1) The increase in CO2 is definitely due to human CO2 emissions.
The oceans are becoming measurably more acidic because they are absorbing CO2! Thus they cannot possibly be the source of the rise.
We know that the increase is all due to human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels because of change of ratio of Carbon 12 and 13 isotopes in the atmosphere, changes in oxygen fraction, and the sort of balance studies that use observations such as ocean acidification. For more information see the IPCC's Third Assesment Report http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm also Bousquet et al. (2000), Regional changes of CO2 fluxes over land and oceans since 1980, Science, Vol 290, 1342-1346. / Keeling, Piper and Heimann (1996), Global and hemispheric CO2 sinks deduced from changes in atmospheric O2 concentration, Nature, Vol 381, 218-221./ Takahashi et al. (2002), Global sea-air CO2 flux based on climatological surface ocean pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effects, Deep Sea Research, Vol 49, 1601-1622.
Basic physics shows that Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse gas. Saturation of it's band spectra is mainly a limiting factor at ground level, higher up it is less important. And the temperatures we have at the ground are affected by the overall temperature/pressure profile of the atmospheric below the tropopause.
2) The evidence is clear, the Sun is not responsible for the recent warming. Despite it being responsible for events such as the Little Ice Age, Medieaval Warming Period, and closely correlating with temperature before the human influence took over.
By 'recent warming' I mean the last 3 decades, to quote from NASA's Goddard Institute: "Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
2a) The most up-to-date work on Satellite measurement of radiation from the Sun by Frohlich at the Davos Solar Observatory shows that: "The observed change of [Total Solar Irradiance] difference between two successive minima amounts to -10 ppm which is not significantly different from zero at the 3-sigma level." In other words there has been no increase in irradiance (brightness) of the Sun since 1976. Some may use the ACRIM dataset of Willson and Mordinov to claim that there has been an inrcrease in irradiance. However Frohlich gives very compelling reasons to accept his results in his paper, available for download here: <ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/ISSI_WS2005/ISSI2005a_CF.pdf>
2b) Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen has a good hypothesis about the linkage between cloud cover and cosmic ray flux. Basically cosmic rays cause a cascade of high energy particles when they hit the upper atmosphere and, to some degree, this affects cloud cover. Neutron counters based on the ground are a reliable indicator of how many cosmic rays are hitting the upper atmosphere.
However once again, in the context of the 0.6 degree C warming of the last 3 decades this theory fails.
You can see for yourself how the climax neutron monitor shows no trend in neutrons. Go to <http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/clmx/main.htm> the main page of the climax neutron monitor site. If you select the start year to the earliest possible, 1953, and leave the end period, which should be 1997. You can click on "Plot" and you will see a level graph with no overall trend.
This means Cosmic Ray Flux can't be causing the 'recent warming'.
2c) Furthermore if the Sun were the cause of the warming then it would cause Stratospheric warming. It is not, the Stratosphere is cooling!
See "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences" here http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm Figure 1 shows the measured cooling. Figure 1.2 shows that most of the cooling is due to CO2, not ozone. Table 1 summarises the responses of surface, troposphere, and stratosphere to changes in various forcing factors.
So to summarise the Science is settled that we have around 0.6 degrees C of warming over the last 3 decades yet we do not have a change in the influence of the Sun that would cause that.
Before the last 30 years, Solar changes do correlate well with global temperatures. But it is only recently that human CO2 emissions have risen so high and so fast that they now have an effect. Without climate models it is impossible to identify the previous effect of CO2. It is only since the '70s that the effect has become so marked that it can be appreciated by lay persons such as myself without the benefit of models.
3) Finally there are numerous examples to show that on a global basis the models have skill in projecting and hindcasting gross changes, such as Global Average Temperature. As I have been verbose ebough already I'll give one example:
i'm no climatologist, but i'm convinced by what i've been shown and i presume the world's climatologists/meteorologists/whatever know what they are talking about.
(a bit of a nitpick, but i'd call it "enhanced global warming" since global warming definitely does occur without humans. it's just that we are making it happen much faster)
Originally posted by Ezkerraldean: A bit of a nitpick, but i'd call it "enhanced global warming" since global warming definitely does occur without humans. it's just that we are making it happen much faster
A very reasonable nit-pick, I can find others in there. I tend to call it AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). But I don't want the argument to be more daunting than it already is.
PS Very interesting article at the BBC about new research into the Asian Brown Cloud polution.
It's fair to assume that CO2 has been increasing since the beginning of the century. If CO2 raising from one one-hundreths of a percent of the atmosphere to three one-hundreths percent is responsible for the warming, why did temps rise 4 degrees between 1910 and 1955, drop by a little more than a degree by 1980, before rising 5 degrees by 2005? Industrialization rose worldwide in the 60's and 70's and I would assume CO2 did also. Why the decline until 1980?
Even skeptics agree that some warming is due to human activity. But the question is, is it due to CO2 rising to .03% of the atmosphere or could deforestation and land use (cities and concrete radiate more heat) be the culprit. CO2 has tripled this century. The tempature has risen .8 C. Does that prove CO2 is the responsible?
My 2nd question. Multiple scientific doomsday predictions covering just 30 year periods concerning oil depletion, famine, and other resource depletion have been completely wrong. Why should we believe that climate predictions based on computer models will do a better job of predicting what's going to occur 100 years from now?
If we're facing disaster, what are we willing to do to prevent it. Switching to solar and wind will have neglible results. Do you advocate a crash conversion to nuclear power?
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: The oceans are becoming measurably more acidic because they are absorbing CO2! Thus they cannot possibly be the source of the rise.
I have read the reports. Funny how SO2 and NO2 pollution do not get mentions considering that they produce nitric and sulphuric acid which are different league in terms of potency compared to carbonic acid. I remember when acid rain caused by SO2 and NO2 was the big scare story.
Mt St Helena is innocent too I suppose.
The thoughts of Chairman Al.
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
2) The evidence is clear, the Sun is not responsible for the recent warming. Despite it being responsible for events such as the Little Ice Age, Medieaval Warming Period, and closely correlating with temperature before the human influence took over. [/URL]
Evidence please. I accept that CO2 is coincidenatlly higher during recent times due to the impact of industrialisation but this could lead to wrong conclusions without a thorough investigation of all the facts.
Is not true that natural warming cycles exist and is not true that if man had not been around we would be in one of these warming period based on ice core evidence and is it not true that warming in the past has been as rapid as those in history (baring in mind that for comparison purposes we cannot use thermometer data.)
The thoughts of Chairman Al.
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
By 'recent warming' I mean the last 3 decades, to quote from NASA's Goddard Institute: "Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940".
Isn't it true that after the second world war there was a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and yet in the three decades after WW11 were periods of constant cooling?
The thoughts of Chairman Al.
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: The most up-to-date work on Satellite measurement of radiation from the Sun by Frohlich at the Davos Solar Observatory shows that: "The observed change of [Total Solar Irradiance] difference between two successive minima amounts to -10 ppm which is not significantly different from zero at the 3-sigma level." In other words there has been no increase in irradiance (brightness) of the Sun since 1976. Some may use the ACRIM dataset of Willson and Mordinov to claim that there has been an inrcrease in irradiance. However Frohlich gives very compelling reasons to accept his results in his paper, available for download here: <ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/ISSI_WS2005/ISSI2005a_CF.pdf>
Would you agree that the measurement of solar activity, solar forcing and planetary wobble is in its infancy? That we have only been able to take advantage of satellite information over the last two decades and that much work needs to be done to understand the real significance of solar activity on climate change?
The importance of this field is only just being recognised.
The thoughts of Chairman Al.
If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
Ice core samples show carbon increases after warming.Therefor the carbon is a result of warming not the cause.80% of greenhouse gases are clouds and yet the clouds are not in the climate models.The climate models are gong to predict the weather in 100 years the the best predictor of weather forcast in the short term is human corns? This is too funny.The news that all debate on climate change is over is a pathetic sham by an irresponsible main stream media parroting what left wing governments have twisted out of scientists on their payrolls.It is a report by politicians designed to have the gullible run to them screaming to be saved.Tax me!Tax me!Oh please,tax me more!again too funny.As long as they fail...
If you look at the third link down in my first post you can see how the actual CO2 emissions took off in the 1950s.
Bear in mind that solar forcing is thought to have been increasing throughout the first half of the 20th century. There is work that shows how Solar Irradiance has climbed to unusual levels recently, in terms of thousands of years. (Usoskin http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/12/2) This has been misused to try to imply that the last 30 years of warming is due to that. As Frohlich of the PMOD shows that's an incorrect conclusion.
This page is based on Meehl et al, one of the many hindcast studies. Basically they run a model over the 20th century to see if it produces any agreement with observations. You can see how the black and beige lines track fairly closely.
The solar component is the red line. But Meehl did the work based on Willson Mordinov - that's why the red line goes up after about 1980. Frohlich shows it should be flatter - i.e. a bit more of the recent warming is due to CO2.
The other thing about Meehl (and why I linked to it) is that it shows that due to the mess of similar levels of forcings prior to the '70s it's very difficult to explain why we had a warming then a cooling around the 1940s. I don't think there's a simple answer for that.
Like I say in my original post "It is only since the '70s that the effect has become so marked that it can be appreciated by lay persons such as myself without the benefit of models."
Cities and concrete - Urban Heat Island Effect. referring back to my second link in the original post there's also a plot of the changes on a map of the globe - not generally clustered around cities - no cities in the Arctic circle. Furthermore there's the fact that the troposphere is warming (UHI is localised). Finally papers like Parker 2005 - where they looked at the trend of temperature on windy and calm nights in cities, they found no difference.
Minor point, CO2 has gone up 36% from pre-industrial.
In a scientific sense proof in something as complex as climate is virtually impossible. My point is - what else is causing the warming. And as I argue, concentrating on the 0.6degC of the last 30 years makes that even more hard. CO2 is our best bet, and the physics behind it may be complex but it is not controversial, not amongst the physics community.
Doomsday? Don't believe the hype.
William Connelly of the British Antarctic Survey shows how the 1970's "ice age" scare was an occasion where the media got carried away. The real science didn't bear out allegations of "science predicted an ice age": http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
The models project temperature and to some degree rainfall patterns, probability of storms etc. They don't predict, they say in effect -"if CO2 keeps rising like this then global temperature will be like this".
Getting some local detail about specific impacts is a far more difficult question.
People can also look back to past periods as analogies. Like Hansen does. But when he talks about Greenland melting he's talking centuries of change, you can read what he actually writes. e.g. Slippery Slope (pdf file) Media maps of 7 metres sea level rise in this century are misguided. The problem is the oceans have taken up so much CO2, and the moment we reduce atmospheric concentrations they'll pump it back out again. Sequestration talk is rot. The further we go the longer we're committed and we're talking centuries. My reading leads me to see sea level rise will happen slowly enough for gradual adpatation. Rain and climate shifts could be more rapid and dangerous.
Look at all of the wars and famines of history. Then add a rapidly changing climate into the mix. Like others, I can't prove it'll be bad, but my gut tells me it will. Having a world 3-4 degrees warmer than now is a very different thing to living through a period of 3-4 degrees of warming in 100 years. Change is what challenges us.
Probably because my political background is Thatcherite free-market I am convinced humans have the ability to adapt around the changes. Which means we have the ability to carry on emitting massively as we go into this century.
We very probably are at peak oil now. It does not imply disaster, just gradually rising costs(the odd small step). The market will then move us onto alternatives, like coal - more CO2 per joule of energy than either oil or gas, so we'll emit more.
Look at where we are now economically even after the Dustbowl/Depression Era, the 1970s in Britain - and now we're very wealthy. The problem to me is our very ability to pick ourselves up and dust off after such falls. This means that, even though the long term temperature expected for 560ppm CO2 (twice pre-industrial, likely by 2040-50), we can still ramp things up higher than many may suspect now.
I disagree with James Lovelock in his "Revenge of Gaia" book, I suspect it's over the top (can't prove it). But I do agree with him that well-run nuclear power is a good idea and can be done safely.
France has a lot of nuclear power right? You might want to try looking here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm at France, also US, UK, then India and China (they scare me). The problem is Gas/Oil/Coal are cheap, cheaper than nuclear. And cheap fuels the stock markets.
I really don't know if there is an attainable solution. But perhaps, the more we nibble slices off our emissions by renewable, nuclear, efficiencies etc, the slower we might get to some unknown 'disaster'. We can't stop it, maybe we can take the edge off it. It could buy us time to find a real alternative like Fusion power.
Either way I think the dangerous alarmists are those arguing for no action - the majority are not going to vote to wreck our economy whatever the evidence, to suggest 'Green Policies' will wreck our economies is uttterly stupid. And things like Exxon funded denialists sowing doubt just doesn't help us to argue for the actions people can be persuaded to take.
(Sorry for being so lengthy, I'll get back to any replies tomorrow)
Originally posted by Chairman Al: Is not true that natural warming cycles exist and is not true that if man had not been around we would be in one of these warming period based on ice core evidence and is it not true that warming in the past has been as rapid as those in history (baring in mind that for comparison purposes we cannot use thermometer data.)
have you actually seen the evidence from ice cores (16O/18O isotope ratios)? as well as deep sea ooze cores with foraminifera (Neogloboquadrina pachyderma etc.), and pollen samples from bogs, and the correlation with the three Milankovic cycles? pretty convincing. the global climate varies quite considerably due to natural causes, but on a longer timescale (tens of thousands of years) than human interference would
The way you post bitty replies suggests you're not reading what I write as does your content.
Please do some reading about the attribution of CO2 increases, it's not going to be proven wrong, there are multiple independent lines of evidence.
Acid rain is still an issue, check out Asia. Europe and the US addressed the problem, that's why it's not an issue here now. Clean Air Acts.
Vulcanic Sulphates have impact, e.g. Soden et al Study of Mount Pinatubo demonstrated the ability of models to model water vapour feedback. Water vapour levels are generated virually within the models, epiphenominally of the model's function, they are not preset. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/soden0201.pdf
********************************************* quote: Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
2) The evidence is clear, the Sun is not responsible for the recent warming. Despite it being responsible for events such as the Little Ice Age, Medieaval Warming Period, and closely correlating with temperature before the human influence took over. [/URL]
Evidence please. I accept that CO2 is coincidenatlly higher during recent times due to the impact of industrialisation but this could lead to wrong conclusions without a thorough investigation of all the facts. ********************************************* Gotcha!!!
Read my argument. I present my evidence and you simply say 'evidence please'. If you waste my time I will not waste it on you.
"Isn't it true that after the second world war there was a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and yet in the three decades after WW11 were periods of constant cooling?"
Correct - see my comments on Meehl et al in reply to Skeptical Yank.
"Would you agree that the measurement of solar activity, solar forcing and planetary wobble is in its infancy? "
We can slingshot probes to the outer planets. No the science of planetary motion is not in it's infancy, please do some research. You tell me how Milankovitch cycles, precession etc, with periods of the order of 10s and 100s of thousands of years can directly cause 3 dcades of warming at 0.6 deg C.
Frohlich (I link to his paper) deomsontrates a great deal of understanding about the techniques used. Elements of the physics are similar to MSU measrements of atmospheric temperatures, which show warming that agrees with the surface.
"Ice core samples show carbon increases after warming.Therefor the carbon is a result of warming not the cause."
Correct, see realclimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ In a nutshell, Milankovitch forcing changes drive glacial/interglacicals, so one would not expect CO2 to lead or occur with temperature. CO2 amplifies the cooling/warming initiated by Milankovitch cycles, along with effects such as ice albedo(reflectivity).
"80% of greenhouse gases are clouds and yet the clouds are not in the climate models."
Clouds are droplets, they are modelled intensive work is going on to parametise them. What you mean is water vapour. See Soden et al link above in reply to Chmn Al.
"The climate models are gong to predict the weather in 100 years the the best predictor of weather forcast in the short term is human corns?"
Models don't predict, they project probabilities of outcomes. Climate > 30 years, weather < 30 years, they are not the same.
"This is too funny.The news that all debate on climate change is over is a pathetic sham by an irresponsible main stream media parroting what left wing governments have twisted out of scientists on their payrolls.It is a report by politicians designed to have the gullible run to them screaming to be saved.Tax me!Tax me!Oh please,tax me more!again too funny.As long as they fail..."
Well I guess it's easier than actually refuting my detailed argument.
I am interested to see you describe yourselves as "Friends of Science".
From your screed on global warming I am forced to conclude that even "Passing Acquaintances of Science" would be a liberty in naming your group.
You link to a piece by David E Wojick, which I haven't the time to read fully, but makes some glaring errors.
Wojick refers to there being no trend in the satellite record, implying he had picked the UAH dataset, he does not mention the other parties involved, and of course we now know the statement to be incorrect anyway, yet the link remains.
Wojick also makes the elemental error of confusing overall carbon flux and reservoir amounts with the fact that virtually all of the increase in atmospehric CO2 was, even at the time of the Third Assesment Report, known with a high degree of certainty to be due to human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning.
You refer to Hansen et al 1988 yet fail to note that actual Global Average Temperature actually demonstrated the skill of the study. This seems highly relevant to anyone attempting a fair and balanced explanation to lay-people.
You correctly identify water as the major greenhouse gas. But fail to note that due to it's atmospheric residence time it is unable to create prolonged changes in the greenhouse effect and hence global average temperature. Unlike carbon dioxide.
You refer to the time lag of CO2 behind initial temperature during glaciations. Yet you fail to note that as lattitudinal forcing changes are the first driver, a lag is to be expected. In this respect it is of more use to consider whether CO2 would be needed as a factor in glaciation.
You claim that CO2 levels have remained essentially flat from 1975 to present. Whereas the rate of year to year accumulation is increasing.
You fall into the trap of a Straw Man argument in claiming that CO2 did not cause pre 1900 climate changes. When it is obvious from the data that it was in the 20th century that levels began to rise substantially.
You talk about correlation between CO2 and temperature in the 20th Century, neglecting the fact that other factors apply, once again flirtation with the logical falacy of straw man. Worse than that you fail to mention the post 1970s rise in global average temperature of 0.17degC per decade, despite the lack of a coinciding change in solar irradiance.
You yourselves compound Wojick's demonstration of lack of knowledge by repeating the claim that the increase in CO2 is not proven to be due to humans.
You claim that solar variation is responsible for the recent warming when neutron counts show no trend since the '50s and there is no increase in Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite since 1978.
You refer to orbital variation, neglecting to mention that this cannot be the cause of the recent changes, we would know if lattitudinal insolation had changed and anyway these proceses are too slow.
You refer to ice sheets, yet you do not mention how they might drive the current warming.
You refer to the WHOI yet fail to mention that their concerns about changes in the meridional overturning circulation are because of CO2 induced global warming.
You claim we do not understand water vapour behaviour in the atmosphere, yet fail to mention relevant studies such as those testing models using the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
You refer to the hockey stick concentrating on Mann 1999 yet fail to mention the numerous studies since that broadly agree with Mann's work.
You refer to Urban Heat Islands, yet fail to mention the studies that show it is not significant in trends, the steps taken to remove it's influence by CRU and GISS, or the fact that tropospheric warming is measured by satellite and that the lattitudinal disposition of warming does not indicate it is caused by UHI.
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: Either way I think the dangerous alarmists are those arguing for no action - the majority are not going to vote to wreck our economy whatever the evidence, to suggest 'Green Policies' will wreck our economies is uttterly stupid. And things like Exxon funded denialists sowing doubt just doesn't help us to argue for the actions people can be persuaded to take. (Sorry for being so lengthy, I'll get back to any replies tomorrow)
Great to hear a reasonable exchange. Though a GW skeptic I support doing more to reduce pollution. The biggest reason I'm a skeptic is that we've heard similar warnings before. I remember in the 70's we were told we would run out of oil and the whole world would be starving by 2000. That and the hypocracy of so many of the gw advocates. Al Gore generates more CO2 in a month then the average family in a year. Then he justifies it by buying carbon credits from a company he founded and has a financial interest in. Ironically George Bush's Crawford Home is 4000 square feet. It has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling.
I'd like to take issue with your statement about Exxon funded deniers. It's presumptuous to question scientists based on their funding and distracts from the scientific arguments. More money is pumped into pro-gw studies by goverment than by industry. Bureaucrats driven by the pursuit of tax dollars and have far more to gain by directing funds to scientists who predict disaster. Still I don't believe it's fair to attack pro-global warmers based on their funding. James Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz (as in the wife of John Kerry) foundation but I believe he’s sincere in his beliefs.
I am NOT attacking the scientists, I am attacking the sort of websites I used to think made sense, Like Friends of Science. And the tactics of people like Pat Michaels, who deliberately removed Scenario's B and C from Hansen 1988 when presenting it to the House of Congress.
I don't like people attacking sceptics like Roy Spencer of UAH, if I remember rightly some have even tried to use his religion. Such personal attacks are not constructive. It's best to criticise the science. But there are a plethora of websites out there twisting the science to their own ends, and they happen to be paid by Oil industry lobbyists, then the funding is relevant. The Green lobby has it's own problems, I've been a stern critic of them too.
If Hansen's results were being twisted by his sponsorship he'd be brought down. As has happened to Pat Michaels. As in most professions the "elite" tend to be competitive, so they have to make sure what they say does not collapse under scrutiny.
Scientists like Soon and Baliunas have drawn industry funding because of their findings. Occasionally they've stretched things too far. As with the resignation of Hans Von Storch from Climate Research. They said that "across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." Von Storch said this may well be true, but it was not born out by the argument they presented, he resigned because of the failure of peer review that allowed publication.
So like Hansen, who draws funding because of his findings but doesn't tailor to those findings. Soon and Baliunas, in my opinion, generally draw funding from the opposite side but do not tailor results to suit it.
The peer review system is not only a check on quality, but it should be an aid to the researcher. Like a "fresh perspective" often helps us all.
Being "skeptical" is good. Being "contrary" in the face of evidence isn't, hence my use of the term 'contrarist' or 'denialist', proper scepticism is quite another thing.
well youve already gone down the rabbit hole farther than i care to yank.just call me an unbeliever.guess ill just burn in hell of whatever unbelievers do.manns hockey stick was proven wrong and published in nature.dont nit pick this fact.what is shocking is that it was acepted by so many peers with the glaring omishions of lia and mwp.omishions a grade schooler could see.[no gramar or spelling nazi cracks plz]
Originally posted by boo2u: well youve already gone down the rabbit hole farther than i care to yank.just call me an unbeliever.guess ill just burn in hell of whatever unbelievers do.manns hockey stick was proven wrong and published in nature.dont nit pick this fact.what is shocking is that it was acepted by so many peers with the glaring omishions of lia and mwp.omishions a grade schooler could see.[no gramar or spelling nazi cracks plz]
Notably fails to address my argument, which is not affected by any claimed ommisions of the LIA/MWP.
Indeed my argument depends on the LIA/MWP as part of the evidence that the Sun is the major initiating factor in
