Global Warming

[bascule]

What you are both telling me, is that the word of those in science (NASA people, others), claim that science is/has been corrupted by political influence (GW, the THREAD TOPIC), I have no right to argue THEIR points ON your forum.....This doesn't make any sense

 

No, what I am telling you is GISTEMP is a computer program. It doesn't matter who created it. Who created it is irrelevant. All that matters are its inputs, methodology, and results.

 

Do you have any specific complaints to leverage against GISTEMP, or all your complaints about James Hansen? The latter are irrelevant, especially in a science thread.

[jackson33]

No, what I am telling you is GISTEMP is a computer program. It doesn't matter who created it. Who created it is irrelevant. All that matters are its inputs, methodology, and results. [/Quote]

 

Every program on any computer, is PROGRAMED by people. Just as your local slot machines, my favorite Texas Holdem site or Hansen's temperature calculations, they can be manipulated, to an end result, either direction to be fair. I've tried to find a argument between Hansen and an opponent to AGW, several years ago, that I believe was on NPR, where he was accused of dropping, think 1000 locations, to maintain lower readings. As if it were yesterday, I recall his face and there was no response.

 

Do you have any specific complaints to leverage against GISTEMP, or all your complaints about James Hansen? The latter are irrelevant, especially in a science thread.[/Quote]

 

I have nothing against Hansen, nor Al Gore, the highest profiled advocate FOR man caused GW, rather their opinions. Frankly, they and hundreds of others have helped their careers and pocketbook, while promoting what they might feel is an important issue. I happen to feel different...

 

jackson33, this thread is in the "Ecology and the Environment" forum, a subforum that deals with the science behind phenomena, and not about politics. [/Quote]

 

moo...I've looked back over several AGW threads, under Ecology, finding nothing different than what's found on this thread. It may be AGW, not necessarily GW, doesn't belong on a science sub forum, but the opening post, had no request for scientific data, rather questioning the conclusions of a perceived consensus opinion, man caused.

 

 

We try very hard not to moderate and argue at the same time. If you see evidence that someone is abusing their mod powers to win an argument, you should always contact an administrator such as myself.

 

You should always argue points, of course, but when it comes to matters of moderator misconduct it's best to let us deal with it. [/Quote]

 

CR; First it's my opinion, a poster has no business questioning moderation or complaining about their tactics, which I am not now doing. ON THIS thread, I was first asked for references, more than once, offered and the argument turned to this being a science issue, while posting comments FROM Scientist, many with Environmental/Climatology degrees. I asked for a review, to show I have NOT been off topic, only. In fact ss, 1st post this thread was right on target, in my opinion and could be taken, as opposing man caused;

 

post #2, this thread, ss;

There are a number of effects that come into play, including variability in the weather, which dominates the year-to-year temperature variation. One should not expect a monotonic increase that simply tracks with the CO2 levels.[/Quote]

 

Not very many people, in my world believe man is causing GW, in the first place and as an issue, in the US, it's constantly (when listed) rated last in interest. Noting the poll, offered earlier, under ECOLOGY, 70% of respondents agreed, man is causing the problem;

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26603

 

I know where I'm at....

[bascule]

Every program on any computer, is PROGRAMED by people. Just as your local slot machines, my favorite Texas Holdem site or Hansen's temperature calculations, they can be manipulated

 

Yes, but the source code to GISTEMP is available to the general public. It's not a black box.

 

What exactly do you think they're hiding?

 

And to reiterate, an independent group reimplementing GISTEMP in Python has this to say:

 

http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/

 

We have now converted all of the GISS code to Python. Naturally we have found (minor) bugs while doing this, but nothing else. We are currently “catching up” so that the code in ccc-gistemp reflects the changes that GISS have made to GISTEMP (such as using the USHCN version 2 dataset; see issue 7).

 

It is our opinion that the GISTEMP code performs substantially as documented in Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372., the GISTEMP documentation, and other papers describing updates to the procedure.

 

I've tried to find a argument between Hansen and an opponent to AGW, several years ago, that I believe was on NPR, where he was accused of dropping, think 1000 locations, to maintain lower readings.

 

Hooray for hearsay. If you actually find anything resembling a source on this allegation I will certainly take a look.

[coreview2]

Yes, well we are in a science thread, so I'm sure all would appreciate if the discussion could stick to the science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

There was cooling, and it probably was manmade.

 

And I'm sure that there are many fans who read reports made by the National Academy of Sciences, I suspect that Newsweek and Time had a larger circulation. Are you really asserting that the majority of the people got their info directly from the NAS report?

 

Read slowly for comprehension.

 

No I'm saying that the claim that the New Ice Age scare can not be dismissed as non-existent because some who prefer to cover it up and pretend it didn't exist saying it was just due to an article in Newsweek.

 

It was first rooted in new findings in paleoclimate history and then passed on to anyone who studied planetary history and found its way into popular media, scifi and even Hollywood.

 

The left was fond of the concept. Even Robert Altman made a bad movie about it. (Can you guess what that movie was without resorting to Google?)

[bascule]

No I'm saying that the claim that the New Ice Age scare can not be dismissed as non-existent because some who prefer to cover it up and pretend it didn't exist saying it was just due to an article in Newsweek.

 

It was first rooted in new findings in paleoclimate history and then passed on to anyone who studied planetary history and found its way into popular media, scifi and even Hollywood.

 

Do you really think it can be compared to modern climate science?

[jackson33]

bascule; The best I can do for you are some very complicated investigative work**, done by those that oppose AGW and/or Mr. Hansen, which is quickly building a rather poor reputation*.

 

*

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b6aebcd0-802a-23ad-4790-b64d9e2d684e

 

 

If you want the list of deleted station, scroll down to the last part, others added or deleted are in the following excerpt...

 

**

UPDATE: I’ve added a bit about GIStemp STEP2 deletions and how it will automatically add back in some “new” more southernly thermometers each year. Basically, there is a 20 year “Buffer” of thermometers (that we have seen are disproportionately added in more tropical locations) that will be added in a chunk at a time each year. To jump straight there, jump directly to the that section.

 

This is a list of all long lived stations that were deleted from the GHCN Global data set in 2008 that were in the set in 2005. I chose 2008 as the most recent full year of data and 2005 as a sample year prior to the Big Drop in 2006-2007. This is the same selected set of long lived locations discussed in: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/how-to-cook-a-temperature-history/

 

Other years might be interesting to compare too. Parts of this were done by hand, and parts were automated with Linux / Unix tools (such as the “grep” command that “finds” records based on search strings). A bit more time could produce a fully automated comparison tool, but I don’t see the need – yet…

I’ve left this data in “ragged right” format in the second listing which lets WordPress strip out blanks, but you can see the whole block of data. If done as a “pre-formatted” table, it truncates on the right given the “theme” I’m using. That list is first for easier scanning of things like the latitude and longitude numbers that follow the site name.

 

The first thing to notice is that while there are 7 deletions for elsewhere in the world, the rest of the table is all country code 425. The Thermometer Langoliers live in America… There are 806 lines of deleted thermometers, so almost 800 of them are in the good ‘ol U.S. of A.; or rather, were.

BTW, I did find 2 USA stations that showed as added in 2008. This seemed odd, since a long lived station doesn’t get added that often. Looking into it, they were an artifact of those stations having missing records in 2005 in an otherwise long series. Another interesting place to dig… why does a station ‘go away’ for a year or two… These two stations were: 425724690000 and 425727430002 for the USA. There were a couple of others for the Rest Of World that I did not investigate, but suspect a similar issue. For some reason or other, a site might be down for a year.[/Quote]

 

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/thermometer-langoliers-lunch-2005-vs-2008/

[Moontanman]

Hre is an interesting take on human induced global climate change.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html

 

Our impact on Earth's climate might be even more profound than we realise. Before we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-permanent ice age, two researchers have proposed.

[bascule]

bascule; The best I can do for you are some very complicated investigative work**, done by those that oppose AGW and/or Mr. Hansen, which is quickly building a rather poor reputation*.

 

*

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b6aebcd0-802a-23ad-4790-b64d9e2d684e

 

If you want the list of deleted station, scroll down to the last part, others added or deleted are in the following excerpt...

 

jackson33,

 

You seem to be getting your links confused. The text you quoted does not appear on the epw.senate.gov site, but instead on this blog:

 

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/thermometer-langoliers-lunch-2005-vs-2008/

 

This article discusses removal of stations from the Global Historical Climatology Network, which is not operated by James Hansen, but rather by NOAA's National Climactic Data Center.

 

Accusations of malicious inclusion of removal of stations should be leveraged against NCDC, not against James Hansen. James Hansen merely uses GISTEMP to analyze their data.

 

All that said, you still have zero evidence. The blog you linked to is pure FUD. Have you ever considered there might be legitimate reasons to add or remove stations from the network?

[coreview2]

Do you really think it can be compared to modern climate science?

 

That is just another dodge to the point made.

[toastywombel]

So, it looks as if some are beginning to stray away from the topic . So do most of us agree yet? That the vast majority of evidence supports that human activity, through burning fossil fuels, contributes to global warming?

[jackson33]

UPDATE: I’ve added a bit about GIStemp STEP2 deletions and how it will automatically add back in some “new” more southernly thermometers each year. Basically, there is a 20 year “Buffer” of thermometers (that we have seen are disproportionately added in more tropical locations) that will be added in a chunk at a time each year. To jump straight there, jump directly to the that section.[/Quote]

 

bascule; There could be nothing more explicit than the above comment, made by the investigating source, deletions, added back and a 20 year buffer.

 

 

All that said, you still have zero evidence. The blog you linked to is pure FUD. Have you ever considered there might be legitimate reasons to add or remove stations from the network? [/Quote]

 

bascule; Have you considered there MIGHT be reasons, which IS mine and others, reason to question these interpretation, analysis and follow up comments? One of which;

 

NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fears.

[ See: UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ] [/Quote]

 

If in a court room, I'd have rested my case and gone on about celebrating....

 

 

 

Moon; Thanks for your posting that article, was very interesting to me, if for no other reason, than I'd never read anything like it, angle taken....

 

For much of the 500 million years or so since complex life evolved, Earth's climate has been much hotter than it is now, with no ice at the poles. During the last of these "hothouse Earth" phases, from around 100 to 50 million years ago, the Antarctic was covered by lush forests and shallow seas submerged vast areas of America, Europe and Africa. [/Quote] From the article...

 

I realize you don't follow my post, but one thing I've tried to emphasis is the effects on plantlife, with any less than the current CO2 available. We plant quite a bit for our food and the animals used for human food. At 200/300ppm (claimed the rule up to the 20th Century, current plantlife would suffer, does OK at 385, but we know at 1000ppm or more plants would thrive.

 

From 100 to 50 MYA, estimates are that CO2 was 1000+ PPM. I don't know if they fitted 'plate tectonics' into the equation, but Antarctica may not have been at the SP and there is still no land at the NP.

 

 

toasty; On topic, all scientist are not in agreement, I'll offer you this.....

 

On May 19th 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, signed a petition that states, "... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."

 

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.[/Quote]

 

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june022008/global_warming_6-2-08.php

[bascule]

UPDATE: I’ve added a bit about GIStemp STEP2 deletions and how it will automatically add back in some “new” more southernly thermometers each year. Basically, there is a 20 year “Buffer” of thermometers (that we have seen are disproportionately added in more tropical locations) that will be added in a chunk at a time each year. To jump straight there, jump directly to the that section.

 

bascule; There could be nothing more explicit than the above comment, made by the investigating source

 

Correction: there could not be worse FUD than that comment, made by some guy, on his blog.

 

You want a more in depth reaction than that, jackson33? How about you respond to your take on Clear Climate Code's assessment of GISTEMP, considering they've reimplemented it from scratch in Python and actually duplicated its results?

 

http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/

 

We have now converted all of the GISS code to Python. Naturally we have found (minor) bugs while doing this, but nothing else. We are currently “catching up” so that the code in ccc-gistemp reflects the changes that GISS have made to GISTEMP (such as using the USHCN version 2 dataset; see issue 7).

 

It is our opinion that the GISTEMP code performs substantially as documented in Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372., the GISTEMP documentation, and other papers describing updates to the procedure.

 

You and the blog you're sourcing are crying conspiracy when someone who has actually done the requisite legwork to reimplement the program is instead saying: no, no conspiracy. It actually works quite well.

 

That's not even to mention the fact that neither of these sources are actually peer reviewed, but hey, I trust the people who can put their code where their mouth is much more than the ones who don't, even if they aren't peer reviewed.

 

And hey jackson33, it'd be really great if you could actually read my posts as opposed to completely ignoring them and posting more FUD. So far this conversation hasn't exactly been productive. I will continue to repeatedly post the same scientific sources over and over again for every unsourced blog you paste here until you actually respond to them. And frankly, shame on you for posting such horribly unsourced FUD in a science thread.

 

bascule; Have you considered there MIGHT be reasons, which IS mine and others, reason to question these interpretation, analysis and follow up comments?

 

No, I am not going to write off climate science as a giant conspiracy. Sorry.

[toastywombel]

Maybe it is a bad idea to bring this opinionated topic back up, but this is something that just came off of http://www.sciencedaily.com. This is new data too.

 

"The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record."

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm

[swansont]

data ≠ opinion

[bascule]

Maybe it is a bad idea to bring this opinionated topic back up, but this is something that just came off of http://www.sciencedaily.com. This is new data too.

 

"The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record."

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm

 

This really deserves its own thread

[jryan]

Here is an interesting development in Climate change studies:

 

Journal Nature - CO2 Sensitivity Overstated

 

If CO2 sensitivity is indeed closer to the 7.7ppm average than to the 40ppm that has been assumed for many years, that could give all sides of the climate change ruckus a rather dignified exit from the current cage match that is AGW debate.

 

If correct this would lead to a few immediate conclusions:

 

1) Most of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere in the last 150 years is demonstrably anthropogenic.

 

2) A considerable portion of the warming is also anthropogenic... but...

 

3) forecasts of runaway global climate are incorrect

 

4) The majority of the warming that humanity can cause do to CO2 production has already occurred.

 

5) Humanity's contribution to warming over the last 150 years has been equally over estimated.

 

 

What this means to the heavily entrenched, or how well this will wash out in revised climate models remains to be seen. But there is no doubt that if a low sensitivity is indeed the reality, we can all breathe a sigh of relief and start arguing about different stuff moving forward.

[bascule]

jryan, I don't have access to the full article as I'm not a Nature subscriber, however that article is about the sensitivity of the climate system to positive feedbacks occurring as part of the carbon cycle. It states that the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global carbon cycle is most likely in the lower portion of the range of previous estimates. Therefore papers which show forecasts in the upper portion of the expected range are probably wrong, and that the effects of anthropogenic CO₂ will not be as amplified by positive feedbacks as the upper estimates might suggest. This this paper may provide the basis for more refined projections, but the original estimates were still giving a range.

 

3) forecasts of runaway global climate are incorrect

 

4) The majority of the warming that humanity can cause do to CO2 production has already occurred.

 

5) Humanity's contribution to warming over the last 150 years has been equally over estimated.

 

I don't see what this paper has to do with any of these statements.

 

But hey' date=' since you're back, perhaps you'd care to opine on this thread.

[swansont]

 

I don't see what this paper has to do with any of these statements.

 

Nor do I. It's feedback. It says nothing about how much CO2 we humans can dump into the atmosphere, only about how much additional CO2 you will get as temperatures rise.

 

And it's one paper, which hasn't been critiqued yet. It doesn't automatically invalidate other calculations of the feedback parameter.

[jryan]

jryan, I don't have access to the full article as I'm not a Nature subscriber, however that article is about the sensitivity of the climate system to positive feedbacks occurring as part of the carbon cycle. It states that the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global carbon cycle is most likely in the lower portion of the range of previous estimates. Therefore papers which show forecasts in the upper portion of the expected range are probably wrong, and that the effects of anthropogenic CO₂ will not be as amplified by positive feedbacks as the upper estimates might suggest. This this paper may provide the basis for more refined projections, but the original estimates were still giving a range.

 

 

 

I don't see what this paper has to do with any of these statements.

 

But hey, since you're back, perhaps you'd care to opine on this thread.

 

It is about positive feedback. But it is that very same positive feedback that drives the current high end predictions on climate change. Without the high sensitivity of 40ppm/1C feedback -- in this case a much more modest 8ppm/1C -- there is a logical upper bounds of human contribution to climate because their is a logical upper bound of the CO2 we will produce in the next 100 years. We'd be hard pressed to double our CO2 output every 20-30 years... especially when the natural progression (absent the climate driven hysteria) has been toward cleaner and cheaper energies since the beginning of the industrial age.

 

This 40ppm sensitivity was supposed to be the upward pressure (for lack of a better term) that counterbalanced the known downward pressure of the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming. That is to say, while diminishing returns on CO2 warming bend the curve to the horizontal the increasing CO2 feedback was pushing the curve back closer to a linear relationship.

 

Edit: Also, on the "one study" and "not critiqued yet" qualifications: So peer review isn't enough anymore to discuss the implications of a study?

Edited January 29, 2010 by jryan

[swansont]

We'd be hard pressed to double our CO2 output every 20-30 years... especially when the natural progression (absent the climate driven hysteria) has been toward cleaner and cheaper energies since the beginning of the industrial age.

 

That's close to the current population doubling time, and estimates for CO2 emission growth for developing nations is quite high (>10% for China http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310155857.htm), and they will tend to use the cheapest energy — coal and oil. Doubling in 30 years only requires about a 2.5% increase per year. Absent the "climate driven hysteria," can you be more specific why the CO2 emissions wouldn't double in 30 years?

 

Edit: Also, on the "one study" and "not critiqued yet" qualifications: So peer review isn't enough anymore to discuss the implications of a study?

 

I never said that.

 

But you have to consider the body of evidence, not just one paper, especially if it is an outlier.

[jryan]

That's close to the current population doubling time, and estimates for CO2 emission growth for developing nations is quite high (>10% for China http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310155857.htm), and they will tend to use the cheapest energy — coal and oil. Doubling in 30 years only requires about a 2.5% increase per year. Absent the "climate driven hysteria," can you be more specific why the CO2 emissions wouldn't double in 30 years?

 

Because the rate of production hasn't doubled in the previous 30.

 

Furthermore, we haven't even doubled the atmospheric CO2 ONCE since the begin of industrialization. Since 1891 atmospheric CO2 has gone up 37%. Maybe we should wait for that other 63% rise before we start taking credit for other doublings yet to begin?

 

I never said that.

 

But you have to consider the body of evidence, not just one paper, especially if it is an outlier.

 

 

I think you may be looking at this wrong. the 40ppm sensitivity is not DEDUCED in a large body of evidence.. it is USED in a large body of evidence.

 

I, like you, will be awaiting the results from using this sensitivity number in current models. If it results in more accurate predictions then great. We all know that the current models could use a lot of help in their predictions (past and future). It certainly can't get much worse.

 

Also, I commented on your "critiqued" argument as I did because by definition peer review IS critique. Now you need further critique beyond peer review? This sounds more like denial than it does appropriate scientific criticism.

Edited January 29, 2010 by jryan

[swansont]

Because the rate of production hasn't doubled in the previous 30.

 

So (follow me on this), if CO2 emissions per capita have been about constant (and the graph shows they've actually increased slightly), then emissions will track with population.

 

Population in 2000 was about 6 billion. Go back 30 years - in 1970 it was about 3.5 billion. So there was a 71% increase in population (2.5/3.5), and thus about a 71% increase in CO2 emissions. Go back 40, and it has doubled. Population growth rates have been increasing that whole time, too, and in addition you have to worry about the recent ~10% uptick in the per capita CO2 emissions in just the last few years of the graph. Peer review is the scrutiny of perhaps 3 people. There's a much larger community waiting to scrutinize papers, especially when they make bold claims.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

 

 

Furthermore, we haven't even doubled the atmospheric CO2 ONCE since the begin of industrialization. Since 1891 atmospheric CO2 has gone up 37%. Maybe we should wait for that other 63% rise before we start taking credit for other doublings yet to begin?

 

 

This is CO2 concentration, not CO2 output. Apples ≠ oranges.

 

 

I think you may be looking at this wrong. the 40ppm sensitivity is not DEDUCED in a large body of evidence.. it is USED in a large body of evidence.

 

I, like you, will be awaiting the results from using this sensitivity number in current models. If it results in more accurate predictions then great. We all know that the current models could use a lot of help in their predictions (past and future). It certainly can't get much worse.

 

There are two references given for the 40 ppmv value, and these seem to be papers deducing the value from data, and make the point that a wide variety of values are used in models. One point that the second reference makes is that the feedback sensitivity should increase with the concentration of CO2, because it's harder for the environment to absorb additional CO2 as systems saturate, i.e. it implies the smaller value for the pre-industrial value in the Frank et. al paper isn't as relevant as the feedback parameter's value today, which certainly makes sense to me.

 

Also, I commented on your "critiqued" argument as I did because by definition peer review IS critique. Now you need further critique beyond peer review? This sounds more like denial than it does appropriate scientific criticism.

 

No, my previous point (historical value vs current value) is the sort of thing I would expect as a response to the paper, and certainly more detailed criticism coming from people who are actually in the field. And it's not denial, it's experience from actually having gone through this sort of thing in my own field. Presenting your findings isn't the end of the story.

[jryan]

So (follow me on this), if CO2 emissions per capita have been about constant (and the graph shows they've actually increased slightly), then emissions will track with population.

 

Population in 2000 was about 6 billion. Go back 30 years - in 1970 it was about 3.5 billion. So there was a 71% increase in population (2.5/3.5), and thus about a 71% increase in CO2 emissions. Go back 40, and it has doubled. Population growth rates have been increasing that whole time, too, and in addition you have to worry about the recent ~10% uptick in the per capita CO2 emissions in just the last few years of the graph. Peer review is the scrutiny of perhaps 3 people. There's a much larger community waiting to scrutinize papers, especially when they make bold claims.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

 

Well, that is quite a spread of predictions in that UN population graph, isn't it? And even the high UN estimate doesn't show a doubling of population in the next 40 years, much less 30.

 

This is CO2 concentration, not CO2 output. Apples ≠ oranges.

 

 

But it's the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that we are concerned with and the concentration is related to CO2 production, is it not? Not quite the apples/oranges comparison you want it to be. And it is the doubling of CO2 concentration that we speak about causing X amount of warming, not CO2 production.

 

 

 

There are two references given for the 40 ppmv value, and these seem to be papers deducing the value from data, and make the point that a wide variety of values are used in models. One point that the second reference makes is that the feedback sensitivity should increase with the concentration of CO2, because it's harder for the environment to absorb additional CO2 as systems saturate, i.e. it implies the smaller value for the pre-industrial value in the Frank et. al paper isn't as relevant as the feedback parameter's value today, which certainly makes sense to me.

 

It makes sense if the assumptions are correct.

 

It has recently been found that shelled sea life grow thicker shells when presented with more abundant carbon, increasing the expected ability for oceans to absorb CO2.

 

This also makes sense, and trends toward the findings of low sensitivity.

 

 

No, my previous point (historical value vs current value) is the sort of thing I would expect as a response to the paper, and certainly more detailed criticism coming from people who are actually in the field. And it's not denial, it's experience from actually having gone through this sort of thing in my own field. Presenting your findings isn't the end of the story.

 

The problem is that climatology draws from a lot of specializations from chemistry to biology to geology... as such, you don't need a climatologist to question a climatologist. A statistician is perfectly qualified to question a clmatologist's use of statistics, a geologist the use of geologic data, etc.

 

So I don't buy the "in the field" qualification that has attempted to stifle real critique of climatology for over a decade.

[swansont]

Well, that is quite a spread of predictions in that UN population graph, isn't it? And even the high UN estimate doesn't show a doubling of population in the next 40 years, much less 30.

 

But we are analyzing in the absence of the "climate driven hysteria," which has already limited CO2 use. You claimed that we'd be hard-pressed to double our CO2 output, and I disagree. We already see an uptick in CO2 emissions per capita; the world is moving toward the US emissions rate, which is currently ~5x higher than the world average. If we did nothing motivated by the "climate driven hysteria," I think we could easily double CO2 emissions even without a population increase.

 

Whether that would actually happen is another matter. I think the the "climate driven hysteria," is a major thing limiting the increases.

 

 

 

But it's the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that we are concerned with and the concentration is related to CO2 production, is it not? Not quite the apples/oranges comparison you want it to be. And it is the doubling of CO2 concentration that we speak about causing X amount of warming, not CO2 production.

 

I agree that concentration is important to look at. But that doesn't change your claim that I was trying to rebut, about doubling emissions. This is just shifting the goalposts.

 

 

 

The problem is that climatology draws from a lot of specializations from chemistry to biology to geology... as such, you don't need a climatologist to question a climatologist. A statistician is perfectly qualified to question a clmatologist's use of statistics, a geologist the use of geologic data, etc.

 

So I don't buy the "in the field" qualification that has attempted to stifle real critique of climatology for over a decade.

 

That's not my point at all. My point was that an expert is going to be able to critique details that I do not recognize as being worthy of critique, so there may be more objections to the paper than what I can find.

 

Any supposed point about stifling critique is a red herring as far as the current discussion goes.

[jryan]

But we are analyzing in the absence of the "climate driven hysteria," which has already limited CO2 use.

 

Where has it limited CO2 use in any meaningful way? As you saw in my link, the CO2 per capita has remained constant or risen over the last 30 years. There may be annecdotes of people buying hybrids of carbon credits, or whatever, but that hasn't been reflected in usage in any meaningful way.

 

The biggest reduction in US emissions was between 1975 and 1982, which was not an AGW driven reduction. Much of the first world have been reducing CO2 emissions even longer than that... and not as a matter of purposeful CO2 reduction but as a matter of byproduct. The UK has been trending down since before 1960, for instance.

 

In cases of real increases such as China, I would be wary of long term predictions of Chinese development.. which is another discussion entirely. But as of 2005 (by that chart) the reduction in CO2 due to hysteria or otherwise is not present... if anything there was a reduction in per capita usage for economic reasons starting with the oil embargo on the 1970s, or a general trend toward efficiency before that.

 

 

You claimed that we'd be hard-pressed to double our CO2 output, and I disagree. We already see an uptick in CO2 emissions per capita; the world is moving toward the US emissions rate, which is currently ~5x higher than the world average. If we did nothing motivated by the "climate driven hysteria," I think we could easily double CO2 emissions even without a population increase.

 

And I stand by that statement as I have shown there is little movement in per capita use in 30 years, so to double output we would therefore need to double population ... which we will not do in 20 to 30 years.

 

But if we are talking about climate we are only tangentially talking about output anyway. What we are concerned about is atmospheric concentration... which we are far from doubling even one time in 150 years.

 

Whether that would actually happen is another matter. I think the the "climate driven hysteria," is a major thing limiting the increases.

 

How can you say that with no perceivable drop in per capita usage and, as you yourself say, a slight increase?

 

 

I agree that concentration is important to look at. But that doesn't change your claim that I was trying to rebut, about doubling emissions. This is just shifting the goalposts.

 

Well sure it does. If I say that we won't double our output in 20-30 years and show little increase in per capita usage in 30 years the only way statistically to arive at your argument is a doubling of population... which even the high end IPCC predictions doesn't show happening in 20-30 years.

 

You claim that it can double is not supported by the evidence and is only possible if either per capita trends or population dramatically deviate from trends (still dramatic but slightly less so if both break the running trends and high end predictions).

 

 

That's not my point at all. My point was that an expert is going to be able to critique details that I do not recognize as being worthy of critique, so there may be more objections to the paper than what I can find.

 

Obviously this is true, but it is not the running trend in climate science to accept critiques by experts in their field where statisticians are shot down for not being climatologists when all they are critiquing are the data and statistics (ie. their specialty)... and climatologists are regularly maligned for having worked for energy or mining companies in the past rather than simply proving their claims false.

 

Such unscientific methods have created whole cottage industries dedicated to such character assassination techniques.

 

 

Any supposed point about stifling critique is a red herring as far as the current discussion goes.

 

It isn't a red herring at all. Read Richard Lindzen and others on the gatekeeping present at the IPCC (hard to downplay the importance of the IPCC in AGW study). Lindzen's critique in 2001 of the IPCC has been downplayed for years, but given the growing criticism of the IPCC product and content, as well as reading emails of IPCC consultants discussing doing the very thing Lindzen claimed years ago only bolster his claims.

 

Similarly we see current IPCC officials admitting the larger issues at the IPCC.. as well as even more historical warning signs of trouble at the IPCC from Prof. Paul Reiter.

 

As I said, it is hard to play down the importance of the IPCC in forming the public awareness on AGW. Claims of "consensus", and evidence of a calamitous future if CO2 isn't controlled, all stem from the numbers of signatories on the IPCC reports (here RealClimate writes an article claiming IPCC as primary evidence of consensus), and the claims of melting glaciers, increased mortality, rising oceans, etc. etc. contained within the IPCC-ARs and the assumption that such claims are based uniformly on sound science. This is not the case, however.

Edited February 1, 2010 by jryan