1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8228/the-vicious-lie-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

The vicious lie behind the global warming scare

June 25, 2008 by

The environmentalist movement believes that unless immediate and drastic measures are taken to combat global warming, “disease, desolation and famine” are “inevitable” on a scale that might spell the end of life on earth, making earth “as hot as Venus.” Surely, such an apocalyptic threat demands immediate action. Given the resistance to curtailing industrial production (not to mention the economic destruction and mass death that such a curtailment would entail), environmentalists should eagerly supports experiments that attempt to compensate rather than eliminate the impact of industry on the environment.

In fact, a number of relatively simple, low-cost measures have been proposed by scientists and entrepreneurs, one of which is documented in the June 2008 issue of Popular Science (PDF). As early as 1988, oceanographers proposed seeding the oceans with iron, which would cause an algae bloom that could rapidly compensate for the entire effect of industrial civilization for far less money that it would cost to eliminate CO2 emissions. Seeding experiments by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution have demonstrated that the technique works, although further experimentation is required. A number of entrepreneurs, such as Russ George of Planktos Corp (TED video) stepped forward to carry out the required work.

How would you expect environmental groups to react to such an opportunity? If you guessed outright or even cautious optimism, you would be dead wrong. “I don’t think any quick geo-engineering fixes are going to work,” said one Greenpeace scientist. “There are only two ways that we’re going to solve climate change: reduce the amount of energy that we use and dramatically change the methods we use to generate it.” According to Scientific American, environmental groups were essentially united in the belief that “if society relies on quick techno-fixes to ameliorate global warming … people will stop putting in the hard work necessary to cut carbon emissions.”

Think about what that statement means. “Hard work” means government coercion to destroy the industrial production that feeds (sometimes barely) a rapidly growing human population. “Quick engineering fix” means a fast, cheap, technological solution that allows us to have our cake (the wealthy, healthy life that industry makes possible) and eat it too (literally, algae eating CO2). Notice that their objection is not that iron seeding won’t work, but that it eliminates the incentive to destroy industrial civilization.

As the article make clear, environmentalists are violently opposed to even exploring any measure that attempts to neutralize the “threat” of global warming rather than deal with the cause. Lies and intimidation are integral to the movement: the terrorist group Sea Shepherd, which has sunk nine ships since 1979, threatened any future seeding experiments, their PR machine used fear of nanotechnology to claim that iron ore (plain rust) is “engineered nanoparticles,” while their political branch got the Spanish government to ban seeding on the grounds that it constitutes “toxic waste” dumping.

As should be clear by now, environmentalism is not actually opposed to global warming – ending the “threat” posed by global warming is the last thing on their agenda. Their real goal is to use the global warming scare to bully the developed world into reverting into the pre-industrial, pre-civilized age. They oppose viable alternative energy sources for the same reason that they oppose viable fixes to the crises they invent – they oppose nuclear energy, hydro power, and they are organizing to oppose wind power just as it has become viable. If solar panels ever become viable, they will certainly invent reasons to oppose them too.

(Note that I am not actually advocating iron ore seeding. I am not convinced that the climate is warming as rapidly as claimed, or that CO2 is the cause, and even it is, it is likely that higher CO2 levels and a warmer climate offer tremendous benefits to both plant and animal life. If anything, we should be encouraging measures that make our world greener and more comfortable.)

{ 153 comments }

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 28, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Roger/fundamentalist

Roger/fundamentalist – “If CO2 in oceans is rising, then what is causing the increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you attribute it exclusively to man?”

Industrial process currently are pumping between 7 and 9 Gt of Co2 into the atmosphere. The oceans have been absorbing around 2 Gt but there are recent signs that is slowing down, possibly due to saturation. Not good, no matter how you look at it.

Summary: atmospheric Co2 is increasing because oceans have only been taking in 2Gt of the total industrial output.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 28, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Walt D.

Thanks for the chemistry lesson.

However, knowing a piece of data in an ocean of data does not explain the whole ocean. As I have stated before, it’s all about the context and relevance of any particular argument or piece of data. You are arguing outside of the context.

The particulates from coal plants in India do block the sun (for a short time) and the Co2 stays in the atmosphere much longer, producing warming. This is all well known. Cherry picking pieces of data out of the total data set is deceiving. Your arguments are not well founded in aggregate understanding of the climate system or the known quantitative data.

In order for your argument to have relevance, you need to take into account all major forcings, negative and positive, and then start adding the minor forcings.

My statement stands on its merits of context and relevance.

Maybe reread all the posts above again, and stop building straw men, false dichotomies and try fishing for cod or tuna instead of red herring.

Remember, well rounded education and an open mind can add up to well rounded wisdom depending on your possession of well rounded reason.

“when looking for an effect of 2% (the percentage of CO2 produced by human industrial activity). Surely, you would not be able to reject the alternative hypothesis that the change you are looking at is random.”

As posted upthread:

regarding the 2% number. It would have to be a fantasy number of some sort. The major natural greenhouse gases are C02 and Methane.

Industrial processes have added GHG’s as such

Nitrous Oxide up 18%
Co2 up 37%
Methane up 148%

That means that 15% of the Nitrous oxide is produced by man or manmade processes
27% of the Co2 is produced by man or manmade processes
and 60% of the methane is produced by man or manmade processes

Of course that is not counting the High GWP gases. and the H2o which increases due to induced global warming by virtue of the climate forcing imposed.

Walt D. August 28, 2008 at 3:53 pm

The particulates from coal plants in India do block the sun (for a short time)
No you are wrong – since the coal plants in India run everyday, the effect is continuous and ongoing.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 28, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Walt D.

Actually, you are wrong, for the same reasons stated above. It’s all about context and relevance.

The aerosol pollutants are less significant because even though they are being produced daily, the Co2 has a longer term forcing component due to longevity in the atmosphere. In this case the Co2 positive forcing outweighs the aerosol particulate pollution (negative forcing) in terms of total forcing in the climate system.

You need to add the forcing components as well as the time factors together. Then you can understand the forcing of each component over time.

fundamentalist August 28, 2008 at 7:29 pm

John: “Actually it tracks the pattern sometimes and certainly is one of the influences, but like GCR’s (Galactic Cosmic Rays) it does not correlate to the forcing levels (remember it only adds and takes away .3 W/m2. We are supposed to be at around -.1 W/m2 in the natural cycle and the current total neg/pos is 1.9 W/m2). Therefore it can not be the primary driver of the current global warming we are experiencing.”

“We live in a unique time in history, because this period has the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years, and maybe even in 8,000 years. And we know that changes in solar activity have made significant changes in climate. For instance, we had the little ice age about 300 years ago. You had very few sunspots [markings on the face of the sun that indicate heightened solar activity] between 1650 and 1715, and for example, in Sweden in 1696, it caused the harvest to go wrong. People were starving—100,000 people died—and it was very desperate times, all coinciding with this very low solar activity. The last time we had high solar activity was during the medieval warming, which was when all of the cathedrals were built in Europe. And if you go 1,000 years back, you also had high solar activity, and that was when Rome was at its height. So I think there’s good evidence that these are significant changes that are happening naturally. If we are talking about the next century, there might be a human effect on climate change on top of that, but the natural effect from solar effect will be important. This should be recognized in the models and calculations that are being used to make predictions.” Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, quoted in Discover June 2007.

The amount of forcing from solar activity is based only on the Schwabe cycle (11 yr). The Wikipedia article “Solar Variation” has some good graphs and info on all of the cycles. Scroll down the article to the image “Carbon14 with activity labels.svg.” There you can see variations in the sun’s output that are far, far greater than those in the Schwabe cycle. Notice where the Medieval Maximum is at the time of the medieval warming period, and the low point near 1700 that corresponds with the Little Ice Age.
Main stream climate research has focused too much on GHG’s and refused to look at anything else seriously. It will take them a while to catch up to the cutting-edge scientists studying solar activity.

John: “I was more interested in the data you were looking at. If you can give me their names, I can look them up and see what they are looking at.”

I was using a sample data set that came with a statistical software package. It’s the standard sun spot data set used in all statistics classes to teach FFT and spectrum analysis. I don’t know where to find it on the internet.

John: “Industrial process currently are pumping between 7 and 9 Gt of Co2 into the atmosphere. The oceans have been absorbing around 2 Gt but there are recent signs that is slowing down, possibly due to saturation.”

Something doesn’t add up. In the pre-industrial past, temp increases warmed the oceans and caused them to give up CO2. Today, we are supposedly at the peak of a warming cycle, but the oceans are still absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it? How does that happen? Historical data doesn’t show as long a lag between temp peaks and CO2 peaks as that suggests. Global temps are already cooling and have been since about a decade. As NASA has said, we’re entering period of solar dormancy that will cause temps to fall even more. If the oceans haven’t warmed enough to release CO2 yet, that suggests that temps and CO2 peaks are close to 180 degrees out of phase. That doesn’t jibe with the paleo data at all.

The Copenhagen Consensus does not disagree with the mainstream view. It accepts the consensus that AGHG’s are causing all of the warming and that the results will be serious. The panel is a group of economists, not climate scientists, who do cost/benefit analysis of a variety of problems. They still think climate change should have a very low priority. As for Denmark’s Ministry of Science and its opinion of Lomberg, I have seen similar accusations against the mainstream climate scientists. Remember the hockey stick hoax? Name calling, even by someone as prestigious as the Denmark Ministry of Science, doesn’t mean anything to me.

newson August 28, 2008 at 7:49 pm

to john reisman:

so let’s be clear: the co2 molecule from a banyan tree is a clean, natural substance. the c02 that comes from some industrial process is a pollutant. and the c02 that comes from my lungs, though manmade, is not a pollutant because not a result of some industrial product. and yet they are identical molecules.

please, no more torture of the english language.

fundamentalist August 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Speaking of Bjorn Lomberg, it’s ironic that the Denmark Ministry of Science would accuse him of 1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.

Lomberg was a rabid environmentalist until he realized that many of the scientists behind it were guilty of
1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.

fundamentalist August 28, 2008 at 9:14 pm

John: “If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it.”

I think the sun spot graph on Wikipedia does a much better job of modeling climate than any climate model in existence today, even NASA’s.

John: “The models are tracking very accurately theses days.”

And that is what is wrong with them. It’s very easy, almost trivial, to make a model fit the data. First year statistics students can do it easily. In its simplest form it’s just curve fitting, that is, creating curves that match the data. That’s why validation is so important. With validation, you divide your data set in two sections, train the model on the first and then try to predict the second set. Climate models are little more than curve fitting and worthless for predictions. TokyoTom and I had a long discussion about this months ago and he decided that the existing climate models were good enough for him. Apparently they’re good for a lot of people. But in the private world, a modeler would be fired for such simplicity and sloppiness as is exhibited by the climate models.

newson August 28, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters:

“The following is the sequence that drives climate alarmism at both international and national levels.

1.Undesirable emissions (principally carbon dioxide) are discharged into the atmosphere.
2.The emissions create the greenhouse effect.
3.The globe warms as a consequence.
4.The warming results in a number of undesirable effects, including increases in floods, droughts, desertification, and threats to our unique plant and animal species.
5.These pose threats to the habitability of our planet.

Our concern is in Step 5. The direct causes are in Step 4. Where then, should we concentrate our search for evidence? The obvious answer lies in Step 4. Therein lies the proof of the pudding.

If no evidence of adverse consequences can be found in Step 4 then the whole IPCC edifice must collapse. This investigation requires a sound knowledge of the natural, multiyear variability of these processes before changes can be attributed to human activities. This is where I concentrated my efforts during the past 30 years. Despite a diligent study I could find no such evidence.

Unexpected confirmation is in Step 3. Global warming ceased 10 years ago. The globe is now starting to cool.

The vultures are already feasting on the IPCC carcass. At present they are concentrating on Step 2 – the greenhouse effect. The IPCC scientists obviously made a serious mistake when linking increasing carbon dioxide emissions with increasing global temperatures. What is it? What is interesting, is that just as in the real world, these vultures are already squabbling over several alternative reasons for the failure. The alarmists no longer have a case.

Climate is a regional (1), multiyear (2), multi-process (3) phenomenon. Also, in the case of environmental processes, causality (4), has to be demonstrated (5), by concurrent changes (6) in the driving processes (7), typically rainfall (8) and to a lesser extent, temperature (9).

Claims based on observations over a period of less than 30 years, that a single plant or animal species is under stress in a single district, without numerical evidence of concurrent changes in rainfall and temperature, is altogether inadequate proof of climate changes in the wider region. Yet this is the basis for the alarmist claims in the IPCC reports. I have not seen a single report on regional, concurrent, multiyear, multi-process analyses. Our joint paper on this subject is a world first.”

Walt D. August 28, 2008 at 11:40 pm

John: “If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it.”
http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-815-7
Unlike AGW theory, they are actually trying to verify this theory at Cern. Presently, all they can say is that they have a model that fits the data. Their model does a much better job of explaining the data than AGW. However, they still have one step to go – actually proving that cosmic rays cause clouds. John: “If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it.”
http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-815-7
Unlike AGW theory, they are actually trying to verify this theory at Cern. Presently, all they can say is that they have a model that fits the data. Their model does a much better job of explaining the data than AGW. However, they still have one step to go – actually proving that cosmic rays cause clouds.

Walt D. August 28, 2008 at 11:53 pm

The aerosol pollutants are less significant because even though they are being produced daily, the Co2 has a longer term forcing component due to longevity in the atmosphere. In this case the Co2 positive forcing outweighs the aerosol particulate pollution (negative forcing) in terms of total forcing in the climate system.
The particulate pollutants produce an immediate, tangible and measurable effect, and also negative economic consequences such as lower yields for citrus fruits. What you are taking about is an effect that may or may not take place based on a computer model.
Take your 7 to 9 Gt of CO2 and assume that it was cyanide gas.
How long would it take before you could smell almonds? How long would it take before got a headache? How long would it take before you started to froth at the mouth?

TokyoTom August 29, 2008 at 2:40 am

Walt:

1. “To chuck in my 6 eggs worth on Fundamentalists contention that when the ocean warms CO2 is released, get a bottle of Coca Cola from the fridge and open it. Fundamentalists contention is that as the Coca Cola warms, CO2 will be released. I agree.

Walt, no one disagrees with the behavior of gases in solution when the temperature rises; as John and I have noted, that in fact is what climate scientists recognize as the usual reason why GHG levels start to rise once a natural forcing (solar/John Malkovich cycles) begins to warm the oceans.

But that isn’t really what’s at work in increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 now, is it? As I already commented to Roger, “If the increased atmospheric CO2 levels were being caused by the release of CO2 from the oceans due to ocean warming, then CO2 levels in the oceans would be FALLING, not RISING as they are now.”

As John noted, the oceans continue for the time being to be a sink (with CO2 concentrations rising so that the oceans are becomeing more acidic) rather than a source, because the increase in atmospheric GHGs due to human activities is pushing CO2 into the oceans (read about “vapor pressure”). This increasing acidity and ocean warming have started to degrade the efficiency of the ocean sink, so less and less CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere.

2. As for particulates, I think we all share a view that they are rather nasty and also can exert a significant cooling influence. The question is whether they fully offset the forcing made by GHGs; the rather clear answer seems to be that they don’t: particulates fall out of the atmospere rather quickly, while something on the order of 30-40% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere after a century.

As China and India move up the Kuznets Curve and start to clear their skies, the GHG effect will have even less of a particulate counter-balance.

3. “Fundamentalist claims that increased solar output warms the earth. You disagree???”

No one disagrees with this, or that there are ongoing solar cycles. It’s just that the changes induced by solar cycle changes are small relative to measurable GHG forcings, and nobody sees any general increase or decrease in solar cycle trends.

4. While I disagree with John that all human generated GHGs are “pollutants”, you are obviously misinterpreting him. No one’s arguing that human respiration is a pollutant; moreover, it clearly doesn’t add on a net basis to GHG levels (as we simply recycle biosphere carbon and supplant the respiration of other animals that we elbow out of the food chain).

As for what’s a “pollutant”, life requires all manners of things in trace amounts, but over certain levels, they do physical damage. Obviously the measure of what is undesirable is a human one based on preferences, so what may be one man’s “pollution” might be another’s valued industrial/commercial input.

People fight over these things because they have differing preferences, and the fights heat up and become more political when there are no clear or defendable property rights involved (or other information/transaction costs are too high) to allow people of differing preferences to express them via market transactions.

TokyoTom August 29, 2008 at 4:23 am

Roger:

1. “There is no difference between a Biblical view of truth and a scientific one.”

Can you explain?

“The scientific method is inappropriate for theology, just as it is inappropriate for economics.”

My own view is that economics IS a branch of scince; one that focusses on human behavior.

“But my position on climate change has nothing at all to do with my religious beliefs or the Bible. That’s why I asked you to show me where my earlier posts mentioned either.”

The post that I linked to documents that you have offered as authority tracts written by “creation scientists” whose express purpose is to defend their religious beliefs and to use a faith in the literal truth of the Bible as the basis for interpreting climate-related data.

2. You stated that as for me and John, “Any time their “science” is proven wrong or their irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults.”

I demonstrated that, for me at least, this is itself a grossly unfair insult. I have asked if you will apologize, and am waiting for your response.

3. “So GHG’s don’t cause warming but reinforce it. I have no problem with that. But the historical record shows major declines in CO2 after temps fall. So the reinforcement isn’t permanent. Why would we think it would be permanent this time?”

Roger, don’t the paleo records of natural declines in CO2 show time scales of centuries? Just as there are century lags before climate forcings show equilibrium effects (viz., there is still alot of warming in the pipeline for our EXISTING forcing), natural declines (as CO2 is removed by cooling oceans and the like) take significant time.

On top of this, we are still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, in steadily increasing amounts.

No one argues that increasing atmospheric levels are “permanent”, they worry our continuing ratching up of the forcing and about the long time scales to reach equilibrium effects and for removal to occur and be felt.

4. “And no one is arguing that man has no impact at all on the climate. The debate is over how much of an effect.”

Progress, it seems! But there are many “skeptics” out there that will contest that puny man with his mighty machines and technology can have any effect on climate – though if he does, he can of course easily reverse it through geo-engineering.

“Once that is decided, then we can decide what the cost-benefit ratio is of trying to address it.”

This is a bit puzzling Roger, and decidedly non-Austrian. Can you explain why you see a need for and a utility of cost-benefit analysis in decisions that relate to matters of preference?

5. TT: “This shows clearly that creation scientists start with a Biblical premise and are engaged in the process of defending those premises.”
Yes, you’re right.”

Thanks for the admission – and the implicit acknowledgment that raising this subject was NOT and ad hominem.

“And non-creationist scientists start with an unfounded premise of uniformitarianism, although they are backing away from it recently because they need some sort of catastrophe to explain several events.”

Roger, while there are some grains of truth here, as there are examples where scientists preferred NOT to accept obvious signs of occasional massive events in the geologic record, the pursuit of science and the weight of evidence forced them to accept that yes, indeed, there have been various catastrophes in the past – such as massive water releases/floods from melting ice sheets, large asteroid impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, etc. Certainly now there are MANY scientists do not generally start from a position of (or “belief” in) “uniformitarianism”, and they let EVIDENCE change their minds. That doesn’t seem to happen too much with the creation scientists, with their fierce belief in the literal Truth of the BIble.

“Evolutionary scientists pretend that the data speaks for itself, but as Mises and Hayek demonstrate in economics, that’s impossible. All data must be interpreted and all scientists interpet data through the lenses of their presuppositions.”

You, Mises and Hayek are of course right that data doesn’t speak for itself – and you are just as clearly wrong in asserting that “Evolutionary scientists pretend that the data speaks for itself”. Evolutionary scientists, operating from the simple premise that the operation of physical “laws” and dynamics gradually understood, tested and improved, have similarly been developing the mechanisms of the evolutionary hypothesis to explain the diversity and abundance of nature and changes in life forms — not only without a “uniformitarian” premise, but without the constant/intermittent miracles of a caring/vindictive God/Blind Watchmaker.

(But we digress from the topic at hand, which might arouse the ire of our patient, non-vindictive and largely disinterested post author.)

6. “Concerning the ice core data, creationists have more than premises on their side. A few years ago two P-38 fighters were discovered under the ice in Greenland. Using conventional techniques for dating ice layers, the WWII P-38′s were several thousand years old. Using the adjusted technique of creationists dates the ice properly.”

Roger, don’t you remember our previous conversations, which in this case I actually klinked to? The assertion you make is simply unsupportable – other than by more “creation science” “authorities” upon whose “work” you rely, and which kicked off our previous discussion.

Ice cores are not taken from the edges of rapidly moving glaciers that experience heavy precipitation.

7. “Something doesn’t add up. In the pre-industrial past, temp increases warmed the oceans and caused them to give up CO2. Today, we are supposedly at the peak of a warming cycle, but the oceans are still absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it? How does that happen?”

It happens because pushing more CO2 into the atmosphere requires that more CO2 be absorbed by the oceans in order to maintain equilibrium (an equilibrium concentration that also changes with temperature).

“Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide”, http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539

8. “Climate models are little more than curve fitting and worthless for predictions. TokyoTom and I had a long discussion about this months ago and he decided that the existing climate models were good enough for him.”

Really? Can you provide a quote or something that I said?

9. “The Copenhagen Consensus does not disagree with the mainstream view. It accepts the consensus that AGHG’s are causing all of the warming and that the results will be serious. The panel is a group of economists, not climate scientists, who do cost/benefit analysis of a variety of problems. They still think climate change should have a very low priority.”

Your conclusion is a misunderstanding of the Copenhagen Consensus and misplaces its worth. Pielke Jr has just hosted an interesting dicussion on this, with some comments by yours truly: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/yohe-vs-lomborg-4526

10. Are you going to give us the name of your Canadian glaciologist friend?
***********************************
Regards,

Tom

fundamentalist August 29, 2008 at 8:47 am

TT: “My own view is that economics IS a branch of scince; one that focusses on human behavior.”

I agree with Mises and Hayek that economics is a science that requires a different epistemology because of the differences in natural science and economics.

TT: “The post that I linked to documents that you have offered as authority tracts written by “creation scientists” whose express purpose is to defend their religious beliefs and to use a faith in the literal truth of the Bible as the basis for interpreting climate-related data.”

Your framing of the methodology of creation scientists is false and dishonest. Their express purpose is to discover the truth. The truth leads them to the Bible. They find that certain events in the Bible, such as the flood, agree with the data far better, and do a far better job of prediction, than does the premise of uniformitarianism. Creation scientists have found many examples of poor scientific practices that result from the premise of uniformitarianism that most scientists hold to but won’t admit it. In the 1970′s they corrected the math used for Carbon-14 data. The originators of the technique had assumed that the Carbon-14 was in balance, not because they had measured the creation and destruction of C-14, but because they assumed that with the age of the earth it should be in balance. Creationists pointed out that the balanced had not been achieved and when the math was adjusted it became more accurate. Creationists have had to correct the potassium-argon method because it regularly dated newly formed rock as if it were millions of years old. And as I mentioned above they have had to correct the methods for dating ice cores because the original methods produced ridiculous results.

TT: “No one argues that increasing atmospheric levels are “permanent”, they worry our continuing ratching up of the forcing and about the long time scales to reach equilibrium effects and for removal to occur and be felt.”

However, if the natural forcing stops because we have reached the peak of a cycle, as the solar data indicates, then warming won’t get much worse than it is.

TT: “This is a bit puzzling Roger, and decidedly non-Austrian. Can you explain why you see a need for and a utility of cost-benefit analysis in decisions that relate to matters of preference?”

You’re right. That was very un-Austrian of me. But the reality is that Austrians have very little influence over the state. States will decide what will be done. I had taken off my Austrian hat and put on my practical hat, which is necessary when dealing with a world full of socialists.

TT: “…the weight of evidence forced them to accept that yes,.. Certainly now there are MANY scientists do not generally start from a position of (or “belief” in) “uniformitarianism”, and they let EVIDENCE change their minds. That doesn’t seem to happen too much with the creation scientists, with their fierce belief in the literal Truth of the Bible.”

I can see that you’ll never accept that all scientists have presuppositions that they use to interpret data and are defending. Every scientist claims that they let the evidence speak for itself, but any scientist who refuses to acknowledge his presuppositions is not only dangerous, but a liar. There are no scientists who are not creationists who do not adhere to the premise of uniformitarianism. They may not admit it, but their work demonstrates it. How do you know that creation scientists don’t change their minds? Can you name any? Have you followed their work for any period of time? You’re speaking out of complete ignorance on the subject.

TT: “…you are just as clearly wrong in asserting that “Evolutionary scientists pretend that the data speaks for itself”.

Yes, I know your irrational faith in scientists. They aren’t like other human beings. They don’t suffer from our failings. Getting their PhD in science makes them immune from all that afflicts us mere mortals. I repeat that anyone who claims not to operate under a presupposition is a liar.

TT: “It happens because pushing more CO2 into the atmosphere requires that more CO2 be absorbed by the oceans in order to maintain equilibrium (an equilibrium concentration that also changes with temperature).

High ocean temperatures should force the oceans to release CO2. The amount of CO2 they can hold is mostly determined by temperature. As Walt mentioned, just look at a bottle of a soft drink. The oceans can only hold more CO2 because they haven’t warmed sufficiently.

TokyoTom August 30, 2008 at 3:33 am

Roger, before I respond to this (or anything else):

“Your framing of the methodology of creation scientists is false and dishonest”,

can you kindly respond to this?

“You stated that as for me and John, “Any time their “science” is proven wrong or their irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults.”

“I demonstrated that, for me at least, this is itself a grossly unfair insult. I have asked if you will apologize, and am waiting for your response.”

Hopefully,

Tom

fundamentalist August 30, 2008 at 7:44 am

TT: “I demonstrated that, for me at least, this is itself a grossly unfair insult. I have asked if you will apologize, and am waiting for your response.”

You did not demonstrate it and I’m not interested in spending the time to go back and find the relevant posts to prove it. Of course you think you do no wrong. Everyone thinks highly of themselves.

fundamentalist August 30, 2008 at 7:54 am

TT: “No one disagrees with this, or that there are ongoing solar cycles. It’s just that the changes induced by solar cycle changes are small relative to measurable GHG forcings, and nobody sees any general increase or decrease in solar cycle trends.”

As I pointed out to John, the solar forcing included in climate models covers just the minor fluctuations in the sun’s energy output during the 11-year cycles because they only have been able to measure solar output with satellites for the past two decades. To claim that this measures the total variance in solar output is just plain dishonest. Sun spot records also measure the sun’s energy output and go back 2,000 years. The variations in large cycles, 300-500 years are so large as to make the 11-year cycle insignificant. As the graph on Wikipedia demonstrates, solar activity correlates well with the high temps in the medieval warm period, with the mini ice age and with today’s warming.

The interesting thing to me about this correlation is that scientists have known about it for close to a century. Why have mainstream climate scientists chosen to ignore it and not let the public know about it? Could the reason be political?

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 30, 2008 at 9:18 am

Roger/fundamentalist

Roger/fundamentalist – “We live in a unique time in history, because this period has the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years, and maybe even in 8,000 years.”

Actually, solar irradiance has been increasing for 4.57 billion years. But the amount of increase is statistically insignificant when compared to our current global warming event due to the amount of forcing it imposes on a geologic time scale.

Again, it’s all about context and relevance of what you are looking at. People in general (such as you and others in this thread), the media, and even some scientists still don’t fully understand this.

Prior to the industrial age we were generally hovering around equilibrium. The Stephan Bozeman law has us right around 240 W/m2 received and 240 W/m2 radiated. Thus equilibrium around 0 W/m2.

In that situation solar is much more of an influence than now due to context/relevance. In other words if I have a Daulton or Maunder minimum and take away .3 W/m2 from 0, then we will get an extended cool spell, hence the LIA. In other words, when the system is at or near equilibrium, you can get a little ice age by removing sunspots and tipping the forcing below equilibrium for an extended period of time.

Likewise If the climate system is around 0 and we run the Schwabe cycles we are adding and taking away .3 W/m2. so still maintaining a dynamic equilibrium. Add a few more sunspots in a period and you will get additional warming. Maybe that is what happened in the MWP? I don’t know, but whatever happened triggered the Arctic Amplification effect which operates within natural variability. Again, this is pre-industrial so normal operations with natural variability.

Now we have a forcing that conservative estimates place at 1.6 (IPCC), and leading estimates place at 1.9 W/m2. So at this time, taking away .3 W/m2 has significantly less meaning because even if you take it away, you still can’t cool the planet.

Henrik Svensmark is speaking out of context. He concentrates of limited data and does not look at the big picture. He has argued the GCR’s are responsible also, but there is no correlation. He will come around eventually, but at this point he has not extended his research scope to a large enough view to understand the earth climate system.

I looked at the chart you were referring to “Carbon14 with activity labels.svg.”. It is a model and as far as I know that particular model is not well accepted yet but it is being examined. It may very well have some credence. But again, relevance and context. -.3 does not overide the effect of +1.9 W/m2

As I have mentioned previously, peer review combined with peer response has stronger capacity and a stronger record of adding to the compendium of scientific knowledge. The peer response one the C14 cycle seems to center around this:


“In a recent article (A&G 44 5.20) we discussed likely solar activity levels a century from now using a superposed epoch analysis of Hallstatt cycles evident in the 14C cosmogenic isotope series. In this issue Tobias et al. have quite reasonably indicated that it is a process fraught with uncertainties as evidence suggests that predicting stellar magnetic cycles will always pose a challenge. This reply allows us the opportunity to clarify a few points in the process we have undertaken in order to make the prediction.

The analysis we undertook on the 14C series was based on the presence of the 2300-year Hallstatt cycle in the data. This cycle can be clearly seen in the series, as well as determined by frequency analysis. However, the Hallstatt cycle itself is not used solely to predict the minimum in solar activity in 2100. The principal role of the Hallstatt cycle analysis in our paper was to determine which parts of the 14C data were influenced by solar activity and which were not. Damon and Jirikowic (1992) showed that the effect of “Hallstatt gating” results in a period of time every 2300 years or so where 14C shows century-scale oscillations associated with solar activity. At other times solar activity variations in 14C are suppressed. The window of the “gate” is about 1000 years and roughly centred on the time of the Maunder Minimum-like features. Thus we used the Hallstatt cycle principally to select the sections of the 14C series that were relevant for solar activity analysis, and superposed the Maunder Minimum-like features to provide a consistent time frame.

In this way we have not ignored the shorter-length cycles such as the de Vries cycle as suggested by Tobias et al., they are intrinsically included in the 14C data that was selected for the analysis. Interestingly the superposition of four sections of 14C data shows that little of the de Vries cycle survives the averaging process, suggesting that either these cycles are not strongly phase-locked to the Grand Minimum or that the period is variable enough to average the cycles out. The cycle that does survive the superposition process is the 420-year cycle, which is why we predict a minimum 400 years or so after the Maunder Minimum. The 420-year cycle has been postulated to be associated with oscillations in the solar convective zone (Stuiver and Braziunas 1989).

In summary, we recognize that predicting solar activity is a difficult task and one that is likely to generate as many questions as answers. If we are in a period of cyclic solar activity behaviour at present, as is possible even in chaotic datasets, then our expectation that solar activity will not increase in the same way as it has in the last 100 years or so is a message to take away. Like Tobias et al. we would be very satisfied if a minimum does arrive soon.”

The current long range solar forecast goes a whopping 17 years in to the future and is based on the a slowing of the solar conveyer from 1 meter per second to .75m per second. Based on this NASA reports “Hathaway’s prediction should not be confused with another recent forecast: A team led by physicist Mausumi Dikpata of NCAR has predicted that Cycle 24, peaking in 2011 or 2012, will be intense. Hathaway agrees: “Cycle 24 will be strong. Cycle 25 will be weak. Both of these predictions are based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt.”" This s expected to reduce solar flares but increase cosmic rays.

If you notice on the wiki page on solar variation it discusses solar changing the energy level 1 w/m2. Based on that you would say I am wrong because I said it was .3 w/m2. Again though, you would be wrong. And again, its about context and relevance. In this case the context is that they are talking about a measurement occurring outside of our atmosphere, whereas I am talking about the energy received at the earth surface after filtering through the atmosphere.

If you scroll further down the page to the global warming page you can see a graph called “Temp-sunspot-co2.svg”. This graph clearly shows that the sunspot correlation is broken most recently.

In the Solar variation section you find another graph called “Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg”. Here you have an excellent example of how climate sometimes tracks sunspots and sometimes doesn’t. But again it is a model, and I did not look up its basis, so I can’t say i know its contexts.

Generally speaking, and as I have mentioned. solar certainly influences climate to the degree of its capacity in relation to its forcing combined with other forcing elements.

Important to remember that adding or taking away .3 W/m2 can not override 1.6 or 1.9 W/m2.

Again though, the statements and arguments you are presenting are out of context and therefore red herrings and strawman arguments as well as false dichotomy. You simply can’t compare the natural forcing to the anthropogenic and expect it to explain what is going on.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 30, 2008 at 9:27 am

Roger/fundamentalist

John: “Industrial process currently are pumping between 7 and 9 Gt of Co2 into the atmosphere. The oceans have been absorbing around 2 Gt but there are recent signs that is slowing down, possibly due to saturation.”

Roger/fundamentalist – “Something doesn’t add up. In the pre-industrial past, temp increases warmed the oceans and caused them to give up CO2. Today, we are supposedly at the peak of a warming cycle, but the oceans are still absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it? How does that happen?”

Not all naturally sequestered Co2 is from the ocean. When a forest is buried in ice it’s CO2 does not go to the ocean. bioactivity in certain ocean strata increases with temperature. So, much is regulated by the added temperature provided by the Milankovitch cycles. But, this is still a gross oversimplification of process.

The question itself does not seem to have relevant context though. Added Co2 really is a plant food. But there are many other chemical processes occurring here that even I don’t want to go into for lack of time. I suggest yo spend some time on the Scripps (and others) web site to understand the chemical processes occurring there. The problem is that if you don’t at least have awareness of all the processes, things will not add up for you. And it takes a hello of a lot of studying to get even close to understanding the major processes. But then you have to start studying the minor processes too… Just don’t think yo know everything after you’ve read a few papers. I know I don’t know everything. It’s a very complicated puzzle and I am trying to grapple with the major forcings and minor influences. The oceanography side of the puzzle is quite telling.

Roger/fundamentalist – “Historical data doesn’t show as long a lag between temp peaks and CO2 peaks as that suggests.”

Don’t expect it to be simple, you need to know a lot of context before it starts to make holistic sense. it doesn’t make sense to you now because you simply don’t know the relevant contexts.

Roger/fundamentalist – “Global temps are already cooling and have been since about a decade.”

The unusually warm el Nino event riding on top of a warming trend set us up for a short term down trend. That of course does not override the 30 yr trend. Solar 24, oceanic absorption of the forcing, and positive feed backs will cause further warming. The arctic ice disappearing is exposing darker ocean which will absorb more heat, plus of course we lose the summertime albedo. it’s all acceleration from here if BAU continues.

Roger/fundamentalist – “As NASA has said, we’re entering period of solar dormancy that will cause temps to fall even more.”

As far as I know, NASA has not predicted past solar cycle 25 as noted above (previous post).

Roger/fundamentalist – “If the oceans haven’t warmed enough to release CO2 yet, that suggests that temps and CO2 peaks are close to 180 degrees out of phase. That doesn’t jibe with the paleo data at all.”

Same as above, you simply don’t have enough knowledge yet to frame the questions properly and understand the contexts. That results in false dichotomies. I highly recommend you study what is happening in the oceans, this will take you a few months probably, but it’s worth the effort. Although I have a general understanding of the interactions, I don’t feel qualified to instruct on the processes at this time.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 30, 2008 at 9:39 am

Roger/fundamentalist

Roger/fundamentalist – “The Copenhagen Consensus does not disagree with the mainstream view. It accepts the consensus that AGHG’s are causing all of the warming and that the results will be serious. The panel is a group of economists, not climate scientists, who do cost/benefit analysis of a variety of problems. They still think climate change should have a very low priority.”

In my opinion,

First, you can’t call in a real consensus until al the economists weigh into something similar to the IPCC. Lomborg called it a consensus because he knows the power of marketing, and in my view he has misused it in a deceitful manner.

Second, He produced and espoused the opinion and that is his style. He is arrogant in the sense that he cannot warranty what he is saying. But he certainly can say it… that does not make it relevant though.

Generally, they took a look at a few out of context reports on climate, like Co2 helps produce more food etc and drew a conclusion which is merely an opinion based on incomplete data. The consensus presented seemed to be more an exercise in myopia that has with in it a degree of bias that renders or reduces such opinion to lean toward less relevant if not irrelevant. Just not enough economies involved in the consideration.

In other words they are not weighing all the economic factors. That is not the way you set economic policy, even in a Keynesian fiat world. But he did play to the crowd because he knew all the really nice things to say to make people feel warm and fuzzy, even though he did not understand the realities, which include the fact that they/he ignored a tremendous amount of relevant data. As you well know, consensus may help sometimes but it is not proof. Somewhere along the line we found out that the world is not flat.

Roger/fundamentalist – “As for Denmark’s Ministry of Science and its opinion of Lomberg, I have seen similar accusations against the mainstream climate scientists. Remember the hockey stick hoax?”

Mckintyre and McKitrick were correct that there was a flaw in the hockey stick. But after 263 peer responses, making it the most reviewed paper in the history of science, they determined it was not a ‘hoax’, as you put it.

When you added the MM correction only changed the model by a few hundredths of a degree. The reviewing bodies concluded however that adding the MM correction weakened the overall model and therefore the corrections were not appropriate. Of course MM got a lot of airplay saying they were right. But in the end… Again… it’s all about relevance and context. changing the hockey stick a few hundredths of a degree is statistically insignificant regarding the scale of the changes observed in the data set.

In other words, the hockey stick still looks like a hockey stick.

Roger/fundamentalist – “Name calling, even by someone as prestigious as the Denmark Ministry of Science, doesn’t mean anything to me.”

That was not name calling, he was found guilty and those were the charges.

As far as your next post regarding Bjorn Lomberg.

No relevant context and likely a fabrication on your part, I I am to believe your previous statement and since you said already he believes in AGW and this is evidenced in his own speeches and writings.

I think it is rather immature of you to post in such a manner.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 30, 2008 at 9:52 am

Roger/fundamentalist

John: “If you can produce a model that scientifically refutes the AGW theory. Please do share it.”

Roger/fundamentalist – “I think the sun spot graph on Wikipedia does a much better job of modeling climate than any climate model in existence today, even NASA’s.”

No.

For all the reasons stated above. Just not enough forcing energy.

John: “The models are tracking very accurately theses days.”

Roger/fundamentalist – “And that is what is wrong with them. It’s very easy, almost trivial, to make a model fit the data. First year statistics students can do it easily. In its simplest form it’s just curve fitting, that is, creating curves that match the data. That’s why validation is so important. With validation, you divide your data set in two sections, train the model on the first and then try to predict the second set. Climate models are little more than curve fitting and worthless for predictions. TokyoTom and I had a long discussion about this months ago and he decided that the existing climate models were good enough for him. Apparently they’re good for a lot of people. But in the private world, a modeler would be fired for such simplicity and sloppiness as is exhibited by the climate models.”

Actually your not using proper context again. It’s pretty easy to say something, but you have nothing other than opinion on your side on this one. Essentially you are accusing a tremendous number of scientists of scientific dishonesty. The only way you or anyone else can prove it is to explain AGW with a different model that can survive peer response. No one has done that as yet.

Of course you have newson upthread saying professor Alexander can explain all this with a false dichotomy strawman and a couple red herrings, topped with logical fallacy, in the form of a non sequitur, and a direct lie. Hogwash. If Alexander has not seen a single paper on the subjects of his inquisition, that is because he doesn’t read enough. There are thousands of papers confirming everything he is saying is not confirmed.

Study, learn, figure out the context and the relevance of the components, then bring relevant questions or statements to the table. Otherwise your just noise trying to drown out the signal. But you should already understand that, as you say you are a statistician.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 30, 2008 at 9:59 am

newson

re. #4

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hazards/index.php

I am assuming that this entire post is a quote form him?

The states “Claims based on observations over a period of less than 30 years”

He also states “Global warming ceased 10 years ago”

His lack of logic as well as lack of adherence to his own principles is mind numbing.

Dr. Alexander clearly has no idea what he is talking about, if those are really his words.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 30, 2008 at 10:02 am

Walt D.

I’ve reviewed Svensmarks work and his view is far to limited in scope to understand AGW.

GCR’s do not correlate with our current warming event, but again, context and relevance. His models do not explain the current level of forcing. He for some reason just refuses to look at the rest of the data. He seems to be stuck in confirmation bias. Hey, it’s helping him sell books. If he did not refute AGW no one would by his stuff.

Feel free to blow a few bucks on him though, I’m sure he will appreciate it.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 30, 2008 at 10:03 am

Walt D.

Walt D. – “The particulate pollutants produce an immediate, tangible and measurable effect, and also negative economic consequences such as lower yields for citrus fruits. What you are taking about is an effect that may or may not take place based on a computer model.”

Yes, but you are still ignoring the timer and total forcing levels attached to each.

Walt D. – “Take your 7 to 9 Gt of CO2 and assume that it was cyanide gas.”

Walt D. – “How long would it take before you could smell almonds? How long would it take before got a headache? How long would it take before you started to froth at the mouth?”

Wow! That’s not a Red Herring, that’s a Red Whale.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) August 30, 2008 at 10:19 am

Roger/fundamentalist

Roger/fundamentalist – “However, if the natural forcing stops because we have reached the peak of a cycle, as the solar data indicates, then warming won’t get much worse than it is.”

This is am amazingly naive assumption. You need to study… a lot. Study climate feedbacks especially.

Try a simple experiment.

Go to Death Valley in mid summer. Eat the same food for three days, and drink the same amount of water. Wear all white clothing and a white hat. Make sure you walk at a time of day when the temperature is the same. For this experiment, our target temperature is 130F.

Walk across the valley without drinking water (have someone with you as a back up of course).

See how far you can go in distance.

Now, do the same thing, three days, same food, same amount of water but change your clothing to all black and a black hat, all same type of fabric though.

Walk across the valley without drinking water (have someone with you as a back up of course).

See how far you can go in distance.

That will give you an idea of what a positive feedback is.

Google NASA Black Soot
Google NASA albedo ice

That will get you to relevant links.

newson August 30, 2008 at 10:37 am

“The participating scientists accepted “The Science of Climate Change” in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report–the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate–were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

* “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

* “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”

* “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

wall st journal 12 june 1996

newson August 30, 2008 at 10:43 am

to john reisman:
actually i forgot to ask, what’s the centrist party’s policy prescription for climate change? cap-and-trade? carbon tax?
if yes, where are you getting your economic projections from?

Walt D. August 30, 2008 at 11:15 am

Newson wrote
to john reisman:
actually i forgot to ask, what’s the centrist party’s policy prescription for climate change? cap-and-trade? carbon tax?
if yes, where are you getting your economic projections from?


Paris Hilton!
I did a google and found http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/economy
What a load of bollux.

TokyoTom August 31, 2008 at 4:40 am

Roger, for the record, you said “Any time their [TT`s] “science” is proven wrong or their [TT`s] irrational faith in peer reviewed journals challenged, both fall back on foaming at the mouth insults.”

After protesting and asking you specifically to defend or apologize for your accusation, you respond that “You did not demonstrate it and I’m not interested in spending the time to go back and find the relevant posts to prove it. Of course you think you do no wrong. Everyone thinks highly of themselves.”

Hardly gentlemanly of you, Roger, to make gross accusations such as this while evidencing so little interest in either defending your position or demonstrating your honor. I had expected more; paint me as a fool.

Whether I do wrong is irrelevant when it`s your honor in question. But since you bring it up, even though you are unwilling to support your own tiring accusations of hysteria, foaming at the mouth insults and deliberate falsity, please feel free to let me know whenever you think I`ve done you or someone else wrong.

Tom

TokyoTom August 31, 2008 at 4:46 am

I am copying here a post by clijmate blogger Eli Rabett – http://rabett.blogspot.com/ – that seems to have been misposted on another thread:

“Let us start with small things. Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans (or your soda) is not a simple process of the gas being dissolved in the water, but rather a series of chemical reactions. In chemspeak the equal sign means there are forward and reverse reactions and an equilibrium between them. Rising temperature shifts the equilibrium

CO2 (gas) = CO2 (dissolved)
CO2(dissolved) + H2O = H2CO3 (an acid)
H2CO3 (an acid) + H20 = H3O+ (an ion) + HCO3- (you know this as bicarb
HCO3- + H2O = CO3 (2-) + H3O+

“It’s really not that simple as other dissolved ions in the ocean affect the equilibrium. One of the big problems with adding CO2 to the atmosphere is that this results in the ocean becoming more acidic (more H3O+) which makes for a whole series of problems with sea life (for example it becomes harder for corals to form).

“Of course, the holding capacity of the upper ocean for CO2 decreases, the fizzy coke effect, and when this additional CO2 enters the atmosphere you have a positive feedback. This is what happens as the Earth comes out of an ice age when the earth first warns due to changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the extra CO2 that this forced out of the oceans lead to additional warming.

“There is a linguistic ambiguity between CO2 acting as a forcing (from burning fossil fuels which have been buried for millions of years) and as a feedback (from rising global temperatures). The analogy which might appeal to those who do economic models is that the former is similar to a tax cut, a change which does not naturally occur without external action, and the later is an internal response governed by the natural working of the system.”
#

Published: August 30, 2008 4:38 PM
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007529.asp#comment-440122

fundamentalist August 31, 2008 at 9:32 am

John: “Important to remember that adding or taking away .3 W/m2 can not override 1.6 or 1.9 W/m2.”

You’re fixated on the satellite measurements of the variation in solar activity over a 20 year period. That’s ridiculous and dishonest. The sunspot and C14 data clearly show that the variations have been much greater in the past. Maybe the C14 and sun spot models aren’t perfect, but I’d bet on them against the computer climate models in a true validation any day. It’s dishonest to compare the sun spot and C14 models with perfection and use their lack of perfection as an excuse to accept the severely flawed computer models.

John: “Don’t expect it to be simple, you need to know a lot of context before it starts to make holistic sense. it doesn’t make sense to you now because you simply don’t know the relevant contexts.”

Could be. Or it could be that since you drank the kool-aid, anything the mainstream says makes sense to you. A tiny bit of skepticism on you part might help you see the truth better.

John: “It’s a very complicated puzzle and I am trying to grapple with the major forcings and minor influences.”

I think when you succeed in that you’ll understand the situation better. In statistics, we would call the major forcings the trend and the minor influences noise. Separating the trend from the noise is the most important step in understanding data. Keep in mind that a typical tactic for thwarting an attack on a theory about a trend is to throw in tons of noise, trivia stats that are true but irrelevant, in order to confuse everyone. If the oceans are the major sinks and sources of CO2, then focus on them. Why aren’t they behaving according to the model’s prediction? Is there something wrong with the model?

John: “…it doesn’t make sense to you now because you simply don’t know the relevant contexts.”

Is that going to be your response to everything? I know the relevant contexts and it does make sense to me. The models are wrong.
John: “No relevant context and likely a fabrication on your part…”
I don’t think you want to start calling people fabricators of data. I could easily place the same charge against you. I have read interviews with Lomberg and I he tells in his book why he became the skeptical environmentalist after years of radical pro-environmental work. You’re always challenging me to read more, why don’t you take your own advise?

John: “Essentially you are accusing a tremendous number of scientists of scientific dishonesty. The only way you or anyone else can prove it is to explain AGW with a different model that can survive peer response. No one has done that as yet.”

Yes, I am accusing them of dishonesty. It’s dishonest to claim to have a model that predicts anything and refuse to validate that model. That is patently dishonest. Any honest modeler knows it. Many scientists have suggested alternative models, but political correctness on the part of journals will not let them be published. You can hide behind the peer review process all you want, but it’s the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. See, that’s what happens every time we discuss climate on the site. After a bunch of name calling and insults from the GW hysterical guys, we discuss the science for a few posts. Then when you guys find you don’t know as much as you thought, you fall back on the appeal to authority. This dance is getting a little bit old.

fundamentalist August 31, 2008 at 9:32 am

John: “Important to remember that adding or taking away .3 W/m2 can not override 1.6 or 1.9 W/m2.”

You’re fixated on the satellite measurements of the variation in solar activity over a 20 year period. That’s ridiculous and dishonest. The sunspot and C14 data clearly show that the variations have been much greater in the past. Maybe the C14 and sun spot models aren’t perfect, but I’d bet on them against the computer climate models in a true validation any day. It’s dishonest to compare the sun spot and C14 models with perfection and use their lack of perfection as an excuse to accept the severely flawed computer models.

John: “Don’t expect it to be simple, you need to know a lot of context before it starts to make holistic sense. it doesn’t make sense to you now because you simply don’t know the relevant contexts.”

Could be. Or it could be that since you drank the kool-aid, anything the mainstream says makes sense to you. A tiny bit of skepticism on you part might help you see the truth better.

John: “It’s a very complicated puzzle and I am trying to grapple with the major forcings and minor influences.”

I think when you succeed in that you’ll understand the situation better. In statistics, we would call the major forcings the trend and the minor influences noise. Separating the trend from the noise is the most important step in understanding data. Keep in mind that a typical tactic for thwarting an attack on a theory about a trend is to throw in tons of noise, trivia stats that are true but irrelevant, in order to confuse everyone. If the oceans are the major sinks and sources of CO2, then focus on them. Why aren’t they behaving according to the model’s prediction? Is there something wrong with the model?

John: “…it doesn’t make sense to you now because you simply don’t know the relevant contexts.”

Is that going to be your response to everything? I know the relevant contexts and it does make sense to me. The models are wrong.
John: “No relevant context and likely a fabrication on your part…”
I don’t think you want to start calling people fabricators of data. I could easily place the same charge against you. I have read interviews with Lomberg and I he tells in his book why he became the skeptical environmentalist after years of radical pro-environmental work. You’re always challenging me to read more, why don’t you take your own advise?

John: “Essentially you are accusing a tremendous number of scientists of scientific dishonesty. The only way you or anyone else can prove it is to explain AGW with a different model that can survive peer response. No one has done that as yet.”

Yes, I am accusing them of dishonesty. It’s dishonest to claim to have a model that predicts anything and refuse to validate that model. That is patently dishonest. Any honest modeler knows it. Many scientists have suggested alternative models, but political correctness on the part of journals will not let them be published. You can hide behind the peer review process all you want, but it’s the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. See, that’s what happens every time we discuss climate on the site. After a bunch of name calling and insults from the GW hysterical guys, we discuss the science for a few posts. Then when you guys find you don’t know as much as you thought, you fall back on the appeal to authority. This dance is getting a little bit old.

fundamentalist August 31, 2008 at 9:41 am

TT, blogger Eli Rabett’s post is a good example of obfuscation. The chemical formulas, and most of what he writes, has very little bearing on the question. The question was why the oceans are stink absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it. He doesn’t answer that question.

TokyoTom August 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Roger, sorry, but I’ve lost my appetite for “conversation” with someone who – by peppering his posts with accusations of hysteria, foaming at the mouth insults and deliberate falsity and then refusing either to pony up or to apologize – betrays a fundamental lack of interest in discourse.

Feel free to consider it a failing on my part.

TokyoTom September 4, 2008 at 7:02 am

Roger/fundamentalist, I have to say that the contrast between the alacrity with which you resort to accusations and insults and your extreme reluctance to defend or apologize for such ad hominem behavior is both quite sharp and disappointing.

Why is it that, if there is to be any progress on this thread, those who are the targets of ad hominem attacks are the ones who are expected to turn the other cheek and to soldier on?

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) September 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Tokyo Tom

Sorry, but I have been on the road for the past week.

I would like to speak with you. Could you contact me through the Centrist site. It is clear that you are looking at the bigger picture and others remain myopic.

However, I would like to discuss some ideas with you if you have time.

Best,
John

fundamentalist September 5, 2008 at 4:06 pm

There’s a good story on yahoo news (via AFP) about melting glaciers revealing Neolithic life. They have found Roman coins and a hunter from 6,500 years ago. Here’s a quote:

“Scientists have long known there were periods of warmer weather in the region but the artefacts allowed them to identify the exact years, when the site would have been passable on foot.”

“According to Grosjean, such data could help sharpen forecasts for the future by taking into account patterns of natural temperature fluctuation.”

The important point is that the planet has been as hot as it is today on several occasions in the distant past, at least around 4,000 BC and during the Roman Empire. Otherwise, these artifacts would not have been frozen in the glaciers. Ancient people survived the heat wave; I guess we will, too.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) September 5, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Roger/fundamentalist,

Again you display a complete lack of understanding and context. We came out of the last ice age about 15k yrs ago. It’s been warmer. You are not presenting anything new here.

fundamentalist September 6, 2008 at 9:19 am

John: “Again you display a complete lack of understanding and context.”

I agree completely with the context part, but not the understanding. I understand the standard model well enough. You are right that my comments don’t fit into the context of the standard model. What I have been trying to say is that the standard model is wrong.

John: “It’s been warmer.”

And it has been cooler. The planet goes naturally goes through cycles of warm and cold. It has been as warm in the past as it is today. In the past it warmed as much as it has today without any human forcing. That suggests that the human-caused explanations for GW are wrong. If climate modelers would be honest enough to include the real, long term contributions of solar heating and cooling to their models, they would see it.

John: “You are not presenting anything new here.”

I’m not trying to present anything new. I’m trying to get some people who are open to reason to face the obvious facts that have been staring people in the face for centuries.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) September 6, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Roger/fundamentalist,

Actually you are wrong on both points. It does not matter in this case that it has been warmer, and cooler. Again I repeat context and relevance. AGW is a different animal than GW.

It continues to be apparent that you do not understand forcing levels, which I have explained in previous posts.

You just don’t understand, or you are ignoring the obvious. You can not compare the natural cycle of interglacial forcing around equilibrium (0 W/m2) and glacial around (-3.4 W/m2) with the AGW forcing of around 4 W/m2 plus the industrial aerosols for the negative.

Really, it is remedial math. Just do the math.

What you are questioning has already been considered in the models. You have nothing relevant in your post.

fundamentalist September 6, 2008 at 5:24 pm

John: “AGW is a different animal than GW.”

No it is not, because there is not AGW, only GW.

John: “It continues to be apparent that you do not understand forcing levels, which I have explained in previous posts.”

I understand them completely. They’re just irrelevant. They have very little to do with GW.

John: “What you are questioning has already been considered in the models.”

That’s simply not true. The models consider only the minor contribution of the 11-year cycle of the sun, not the major variations in solar activity over centuries.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) September 7, 2008 at 12:19 am

Roger/fundamentalist

How many times do you need to prove you have no clue?

Over the centuries of solar observation the solar forcing is still about .3 W/m2.

The scientists all know this. The current forcings and past forcings are all well considered in the models.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is human (in case you don’t know that word), and the connotation of GW as you have used it is natural cycle. They are fundamentally different.

Do the math. 3.9 W/m2 – .3 W/m2 for solar, then – 2 W/m2 for aerosols and albedo.

If your answer is not below zero, then you can’t look at the usual suspects, you have to look at the evidence and where that points, and that is anthropogenic/industrial output of GHG’s.

Your simply being ignorant of the facts and the science.

fundamentalist September 7, 2008 at 11:28 am

John: “Over the centuries of solar observation the solar forcing is still about .3 W/m2.”

And what data do climate scientists use to determine that solar forcing? Are they using the carbon 14 or sunspot data?

John: “The current forcings and past forcings are all well considered in the models.”

Then why won’t they validate their models against temperatures as every other modeller in the world has to do before his model is taken seriously by anyone?

John: “Do the math.”

Don’t be so condescending. Do you really think I’m so stupid that I can’t add the simple figures you keep throwing out? I disagree with the numbers that the mainstream science supplies. Of course I would have to reach the same conclusion as you do if I accepted all of the data and conclusions of mainstream climate science and did not consider the arguments of the skeptics. I’m arguing that the science is wrong because it doesn’t sufficiently take into account solar forcings.

Obviously, you can’t think beyond the mainstream science. It’s the gospel to you and you won’t consider any option. I happen to be able to think for myself and think the skeptics have good arguments that the mainstream refuses to consider.

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) September 7, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Roger/fundamentalist

Roger/fundamentalist: “And what data do climate scientists use to determine that solar forcing? Are they using the carbon 14 or sunspot data?”

.3 W/m2 is the solar forcing from sunspots, added or taken away, it’s still just .3 W/m2

Do you have actual science that says it is not .3 W/m2? Please do share. Or is this one of the magic moments where you think I can read your mind and find the exact piece of data you are referring to? You have presented in this entire thread not one piece of contextually relevant evidence in regard to your argument you are literally standing on opinion and claiming its science.

Roger/fundamentalist: “Don’t be so condescending. Do you really think I’m so stupid that I can’t add the simple figures you keep throwing out? … I’m arguing that the science is wrong because it doesn’t sufficiently take into account solar forcings.”

I am saying literally that you are ignorant in that you are ignoring the known solar forcings. The forcing variance on the surface of the planet between a high sunspot cycle and a solar minimum is .3 W/m2.

Roger/fundamentalist: “Obviously, you can’t think beyond the mainstream science. It’s the gospel to you and you won’t consider any option. I happen to be able to think for myself and think the skeptics have good arguments that the mainstream refuses to consider.”

As I have explained numerous times, apparently to a deaf ear, I look beyond mainstream science, a lot. What is more obvious is that you can’t support your argument with any science, let alone mainstream science and you are ignorant of the actual forcings. What is also obvious is that you religiously believe in your own, or others opinions rather than science in general.

Walt D. September 7, 2008 at 7:03 pm

“The forcing variance on the surface of the planet between a high sunspot cycle and a solar minimum is .3 W/m2.”
This is true for the total flux.(Given no other info, you would expect the total flux difference to be negative, since there is no visible flux from the black spots.) However, it is not true for the high ultra-violet and x-ray (line spectra) part of the spectra. The flux in these regions doubles between the minimum and the maximum in the 11-year solar cycle. This leads to large changes in the gaseous composition of the stratosphere above 25km.

TokyoTom September 8, 2008 at 10:24 am

John, you can get my email address by going to my Mises page and clicking on the “send email” link in the left column: http://mises.org/Community/members/TokyoTom/default.aspx

For those with inquiring minds, here is an article pending for publication (with authors` email addresses) in The Annual Review of Marine Science on “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem”: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834?cookieSet=1

Summary points are as follows:

“1. The surface ocean currently absorbs approximately one-third of the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) injected into the atmosphere from human fossil fuel use and deforestation, which leads to a reduction in pH and wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry.

“2. The resulting lowering of seawater carbonate ion concentrations and the saturation state for calcium carbonate are well documented in field data, and the rate of change is projected to increase over the 21st century unless predicted future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically.

“3. Acidification will directly impact a wide range of marine organisms that build shells from calcium carbonate, from planktonic coccolithophores and pteropods and other molluscs, to echinoderms, corals, and coralline algae. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions, whereas some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying) have higher carbon fixation rates under high CO2.

“4. Our present understanding of potential ocean acidification impacts on marine organisms stems largely from short-term laboratory and mesocosm experiments; consequently, the response of individual organisms, populations, and communities to more realistic gradual changes is largely unknown (Boyd et al. 2008).

5. The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and the broader implications
for ocean ecosystems are not well known; an emerging body of evidence suggests
that the impact of risingCO2 on marine biota will be more varied than previously thought,
with both ecological winners and losers.

“6. Ocean acidification likely will affect the biogeochemical dynamics of calcium carbonate, organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the ocean as well as the seawater chemical speciation of trace metals, trace elements, and dissolved organic matter.

“7. Acidification impacts on processes so fundamental to the overall structure and function of marine ecosystems that any significant changes could have far-reaching consequences for the oceans of the future and the millions of people that depend on its food and other resources for their livelihoods.

“8. Geo-engineering solutions that attempt to slow global warming without reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as injection of stratospheric aerosols (Crutzen 2006), will not reduce ocean acidification.”

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834?cookieSet=1

John P. Reisman (The Centrist Party) September 10, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Walt D.

I tried to look up what you are talking about via google but did not find anything that seemed to relate to your post.

Can you clarify with cites or web links I can read please. I’m also unsure what you mean by “large changes in the gaseous composition of the atmosphere”.

Large is a relative term and you have not provided a frame of reference, i.e. do you mean quantity and if so in relation to what? … non GHG trace gases or total atmosphere? … or do you mean relative to reflective aerosols; or do you mean changes in the forcing in general of the changes in aerosols or GHG’s?

Walt D. September 10, 2008 at 4:39 pm

John
Here is an article – it is more recent than the one I was referring. Also, beware – although it is published in a reputable journal, these results are also based on a model. I suggest you do a literature search with the keywords. I will also get you a copy of the 1974 paper that deals only with solar spectrum variation. (I think this was done by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory).
Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 5, 00528, 2003
c

European Geophysical Society 2003
VARIATIONS OF COMPOSITION AND
TEMPERATURE OF THE STRATOSPHERE
CAUSED BY SOLAR UV RADIATION
Dyominov, I. G. (1), A. M. Zadorozhny (1)
(1) Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia (dyominov@phys.nsu.ru)
We examine changes in composition and temperature of the stratosphere caused by
solar UV radiation varying in the course of the 11-year cycle. The examination is
based on a two-dimensional self-consistent radiative photochemical model of the troposphere
and stratosphere. The model calculates diabatic circulation, temperature, distributions
of 45 minor gas constituents, the polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) of type
I and type II, and condensed particles of sulphuric acid hydrate with radii 6.4 nm  r
 5200 nm.
We found that the 11-year solar UV flux variations, when moving toward the solar
activity maximum, lead to a significant increase in oxygen and hydrogen constituents
in the stratosphere above 25 km. For example, the solar UV variations lead to about
14%, 12%, 6% 10%, 8%, 7%, and 4% changes for O(1D), O(3P), O3, H2O2, HO2,
OH, and H2O, respectively, in winter in middle latitudes at a 35 km altitude. Changes
of nitrogen and chlorine constituents are comparatively less in the 11-year solar activity
cycle. The only exception is nitrous oxide which variation above 45 km is
greater than 20-30%. Ozone increase, when moving toward the solar activity maximum,
leads to a significant temperature increase for all latitudes at altitudes above
30 km. We found that the 11-year temperature variations at a 35 km altitude almost
everywhere practically follow the solar UV variations. In the springtime, in middle
latitudes at a 25 km altitude the 11-year maximums in O3, N2O and HNO3 fall behind
the solar UV maximums by about 2, 14, and 29 months. Total ozone variations
mainly coincide with the solar UV variations.We have compared all these results with
available experimental data.

TokyoTom September 12, 2008 at 12:20 am

Roger, there’s no “obfuscation” on Eli’s part; he’s simply provided information. Maybe if you actually asked him a question and he was off-point then you could complain.

“The question was why the oceans are stink absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it. He doesn’t answer that question.”

If take “stink” as a creative hybrid for “still” and “sink” then I get your drift.

First, let me commend you on accepting that on a net basis the oceans are absorbing rather than releasing CO2, so the oceans are not presently the cause of climbing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Presumably that means you acknowledge that man is largely responsible for that fact (I note, BTW, that tropical deforestation is considered a substantial cause – roughly a fifth to a third of annual contributions)?

As for your question the simple (and tautological response) is that ocean concentrations of CO2 (as carbonic acid/H2CO3 fizz) are climbing simply because the atmsophere and oceans move towards equilibrium, so that climbing atmospheric concentrations means more CO2 must be dissolved into the oceans – this is the “put the fizz in the Coke” effect. There are opposite equilibrium pushes from the “already full of fizz” effect and from the “warming Coke” effect that gradually will erode the ocean as a sink by offsetting the “fizz in” effect. That clearly hasn’t happened yet partly because our push from the atmospheric CO2 side hasn’t ended and is rather scaling up.

Anything else?

Your humble, hysterical and lying correspondent,

Tom

TokyoTom September 12, 2008 at 2:13 am

Roger, there’s no “obfuscation” on Eli’s part; he’s simply provided information. Maybe if you actually asked him a question and he was off-point then you could complain.

“The question was why the oceans are stink absorbing CO2 instead of releasing it. He doesn’t answer that question.”

If take “stink” as a creative hybrid for “still” and “sink” then I get your drift.

First, let me commend you on accepting that on a net basis the oceans are absorbing rather than releasing CO2, so the oceans are not presently the cause of climbing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Presumably that means you acknowledge that man is largely responsible for that fact (I note, BTW, that tropical deforestation is considered a substantial cause – roughly a fifth to a third of annual contributions)?

As for your question the simple (and tautological response) is that ocean concentrations of CO2 (as carbonic acid/H2CO3 fizz) are climbing simply because the atmsophere and oceans move towards equilibrium, so that climbing atmospheric concentrations means more CO2 must be dissolved into the oceans – this is the “put the fizz in the Coke” effect. There are opposite equilibrium pushes from the “already full of fizz” effect and from the “warming Coke” effect that gradually will erode the ocean as a sink by offsetting the “fizz in” effect. That clearly hasn’t happened yet partly because our push from the atmospheric CO2 side hasn’t ended and is rather scaling up.

Anything else?

Your humble (and hysterical and lying) correspondent,

Tom

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: