New study on climate change

Didn't really expect a reply. I would also find it hard to defend such a statement as the one you made toward the author.

Hope you have a great evening too.

 

I have shown the graph of carbon dioxide being added to the atmoshere. This shows just raw measurements. This is what virtually every living organism in the world is breathing.

Each tick mark is 50 years with the right edge being the year 2000

Now take whatever length of time you think the oil and coal will last, and extend the trend for that length of time.

What do you think?

 

It's true that there have been natural CO2 fluctuations....over thousands of years, not 50 or 100. It's also an unbelivable occurance (for me) that nature decided to have a CO2 surge at the exact same time as we burn off vast amounts oil and coal that generate CO2.

Well here is the rub. Since both oil and coal is mined and sold, the exact amounts used are really, really well known. We also have an understanding of math and chemistry, so it really is no mystery as to how much CO2 has been generated by these manmade sources. As a result, the amount of CO2 generated by oil, natural gas, and coal burning is rather exactly quantified. It then leads to the following graph:



Whoa, a big mystery is seen, it's that nature is ABSORBING a LOT of the CO2 we make. This is where the real discussion actually is. Where is it going? This is a completely different discussion.

So thanks for listening and responding. You will not get unkind words from me since you listened to what I had to say. Please do think about what I have pointed out. It is all based on math and chemistry. No opinions and no speculations and no GW positions. Last thoughts?

 

No worries mate. I knew you weren't. Skepticism is good and we have at least a few people in that camp, Tim Bikes being the most notable. It's important that there continue to be debate and original thought on this issue. The important thing, for me, is that we be mindful of our risks and mitigate them appropriately. Fortunately, with fossil fuels there are a lot of risks and not all of them are climate related.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/ currently discusses some good intro books on the subject. Climatologist-wannabees would do well to read and digest at least one of them.

The immediately preceding thread at realclimate ("It's the physics, stupid") is also worth a read. It reminds us of the basic fact that added CO2 throws a blanket on the Earth, which unavoidably warms the Earth, and which all other known influences cannot undo. The uncertainties about detailed consequences of this and of the effects of other lesser forcings are window dressing and distractions in comparision.

 

one good volcanic eruption will spoil all the theories and make people wonder why they even bothered

 

Funny you should mention that. In 1988 Jim Hansen published the results of three model runs predicting warming for A: expected emissions continuation and high growth, B: moderate growth and a big volcanic eruption in 1995, and C: ending the growth in emissions in 2000. The point was to show the possible range of outcomes given reasonable variations in the forcing functions. Of course, curve A showed rather more warming than B and C. In testimony to congress in 1988, Hansen would point to curve B as the most likely case.

As it happened, Pinatubo went off in a big way in 1991. Though it went off a few years earlier than the hypothetical volcano in the model, by the end of the 90's, the actual temperatures closely matched curve B, as did the emission assumptions. Even with the modeling technology of twenty years ago (that's the part that impressed me), Hansen did a pretty good job predicting. As Yogi Berra once said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

An interesting side story is that the climate change "skeptic" Patrick Michaels used the plot in testifying before congress in 1998. The interesting part is that he erased curves B and C and showed only curve A. He then claimed that since the plot (with only the curve he picked remaining) greatly overpredicted the actual warming, that clearly Hansen and the whole climate change thing must be wrong! Incredible.

When skeptics have to lie and cheat like that, I no longer call them skeptics. Hence the quotes around that word above. I call them frauds.

I can respect skeptics, but not frauds.

 

Interesting article, madler... thanks for the link.

 

Hmm. What do you call global warming "believers" who do the same? Frauds too?

Here is a prime example of the sort of distortions promulgated by the global warming cheerleaders at RealClimate.

In this case, they attacked a recent paper (Douglass et al) that shows the failure of climate models to match observational data in the troposphere. In defense of the models, RealClimate cherry picked a single Radiosonde observational dataset that matched the models and claimed foul. What they didn't mention is that the other 10 datasets used in the Douglass paper all correlated nicely with one another (but not with the RealClimate preferred dataset) and they all demonstrated an utter failure of the models to accurately predict tropospheric temperatures.

So, RealClimate got their model-observational match using the same sort of dirty trick "ignore the other data" approach you accuse Michaels of - so hopefully you will conclude they are frauds too.

BTW - don't even get me started on all of the scientifically inaccurate distortions in "An Inconvenient Truth".

 

Of course. Frauds are frauds.

 

Glad we are in agreement. Honestly, there are plenty of folks on both sides of the argument that mis-represent. I try not to - but have on occasion. My feeling is CO2 has very likely driven measurable temperature changes over the past century but it is also not likely to be the predominant climate driver nor is it likely to drive catastrophic changes in the future. I have arrived at my current state of understanding after a LOT of reading and thought. But I also agree there are equally well-read folks who have looked at things and concluded something entirely different.

 

No doubt forthcoming papers from Douglass et al. will explain that, because the models predicting these things didn't match the observations, Arctic sea ice is not melting, atmospheric CO2 is not increasing, and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

 

I guess you must hate Al Gore then!

 

Frankly, Tim, you're the one spinning the RealClimate report here.

They don't cherry pick "one example" -- the paragraph below mentions two:

"It turns out that the radiosonde data used in this paper (version 1.2 of the RAOBCORE data) does not have the full set of adjustments. Subsequent to that dataset being put together (Haimberger, 2007), two newer versions have been developed (v1.3 and v1.4) which do a better, but still not perfect, job, and additionally have much larger amplification with height. For instance, look at version 1.4"

And that's not even the bulk of their argument. Their main criticism is with the means of calculation used by Douglass et al, a fact you fail to mention entirely.

 

I'm of the opinion that, whether or not the global climate change/warming is caused by CO2 from human activity or not, it behooves us that have, to help those that have not.
Global climate change is shaping up to be a source of conflict. There are people in "Third world" countries that are being adversely affected by drought, water shortages, loss of arable land for farming, etc. Should rising ocean levels force millions of people to relocate to those areas, what will keep all-out genocide from happening?
I think just as members of the world, we should address the issue in any way we can.
Start by conservation. Water, land, electricity, other resources.
Stop being so "consumer" minded, and start looking for ways to save resources that are finite. There's only so much drinkable (potable) water in the entire WORLD, and wasting it seems awfully selfish.
It's not beyond the realm of possibilities that, in the foreseeable future, water will have to be shipped from areas that have it, to areas that don't, so even here, in the lovely, green, Pacific Northwest, with our rain, saving fresh water is important. How much more if you live in one of the areas that has to ship water in already, via aqueducts?
It's a good adage, even if it has been around for many years:
Live simply, that others may simply Live.

 

Scott - I linked to the RealClimate article, so I'm not feeling too badly that I'm not qualified to comment on the means of calculations - but it seems pretty obvious to me that a sample of 10 observational data points (that all agree) are probably better than one data point that is an outlier - one which strangely and inexplicably, RealClimate just happens to prefer. LOL. BTW - they don't analyze v1.3 so I really can't comment on it.

And if you think the troposphere is warming, you'd better let NOAA know, because since at least 2001 it hasn't despite copious increases in atmospheric CO2. In fact, if you look closely at the troposphere from 1978 - 2006 there is really not much discernible upward trend at all, save perhaps the late '90's through early 2000's and now that trend appears to have reversed. So regardless of the Douglass paper, this represents a real problem for the climate modelers since, to my understanding, the tropospheric warming predicted by models should at least match, if not considerably exceed surface warming.

Regardless, I'll re-read the RealClimate post but frankly, the math is probably beyond me. But with a misleading analysis of the Radiosonde data, I'm not sure I can trust RealClimate's math anyway.