Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It won't have a significant effect on predicted global warming. The rest of the model may see some change, but not the global warming section

About 10 years ago, the fraction of sunlight absorbed by clouds was measured for the first time. It turned out to be 6 times greater than the models had assumed. Do you remember any big change in predicted global warming as a result? That's because there was none.

The 1996 edition of the HITRAN database of atmospheric absorption parameters had a clerical error. It had the effect of changing the infrared absorbed by water vapor by the same amount of energy that a doubling of CO2 would. Since HITRAN is the foundation of the infrared calculations in all the models, you might expect such a massive error to throw the models into chaos. You remember anything about this? 1996 or 1997? That's because even so massive an error had no great effect.

In fact, the climate sensitivity (warming per doubling of CO2) has been estimated to be in the range 1.5C to 4.5C since about 1980. The models of 1980 are admitted to be pathetic by 2007 standards, yet despite all the huge improvements, the estimated range of climate sensitivity never changes.

It bothers me when the output of a model is not significantly affected by the inputs to the model. It's supposed to be "Garbage In/Garbage Out," not "Anything In/Same Old Garbage Out." Apparently things are different in climatology.

Posted by Bob Hawkins at May 5, 2007 05:03 PM

Fundamental science like this explains my severe cynicism about the "scientific consensus" (a contradiction in worldviews if there were ever one) on The Coming Ice Age (TM), er, Global Warming (TM), er, Global Climate Change (TM).

The propaganda campaign for After Kyoto (TM) has started. Pew's astroturfing that led to McCain-Feingold is a useful example. Big Business, Big Government, and Big NGO (the three pillars of Mussolini's Fascism, BTW) are combining to:

-- Raise taxes
-- Raise prices
-- Transfer money to the despots of the world, and to their toadies.

Why anyone who supports liberty would want that is beyond me.

I prefer the Bush Administration's approach -- state to state cooperation on energy technology development and the modes of technology transfer.

I am very much in favor of alternatives to CO2 emitting energy processes. Check out:

www.greencarcongress.com and
www.physorg.com

for examples of the blazing fast developments on mobility-related technology.

I am NOT in favor of a top-down, big government process that locks in financial advantages to particular interest groups. That is antithetical to economic liberty, and therefore to political liberty.

Would any of you administration "critics" care to offer constructive criticism of the Administration's approach to CO2 emissions controls?

I would really prefer something besides the "Not enough, too slow, Big Oil, corrupt, Chimpy McHitler" that self-described "liberals" post here.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 05:08 PM

As Bob describes above, modern climate models have so many quasi-empirical fudge factors they might as well be epicycles. It would be embarrassing if most climatologists had the honesty to be embarrassed by anything these days.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at May 6, 2007 02:26 AM

Ah the old ice age myth again. MG: Why would you reduce CO2 emissions if the whole AGW thing is just a hoax? I'm not sure I would.

Bob Hawkins, what are your references on that HITRAN 1996 stuff? I found some mention on Steve McIntyre's blog in the comments but not much more. Or about the clouds emissions.

It is true though that for example IPCC has large error bars regarding clouds and aerosols. It's also that clouds can have effects both ways - in the day they cool and in the night they warm.

Maybe we should conduct measurements for 900 years and do nothing until then... oh wait, we wouldn't have perfect knowledge even then. I guess it's impossible to ever act.

Even the slightest thing grows to a huge "see, global warming is just a hoax" meme in much of the anti-science blogosphere.

Posted by mz at May 6, 2007 04:45 AM

Maybe we should conduct measurements for 900 years and do nothing until then... oh wait, we wouldn't have perfect knowledge even then. I guess it's impossible to ever act.

Maybe we should leave the strawman arguments to a group more likely to fall for them.

Even the slightest thing grows to a huge "see, global warming is just a hoax" meme in much of the anti-science blogosphere.

Fudging and estimating data is not "the slightest thing". Also, the constant cries of "crisis" and "catastrophe" and remarks like "global-warming deniers" resemble an "anti-science" attitude much more than reasonable concern about the models and their conclusions.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at May 6, 2007 05:14 AM

mz,

I remember reading articles in the 1970's about the overdue ice age, and its imminent arrival.

When you refer to an ice age myth, what do you mean?

Posted by MG at May 6, 2007 05:32 AM

MG: There were no scientific peer reviewed articles saying an imminent ice age is coming. In thousands of years, yes.

It's a completely different picture with global warming.

Posted by mz at May 6, 2007 05:50 AM

Global warming is the Dems equivelent to WMD...both phoney.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 6, 2007 09:46 AM

Here is a great article and interview about the father of climate science, Dr. Reid Bryson.

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

A particularly interesting excerpt:

*****************

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

Interesting.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 6, 2007 11:24 AM

Ah, popular myth bingo points two and three go to Dennis Ray Wingo.

In past climates CO2 has lagged behind warming because it has back then not been a primary cause but an amplifying factor. For example, earth's orbital parameters or the sun's output might have been the cause for initial warming back then.
But in the current warming, anthropogenic CO2 is an important leading cause.
This point has been debunked numerous times, yet it keeps cropping up.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

And the water vapour point, of course it forms the majority of the greenhouse effect on earth about 66 to 85 percent, but that doesn't invalidate the effect of CO2. Actually, water vapor acts as a positive feedback since warmer air can hold more water, which amplifies the effects of increased CO2.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220
So, water vapor being an important greenhouse gas doesn't make CO2 emissions insignificant, it actually makes their effects larger.

In current warming, anthropogenic CO2 increase is the very likely cause. That can be seen from multiple lines of evidence. CO2 has increased from burning of fossil fuels. That can be seen from carbon isotope ratios, and also calculated from oil and coal use. The physical mechanism where CO2 gas traps infrared radiation has been measured since the 19th century. Direct good CO2 measurements have been done for about 50 years.
The upper atmosphere is getting colder, which wouldn't happen if the cause was solar forcing (Solar radiation can be measured directly with satellites too, and it hasn't changed much to explain the changes we see).

It's sad that most of the criticism of mainstream climate change science is so nonserious. Maybe someone could call it climate derangement syndrome. Wink, wink.

Relating to Rand's linking to the bizarre evolution seminar and what would it mean politically if it would be accepted, this is sadly related how people try to find any weasel way around the basic climate science, just for political purposes.

It doesn't help, you should accept the science or criticize it properly and not by repeating the same arguments again and again that have been proved wrong countless times.
If you have some political viewpoints, they then should come after the science input.

Dispose of your "it's a leftist conspiracy" thoughts. (To your information, I'm not a leftist.) Examine the scientific evidence. Don't listen too much political talk about it.

Posted by mz at May 6, 2007 12:38 PM

Yawn

Sorry but realclimate.org does not an authority make.

Where is the physics? How about showing the blackbody curves vs radiation for CO2?

Hmmmm?

Why has their not been one peer reviewed paper on this by IPCC scientists (yes how about you posting some of them) that shows the exact radiative transport mechanism on CO2 vs absorption wavelength. (hint wavelength broadening has not been shown to be the case in actual experiments).

Lets see what you got.

How about listening to ALL of the points of view by scientists, including one as emmient as Dr. Bryson who by the way is the father of the whole darn subject of global warming.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 6, 2007 03:14 PM

I've had a good look at the scientific evidence, such as it is.
Ice cores have lots of problems that are simply glossed over, arbitrary "age of trapped air" assumptions are made with zero physical evidence for them, direct measurements of CO2 levels before about 1960 are cherry picked or simply ignored to reinforce the cherished hypothesis and the instrumental record is examined to try to mine 0.1 deg C changes out of instruments only designed to show changes of the order of 1 deg C.

Recent instrumental records require corrections as large as the supposedly measured effects or nearly so resulting in enormous error bars.

Increased water vapor will result in more low level cloudiness largely due to convective cloud formation which reflects incoming sunlight during the day. These convective clouds tend to go away at night as the lack of solar heating stops the convection.(This from direct observation - I've seen a sailplane pilot for 40 years) These clouds are much smaller than the finest grids used in the GCMs.

Add in the bogus and wrong use of statistical methods(Wegman Report), lack of disclosure of raw data(Jones)(makes it difficult to find exactly how the UHI effect was compensated for), "scientists" who take 3 time constants do an arithmetical average of the times to find the overall T.C.(hint - the processes are in parallel)and what are you left with? Some evidence that the globe is warming based on some retreating glaciers? Which when the ice melts show signs of previous human occupation? A bunch of snake oil salesmen shilling for their (otherwise uneconomic)alternative energy companies or carbon trading?

Give us a break. Not much science here.

Mike

Posted by Mike Borgelt at May 6, 2007 03:19 PM

Sorry that should be "been a sailplane pilot for 40 years". Also professional meteorologist and atmospheric researcher. Didn't much like it. Can't do anything about it. Engineering and manufacturing is much more fun.

Mike

Posted by Mike Borgelt at May 6, 2007 03:24 PM

Well, it looks like the next French President has stated that climate change is his #1 international issue. At least he will leave Iraq alone ;-)

I'm not completely sold on this AGW stuff either but how is it that European conservatives have been so completely taken in by the "fake" data? How to explain this?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 6, 2007 04:19 PM

Can't speak for France, but AGW ideas have a LOT of traction in the UK. Part of the reason, I think, is that anecdotal experience matches the claims of AGW proponents. When people can SEE for themselves that the local weather has gotten significantly and consistently warmer over the last 20 years, they're that much more likely to listen to claims that the warming is unprecedented and potentially dangerous.

The Central England Temperature (CET) record, the longest instrumental record of temperature anywhere in the world, shows an increase of 1 to 1.5C since about 1980.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

Oh, and the last bar on the graph, for April 2007, the one that goes right way off the top of the scale? Yes, it was that hot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6598953.stm

Posted by Stellvia at May 6, 2007 04:59 PM

A great article from DerSpiegel on the Emotionalizing of the Global Warming debate.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,480766-4,00.html

Posted by Dennis Wingo at May 6, 2007 06:17 PM

Take a look at the more complete CET with some comments on it.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CET1659-2003.gif

Neat trick to arbitrarily choose a starting date.

Note also the comment in Stellvia's link about how the record has been corrected for urban warming since 1974.

Question is: by how much? Get this wrong or bias it and you can show anything you like.

AGW is getting a lot of traction in Australia right now. The current drought is being blamed on it instead of population growth outstripping investment in water supply.

We've had severe droughts before and proxy records going back 1000 years or more show some were much worse. Not much AGW then.

I'm truly getting the feeling that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum now.

The only CO2 problem is the lack of it the bloodstream of those hyperventilating about it. Breath normally into a brown paper bag for 30 seconds or so, folks.

Mike

Posted by Mike Borgelt at May 6, 2007 07:27 PM

Please note the last statment in the article:
"Current estimates of the effect of aerosols on global temperatures, which is primarily cooling, may be too small because the large contribution from this transition zone has been overlooked," Remer said. "If aerosols are offsetting warming more than we thought, it's possible that warming could increase more than expected in the future if aerosols continue to decline, as has been reported recently."

Bob: Remember, the effect of water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.

Posted by Duncan Young at May 6, 2007 07:54 PM

Remember, the effect of water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.

People keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. In the models created so far, water vapor has been used as feedback instead of forcing, while CO2 has been used as forcing rather than feedback. In reality, both are feedback (as in, God is not twiddling the CO2 dial to set the temperature). In the end, the only forcing that exists is the sun!

So what does it mean that people say CO2 if a forcing element? It is political. They are saying "it is easier to change the CO2 level rather than the water level." A guess, similar to saying hydrogen is the only good upper stage fuel.

Perhaps the solution to a global warming scenario would be to put tarp across the ocean, and eliminate 90% of the water in the air? Maybe there is a realistic alternative, who knows? And we will never know as long as the mantra is "CO2 is forcer, H2O is follower".

Really, who comes up with this stuff?

Posted by David Summers at May 7, 2007 12:40 AM

Anyway, here's a serious question for the lefties: I have a method of eliminating all the excess CO2. It is extremely affordable, and is far cheaper than carbon credits are currently selling for. (I really do have this, by the way - I have entered the Virgin Earth challenge with it, and therefore can't disclose my method yet). But there is a catch...

So what would you be willing to give up of your ideals? You want me to give up my money/resources, are you willing to sacrifice one environment to save another? What if my solution required the elimination of all life in the Australian outback - including wiping out a small number of entire species? Is averting Global Warming worth that, or are you just trying to get power and gain?

This is a serious question, and one the world will have to face soon - because the solution to Global Warming would appear to be Global Engineering rather than artificial limitaitons.

Posted by Not yet divulged at May 7, 2007 12:47 AM

Thx for the junkscience link, I shall file it for future reference. The Met Office/Hadley Centre graph starts at 1772, and the central of the three minima of the Little Ice Age was... 1770. Hmm, anyone for a game of hockey?

The (unspecified) UHI correction to the CET post-1974 was also on my list of "things that make you go 'hmmmm'". It needs to be presented transparently _on the same graph_. I'd be surprised if the real rate of change in UHI was that large, though. The UK has a mature economy and reasonably stable population. Urban areas are growing, but not that fast. This isn't China :)

Kids need to be taught about critical thinking, and the influence of cherrypicking data and confirmation bias. Instead, they get a free copy of Inconvenient Truth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6625955.stm

Posted by Stellvia at May 7, 2007 05:36 AM

"Global warming is the Dems equivelent to WMD...both phoney."

Hmm, I guess the Kurds and Iranians must've imagined being gassed.

And those reports about finding several hundred mustard gas shells in Iraq were faked.

Posted by Rick C at May 7, 2007 06:51 AM

Perhaps we should make a new movie...An Overly Convenient Story (Lie)

Posted by Mac at May 7, 2007 07:31 AM

So what does it mean that people say CO2 if a forcing element? It is political.

No, it means that the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a output of the model, not an input. CO2, on the other hand, is input to the climate models, and (in the running of the model) does not change.

The reason for the difference is that there are huge pools of liquid water on the surface of the Earth, and exchanges of water with these pools causes perturbations in atmospheric water content decay away on a time scale of weeks. This is why water vapor from hydrocarbon combustion is not terribly important (at least, in the troposphere).

Perturbations in atmospheric CO2 take orders of magnitude longer to decay away; the current fossil fuel CO2 pulse will, absent deliberate efforts to remove it from the atmosphere, still be having its effect a thousand years in the future.

There are longer term feedbacks (release of CO2 from biomass or oxidation of methane from clathrates, say, or alterations in ocean circulation or the oceanic 'carbon pump' that could alter how CO2 is released from the oceans) but the modelers are up front about not including these. These effects could make CO2 levels rise even more, as skeptics who point out that CO2 started rising after the beginning of the end of the last ice age should know.

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 7, 2007 09:14 AM

Dennis Wingo:
I'm not very knowledgeable on the radiative physics part, I thought that wasn't even denied by anyone serious, it was the feedbacks that were doubted, so it's new to me.

Anyway, the "30 feet" claim, it's my hunch that since the air is warmer near ground, there's more water vapor (absolute humidity) there too. So thus water vapor has a much more significant absorbing effect there than at higher altitudes. It doesn't invalidate the point that CO2 can still have a big effect, even if it would be responsible for only the "20%" or some such.

It also seems dr Bryson says proxy data is useless and prefers to only read old Viking logbooks which tell about local conditions.

I must say, his points are much better than repeating old debunked myths though.

Also, I didn't exactly understand your points about radiative transfer, do you mean that the absorbtion or emissions of CO2 at different wavelengths and circumstances is badly demonstrated? Is the HITRAN database wrong?

There's been some talk about the CO2 absorbtion band saturation, is this what you are referring to?

David Summers:
Uh, humans release the majority of the CO2, while the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is very closely related to the temperature. What is so unclear about this? They are very different because of this. If you have a nuke plant that evaporates some water, it will have much less effect than CO2.
Water vapor also quickly rains out of the atmosphere if the temperature is lowered by some forcing (like the Pinatubo eruption), while CO2 stays there much longer.

Hence CO2 is (mostly) a forcing and water vapor is a feedback. It's true though that for example when oceans warm, they can take less CO2 and even perhaps release it, so then it acts like a feedback too. Which actually is an alarming fact.

Mike Borgelt:
"Increased water vapor will result in more low level cloudiness largely due to convective cloud formation which reflects incoming sunlight during the day. These convective clouds tend to go away at night as the lack of solar heating stops the convection.(This from direct observation - I've seen a sailplane pilot for 40 years) These clouds are much smaller than the finest grids used in the GCMs."

I'm no meteorologist or even a sailplane pilot, but what if, when warming, the _relative_ humidity stays the same, I'd think then the formation of clouds would be roughly similar. Still _absolute_ humidity would rise, because warmer air can hold more H2O without it becoming clouds. Or then I didn't understand some part of your explanation, but it seems it would only apply if relative humidity rose (which I didn't talk about in the first place).

Posted by mz at May 7, 2007 09:23 AM

"humans release the majority of the CO2"

Oh really?

Let's perform a small experiment. Take two bottles of Coca-Cola (any carbonated beverage will do). Put one in the refrigerator. Put the other one in direct sunlight, or heat it in some other way.

Now, open both bottles. Both bottles should have started out with the same amount of dissolved CO2. Which bottle releases more CO2 into the atmosphere?

The oceans are the largest CO2 sink on earth, by far. When the climate is cooler, the capacity of the oceans to dissolve CO2 is much higher, and when the climate is warmer the oceans can hold less CO2 and thus release that gas into the atmosphere. Of course it takes much longer to change the temperature of the oceans than it does to change the temperature of the atmosphere, due to the higher specific heat capacity of water relative to air.

This is why atmospheric CO2 levels follow climate changes rather than leading them. In other words, changes in CO2 are a _result_ of climate change, not a _driver_.

The Cola experiment is a very simple experiment that anyone can perform, and indeed we all have likely performed it inadvertently many times in our lives. Now, what was that about debunking...?

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 7, 2007 10:16 AM

Ed Minchau, you didn't even read through the previous post, did you?

Posted by mz at May 7, 2007 10:22 AM

Way to go Ed. Isn't there a newer theory (or at least more talked about and published lately) that our sun is in the midst of a cycle that will generate a higher climate temp? Or did I read that here in another thread?

Posted by Mac at May 7, 2007 10:25 AM

I can't believe the level of misunderstanding here!?
Ed makes an obvious statement about CO2 solubility and also past climates and thinks he's somehow "debunked" me? Are you joking?

Once more, for people who haven't read the comments.

In the current climate change, people are putting in CO2 to the atmosphere that warms it (well, it actually makes the upper atmosphere cold). Various feedbacks like water vapor make this warming worse.

In the past (paleoclimate), this has not happened, because there have not been humans burning huge amounts of fossil fuel at once. The past climate changes then have been for different reasons. CO2 has amplified them with some lag. So CO2 has then been a feedback.
The lag for water vapor is much shorter of course.

The two things are not in disagreement in any way. Here's a graph on CO2 solubility in water with function of temperature.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images2/174solublegas.gif

Posted by mz at May 7, 2007 10:43 AM

"humans release the majority of the CO2"

Oh really?

Yes, really. It is easily seen from stable carbon isotope systematics that the ongoing CO2 increase in the atmosphere cannot be due to evolution of CO2 from the ocean (due to temperature effects or otherwise). The 13C/12C ratio in the ocean is higher than that in the atmosphere, and the ratio in the atmosphere has been declining as CO2 levels have increased. Ditto for CO2 from volcanoes, which release about 1% of the current anthropogenic input.

Biomass and fossil fuels, however, have lower 13C/12C ratios, so addition of carbon from those sources is consistent with this evidence. Moreover, the quantity of CO2 being released by fossil fuel combustion can be well-estimated (governments keep track of fuel consumption, for reasons including that they tax it), and it exceeds the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, and has done so since 1900. Were it not for fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric CO2 would begin to immediately trend downwards as sinks soaked it up.

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 7, 2007 10:55 AM

You're right MZ, I didn't read your whole post. I stopped right at the point where you made the totally ludicrous, stupid statement that human beings release the MAJORITY of CO2 into the atmosphere. As far as my "dubunking" remark, that refers back to this:

"you should accept the science or criticize it properly and not by repeating the same arguments again and again that have been proved wrong countless times."

Of course saying that an argument has been proven wrong, and actually proving it wrong, are two very different things. What I have seen of the climate-change debate is that the AGW side merely *claims* to have debunked arguments. So I suggested an easy experiment - you know, that sciencey stuff - as an example of why the claims that "arguments ... that have been proved [sic]wrong countless times" have in fact not even been addressed at all.

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 7, 2007 12:46 PM

stupid statement that human beings release the MAJORITY of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Yes, humans didn't do this, since CO2 levels have only increased about 40% from pre-industrial levels.

Humans activities, however, ARE responsible for most of the increase from this base level, and are responsible for the continuing increase. This is also clearly what MZ meant, and is the policy-relevant issue.

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 7, 2007 01:20 PM

Humans activities ... ARE responsible ... is the policy-relevant issue

Um, no it isn't. Personally, I don't care if global warming is being caused by alien technology gone bad - I only care about two things: 1) is it happening (probably yes), 2) Does it matter (still iffy), and 3) what can we do about it.

Note that what is causing it has no bearing on the solution. That's why calling CO2 a "forcer" and H2O a "feedback" is bad science. If you want to solve the problem, prove that it is worth solving by offering incentives (those have started), and then examining solutions. Not state that the only possible solution is stopping the industrial revolution!

What if we were to change the vapor pressure of water in the atmosphere instead? What if we find an easy way to remove the CO2? What about installing large blimps around the world?

If the only thing you look at is human CO2 output, you will miss the much simpler solutions that are right in front of us.

Make a model, prove the model, and then work the model. Stop getting so excited about a 1 degree change!

Posted by David Summers at May 7, 2007 01:40 PM

Ed, the model of CO2 coming from warming oceans fails to explain why the PH of the oceans has become more acidic since industrialization.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 7, 2007 01:54 PM

Note that what is causing it has no bearing on the solution.

That's a manifestly absurd statement. You don't actually believe that in general, do you? The physical details of what is causing a putatively undesirable change are OBVIOUSLY relevant to determining what fixes could counteract or ameliorate the change, and in evaluating the effectiveness of various proposed solutions.

If the only thing you look at is human CO2 output, you will miss the much simpler solutions that are right in front of us.

Another manifestly absurd statement. In what way does admitting that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 cause one to be unable to consider alternative solutions?

Make a model, prove the model, and then work the model. Stop getting so excited about a 1 degree change!

Do you often ejaculate irrelevant non sequiturs into these discussions?

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 7, 2007 02:01 PM

"Let's perform a small experiment. Take two bottles of Coca-Cola (any carbonated beverage will do). Put one in the refrigerator. Put the other one in direct sunlight, or heat it in some other way."

Now let's say the refrigerated coke got busy w/ the bottle of Pepsi and had a six pack of Dr Pepper. Bet you release a lot more CO2.

Sorry....couldn't resist.

Posted by Siege at May 7, 2007 02:25 PM

Uh huh.

Ed Minchau / David Summers, if you realize you're in a hole, stop digging. I mean that as a friendly advice.
If new evidence points strongly otherwise, maybe your previous conclusions were wrong, perhaps because of lack of information, or wrong information alltogether.

The media may distort the global warming science, either way. It can make the science seem uncertain, if that's politically useful. It can exaggerate it or link it to stuff that is not caused by climate change or the link has not yet been established (probably every accident, catastrophe and peculiar on earth has been attributed to climate change in some media). But all that is just a layer that's unfortunately somewhat irrelevant in search for scientific truth or likelihood nowadays. It's sad. The media should do better.

All that doesn't change the strong scientific evidence supporting the very likely global warming and very likely human cause.

I've had some things you could call changes of mind myself on some issues, for example nuclear power. It takes some time. Information and reading about the subject helps, if you can find information that focuses on actual scientific subjects and not just propaganda (hard to find on nuclear matters btw). It also helps if you can talk to people who have big knowledge and are willing to explain things.

Paul Dietz just did explain about the isotope ratios. A sensible person would admit obvious errors.

How much of other stuff do you have, claims that you have perhaps read from the same or other sources, that seem very sensible at first look. Mainly because they omit some other, very relevant information. I can understand it perfectly well that they seem credible.
So where did you get the idea that the CO2 increase was from the oceans?

Perhaps you should stop getting your information from those sources?

Posted by mz at May 7, 2007 02:49 PM

My continued skepticism (and, in some cases, cynicism) involves:

1. The IPCC -- a political body were there ever one.

2. The stakes involved. The politics of ecology has provided the control freaks a lot of grist for their mill. The language of "climate change denier"; the political and economic benefits to Big Government (TM) and Big Business (TM); the categorization of my exhalations as "pollutions" raise the hairs on the back of my neck.

3. The "hockey stick". This prominent element of the past several years was the product of fraudulent "science", uncaught in the peer review process.

I will consider just about any point of view on this subject, but my trust in the formal processes of climate change science is broken. Consequently, I am more open to arguments about CO2 emission reductions if offered from a point of view of increasing liberty, non-governmental solutions, and solutions that don't lock-in competitive advantages to established players.

I guess I am just funny that way.

Posted by MG at May 7, 2007 03:43 PM

The IPCC -- a political body were there ever one.

Also some of the mostly intensely peer reviewed science in history. The political influence has, if anything, made the results even more restrained than the science had warranted.

The stakes involved.

The vested fossil fuel interests have much greater stakes than the scientific community. So you believe the latter instead of the former, right?

The "hockey stick". This prominent element of the past several years was the product of fraudulent "science", uncaught in the peer review process.

Wrong.

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 7, 2007 06:46 PM

Mr. Dietz,

Of more recent vintage than 2004:

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html

Please note that my argument is not with the premise of hemispheric (global?) warming (or is it "climate change" this week?). Rather, it is with Mann's concealment of methods and data in his 1999 work.

I feel somewhat reassured from the linked article, but my trust in "scientific consensus" remains non-existent.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by MG at May 7, 2007 07:28 PM

Well I am of the simple stupid logic that you don't get something for nothing. There is a price to pay for all you gain. However, the fact of the matter is that we have time to look into these issues and come to a solution that can prove to be a win/win for all those involved.

Also, there is often an optimistic way of looking at even the most dreary of subjects. If indeed we come to find that we are warming the planet substantially and work to cool it back down successfully we can reveal in the power we have attained as a species. Being able to modify the climate of a large planetary body speaks pretty well of our technological prowess. Deep space travel may not be that far off as we think, then.

Posted by Josh Reiter at May 7, 2007 11:15 PM

Karl, I was unaware that any large-scale measure of the pH of the oceans had ever been done, much less that it had been done prior to industrialization. Got any links to show me?

Posted by Ed Minchau at May 8, 2007 02:47 AM

Another great article by Der Spiegel on the subject.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at May 9, 2007 08:15 AM

Post a comment