Global Warming Is Undeniable

elroch: Would we be morally culpable? Yes, I don't deny this. So I support preventing such adverse effects were possible. But if necessary, we can prevent the effects without limiting the cause too much.

Also, some plans to sequester carbon in the deep sea would be interesting. Personally, if the disruption of native life would be minimal due to keeping safe limits of dumping in the carbon, I think we could store lots of CO2.

Milankovitch cycles have to do with the precession of the Earth around the Sun changing the albedo of the planet, causing the earth to dip into and out of ice age in a very regular cycle. If the carbon dioxide was driving temperature to the degree proposed, the natural Milankovitch cycle temperature spike would occur after the spike in CO2, but it happens before (showing that in recorded history temperature has predominantly driven C02 and not the other way around). How can something happening afterwards be causing something prior? I note your logic but you seem to be using  correlation to denote causality which is logically invalid.

The data set used by the IPCC to show temperature increase in the 20th century is widely disputed, (http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/rsc03.htm, and http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/ )

also you say that the urban heat island effect is compensated for in the dataset's used? this would mean that recent temperatures would have been adjusted downwards with increasing urbanisation in the 20th/21st centuries. This graph lifted from NOAA shows that they have been doing exactly the opposite.

this would increase (not decrease) the impact of the urban heat island effect in the temperature reconstructions, and make it look like it is warming more than it is.

Given that the data they are using as input to their models is skewed towards warming, it is not surprising that they are expecting such large radiative forcing effect from CO2 as they are attributing this artificial warming to it now.

there is an interesting discussion on physicsforum.com about different peoples calculations of the radiative forcing capacity of CO2,(http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174215) and they get around 1 degree kelvin for doubling CO2.

You seem to totally misunderstand the point. Perhaps your confusion is caused by the fact that both CO2 levels and temperature are driven by multiple factors, and that the importance of these effects depends on the time scale?  I am saying the data is consistent with the driving force for the long term historical temperature cycles being Milankovitch cycles.  These long term fluctuations in temperature appear to have some effects that increase CO2 in the atmosphere after a delay. It is possible (and frequently occurs) for two factors to have a relationship of positive feedback (with various time delays). Of course the CO2 that is produced would then tend to increase temperatures further, and so on. Either of the two halves of the feedback loop may weaken as the changes occur, reducing the amount of feedback.

It is only recently that there has been such a powerful new driver of CO2 levels as human activity. The rate of this change in CO2 levels dominates the historical generally much slower change in levels, as we burn deposits of fossil fuel deposited over geological time scales in a couple of centuries.

Perhaps a loose analogy will help. I claim that when cities are built, it increases temperatures in the locality. You point out that historically, rises in temperature in a region have preceded the building of cities (it doesn't matter how true this is, it's just an example). I point out that the two are not inconsistent, as a long term rise in temperature caused by something entirely different can lead to the building of a city, and then the city lead to a more rapid local rise in temperature. I am not sure how much positive feedback this analogy really has, (where the urban heat island would encourage further building) but that doesn't really matter, as long as you get the point about the relationship of the two factors of temperature and city building, which both (in this analogy) positively drive each other, on different time scales.

i didn't misunderstand your point, i disagreed with it's validity. as the temperature in historical data is leading (not lagging) CO2, you cannot use historical data to say that CO2 is forcing temperature, and the physics suggests that CO2 itself is not a very strong forcer of temperature. seeing as you like using analogies, it's like saying that puddles cause rain. rain happens, then puddles appear. there is a correlation, but not causality. you cannot use historical puddle data being related to rain to suggest that the presence of puddles will cause rain (i realise there is a slight positive feedback, as the puddles evaporate to add more moisture and slightly higher chances of rain, but i doubt watering my garden will significantly increase the likelihood of rain).

Thanks Elroch for having the knowledge and patience to discuss this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I think this site pretty much covers it all.

Thanks, s7silver. Your link is the most concentrated and to the point summary of the state of knowledge I have seen.

justjoshin, I don't disagree with you about inferring the effect of increases of CO2 on temperature from historical records where other drivers (such as the Milankovitch cycles) have not been factored out. I would sure that this has been realised by experts and the appropriate corrections made, but I am not that familiar with the relevant research.

The physicsforums.com calculations you referred to are only part of the picture. Quoting from the page I referenced above:

"If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm^-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO₂ concentration would be 4 Wm^-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C."

I repeat my point that although there is still considerable (though decreasing) uncertainty in this prediction, the fact that there might only be 50% chance (say) of disastrous effects is not a good argument for "business as usual".

This is what I've been driving at, this belief is not as widespread as the main stream media make out. There are many thousands of engineers, phycisists, chemists, statisticians, geologists, and other scientists who disagree. When there is a scientific controversy, typically there would be debate after debate, and experiment after experiment (although climactic experiments would be practically impossible) until some argument is proposed that invalidates the opposing view, in which case the winning view would take precedence until another hypothesis was proposed which fit the observations. These essential debates are being avoided by the proponents of AGW (especially since the CRU got caught out in the climategate emails). See (http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact10&fsize=0), (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VjcjjO6oZ4),

(http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)

Any hypothesis or model suggested should be rigorously argued and defended - especially if it is going to be used to shape policy and control how trillions of taxpayer dollars are spent. A hypothesis needs to be verifiable to be valid (an experiment needs to be able to disprove it's validity). A computer model is not a hypothesis, and is only a valid representation if all aspects of the system are understood and accounted for. it has been experimentally shown that any input into the function that output the hockey stick graph of global temperatures (even the Monte Carlo Test - which inputs random numbers), will give a graph that looks like a hockey stick (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/).

this is a very easy to follow, and outlines a massive logical flaw in the greenhouse gas hypothesis.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html

here is a much harder to follow, but much more rigorous physics paper on why the greenhouse gas model is flawed.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Alan Siddons, the author of the first linked page above says "Yet if half of human emissions stay in the air and the other half goes elsewhere, this proves that anthropogenic CO2 is not accumulating". Anyone who combines arrogance with statements as stupid as this (which is not a unique example) is not worth reading. [Looking at some others of his statements indicate his understanding of physics is not at the level of a good high school scientist]

The last link refers to a paper whose lack of peer review is emphasised by the fact that I noticed 3 factual errors in the first (and only) page of it I read. It is sufficient to point out that a wild claim at the start of the abstract (basically that an increase in the absorption of radiated infra-red by the atmosphere does not have a warming effect as that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics ???) also would imply that pretty much any sort of insulation does not work (or any sort of insulation that does work breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Surely a Nobel prize for discovering that? Or perhaps an Ig Nobel).

My time is too limited to point out the nonsense in the writings of every incompetent, arrogant crackpot on the Internet. A good idea might be to filter what you read by the credentials of the author rather than their bias.

What if the oil of a wold power is running low.  One can make war, to power your way into getting the oil of other countries, or get dictated by other oil rich countries what you should pay for oil.  The clever way would be to make war on a way of thinking by means of propaganda...People who driving cars, have access to propaganda. Every civilized person want to do the right thing.  If these people can be convinced that there are a noble cause to look into other means of energy, then the oil prices would be lower.  These people would also invest into new companies that would sooth people into supporting cleaner energy sources...It is a good thing, to ensure world dominance.  I do think that we are going into a cycle of climate change...I also believe that humans do change the climate in a way, so yes, i do believe that we are damaging the earth.  I also believe that the earth would solve a parasite problem, and set pollution problems strait...Anyhow, we can only loose ourselves.  It is our job as humans to rule over the creation.  The question is, who of us want to take up that challenge, who want to have the task of taking a stand, and remind people to preserve...We should welcome this awareness, and contribute, to be kind to mother earth...to be tolerant, and to accept that we cannot continue our ways...it ain't right just to enjoy, and enjoy and enjoy...we have to build a future on responsibility, and that is what mother earth are telling us...she will sort out, and keep those she want.

The simple beakdown points out that whatever heat the earth gets to is transmitted in 3 ways ( conductive, convective and radiative), and the vast majority is conducted. CO2 is assumed to play such a massive role because of the 1% of heat lost from the surface of the earth through radiation, a gas with a very slight opacity on the IR scale at a concentration of well under 0.04% could absorb a tiny fraction of the heat escaping the planet. it would also absorb the same fraction of heat entering the planet, stoping the IR from hitting the surface and warming the planet, so it would stop that fraction of the heat from being retransmitted back out mostly via conduction (which all gases can do, not just CO2, H2O and CH4). so if it is stopping heat escaping, AND preventing heat entering, wouldn't the net effect be close to zero?

The first page after the abstract is the definition of the problem, and as phycisists they defined it as a heat transfer problem. Insulation works by trapping heat that is generated inside, it can't stop heat flow in only one direction, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Gerhard Gerlich has a PhD in Physics, Ralf D. Tscheuschner has a PhD in Physics and and they work at the Carolo-Wilhelmina University, Germany. Peer review doesn't magically fix all errors in a scientific paper, Look at Mann. et al's Hockey stick that manages to remove the MWP. It has been slammed continually for using a "short centred" prinicipal component analysis, which has been shown to be statistically unsound (McKintyre and McKittrick) ( http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf) Yet it's the most widely quoted paper in climatological circles.

My point was more to show that there is no consensus. To claim it when thousands of scientists, mathematicians and engineers are extremely dubious is wrong. And if there is no consesus, how can we be basing public policy on it when the science is obviously not settled.

Their PhD's don't make their wild claim any more true, although it does make them more surprisingly foolish. The key is that the frequency distribution of the incident radiation is different to the frequency distribution of the outgoing radiation. The relative transparency of the atmosphere to shortwave radiation means this acts rather like a heater located on the surface of the Earth. Affecting the ease with which longwave radiation can leave the atmosphere can obviously have a warming effect. None of the laws of thermodynamics are broken by this effect.

My understanding is that the "hockey stick artifact" claim has been examined and found to not refute the claim that temperatures have risen sharply in recent years.

BTW, guess which countries emit the most CO2?  It is not the most advanced ones, but the third-world countries where they practice slash-and-burn farming.  We could spend our money better by trying to help these countries improve their technology than by trying to pass carbon laws that won't affect the chief emitters, but will cost our economies trillions.

here is an anlysis of the leaked climategate emails. it reads like a whodunnit. 182 pages, so maybe chuck it on an e-reader instead of reading it at work.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

explains why skeptical views have had trouble getting published, and details the authors knowledge that their methodology was flawed. I am amazed that this died out on the news so quickly.

Could you substantiate that claim Math_magician?

I just pulled this from wikipedia. It's not completely current and I wouldn't pass it for science (not in a position to do so), but it doesn't really corroborate your position, unless by third world country you mean arab oil state or dutch colonial dependency. A casual glance at the data suggests that either very small or very rich countries have high per capita CO2 emissions. The small countries probably suffer from little returns to small scale and the rich countries, well, you know, probably spend what they have.

(By the way, I want to thank both Elroch and justjoshin for their contributions. For me it was a much needed quick course of the topic and, although I found Elroch to be more convincing, the discussion would not have come alive if it wasn't for the both of you. I've never learned so many useful things on a chess site before (it may in fact be an overall first, but that is another matter).

I am also discussing it. I think you are thanking elroch because you support his beliefs.

love the use of 1-liners to discredit all skeptical views at that link. science is methodical skepticism. asking a climatologist about climatology is usually going to get you a one sided response. if there was no massive fear of global warming, where would they get the funding?

Like mathijs I was a bit puzzled about this wild-looking claim. I believe the largest two CO2 emitters are China and the USA (the order would be reversed if CO2 emitted in the manufacture of goods for the Western market was not included). On reflection, he must have meant per capita, where the US and other Western countries must be much higher emitters than China and incomparably higher than third world countries (according to recent data, China is classified as in the highest category of developing countries, will presumably soon join the lowest category of developed countries, and is not reasonably classified any longer in the group of undeveloped countries called "the third world" over 50 years ago). Claiming that the largest CO2 emissions come from undeveloped countries is simply wrong.

[Edit - just looked up the data and find Brazil emits 1.4 per capita to the U.S.'s 19, i.e. 7.3% as much]

from the discussion page on that wiki article, it is only referring to the industrial/energy emissions.

bushfires in australia emit *a lot* more CO2 than power plants or industy (and we know that bushfires in australia have massively decreased since industrialisation and the change from fire-stick farming), so the net effect of industrialisation in australia is a reduction in carbon emissions.

as to why NOAA's temperatures seem to keep rising ...

http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/08/satellite-temperature-record-now.html

so if historical temperatures are "hotly" debated (*ahem*), and the current temperature spike (from atmospheric readings, not surface measurements - which are pretty much stable) being touted as proof is coming from sources known to be unreliable, how could the science be settled?

justjoshin, it is unhelpful to the discussion to state fiction as if it was fact. Eg "bushfires in australia emit a lot more CO2 than power plants or industry". It is only fires where regrowth is prevented that have a one-way effect on the CO2 balance. In Australia and several other parts of the world, fires have been part of the natural cycle for a lot longer than human history, with fires being followed by a period of rapid growth of plants to replace what has been lost, with embedded carbon having no long term trend.

What does matter to the CO2 balance is deforestation where replacement is prevented, such as the "slash and burn" agriculture which is so destructive in some parts of the world. There is also concern at the moment that human-induced changes might increase the number of forest fires which could also have a CO2 increasing effect. Simply raising the temperature a little could have this effect, and some believe it already has had in some parts of the world.