Forums

Man-made We're screwed

Man-made We're screwed

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-00...

Brian H | 20 April 2013

nw;
I have never, repeat never, gotten any climate news or conclusions from Fox News. Stuff your ignorant leftie stereotypes where the Sun don't shine. Which is where all the AGW data comes from. It has been proven to be seriously corrupt, and the "conclusions" pre-cooked.

nwdiver93 | 20 April 2013

@ Brian

Sorry... it's just that reading your posts gives me the same sad feeling I get when I watch "Fox and Friends"; Hey, here's a tip, if you don't like people making assumptions as to where you get your information then post a link to your source :)

Nice dodge but the way... now can you tell me where you found this?

"If natural variation overwhelmed the influence of CO2 for the last 16 years, it was always the dominant factor -- yet the IPCC wrote it off"

I've found lots of things that disagree with you but strangely nothing that agrees with you.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.s...

Brian H | 21 April 2013

Nature and Sciece were purchased some years ago by a German environmental activist, and their objectivity on the subject promptly died. Many of the articles they have published lately have been disgraces. They are only now, lightly and reluctantly, beginning again to enforce proper public archiving of original data and program code for their articles, supposedly a fundamental policy of long standing.

AGW "climate scientists" all behave like Phil Jones, head of CRU, did when asked for source data a few years ago: "Why should I give them to you, you'll only try to find something wrong with them?" And then exchanged emails with his cohorts to hide all data and internal correspondence, to the point of erasing it if pressure got too great. In the end, he claimed all his core data was lost in his "messy office" somewhere.

A more juvenile and anti-scientific attitude would be hard to find.

Brian H | 21 April 2013

typo: Nature and Science ...

JaneW | 22 April 2013

"Nature and Science were purchased some years ago by a German environmental activist"

Not so.
They do not have the same owners.
Science is independent.

Nature is published by the Nature Publishing Group,a part of Macmillan, which is in turn part of Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, a holding company. There's no evidence that the Holtzbincks are environmentalists, greens, or anything except conservative businessmen, and as heads of a holding company, they are a long way from being bothered to influence Nature.
---------
"AGW "climate scientists" all behave like Phil Jones, head of CRU, did when asked for source data a few years ago: "Why should I give them to you, you'll only try to find something wrong with them?"

All behave? A stupid generalization, and therefore obviously untrue. How can you actually believe that "all climate scientists" are out to ruin your world? Silly.

nwdiver93 | 22 April 2013

@ Brian

Are you familiar with logical fallacies? Specifically "Ad hominem"? I'll debate the science of AGW to my last breath but I'm not going to dignify the smearing of researchers. Don't like their conclusions? Then find an explanation that fits the observations better.

Brian H | 23 April 2013

The confusion was mine, between Science and Sci-Am.
From wiki: "Nature Publishing Group also publishes Scientific American in 16 languages, a magazine intended for the general public.

NPG is a division of Macmillan Publishers, a subsidiary of the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.

Repudiating use of massaged data without public archives is hardly ad hominem argumentation. The few instances of archiving that occur turn out to be "post-adjustment" data bases, with none of the required preliminary steps (raw data, justification for modifications, modification files and procedures, resultant files, demonstration of benefits of adjustment). These are not trivial mods; they exceed the entire range of (e.g.) temperatures in the files in some cases. "Glaring" and "blatant" data contamination are the scientific version of the Big Lie technique.

Vawlkus | 23 April 2013

Science is independent. Scientists are money grubbers same as politicians.

This debate is pointless.

Sudre_ | 23 April 2013

Vawlkus remember only the scientists that support global warming are money grabbers. The few that are against it are not. how strange is that?

JaneW | 23 April 2013

Brian loves ad hominem stuff. Here are some quotes from his posts.

"Poor Phil, when Climategate first broke, was almost suicidal at the thought of exposure and discreditation.. " Climategate -- a tempest in a teapot.

"the "per gigaton" numbers are pulled out of their nether parts."
Measured at Mauna Loa --The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009 and faster since then.

"Hansen, the geriatric and senile charlatan"
Doesn't deserve a response.

"the core Circle of 'climatologists' are Jackasses of All Sciences"
Or, experts in the various fields that can be studied to ascertain climate trends.

"Nature and Sciece were purchased some years ago by a German environmental activist, and their objectivity on the subject promptly died."

Evidence? None.

Brian H | 23 April 2013

There's plenty, and the most vocifierous skeptics are ex-Believers with enough science b/g to know what good evidence looks like, who decided to verify the AGW claims to their own standards, and were sickened by what they found. Do you dare?

JaneW | 24 April 2013

"Do you dare?"

Just show me where to look. I will look.

Name names. Cite studies. Identify sites.

I will look.

Brian H | 24 April 2013

Dump your preconceptions and look at the 3X Best Science Blog for serious articles, starting perhaps with http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-eviden..., but a lead IPCC reviewer. Also look at ClimateAudit.org and the references he uses; perhaps starting with this recent one: http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/18/the-hockey-team-and-reinhart-rogoff/#.... Also ClimateEtc, perhaps starting with We're Not Screwed (?)

It's not strictly a matter of what you read, but whether you are prepared to hold the field to honest scientific standards, and have any distrust of those whose solution to everything is "Put me in charge".

Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Brian H | 24 April 2013

typo: "... by a lead ...

nwdiver93 | 25 April 2013

@Brian

Reading the material that you linked to I find myself confused as to what your position actually is since once again your "sources" contradict what I thought your position was. To clear this up which statement is more accurate?

1- Human Activity has NO effect on climate.

OR

2- The rising CO2 levels that result from Human Activity do effect climate but the NET impact will be negligible.

Brian H | 25 April 2013

My personal position is closer to 1, but I can live with 2. They are operationally indistinguishable.

nwdiver93 | 26 April 2013

@Brian

Ok, I think I understand your position a little better; Did you arrive at your conclusion because you don't think Humans add enough CO2 to cause the ~2ppm/yr rise we see or you don't believe CO2 can cause warming.

Brian H | 26 April 2013

I don't believe either the impact of CO2 on the climate or the incremental effect of humans on the CO2 balance rise to significance, or that we could effect a meaningful change if they were significant, or that it would be (by several orders of magnitude) economically reasonable to attempt it if it were possible. All those considerations would have to be reversed, simultaneously, to make AGW mitigation rational.

nwdiver93 | 26 April 2013

@Brian

It's very easy to figure out if we burn enough fossil fuels to be causing the change in CO2 that we're observing. You only need two numbers;

A) Mass of the Earths Atmosphere: 5.1E18kg

B) Mass of CO2 from fossil fuels: 2.9E13kg

Next, some very simple math... (A+B)/A = 0.00000568 or 5.7 ppm

Beyond any rational doubt we burn more than enough fossil fuels to be 100% responsible for the ~2 ppm/yr rise in CO2 we've been observing.

I'll give you a change to refute this... really interested to see what you dig up... then I'll explain how CO2 causes warming.

nwdiver93 | 26 April 2013

Sorry... wrote the equation in wrong... B /(A+B) = 5.7ppm

Brian H | 27 April 2013

That's got nothing to do with the ocean-air CO2 balance. The quantities in flux there dwarf those numbers. In all history and prehistory CO2 trailed ocean temps by nearly a millennium. There's no reason to believe the present is any different.

nwdiver93 | 27 April 2013

@Brian

"The quantities in flux there dwarf those numbers"

That statement is correct, has nothing to do with the increase and is another reason I keep assuming you get your climate "facts" from Fox News... they made the same claim. True; CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are in fact ~3% of natural "emissions".

A good way to think of this is the train station analogy. You have a train platform; every 30 min a train arrives and 100 people get off. Another train arrives and 100 people get on... Every 30 min 100 people cycle through the station. Now you add 3 more people every 30 min but there are still only 100 leaving. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the platform is going to get crowded. The input has changed but the output remains the same. Those three additional people are not 3% of the problem... they are 100% of the problem.

Make sense now?

xoviat | 27 April 2013

You've posted your canned rebuttals, so I'll post mine.

"In all history and prehistory CO2 trailed ocean temps by nearly a millennium."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A

Brian H | 27 April 2013

The oceans control the CO2 content of the air, regardless of human inputs. The would be elevated, regardless of human activity.

The analogy doesn't apply. There is no fixed container.

nwdiver93 | 27 April 2013

Actually... there is a fairly fixed container... It's called the Biosphere.

That small fact aside... If what you're suggesting were true;

"The oceans control the CO2 content of the air, regardless of human inputs"

And the CO2 is being added to the atmosphere was coming from the oceans then the CO2 levels in the oceans should be dropping... they're rising.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf

Brian H | 27 April 2013

The study is 7 years old, and all of its conclusions are false or irrelevant. E.g., corals play a kind of hopscotch with temperatures and alkalinity, as symbiotes abandon locales they don't like, to be replaced by others that like them just fine. Corals evolved originally during a period when CO2 was about 10X current levels.

nwdiver93 | 28 April 2013

Ocean acidification is a separate topic. I'm pointing out that the rise in CO2 cannot be attributed to outgassing from the oceans. The fact that CO2 concentration is rising in the oceans is an indisputable empirical fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080625100559/http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jo...

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

Brian H | 28 April 2013

Hardly indisputable, but outdated and discredited references, particularly the NZ one. There have been scandals up the kazoo with that country's data collection and analysis. And use of the word "acidification" for minor decreases in ocean alkalinity are deliberate scare-mongering. It happens that the effects, except in extreme closed laboratory aquarium set-ups, are to accelerate the cycling of calcium through living organisms and reduction of deposition of limestone from dead shells etc. As I mentioned above, corals (and many shellfish) evolved when atmospheric CO2 was up to an order of magnitude or two higher than present (around 7,000 ppm).

NOAA is honest enough to admit: "These feedbacks can change the role of the oceans in taking up atmospheric CO2 making it very difficult to predict how the ocean carbon cycle will operate in the future."

Bottom line is that current and projected levels (and the dread "rate of change") are well inside the range of natural variation every surviving organism has long ago adapted to. They will undoubtedly cope with the next (cooling) half of the 60-yr cycle we're about to experience, too.

nwdiver93 | 28 April 2013

@Brian

Do you have any facts to back up your post or it just more random banter... you're really having a hard time linking to sources aren't you.

Specifically I'd would honestly like to see data showing dissolved CO2 in the oceans is decreasing as you claim.

Brian H | 28 April 2013

Where the water is warming it is decreasing; where it is cooling it is increasing. So what? The so-called acidification is trivial in both amount and consequence. Claims to the contrary are alarmist extrapolations from tiny samples or inapplicable lab set-ups. The CaCO3 (calcium carbonate, 'a common substance found in rocks in all parts of the world, ... the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, coal balls, pearls, and eggshells' - wiki) buffering in seawater and seafloors is vastly more than enough to keep concentrations of CO2 and carbonic acid quite stable.

Keep in mind (big picture) that ALL of the following must be true to accept the AGW mitigation mantra:
-- Changes must be outside natural variation
-- Man must be the cause
-- Alteration of emissions must be feasible without ruinous cost
-- Adaptation must be more costly or impossible.

None of them are true, however, 0 out of 4. Even one 'miss' invalidates the whole position.

Negative cloud feedback (instead of positive, as assumed) is now virtually undeniable, and reduces even IPCC estimates of CO2 doubling effects (sensitivity) to below 1K, possibly indistinguishably close to 0K. And even burning all known fossil fuel resources would not achieve one doubling. Trivial.

nwdiver93 | 29 April 2013

@Brian

Focus, Brian Focus... I'm not going to fall into the cheap debating tactic of throwing off side topics without ever actually addressing one.

You claim the Atmospheric Rise in CO2 is coming from the Oceans... OK if true then there would be LESS CO2 in the ocean on average today than there was 30 years ago.

IS THERE MORE OR LESS CO2 IN THE OCEANS TODAY. THE DATA SAYS MORE; WHAT SAY YOU AND PROVIDE YOUR SOURCE.

Brian H | 29 April 2013

Not so. There is a huge pool, as I indicated, of CaCO3 which interacts intimately with the phytoplankton and all shellfish etc. and the seabed which determines the sea's CO2 content. When it rises, it has come from there, not the atmosphere; when it declines, it is because of deposition. The atmosphere's level is primarily determined by temperature and mixing activity, primarily in the Bering sea area. Focus: CO2 in atmosphere TRAILS (on a large scale) sea and air temperature fluctuations by almost a millennium*, and in small variances by about 9 months. There is no possible way it is driving ocean concentration. Cause precedes effect.

*The omitted observation is Gore's moronic "spike" demonstration; the temperature swings LEAD the CO2 levels.

nwdiver93 | 29 April 2013

So... there is MORE CO2 in the Oceans today than 30 years ago AND MORE CO2 in the atmosphere? The Travel path of CO2 is Ocean Sediment => Oceans => Atmosphere? Is this your hypothesis? Do you have anything to back it up?

Note: To save you from another superfluous post I agree there is gas exchange between those three. What there's no evidence for is that it's been a mostly one-way street for the last 100 or so years.

xoviat | 29 April 2013

"Focus: CO2 in atmosphere TRAILS (on a large scale) sea and air temperature fluctuations by almost a millennium."

I believe I just debunked this a few posts ago.

http://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A?t=3m24s

Pause the video immediately after you click the above link, and then read the information in the paper. The increases in carbon dioxide that you are discussing follow the rise in temperatures in the arctic but precede the rise in temperatures in north america. Note: the reason that I linked to the video was that I assume that you would have to pay for access to the original paper; I may be incorrect.

Arctic temperatures are not the same as global temperatures. Please stop using arguments once they have been debunked in this thread.

nwdiver93 | 29 April 2013

@xoviat

Great video... well sourced and cited. Sadly, for some people "Facts" are just a nuisance that get in the way of their myopic ideology.

Sudre_ | 29 April 2013

This is still managing to be an interesting topic... at least for me. The only issue is most people who debate for the warming side post links to studies as proof of their beliefs. Brian on the other hand only occasional posts a link to his observations and changes the subject whenever he is asked for proof and has nothing to post. Brian H is actually following the exact tactics that most politicians (and Fox news) use. Just keep saying it and people will believe it.

Lets look at it this way. I look at the post. If it has a link to prove the conclusion I read the post. If it does not I don't read it. I end up skipping 90% of Brian's posts.

Brian H | 29 April 2013

The debunking is bafflegab. Causality cannot be talked into time-reversal.

Here's some more disassembly of Warmist double-talk:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/no-warming-since...

JaneW | 29 April 2013

@Brian H "Do you dare?"
I asked for things to read supporting Brian's position. He sent me some, with the above overly dramatic challenge. So, I went and I looked. And I studied. The authors are bloggers, and, since I'm not going to take the word of any blogger, I read every paper and looked at every chart that the bloggers cited.

I will limit my response to only one blog, the one I have most thoroughly studied, else this response get completely too long. It may be anyway. Fair warning.

Blog by Rawls. Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5

Rawls says to go and look at what the instruments show. I went to the instruments he cited. I found that the instrument readings there do not support his conclusions that solar correlates better with temperature rise than a rise in CO2 does. The charts he says to look at say:

Land temperature has been rising since 1880 (1.75 degrees), but much faster since 1960. Global sea temps show a similar rise since 1840.

Sunspot activity cycles, and peaks have not been noticeably higher
since 1840. The TSI has averaged about the same since 1978, though it seems to be trending down in the last decade.

CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in the same period, correlating very well with the temperature rise.

Rawls claim relies on an old paper saying solar activity is a strong driver. It has been proven to use badly manipulated data. The authors have retreated on their claims.

Rawls also cites (Caillon, 2003) which says that says CO2 rises lag 800 years behind temperature rises.

But he ignores, for instance, (Parrenin, 2013) “We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2

He cites (Neff, 2001) but that says,
“…the absolute changes in solar intensity over the range of decades to millennia are small and the influence of solar flux on climate is not well established.”

He cites a paper by Usoskin which concludes: “During the last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has (sic) not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.” Also, their charts show negative correlation as often as positive, for instance 1000 to 1100, 1580 to 1750, 1800 to 1900.

After a careful study of all this, my take is that Rawls is an ardent denier of AGW whose overstated case is not supported even by his own citations.

Brian H | 29 April 2013

The double-talk is hilarious. There exists a clear physics explanation for ocean CO2 degassing, and only a convoluted speculation about CO2 as a driver. The graphs show clearly: temperature fluctuation precedes CO2 fluctuation.

Here's an interesting summary from another culture:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/down-to-minus-45/article4640409.ece

nwdiver93 | 29 April 2013

@JaneW

+1 Facts speak for themselves don't they :)

@ Brian H

You've made this claim 2 or 3 times now:

"The Travel path of CO2 is Ocean Sediment => Oceans => Atmosphere"
I paraphrased.

WHERE IS YOUR SUPPORTING DATA?

nwdiver93 | 29 April 2013

"The graphs show clearly: temperature fluctuation precedes CO2 fluctuation."

Did you even bother to watch the video posted by xoviat?
http://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A?t=3m24s

JaneW | 29 April 2013

Brian said, "CO2 in atmosphere TRAILS (on a large scale) sea and air temperature fluctuations by almost a millennium*, and in small variances by about 9 months. There is no possible way it is driving ocean concentration."

This is one of the claims from a paper in 2003 which has been debunked and disproven over and over.
It is simply not true.

As one paper I already cited says, "temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2." Other papers support this. Brian is sticking to old, disproved theories.

More -- The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming.
-- Jeremy Shakun, Harvard University, 2012

and others ...

JaneW | 29 April 2013

Are we adding harmful CO2 to the atmosphere?

"Actually, there is a clear physics answer to this question: isotope ratios. CO2 that remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, or which is present in biological material on the surface of the earth, is constantly exposed to cosmic ray radiation. This radiation can generate the isotope of stable carbon-12, unstable carbon-14, in a ratio that is actually easily measurable to high precision. In other words, CO2 that derives from close to the surface of the earth has a larger C-14 content ratio than carbon that is more shielded from cosmic ray radiation.

Carbon that has been underground for a long time, in the form of fossil fuels, is just such a kind of carbon that will have a lower C-14 level. By studying the level of C-14 in the air trapped in tree rings and other sources, we can watch to see if over time the atmosphere loses C-14 as more C-12-rich fossil-fuel carbon is pumped into the air. Sure enough, this is exactly what is seen. C-14 is a fingerprint, and we observe that since the 1800s the level of C-14 has decreased dramatically in the atmosphere. This tells us that less radiogenic carbon is entering the atmosphere – just the kind of carbon obtained from deep sequestered fossil fuel. The only species burning lots of deep-sequestered carbon is humans, and thus the modern CO2 levels are anthropogenic in origin."

JaneW | 29 April 2013

"The double-talk is hilarious."

Brian. Read the papers and look at the charts Rawls cites. Rawls lies. His own citations deny what he says. Read them. Do you dare?

nwdiver93 | 29 April 2013

"His own citations deny what he says." LOL... must be why Brian likes him :)

Brian H | 10 May 2013
Tesluthian | 11 May 2013

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/defores...

For plants to get bigger & better at carbon uptake, don't you have to have a stable plant population , not a decreasing one ?

xoviat | 11 May 2013

"For plants to get bigger & better at carbon uptake, don't you have to have a stable plant population , not a decreasing one ?"

To be fair to Brian H, your source discusses the decrease in the amount of forests rather than the decrease in the amount of plants. The amount of plants could be decreasing (you would first have to define how to measure "amount of plants"), but you would have to cite a different source to support this claim.

"More CO2, please."

As usual, opinion pieces are more suited to political issues rather than scientific ones because they fail to cite any sources. I will invalidate specific claims made in the piece, but debunking the author's opinion will not be possible because an opinion is not a fact. I will also include some of the opinion statements to show that they are not facts.

"conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant."

This cannot be proven false because "dangerous" is subjective.

"The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so [has occured]"

As of 2007, global warming has continued to happen.

http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf

This graph shows the latest data, but uses 5 year moving averages, and is therefore vulnerable to variations (a total of three temporary decreases after 1980).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

"As many scientists have pointed out..."

This cannot be proven false because no scientific papers are given. The opinion of any scientist is just as good as any other opinion. To be any better, the scientist must publish a paper.

"There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather."

Again, no papers are cited. In my opinion (just as good as any other), this is probably too complex to prove given current technology, although I could be wrong.

"The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history."

Humans could not survive during all of "geological and plant evolutionary history." The current levels are much higher than those present since humans have been around.

"Using energy from sunlight...dry conditions better."

Concerning increased agricultural yields, this is a complex question that must include increased temperatures. However, this is even beyond what climate scientists are arguing--that emissions of carbon dioxide are causing warming.

Climatologists are not qualified to predict the economic effects of warming. I could take a position on this, but am too lazy to research more than what the initial argument was.

Tesluthian | 11 May 2013

xoviat

"...how to measure amount of plants."

I agree with you, a baseline is needed. If you can't quantify how much green biomass there is, how can you state if it's increasing or decreasing ?

And I didn't see the amount of global greenery in "More CO2 please. "

Without real life testing, I could say increased plants will create more oxygen making insects 15% bigger, and creating more insect generated CO2, as in this lab experiment:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/huge-dragonflies-oxygen/

However, in this more real world experiment in New Zealand, increased warming created more herbivore mass.
which creates more carbon gas expiration.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040557

JaneW | 11 May 2013

I liked this comment.

"These writers are not climatologists and show their ignorance. They are Heartland and Cato Institute affiliated writers who have displayed their ideological disdain for scientific facts. A few years ago, Schmitt said that climate change is “a stalking horse for National Socialism.”

Oh, dear.

Pages