrease was reduced by the presence of CO2? ). CO2 as a damping effect does seem at least trend-wise consistent with this data segment.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Either this highly-astute observation is being ignored, or it's produced a silence that approaches deafening:

Please...Some of us are busy in the real world. The observation is neither astute or being ignored.

If the YouTube video posted by santafe2 was intended to sway open-minded critical thinkers...

I suppose that would be you......we await your open-minded critical thinking.

On the face of it, 300+ years of falling temperatures in a rising-CO2 environment (in the banded range in the video's plot) seems to constitute a contradiction of the AGW theory (unless someone can posit a theory that the rate of temperature decrease was reduced by the presence of CO2? ). CO2 as a damping effect does seem at least trend-wise consistent with this data segment.

OK, let's walk through this. There is an ongoing change in the earth's orbit and rotation defined as precession, obliquity and eccentricity. Some 242,000 years ago one or more of these natural forces caused a warming period to begin. That is a non-controversial point. As ice melted the Earth's albedo lowered and temperatures warmed. Simple stuff - ice reflects ~90% of the sun's energy and water reflects less than 10%. As temperatures rose, the oceans warmed. As oceans warmed, they were less able to absorb CO2. As orbital and rotational temperature forcing lessened, temperatures dropped. As temperatures dropped, oceans cooled. As oceans cooled they absorbed more CO2. If one were to make an argument regarding CO2 forcing, it would be that the increase in CO2 lengthened the period of warming. That seems self-evident unless one is politically predisposed to argue that CO2 is a cooling force.

Since you're a self described critical thinker, you may have noticed that the CO2 high 242,000 years ago was 280 PPM. Care to guess where it is today? Care to defend why CO2 concentrations 140% above the last 400,000 years is OK? You may want to consider a change in the Earth's albedo in your calculations. You may want to calculate when the oceans will create a positive feedback loop as their absorption of CO2 lessens. CO2 is leading temperature. Temperature is rising. Albedo is falling, and it's not taking thousands of years. And there is no obvious natural forcing.

Climate science discussions are highly polarized, that I understand. But when someone makes the argument that a GHG is a cooling force and another person calls it "astute", I question myself for taking the time to respond.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Simple stuff - ice reflects ~90% of the sun's energy and water reflects less than 10%. As temperatures rose, the oceans warmed. As oceans warmed, they were less able to absorb CO2. As orbital and rotational temperature forcing lessened, temperatures dropped. As temperatures dropped, oceans cooled. As oceans cooled they absorbed more CO2.

Your assertion is both incorrect and circular: if according to AGW - CO2 drives temperature, then what reversed the increasing temperature trend? It was not a reversing orbital tilt.

RealClimate has a nice sounding patter, but they are inherently no different than the loud squawker sites with regards to considering all alternatives to historical scenarios.

CO2 is leading temperature. Temperature is rising. Albedo is falling, and it's not taking thousands of years. And there is no obvious natural forcing.

All you are saying is that it is somehow different this time. And again, the question is that there are clear periodic episodes where temperature rose - thus leading to albedo changes as ice melts - yet in each instance the trend was reversed. It wasn't the ice refreezing in a warmer Earth.

Thus again it seems unlikely that albedo is a primary driver nor that positive feedback is dominant.

Yet it is this positive feedback which leads to the catastrophic scenarios touted by the AGW faithful.

The AGW mantra really is 2 parts:

1) CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases which affect temperature. Increased CO2 and other GHGs will increased 'base' temperature

2) Positive feedback means that instead of 0.3 degrees C or 1 degree C, the change will be 3 to 5 degrees C.

If there is no positive feedback - if indeed it is a negative feedback, then 2) is invalidated. Without 2), the catastrophic ACT NOW rationale is gone.

And 2) is not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination.

Climate models aren't science.

Positive feedbacks in a natural system - specifically climate - is such a departure as to require more than a modicum of proof.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Your assertion is both incorrect and circular: if according to AGW - CO2 drives temperature, then what reversed the increasing temperature trend? It was not a reversing orbital tilt.

RealClimate has a nice sounding patter, but they are inherently no different than the loud squawker sites with regards to considering all alternatives to historical scenarios.

All you are saying is that it is somehow different this time. And again, the question is that there are clear periodic episodes where temperature rose - thus leading to albedo changes as ice melts - yet in each instance the trend was reversed. It wasn't the ice refreezing in a warmer Earth.

Thus again it seems unlikely that albedo is a primary driver nor that positive feedback is dominant.

Yet it is this positive feedback which leads to the catastrophic scenarios touted by the AGW faithful.

The AGW mantra really is 2 parts:

1) CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases which affect temperature. Increased CO2 and other GHGs will increased 'base' temperature

2) Positive feedback means that instead of 0.3 degrees C or 1 degree C, the change will be 3 to 5 degrees C.

If there is no positive feedback - if indeed it is a negative feedback, then 2) is invalidated. Without 2), the catastrophic ACT NOW rationale is gone.

And 2) is not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination.

Climate models aren't science.

Positive feedbacks in a natural system - specifically climate - is such a departure as to require more than a modicum of proof.

Your original point was that during the period 242,000 years ago, CO2 acted as a cooling force. I offered a more plausible scenario. Do you stand by your assertion?

[Mashuri]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I've noticed that geologists have practically been ignored by the IPCC. Perhaps it's because they know that the Earth has had CO2 levels over 2,000 PPM in its history -- during an ice age. We're also still technically in an ice age and on our way out of one -- which means Mother Earth should be warming up. Anyway, here's a graph of CO2 vs temp based on this peer-reviewed study.

[halcyon]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

New crack emerges:

Methane’s impact on global warming far higher than previously thought

Mark Henderson, Science Editor



The effects of a critical greenhouse gas on global warming have been significantly underestimated, according to research suggesting that emissions controls and climate models may need to be revise.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6895907.ece

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Your original point was that during the period 242,000 years ago, CO2 acted as a cooling force. I offered a more plausible scenario. Do you stand by your assertion?

My original point was that if the AGW thesis is correct: that CO2 is both a greenhouse gas (true) and a multiplier of temperature (in debate), then the historical record where temperatures precede CO2 leads to some strange contortions: rising CO2 levels should not coincide with temperature levels falling.

If on the other hand CO2 were actually a part of the negative feedback system, then this would be more consistent with the historical record.

A hypothesis no matter how much it resonates with desire must hold true for all known instances.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

While the global warming and CO2 debate rages, I take another look at my favourite climate station, San Francisco Airport:

October 2009 mean temperature 61.8F, normal 61.0F, deviation +0.8F.
October rainfall 2.96 inches, an all-time record for Oct, normal 1.07 inches, deviation +1.89 inches.

But this is an El Nino October, so one would expect above normal temperatures and above normal precipitation. So, this is exactly what we would expect.

The man-made global warming bunch at NOAA and at Greenpeace figure run-away global warming is near, but one glance at the climate record of San Francisco Airport, and one reaches the opposite conclusion: everything is normal and following exactly the well-known El Nino pattern of warm and wet on the West Coast.

Why is the Sun's output of energy and the El Nino/La Nina cycle in the Pacific a better predicter of climate at San Francisco Airport than NOAA's climate models? And the answer is that those climate models have been mis-calibrated to over-estimate the affect of CO2 on climate, and in turn, under-estimate the affect of the solar activity (sun spots) on climate and the Pacific Ocean's surface temperature oscillation on climate.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

A nice video talking about feedback and the 2 parts of AGW previously referred to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8


[media][/media]

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

A nice video talking about feedback and the 2 parts of AGW previously referred to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8

The following 54 minute long video is referenced from the one you note. This longer video can be found at What is Normal? A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory. I recommend this longer video to fellow "deniers." On the other (left, sinister?) hand, AGW "alarmists" will likely find this longer video to be worthless or dangerous or some such.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Just glancing at the graph of 130 years of surface sea temperatures, it looks like we are up by 0.6C (or about 1.0 degrees F) in 130 years. The Earth's natural warming by exiting the Ice Age 10,000 years ago would account for much of this warming, and the other part would be the very active Sun in the late 20th C.

For the first time in my life of 61 years, during the late 1990s, I saw the northern lights in brilliant display in central California. This was when the Sun's activity hit its peak.

The graph of surface sea temperatures is very encouraging; it argues that AGW (man-made warming of the Earth's climate) is truly negligible.

Also, who was measuring SSTs in 1880? Where does the raw data come from, and how much reliable data do we have on SSTs at that time--- decades before anyone even heard of El Nino or La Nina?

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

My original point was that if the AGW thesis is correct: that CO2 is both a greenhouse gas (true) and a multiplier of temperature (in debate), then the historical record where temperatures precede CO2 leads to some strange contortions: rising CO2 levels should not coincide with temperature levels falling.

If on the other hand CO2 were actually a part of the negative feedback system, then this would be more consistent with the historical record.

A hypothesis no matter how much it resonates with desire must hold true for all known instances.

As I've pointed out before you attempt to frame the debate to suit your own needs. You then go off to throw as much against the wall as possible to see what sticks.

Your original point was that in your reading of the data, CO2 was a cooling force. I asked if you still held that stance. Some here find that point astute. I find it so utterly dumb I can't believe I'm taking the time to ask you again.

Since there was no anthropogenic forcing 242,000 years ago, I'm not sure why you find it necessary to confuse the question. If you still think CO2 is a cooling force a simple "yes" is acceptable. If you no longer hold that position, a simple explanation will suffice.

[Crazyfingers]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

10 pages of this gobbly gook and we go nowhere. Why the heck cant we just cut to the chase.

It is about time for human beings to stop acting like damn ORCS, take some responsibility and start working on cleaning up this planet and not destroying it.

I dont really give a dern if the climate is cooling or warming. We aint god and cannot control the thermostat. I do care about sick seas, polluted air, and a bunch of critters goin extinct because of us ORCS.

The real shame is the bankers and other charlatans that want to hijack a perfectly good cause and skim off the top with some global cap and trade bs.

[Ghent12]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

10 pages of this gobbly gook and we go nowhere. Why the heck cant we just cut to the chase.

It is about time for human beings to stop acting like damn ORCS, take some responsibility and start working on cleaning up this planet and not destroying it.

I dont really give a dern if the climate is cooling or warming. We aint god and cannot control the thermostat. I do care about sick seas, polluted air, and a bunch of critters goin extinct because of us ORCS.

The real shame is the bankers and other charlatans that want to hijack a perfectly good cause and skim off the top with some global cap and trade bs.

The bolded part was my emphasis. That's the crux of the matter, actually. Is it really a perfectly good cause? I had the distinct displeasure of reading the Waxman-Markley bill, and I can tell you this--we are totally boned if that monster gets through the Senate, to use an engineering term.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

As I've pointed out before you attempt to frame the debate to suit your own needs. You then go off to throw as much against the wall as possible to see what sticks.

And as I've pointed out before - you seem to believe AGW is the answer no matter what historical record, ongoing scientific inquiry, or internal (lack of) self consistency brings up with respect to key AGW tenets.

The entire point of scientific inquiry as well as skepticism is exactly an ongoing evaluation of facts vs. theories. That's why there were theories on phlogiston, theories on various subatomic particles before they were discovered, etc etc. Some were right and some were wrong, but time and ongoing inquiry distinguished the fact vs. the fiction.

Now you're trying to say that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it cannot be part of a negative feedback system.

Note I have never said CO2 is a cooling force. What I've said is that if CO2 is exclusively a heating force and a primary driver for climate as is alleged by the AGW faithful, then the past historical record is not consistent with this theory.

Furthermore that if CO2 is both a heating force and a multiplier of energy input into climate, then the past behavior trends are even more inconsistent.

If on the other hand CO2 is actually part of a negative feedback mechanism, then past historical behavior is actually consistent.

CO2 can be BOTH a greenhouse gas AND a part of a negative feedback system.

Unfortunately this appears to be too complex for the simplistic AGW soul.

CO2 could, for example, rather than absorb energy in addition to water vapor then add its energy to water vapor thus driving temperature up, might actually serve as a mechanism by which the heat in water vapor is more rapidly dispersed thus driving temperature down. After all normally water vapor not only holds much more heat than CO2 but also retains heat longer.

An example is the reason why salt water freezes at a different temperature than pure water: http://www.worsleyschool.net/science...g/ofwater.html

Salt is a solid. If water is treated as a homogeneous solution, then the concept of salt water freezing at a lower temperature than pure water seems ridiculous. But the reality is that salt water is not homogeneous. At the atomic level, the interaction between forming ice crystals and liquid water is significantly impeded by the presence of salt (or any other foreign substance).

No matter how you look at it, the basis for allegations of catastrophe due to CO2 appears more and more contrived as time goes on. The return of soot to explain why massive temperature rises aren't occurring as predicted is amusing - a veritable Lamarckian evolution of 'climate science'.

This in turn makes the case for dramatic and ill-conceived 'action' now less a matter of need and more a matter of profit and control.