More Global Warming Skeptics

[wacki]

Wrong0, me bucko.  See the following:

......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....

That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?

Jaworowski, I think you should research him before you start quoting him.  If you start sourcing him you might as well start sourcing Fredrick "I was raped by aliens. HIV doesn't cause AIDS.  Tobacco doesn't cause cancer" Seitz. 

In a nutshell he's comparing archaic chemical measuring devices to super high tech IR spec readings.  That's like comparing a sundial (which is read by a legally blind man) to a nuclear clock  and saying they have the same accuracy. No time for a more thorough response.  I am actually writing an article on this guy right now.  It will have lots of pretty pictures to make the science super easy to understand even for a young child.  I'll be back in 8 hours. Until then I suggest you search lamberts blog for more info on this guy.

[Matthew Carberry]

Doesn't the historic temperature graph show dramatic parallel spiking when the CO2 shows spiking?  Except there at the end near 1950 where the CO2 has already started a dramatic rise at 10K BC but the temp just kind of fluctuates right around 0?

Not a trick question - What has happened since 1950 temp wise? Because unlike the previous model spikes it appears we are on at least a 10K year lag on this one.

If our current situation, the only one with really accurate and widespread temp data to work with, isn't exactly matching past models, that would seem to cast doubt on the prior models or imply that there are additional variables in play now slowing the response time that weren't there in the past.

Going on the assumption all the modeling is good, how exactly can historical causation be proven even if both graphs are correct?

Philosophically, if indeed both numbers have swung dramatically over time, with change caused to environments and species in the past, why should I particularly care that they are changing once again.  There's no "right" to stasis in life.  No right to polar bears, or stable temperate zones where once were jungles and ice sheets.  Life on this planet has adapted quite well through natural processes on this planet to previous radical shifts.

In the NYT magazine this Sunday was an article by a writer bemoaning that his children's children may not be able to enjoy the woodlands of NC where he grew up, that its "natural beauty" would be replaced by (unspoken but presumably "ugly") savannah.

Given that change occurs anyway, even if we are contributing to it this time, it remains a provincial and arrogant attitude, for both modern Westerners and the current crop of aboriginal peoples, that the exact world we happened to grow up in should remain the same for our convenience.

[mountainclmbr]

Ice core samples show evidence of warming and cooling that go back 400,000 years or so from some of the Antarctic ice cores. The current trend is in line with previous cycles. There are also ocean sediment cores that indicate the same cycles. See the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

When the cure is socialism and the GW theory and computer models were started by the socialists, it makes me want more than their computer model results before I allow them to control my life.

[Ron]

When the cure is socialism and the GW theory and computer models were started by the socialists, it makes me want more than their computer model results before I allow them to control my life.

Very succinct.

I am skeptical of consensus science.

It seems to always be in favor of more government control as the solution to whatever problem they study.

[richyoung]

Wrong0, me bucko.  See the following:

......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....

That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?

Jaworowski, I think you should research him before you start quoting him.  If you start sourcing him you might as well start sourcing Fredrick "I was raped by aliens. HIV doesn't cause AIDS.  Tobacco doesn't cause cancer" Seitz. 

..ah yes - the standard 'He sucked his thumb abd believed in Santa Claus.  On top of that he doesn't worship the false god Global Warming, so he MUST be wrong..."   Such a clear display of circular logic.  Here's a little basic physics for you:

Water can sublimate - change form from solid to gas, or an intermediate liquid state, even at pressures far below crystalization - "freezing".  In its water state it can dissolve CO2 - in fact, it's MORE likely to do so when under pressure - like under hundreds of feet of snow and ice.  IF water sublimates to a liquid AND dissolves CO2, it can then migrate and move that CO2 - eventually completely out of hte sample.  Takes thousands of years to do it, but then again, the samples are....hundreds of thousands of years old.  Or to put it another way, the supposed C)2 levels inthe ice cores are calibrated against....what, exactly?

[wacki]

Ice core samples show evidence of warming and cooling that go back 400,000 years or so from some of the Antarctic ice cores.

Try one million.

The current trend is in line with previous cycles. There are also ocean sediment cores that indicate the same cycles.

In the past million years CO2 has never gone past 280 ppm.  We are heading for 550 ppm and will likely hit 750.  And you say this is in line with previous cycles?

When the cure is socialism and the GW theory and computer models were started by the socialists

James Hansen is a socialist?  Are you aware his favorite candidate of the last election was John McCain?  How many socialists like John McCain?

[wacki]

Wrong0, me bucko.  See the following:

......
This story is a fable, says Zbigniew Jaworowski.....

That would kind of indicate that the level of CO2 can vary wildly WITHOUT human influence, nicht var?

Jaworowski, I think you should research him before you start quoting him.  If you start sourcing him you might as well start sourcing Fredrick "I was raped by aliens. HIV doesn't cause AIDS.  Tobacco doesn't cause cancer" Seitz. 

..ah yes - the standard 'He sucked his thumb abd believed in Santa Claus.  On top of that he doesn't worship the false god Global Warming, so he MUST be wrong..."   Such a clear display of circular logic.

I'm going to use pictures to help you understand.  Jaworowski thinks that measurements with this device:



Are more accurate than this device:

Siemens Ultramat nondispersive Infrared Gas Analyzer


That is like saying a sundial is more accurate than a nuclear clock.  Even worse the glass tube you see in the first picture is highly likely to take samples of not only your armpit but your breath.  A sundial doesn't suffer from these problems.  So to make the comparison even more accurate you would have to pair up a legally blind (thick glasses) man reading a sundial vs. a nuclear clock.  You really couldn't design a worse system.

Current air sampling techniques using tall towers like this one:



That are placed in the middle of the ocean to avoid any and all contamination from nearby factories or smelly armpits.  Many of the readings Jaworowski references were taken in the middle of Paris or Hamburg.  The air there is so dirty he might as well have shoved the measuring device up a cows rear end.  Now, if you can't understand how Jaworowski went seriously wrong then we have a real problem.  So I will ask you straight up to see what your intentions are.  Do you think Jaworowski is correct when he says that readings taken with the top device (glass tube) is more accurate than the bottom device?

Water can sublimate - change form from solid to gas, or an intermediate liquid state, even at pressures far below crystalization - "freezing".  In its water state it can dissolve CO2 - in fact, it's MORE likely to do so when under pressure - like under hundreds of feet of snow and ice.  IF water sublimates to a liquid AND dissolves CO2, it can then migrate and move that CO2 - eventually completely out of hte sample.  Takes thousands of years to do it, but then again, the samples are....hundreds of thousands of years old.  Or to put it another way, the supposed C)2 levels inthe ice cores are calibrated against....what, exactly?

If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores.  The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.

[wacki]

Philosophically, if indeed both numbers have swung dramatically over time, with change caused to environments and species in the past, why should I particularly care that they are changing once again[?]

Cuz a 5 degree swing in the negative means the US is covered in a mile high glacier.  A 5 degree swing in the opposite direction means an entirely different set of problems.  The swings are caused by something called DO events.  DO events are understood and they have stopped.  Explaining why they have stopped is complicated and difficult to explain without using video.  There are plenty of writups at realclimate.org on this topic.  Your question is a good one it just requires more than a few paragraphs to explain.   I might do a writeup on this but as of right now I'm tired from a long day at work.

[wacki]

Trying to keep everything in one thread:

Richyoung insists it's the sun:

Richyoung, please tell me if these two graphs line up:





One is the sun, one is the temp.  Lots more reading here:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html

If you have proof that it is the sun I suggest you show it.

[mountainclmbr]

The solar cause is hypothesized to be due to variations in solar wind, not variations in irradiance. The solar wind is thought to prevent high-energy cosmic particles from impacting the upper atmosphere and creating charged gas molecules that enhance ice particle formation. The theory is that a high-level layer of ice particles form a cloud that reflects sunlight and causees cooling. Active sunspot activity causes greater solar wind and less sunlight is reflected. We are at a very high level of sunspot activity right now. During the little ice age there were few observed sunspots.

There is a similar coincidence of 62 million year mass extinctions on Earth. These mass extinctions coincide with the cycle of the Earth's path in the spiral bands of our galaxy, the Milky Way. The Earth not only rotates in the spiral bands, but has a 62 million year cycle from side to side in the spiral band. The Milky Way is travelling in space in a flat manner, not edge-on. The Earth's mass extinctions coincide with the timing of the Earth being on the face of the spiral band that would be impacting debris head-on such as gas molecules. This could, if the hypothesis is correct, cause intense ice ages. The extinction of the dinosaurs is still believed to be the result of an asteriod collision.

[wacki]

The solar cause is hypothesized to be due to variations in solar wind, not variations in irradiance. The solar wind is thought to prevent high-energy cosmic particles from impacting the upper atmosphere and creating charged gas molecules that enhance ice particle formation. The theory is that a high-level layer of ice particles form a cloud that reflects sunlight and causees cooling. Active sunspot activity causes greater solar wind and less sunlight is reflected.

Different theory, same graph....


Nothing changes.  There is a cosmic ray graph on the logicalscience page too.  If you give me the name of the researcher (even better the actual paper) that's making this argument I can better address this issue. In fact, please do post a name.

[richyoung]

If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores.  The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.

Not MY theory - a scientist - one good enough to be chairman of the United nations Science committee.  And tube or cool nuclear thing, NEITHER of them is going to detect CO2 that is NO LONGER THERE - which is the point that you failed to grasp.

[richyoung]

Trying to keep everything in one thread:

Richyoung insists it's the sun:

Richyoung, please tell me if these two graphs line up:





One is the sun, one is the temp.  Lots more reading here:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html

If you have proof that it is the sun I suggest you show it.

Asnoted in the other thread, if you go back further on your graph than 78, its a WHOLE NUTHER STORY.....

[mountainclmbr]

Here is a site that summarizes some of the solar variability arguement:

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

The links under the graphs contain references to peer reviewed articles. Note that Mann's famous hockey stick graph does not show the Midevil Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. I am not arguing that climate cannot change. The glacial periods and interglacial periods show that the climate can change without human causes. Finding alternate sources of energy is something I think we should be worried about, but that does not require socialism as a cure.

The things that make me skeptical:

When the socialists declare the debate is over.
When the socialists declare that there is concensus.
I am skeptical of anything Al Gore says.
I am skeptical of anything the corrupt UN says.

Things that make me go 

When the left claims that questioning them and their motives is political, put if they are peddling socialism it is not political.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

actually if you lok at wacki's graph there is a correlation
 not exact  but the trends follow if you look at the different scale to the years
1990 solar starts down so does temp  95 or so they both start up.  was it meant as capitulation?

[Iain]

Here's the thing that strikes me as utterly bizarre. Almost any other subject I can think of, if someone is proclaiming their superior knowledge when it runs against that which is received and understood (i.e established authorities), without any basis or relevant expertise they are cranks. Yet on climate change, every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert as long as he has one or two 'experts' he can cite.

Google searching for points against climate change requires actually ignoring large amounts of rebuttals or contrary established scientific sources. Huge amounts. To reject climate change actually requires rejecting huge amounts of scientific literature. I'd posit that if anyone on this board were to actually really understand this literature, fully and completely, to be a climatological expert - they'd have 'won' this debate already. Whether you are right or wrong, if you are actually a full-on expert it's easy to blind with science. Start throwing terms like albedo out there and it's not long before most have to use a dictionary to even know what is being said.

Instead what we have is assertions and in some cases mockery. People have very rigid opinions about subjects about which they cannot actually contribute to discussion except to mock (I'm not just referring to this thread). Others seem convinced that one or two paragraphs is the end of the matter. Others think that they can continue to cite stuff from a very limited number of sources because they are the only valid authority based on something - well what exactly?.

None of that really works. If you look back through this discussion I've tried to take that position - I want to know just who you are to hold the opinions that you do.

And before you fly off the handle about that question think about the guy who turns up on THR to lecture about the combat ineffectiveness of round X (and perhaps the superiority of round Y) and yet hasn't seen the inside of a military camp nor seems to know the slightest thing about ballistics. Furthermore he continues to cite the same few people who agree with him regardless of their actual authority.

Some of the people that are cited here have a certain authority and that is not to be taken lightly. But to continue to insist that they are the only valid sources and to ignore and dismiss all others when you yourself have no expertise with which to judge the validity of what they are saying is to risk being a crank. Especially if you think this is some giant conspiracy as many seem to do.

Again, the sceptical position is to hold your hands up and say 'I don't know'. Because I don't know, there are plenty of things I accept that I don't really know much about, same for pretty much everyone alive. And the sceptic does not claim to know the answer when the answer is not absolutely abundantly clear. Nor does he mock or attempt to belittle. He tries to understand and does not pick sides when he lacks the expertise,  he especially does not adopt fringe positions without serious justification.

Here endeth the sermon.

[wacki]

If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores.  The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.

Not MY theory - a scientist - one good enough to be chairman of the United nations Science committee.

Almost nobody has better credentials than Fredrick Seitz.  He was the president of the NAS for crying out loud.  It doesn't get much better than that.  Yet he claims HIV doesn't cause aids, tobacco doesn't cause cancer, he was abducted by aliens, etc.  In 1989, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."

I've learned a long time ago that with millions of scientists, countless mental diseases, old age, political ideology, and tens of millions of industry bribe money (especially in climate change) that calls to authority mean little or nothing.  Seitz is the perfect example.

And tube or cool nuclear thing, NEITHER of them is going to detect CO2 that is NO LONGER THERE - which is the point that you failed to grasp.

Well, sometime within the next 48 hours I hope to post a link that will hopefully make this argument (and Jaworowski) seem silly.  If you really believe your argument then you should supply empirical evidence that supports your claims. (note: this isn't the first time I've asked for evidence from you... and failed to receive said evidence)  Otherwise you are just pontificating.

[wacki]

actually if you lok at wacki's graph there is a correlation
 not exact  but the trends follow if you look at the different scale to the years
1990 solar starts down so does temp  95 or so they both start up.  was it meant as capitulation?

Solar irradiance is the same in 1986, 1996 and 2006.  Yet temperature wise each subsequent year is hotter than the next.  And you think that is a capitulation?

Solar irradiance on the graph is lowest in 2006 yet that happens to be the hottest year on that graph.  And you think this is capitulating?

I must say I am truly baffled.

[wacki]

Asnoted in the other thread, if you go back further on your graph than 78, its a WHOLE NUTHER STORY.....

The graph I showed is the entire record from the PMOD (Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium) database.  The source is linked to on logicalscience.  A link to the Max Plank reconstructions (not direct measurements) is also linked to on the webpage I posted.  I'll be happy to discuss those later.  Whatever you are trying to get at, I fail to see your point.  Late for a shooting session with friends....

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you like that logical science site?

[richyoung]

Here's the thing that strikes me as utterly bizarre. Almost any other subject I can think of, if someone is proclaiming their superior knowledge when it runs against that which is received and understood (i.e established authorities), without any basis or relevant expertise they are cranks. Yet on climate change, every Tom, Dick and Harry is an expert as long as he has one or two 'experts' he can cite.

I do modeling and simulations for a living.  The entire basis for "Global Warming" are climate...   models and simulations.  Models and simulations that * DON'T * model water vapor accurately, (and since that is over 90% of the greenhouse effect on earth, thats a problem....), * DON'T * model phytoplankton behavior except as a gross simplification, (and since thats the largest biomass on Earth, and the biggest converter of CO2 into oxygen, and one of the 7 major carbon sinks in Earth's carbon economy, that's a problem....), when run backwards * DON'T * match the historical record...  well, lets just put it this way - when MY simulations show trucks killing tanks with .50 calibur fire, I don;t go running to Washinton telling them we need to replace our M1 Abrahms tanks with trucks with .50 calibure guns....  I go to work helping find out what's screwed up in the database.  Garbage in, garbage out - and Global Warming is garbage.

Google searching for points against climate change requires actually ignoring large amounts of rebuttals or contrary established scientific sources. Huge amounts. To reject climate change actually requires rejecting huge amounts of scientific literature.

No body rejects climate change.  Climate is constantly changing - has since before Man occupied this dirtball, will long after he is gone.  There is LEGITIMATE disagreement as to the DEGREE of the change, the HARMFULNESS of the change, and the extent, if any, that man's activities are causing the change.  BTW, science isn't democracry - its no tthe number of people that agree with you that matters - its the consistant repeatability of testable hypothesis that matter.  THAT is the exact opposite of the "it's settled science, anyone who disagrees should be thrown out" attitude that the true believers are displaying.  In science - NOTHING is ever "settled", and EVERYTHING is to be tested and questioned.  In high school, they didn't just TELL us the acceleration of gravity, they MADE US VERIFY IT experimentally.

Some of the people that are cited here have a certain authority and that is not to be taken lightly. But to continue to insist that they are the only valid sources and to ignore and dismiss all others when you yourself have no expertise with which to judge the validity of what they are saying is to risk being a crank. Especially if you think this is some giant conspiracy as many seem to do.

When you want ME to compromise my nation's (and mine as well) economy and standard of living, you darn well better come up with major, uncontestable, so-simple-even-a-child-can-understand, irrefutable PROOF of why - anthropogenic global warming claims to have done that - in my sight it has not.  The ONLY semi-accurate way to take the Earth's temperature as a WHOLE is via satellite IR observations - 25 years of data is NOT ENOUGH to trend a phenomenon like climate.

[richyoung]

If your theory is correct then there would be irregularities in the ice cores.  The EPICA ice cores and the Vostok ice cores show no irregularity.

Not MY theory - a scientist - one good enough to be chairman of the United nations Science committee.

Almost nobody has better credentials than Fredrick Seitz.  He was the president of the NAS for crying out loud.  It doesn't get much better than that.  Yet he claims HIV doesn't cause aids, tobacco doesn't cause cancer, he was abducted by aliens, etc.  In 1989, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."

I'm not quoting Seitz.  Relevance to thsi discussion?

I've learned a long time ago that with millions of scientists, countless mental diseases, old age, political ideology, and tens of millions of industry bribe money (especially in climate change) that calls to authority mean little or nothing. 

...and yet that is EXACTLY what YOU do - over and over - except on YOUR side, its "government and international organization" "bribe money".  If I ran a company that was under seige by this Global Warming nonsense, you bet your tailbone I would be paying for research into the truth of the subject - of course, to you, that's "bribe money"...

Well, sometime within the next 48 hours I hope to post a link that will hopefully make this argument (and Jaworowski) seem silly.

Bring it.

If you really believe your argument then you should supply empirical evidence that supports your claims. (note: this isn't the first time I've asked for evidence from you... and failed to receive said evidence)

 


Jaws has the evidence - all you do over and over is attack any cited authority or source (*and on a personal, ugly level, mind you) that doesn't happen to toe your party line, and frankly, its old.

]

[richyoung]

...about the "thinning ice sheets":

The pattern of temperature climate change recorded in the Vostok ice core supports the orbital theory of ice ages, in which the timing of glaciation cycles is attributed to the periodicity of changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (eccentricity), the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity) and the timing of its closest approach to the Sun (precession). The astronomical effect is evident in the Vostok record, with a strong eccentric signal, noted Lorius. "The amount of energy coming to the Earth doesn't change much but the [latitudinal] distribution of the energy does, and this can affect the building or decay of northern hemisphere polar ice sheets. A decrease in solar input at high latitudes, for example, can lead to building ice sheets. This, in turn, reinforces the orbital effect, as more radiation is reflected away."

from http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html

...so much for THAT so-called GW proof....

[Iain]

PROOF of why - anthropogenic global warming claims to have done that - in my sight it has not.

And that's what the crux of this disagreement comes down to. Your expertise is what? Your justification for your opinions (when they run contrary to understood and received science) is what?

Saying 'Lindzen agrees with me' is not good enough. Lindzen might be absolutely right and thus you might be absolutely right - but you have given no justification as to why you (and thus Lindzen et al) should be believed and the (massive preponderance, and that's not controversial) of contrary evidence dismissed.

The Russell quote had a big impact on my online postings, but so did this:

People who know nothing about a topic, especially a very technical one that requires specific training, knowledge, and experience, are not due an opinion about that topic and are better served by being quiet when it is asked about or discussed. For example, when brain surgery, or string theory, or the NFL draft, or women's dress sizes, or white wine is being discussed, I remain quiet... But seldom is this the case when orthopedic surgeons, athletic trainers, physical therapists, or nurses are asked about full squats.

Mark Rippetoe.

The matter isn't closed, but he is saying that even if you have some apparently relevant expertise you're still not in any position to go beyond the bounds of your expertise or express strong opinions beyond your own ability to back them up. I'd probably not have phrased it quite like that, discuss is one thing, strong opinions are quite another.

The Rippetoe quote, or this position, would not be a controversial one on almost other subject (like brain surgery, or string theory) Just global warming. And that's what really fascinates me.

[mountainclmbr]

Does this mean that my discretionary spending now has to be allocated to Carbon Offset Credits and a global tax on energy?