A Long But Interesting Climate Change Paper

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm keeping an open mind.

If anyone finds lies, inconsistencies, omissions, or untruths, please point them out.

From the preamble of the piece:
Al Gore states in his book and movie - An Inconvenient Truth - "major storms (hurricanes) spinning in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent." NOT TRUE

From Wikipedia:
"Records of hurricane activity worldwide show an upswing of both the maximum wind speed in and the duration of hurricanes. The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime."

The credibility of this 122 page document falls apart on page two.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything)

GA

I dislike any supposedly scientific paper that starts with a straw man attack. Then again, maybe its better that they tip their hand so early.

Doorman,

The statement you picked from the Wiki article is credited to Kerry Emanuel from 2006, he has more recently announced he is rethinking his previous conclusion that global warming increases the threat of more hurricane activity than normal. (click the reference link in the Wiki article to see for yourself)

I can use the same strategy and cherry pick statements from the very same article that may have the opposite influence.

From Wikipedia:

The combined effects of ship destruction and remote landfall severely limit the number of intense hurricanes in the official record before the era of hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and satellite meteorology. Although the record shows a distinct increase in the number and strength of intense hurricanes, therefore, experts regard the early data as suspect.

And

According to the World Meteorological Organization, "recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has been caused largely by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions."

And

The number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes may undergo a 50-70 year cycle, also known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

Mr. Doorman your post ends with "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything)" do you belive this? Have you ever made a false statement?

I believe that your mind is made up and closed off, so you will continue to see only what you wish to see.

I think that you should understand that a straw man attack is a logical fallacy. Attacking or supporting the straw man is pointless.

I'm not sure if they are staw man attacks, or if he is pointing out untrue statements, (with credits), that the science disputes. I am going to finish reading it. His credentials seem a little more plausible than Al Gore's. Or is Colorado State University a completely bogus college?

Page two of this paper starts with six supposed untruths to be revealed by this paper. Five of these six "untruths" contain or are only made of sentence fragments. Misquoting your adversary by taking only the parts you wish to refute is by definition making a straw man.

As for this man's credentials, I'll leave that for others to debate.

I will say though that I would expect any physicist to laugh at Mr. Gray's definition of energy. Mr. Gray defines on the top of page 7 that energy as being Watts per meter squared. These units make no sense to me. The standard unit of energy is a Joule. One Joule of energy per second is a Watt. Mr. Gray does correctly approximate the obsolete energy unit of 0.24 calories for one second is a Watt. But a Watt of power applied to an area for an unspecified unit of time does not make sense to me as a valid unit of energy. It maybe a useful unit for this analysis, but it is not a unit of energy.

A cursory glance that this strange unit is used many times in the following pages obfuscates any meaning I can discern from this paper at this time.

I'm going to reserve judgement until I finish reading it, which is difficult because I only have one computer, and my 4 year old wants to play PBS Kids on it every 15 minutes.

I'm guessing that the energy unit terminology in cyclone/hurricane language may be different. One thing is for sure..........................he's got lots of enemies.

Okay. His use of Watts is legitimate. See example calculations here:

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

The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

Huh?

Ok, so it is radiative forcing that will effect the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere from solar radiation. Nice find, I've no idea how you found it but you clearly found it. My point is still valid, this is not energy itself. Now I might be able to understand what Mr. Gray is trying to tell us.

At the bottom of the radiative forcing Wikipedia page there's a link to NOAA called Annual Greenhouse Gas Index. The chart shows that since 1990 there's been a 40% increase in the Radiative Forcing from CO2.

I just finished reading the paper.

Well, unfortunately, the entire first half is pretty much a rant...............kind of a waste of time.

The second part, on the science, is interesting, and I think he does a pretty good job of showing that the AGW guys have exaggerated CO2's role in cyclones and hurricanes.

So I am back were I started...................I am convinced that there is a financial and political agenda attached to, (at least aspects of), the AGW argrument. But, I'm not convinced that increasing levels of CO2 have no impact on anything. That's equally ridiculous................................the search continues.

Better question

how do we make the political & financial interests alighn with the best interests of humans?

carbon trading is an attempt to do that [more stockmarket like gambling], using CO2 as a benchmark is an attempt simplify the conversation.

figure out how to make it profitable, to save the planet

figure out how to make it profitable, to save the planet

Indeed. I've got an idea for a new thread...........................hopefully with no fodder for argument, (_{^{yeah right}}), that will address that very question. I have, what I think, is a brilliant idea.

Increased CO2 grows more food everybody happy...

This is the kind of stuff that Gray is talking about.

IPCC takes the pre-industrial era (arbitrarily chosen as the year 1750) as the baseline.

How can they do that?

They also make no mention whatsoever of the most prevalent greenhouse gas of all, which is water vapor.

Global warming/climate change is much discussed. Almost everyone agrees that climate change occurs. On average, the Earth has been warming since the last ice age. Of course, the warming isn't constant. A thousand years ago, there were trees and dairy cows in Greenland. Then came the "little ice age," when glaciers advanced, and the Greenland colonists perished. In Europe, learned authorities said the advancing glaciers were the result of witchcraft. A number of witches were burned, and the advance of the ice stopped.

Today, hardly anyone suggests that global warming can be stopped by recruiting more witches. Nowadays, almost everyone, all the "legitimate unbiased" climate scientists, the president, and a Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore, attribute global warming to the burning of fossil fuels. Sometime around the 18th century, when witches became extinct, temperatures began to rise. Not long after, carbon dioxide from burning coal began to accumulate in the atmosphere. It is known that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infra-red radiation, and it is IR radiation into space which cools the Earth, balancing the energy received from the sun. Looking at that correlation, computer programmers have devised computer models (rather like video games) which might explain how carbon dioxide from burning fuels could cause global warming. Of course water, as vapor or condensed in clouds, is a much more potent greenhouse gas, but the water cycle is too difficult to model. (Garbage in:garbage out)

Well, with the help of journalists and learned authorities, "everyone knows" that we must reduce our consumption of coal and oil or face the possible extinction of the human race. We could, perhaps, conduct an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis. We could reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and see if the rate of warming decreases. Guess what. The experiment was already conducted. During the Great Depression factories and steel mills shut down, so fuel consumption was reduced, perhaps by 30 per cent. Did global warming abate? No, published data show the maximum rate of warming in the 1930's. It seems an inconvenient truth that history does not support the hypothesis. Insanity, they say, is repeating an experiment and expecting a different result. Still, the major media demand a repeat of the experiment. "Don't confuse me with facts; my mind is made up."

Mass delusions are the result, IMHO, of a flawed educational system. A few years ago, Missouri eighth grade science students were given a District Assessment Test. The students were told to do their best, as their teacher would be rated based on the students' performance. The test was based on a student project to answer the question: are dry seeds alive? It was assumed that seeds which are alive have chemical processes going on, and chemical reactions often give off heat. The student took two plastic foam cups and put wet seeds in one and dry seeds in the other. An alcohol in glass thermometer was inserted in each cup. Each day, "at the same time," the temperatures were recorded. After the test, the students were given the "correct" answers. Question: What is the control? Answer: the wet seeds, since that is the natural condition of seeds. I would have thought the control should be a cup of dead seeds or an empty cup. Question: What should the student conclude? Answer: The dry seeds are alive. Oh? If the temperatures were the same, would that tell which seeds were alive? If the wet seeds were cooler, perhaps cooled by evaporation, would that show which seeds were alive? If the wet seeds were warmer, perhaps sprouting, would that indicate whether the dry seeds were alive? "Don't confuse me with facts; my mind is made up." A real scientist looks at the data before drawing a conclusion. Since no data were given, a better answer would be: there is insufficient information to draw a conclusion. Belief without evidence is religion, not science. I brought the test to the attention of a school superintendent. He seemed entirely unconcerned. In Missouri, it is public policy to teach junk science.

You're falling into your own trap.

Drawing ANY conclusion on climate based on 10-20 (depression) years worth of data is folly.

You have given me an idea, though. Let's burn all the politicians and lawyers and see what that does to the environment.

Nothing we do will stop global warming. Many things we do may contribute to it, but only in a very small way.

_{(I still think Yellowstone will do us in;)}

It also shows a 20% change from around 1980 to 1990 as well.

Personally I hate the types of graphs. They are rarely if ever fitted to the contexts as a whole in both rates of change Vs overall change in any way shape or form.

What I see from 1980 to 2010 is a 1/1750 W/M² (.057%) estimated energy change to the system as a whole. In further question where does the 1750 W/M² energy number come from I have been of the long time understanding that the sun is imparting around 1366 W/M² average with a +- 2 W/M² (.14%) or greater natural cyclic variant over extended time frames of centuries.

The 11 year solar variant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Long term variations and climate influences. http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/solarmwp.php

Just asking.

The more I see people latching onto the scientific minority opinion instead of the majority opinion, the more I think that Roger Pink may have really been correct. There maybe an anti-science basis in our society. Its only when science makes us a profit that we will grudgingly give it credence.

Let me back off of that comment for now. You mentioned back at entry #30

I am convinced that there is a financial and political agenda attached to, (at least aspects of), the AGW argument.

Do you think the scientific community that believes that global warming is real has a financial or political agenda to gain some sort of advantage by warning the world of global warming? I don't think they do, nor do I see a plausible reason for scientists to warn about global warming for any reason other than they believe that it will happen. But I will entertain your reasoning.

Certainly there will be politicians that seize an opportunity on one side or the other on this debate and they will promote the perspective that they feel will aid their country, state, province, commonwealth, grand duchy or whatever title is their home land. That is a politicians job. But opportunistic politicians cannot and did not start this debate. Who would have the financial or political desire to promote or refute global warming? Would they have the fiscal funds to promote their preferred perspective by funding directly or indirectly any and all opinions that support their preference.

Thanks for giving me another direction to look in. This is interesting: _{^{and way shorter.}}

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

I'll post more as I find it. From either side of the debate.

Well if you really are open to all sides, try reading about the man made corrections to carbon 14 dating.

Help me out here. All of that makes sense to me, but I can't find the part that ties it into global warming. I don't think there's an argument on rising CO2 levels.

We can and have measured how much of the CO2 in the air is from fossil fuels. In just about sixty years from the significant start of the use of fossil fuel, Hans Seuss measured a 2% drop in the C14 concentrations in the air. Now our atmospheric nuclear tests did boost the C14 levels but the continuing drop of C14 allows us to measure how much fossil carbon is in our air. We are changing the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Now as for correlating CO2 levels to average temperature there's this site's data and analysis linking temperature, sunspots and CO2 levels. Now as your other link points out, at other times the CO2 level did not correlate with the apparent average temperature. The most extreme case of this was the Cambrian era of about 550 million years ago. However, Earth was not anything at all like our world today. Plate tectonics alone made a significant difference. Going back significantly into the past increases the uncertainty of the pertinence of the data.

The wording in the conclusion from the first link is a little perplexing.

The recent atmospheric CO₂ concentration leads recent Earth-average temperature. Even if it did not, it could not be read as a proof that dumping CO₂ into the atmosphere does not change average Earth temperature, because other variables could be changing both temperature and CO₂ concentration.

Isn't he kind of making his argument in the first sentence, and destroying it in the second sentence?

I see that the EPA uses the IPCC report exclusively.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

Yeah, he's building a straw man there, too. That's why I provided the link showing one reason why people try to dissociate CO2 and global average temperature. I will say that the first link is not claiming to be a scientific paper as Mr. Gray is claiming.

Your quite correct and accurate though to accuse me of pointing to somebody doing the same thing I'm complaining about.

Well, lets remember, we're not arguing sides here.....................I'd rather not anyway.

I did a google search on how the global warming debate got started, and it's pretty interesting. The politicians saw it's potential as a tool right away. Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to sound the alarm bells, because she wanted the UK to embrace nuclear energy.

I think political pressure entered the fray, pretty early on..................which is never a good thing.

The carbon dating link is pretty amazing. I had no idea.

it's that lawyer mentality

right or wrong don't enter into it

always looking for those easy talking points,

a complex argument, takes too long to make, 2 minutes is about it

The science is complex. The argument is getting easier to unravel.

I'm trying to look at the argument itself with an objective mind, although the argument, even between scientists, is anything but objective...............kind of presents a conundrum.

For our own arguments, I can click back to any climate change thread on here for hours of entertainment.

I find things like this from the NOAA annual greenhouse gas index, troubling:

IPCC takes the pre-industrial era (arbitrarily chosen as the year 1750) as the baseline.

The change in annual average total radiative forcing by all the long-lived greenhouse gases since the pre-industrial era (1750) is used to define the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which was introduced in 2004 [Hofmann et al., 2006a] and has been updated annually since.

The growth rate of methane declined from 1983 until 1999, consistent with an approach to steady state.

The approach to steady state may have been accelerated by the economic collapse of the former Soviet Union and decreased emissions from the fossil fuel sector.

Nitrous oxide continues to increase at a relatively uniform growth rate, while radiative forcing from the sum of observed CFC changes ceased increasing in about 2000 and is now declining [Montzka et al., 2011]. The latter is a response to decreased emissions related to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. They have been able to measure the effect of the Montreal Protocol?

Because we seek an index that is accurate, only the direct forcing has been included. Model-dependent feedbacks, for example, due to water vapor and ozone depletion, are not included. Other spatially heterogeneous, short-lived, climate forcing agents, such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone, have uncertain global magnitudes and also are not included here to maintain accuracy.

That last paragraph in particular confuses me............................I've never heard of leaving other possible factors out to insure accuracy.

Am I wrong here?

It looks to me like they're saying, "While there are many things that affect the atmosphere, in the interest of accuracy, we're going to leave out all but the man made factors..................trust us".

Ideally you would cancel out all but one factor

that being impossible, it's all downhill for such a complex system as a planet

for me the question is how do we mitigate the effect humans are having on the planet?

the set that is winners in the economic equation, will change, consequently the current set of winners will not go quietly, nor will the perspective set of potential winners pull any punches

hysterical hijinks ensue

the absolute truth how important is it?

How could this truth be determined?

It is a poorly worded and ambivalent phrase. I take it to mean that NOAA recognizes that there are many different greenhouse gasses and that there are many different mechanisms that both over the short and long term change the concentrations of these gasses. NOAA also recognizes that they do not know all of these gasses nor the mechanisms that change their concentrations. So instead of avoiding any discussion of global warming gasses because absolute accuracy is not possible, they will discuss only the gasses and mechanisms that are accurately known.

At least that's what I get from that phrase.

Avoiding straw men is nearly impossible.

Good link

It debunks a lot of historical hysteria, but again the author appears ignorant of 'black body' radiation and it's all relative to absolute zero, and that the seas are an energy transfer system that uses energy to run.

We have currently an arrangement of continents that have allowed a sort of heat engine stasis to develop, but suggesting that nothing much can happen unless that arrangement changes, is a bit "single cause thinking" in itself.

It is not currently 'cause for panic' that we will return to a super-continent and/or the dynamic balance issues that caused the ice ages. Nor is it a concern that the planet crust will remelt. History has a place in time. We are on a time line in a stabilizing process, just as the Laws of thermodynamics predict for any energy system.

At the risk of being tedious - CO2 is an indicator. Much like a cars speedo, there is a lot going on to produce the reading.

I'm probably posting this before I should, but after a little looking around, if I was on the side of arguing the damaging effects of CO2, I wouldn't be talking about atmospheric temperature changes at all. Ocean acidification, at first glance, looks to be a far more compelling argument.

No 'grammar girl' has it slightly wrong. A 'strawman attack' is not a logical fallacy per se. A 'strawman attack' is one where you attribute statements (usually extreme or simplistic statements) to you opponent that your opponent did not say, for the purpose of easily demolishing those statements, with the implication that you have demolished your opponents arguments. I.e., you create a strawman that is easily knocked down.

From Wiki: "Records of hurricane activity worldwide show an upswing of both the maximum wind speed in and the duration of hurricanes." Wikipedia is referenced for ease. There are many sources that substantiate the comment.

William M. Gray says this is untrue. This declaration is made by implying that Al Gore is lying to us when he makes a similar statement in a book.

Please note the straw man as noted by redfred; he is plainly visible. Note as well there is nothing mentioned at all about global warming.

The legal maxim Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is well established, and applicable here.

Kerry Emanuel has many mentions in the paper linked in the original post. I would not categorize them as complimentary.

I am not sure about the strategy you mention... I feel no urge to influence you or anyone else in this issue. It appears your mind is made up anyway.

I don't think the little untrue statements are part of the actual report. Every year they predict a wicked hurricane season here on the east coast and it never materializes.

I just got home from work, so I haven't read any more of it, but I will. I don't think he's being funded by anybody.

The statement about the recent increase in hurricane strength and duration is an example of selecting data that fits a point of view. From the same Wiki article is this graph that shows the 'increase in hurricane activity' over the past 30 years. Clearly it's an oscillation (as the article also states) and pretty much fits within the historical norms. The last few years even show a slight downward trend.

William Gray's CV indicates he is not a crackpot. He is a trained climate scientist who has been working at Colorado State U since 1974 prof emeritus since 2005.

This doesn't mean he can't be wrong, but he not just some politician or sociologist (like the many of the IPCC co-authors). His points are as worth serious consideration as anything out of the AGW crowd.

Yes, all sides of this debate have repeatedly chosen the data set that they prefer. This is the basis of building up a straw man just to tear it down.

I do not question that Mr. Gray has made scientific improvements. I question this particular paper of his. I specifically question his definition of energy. I admit that the definition in this paper might be just a poor explanation of some sound meteorological energy standard. But I cannot find another paper that explains these units. I certainly did not do an exhaustive search. I'm willing to listen to an explanation or translation. But if I cannot make sense of the units he's using it sounds more like folly than reason to me.

As for the graph you present I see that prior to about 1965 the above and below cycles look like an evenly distributed above and below data sets. After 1970 there appears to be an upward trend. Maybe I'm fooling myself. Maybe somebody is fooling us. This graph presents the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation for huricane strength. What was the Indian, and Pacific Multidecadal oscillation? It seems that Wikipedia does not have either information. I think we have a conspiracy here.

I guess people have a hate on for Gore so you jump on ANY figure and attack! Hold on! Wouldn't Gore's figures be about 10 years old now? So perhaps they are not even comparing the same periods of time! Max windspeed and intensity are NOT the same thing. Maybe you should try comparing like with like before jumping in?

A 15% increase in maximum windspeed might be a 50% increase in intensity. Isn't intensity proportional to the cube of the windspeed? Any engineers in the forum to assist?

From the preamble of the piece:

Al Gore states in his book and movie - An Inconvenient Truth - "major storms (hurricanes) spinning in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent." NOT TRUE

From Wikipedia:
"Records of hurricane activity worldwide show an upswing of both the maximum wind speed in and the duration of hurricanes. The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime."

More BS from a radical on the "other side".

Regardless of "why" it's happening, all the ice on the planet seems to be disappearing and plants and animals are moving higher up on the mountains of the world in order to survive. Are these lies put forth by "the government"? Polar bears?? Who needs 'um????? Right?

Of course, I, like every other member of this forum have no idea what is really going on, nor where we'll be in another 100 years. Politicians from Kentucky claim that smoking cigarettes is not harmful to humans. Politicians from Oklahoma claim that there is no global warming. Who to believe?

Does it really matter if CO² kills us or just a natural thermal cycle of the earth. We're all still going to be just as dead.

True, but the "why" is what's causing all of the arguments. If this paper is all BS, then it's another climate scientist I can write off as a fraud.

His credentials look impressive. If he's lying, he needs to be run out on a rail and fired.

The "why" won't matter when we're all crispy critters.

In either any all cases, I'm bettiing there's money involved.

Lyn said "Does it really matter if CO² kills us or just a natural thermal cycle of the earth. We're all still going to be just as dead"

Yes it does. Because if it is CO2 then we know we are the cause, and there may be a cure - even if it is, e.g., the 60% fatal bird flu manufactured in the lab.

If it is a natural thermal cycle, there still may be things we can do to ameliorate it - but likely to be much tougher.

Best we know.

Does it say how big of grant he got for writing this?

I have yet to see one single hurricane grow in intensity where I live. Its the truth!

Kamarat - Sure is lonely when your right and the Gummint is wrong -

may be dangerous too. Hang in there, political correctness

is disentegrating.

Regarding the frequency of hurricanes, this is amazing:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/new-hurricane-record-2232-days-and-counting-since-major-hurricane-made-landfall-on-the-usa-last-record-was-year-1900/

Also, as to why the Earth's Climate is changing, just keep in mind that the Earth went through a 'little ice age' that lasted roughly throughout the 1600s into the late 1800s. Some (though not all) of the glaciers that built up over that ~200 year period have gone through a stretch of receding. Prior to that the Earth went through the Medieval Warm Period.

It's Climate. It changes. A lot of it is likely driven by the Sun, cosmic rays and other exterior phenomena, volcanoes and other Earth-interior processes, and maybe by human burning of fossil fuels. No one knows the exact contribution due to each source. The guys at East Anglia and their counterparts in the US have botched the data gathering and analysis process, so anyone who claims to know needs to be treated skeptically.

It amazes me to see what length we will go to to prove something; many things cannot be proven comprehensively.

I like your post, so GA.

I thought I'd post an image relating to your first link:

I tried to step up resolution, from 120dpi to 300dpi with PhotoPaint, but it still doesn't look very good. I used the snipping tool in Win7 to capture the image.

Can you put up a link to it? It's still too fuzzy to read.

This one is updated to 2007:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Hurr-uslandfalling-1950-2007.jpg

There ya go

I will try to get time to read it, but just from the title it is going to be hard to take it seriously. When you start with a premise, you can usually establish it - irrespective of fact.

The whole climate change arguement comes back to HOW do you determine what's going to happen in the future from data you have now.

The time taken for any climate change will be large compared to a human lifetime, so looking at "Earth temp versus CO2 levels over 100 years" for a system that has 1000's of non linear elements and has 1000 year time constants etc doesn't tell us much.

Instead, for this type of problem, it's normal to develop a "model" of the system. Naturally it's a simplification, but with ongoing research and a better understanding of the physical processes the response of the model can closely approximate the actual response. A model is not a wild guess.

Running the model backward in time and comparing it to the long term historical records (ice cores etc) can give confidence in the models predictive powers. The model can also highlight the most important input variables.

That's what has been going on for the last 100 years in climate modelling. The consensus is that CO2 levels are important in global temperature.

Of course, what if anything we can do about it is a political question. Personally I doubt we can change.

You people are arguing about hurricanes while it's the methane that the Russians are talking about that really scares me.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10773020

Want to know if climate change is real? Ask a Polar Bear!

That doesn't sound good.

This discussion is like looking at a 100 foot high wave coming directly at you and wondering if you're going to drown, of die from the impact.

Either way, you're just as dead.

I have never spent time researching Global Warming or Climate Change. And I'm not sure why, as I do care about the planet. You'd think that would be enough impetus for anyone to investigate the debate that has arisen.

As I think about it, though, all argument revolves around what is "normal" for the planet.

The data being examined differs as to length of record depending on what the source is. Tree rings only go back so far and differ from species to species because of lifespan of these different species. Geological data is the oldest, with ice cores in the Arctic and Antarctic regions giving data for the age of the ice. (How do we know the age of icebergs? I don't know. I've never taken a geology course.)

Regardless, of the data, much like the human body, I think, (and that means opinion, based on no real data, since I haven't spent time looking at this, so far) there are planetary "processes" that we either don't know about or aren't well understood. So how can we know what is "normal?" And we assume, that like the human body, there is a planetary "stasis" -- that natural processes oscillate between min and max "acceptable" values, before things get out of kilter. Also, science ties cataclysmic events to the data, which might indicate that the data being correlated to that cataclysm might be outside the bounds of "normal." Or better, normal includes these cataclysmic reactions to conditions at the time. Then we try to decide what is causal and what is symptomatic.

Looking at geological and other data we are looking for these bounds and hoping we can put the data/criteria in a context that allows us to overlay current known "conditions" or data to see if it fits any previous cycle. But in some ways, that would be like comparing basic physiological data, temperature, blood pressure, blood chemistry, etc. and ignoring the fact that dissimilar conditions can result in the same "overlay" of physiological data. And the data from the past doesn't include industrial humans as a factor, that we know of. So, right off, it becomes a bit like apples and oranges to begin with.

That brings us back to what is "normal?" And do we see any match between current conditions and any previous events that humans would find cataclysmic or catastrophic? I'm afraid that you'd get differing views of what is "normal" depending on the predisposition of the scientist looking at the data.

I think having a solid opinion on all the data would require a tremendous amount of knowledge from divers fields. Then there is the problem of how to integrate it all. Back to understanding "normal."

Until I have some understanding approaching that level, I won't be able to properly grasp the arguments from either side on this debate. I think that is what kramarat is trying to get a handle on. I think it is an uphill task. So kudos for tackling it.

My visualization of this is like a spinning top. It may wobble greatly but then restablize itself and spin smoothly again. Or it may wobble enough to finally crash. I think the Earth is a powerful enough top that no matter what conditions get thrown at it, IT will survive and either repair or replace any damaged processes over time. Of course, our species may not be around to watch the process.

I would ask if anyone knows of a good "primer" on this topic, but I suspect there might be different "flavored" primers depending on which camp in this debate supplies it. I assume all are accessing the same data. What is agreed upon and what is not? Do we all need to become experts to even begin to know if we agree with the logic of either side? I'm beginning to believe that is the case. So much of life has become that way. We trust so much "data" in life these days -- or maybe we don't. Maybe we've become mistrustful of a lot of "information" because we think it is all colored or skewed by someone's (or some industry's) agenda.

I think that is what kramarat is trying to get a handle on. I think it is an uphill task.

That's exactly what I'm doing. There have been more climate fights on here than I can count. So I'm trying to get a handle on what's really going on. Lyn's right that we're all going to die anyway, but to just accept AGW as absolute truth, is to accept sweeping policy changes by our governments that will impact all of us, including granting themselves more power to implement them.

It's hard to find things that aren't just more rants and raves from either side, but if I find them, I'll post them.

"There have been more climate fights on here than I can count. So I'm trying to get a handle on what's really going on."

Thats what I have been doing for a few years now since I switched sides. From my perspective if two people/science parties can both look at the same reference material and data and come out with two completely differing opinions I will tend to take the middle view that neither one is likely 100% correct or plausibly even 50% for that matter.

If one side says I will have to work harder, spend more, give up more, and get by with less while someone else gets richer from it all I call that at minimal a politically biased view/interpretation of the situation.

If someone says they can take 50 - 100 years of loose data and predict with 100% certainty what the next 200 years or more will be like, and all miserable at that, I have every logical scientific reason to doubt them. However if they take 2000 years of of plausible data and saying they can predict what the next 20 - 50 may be like with a 70% likelihood of both good and bad changes taking place I will listen.

kramarat, I forgot about, and therefore forgot to ask, what about Richard Muller's turnaround? Does his "conclusion" in any way help in your quest for "what's really true?" Conversions can be genuine.

This doesn't really help. A conversion shouldn't have been necessary.

I didn't think that there was an argument about whether CO2 levels were going up..........................How could they not?

This link I put up earlier says that we are approaching the end of an 18,000-20,000 year warming period. If the graph is correct, we'll be entering into another icy period in a couple of thousand years whether we like it or not.....................one that will last approx. 100,000 years. Glad I'll miss it.

It doesn't seem like a full conversion. Nor is he going out on a limb.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s.

Well, okay. Why? It's land surface only, not the entire atmosphere that's being measured.

Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Why? Whether mankind is behind it, is the basis for the entire argument.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

No kidding?

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

Where's the conversion?

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Darnit, he left out the man-made part!!!!!!

I won't mention the multiple straw men found in the article.

The IPCC, at this moment, is directing US policy on climate..................including the EPA and NOAA.

People like Gray and his collegues, are not allowed to participate at IPCC.

The wording in both EPA and NOAA documents is fuzzy as hell.

I'll be looking forward to what, if anything comes out of this conference.

He got $600,000 for 2 years of research that reached the conclusion that surface temps have gone up 1.6 degrees since 1950.

I'll tell you what.........................if I was a climate scientist on either side of the debate, the last thing I'd want, is for it to end.

the real question would be how was the $600k spent?

what percentage went into administration?

questions like that...

I wonder if Muller is now considered a sound, credible scientist?

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/28/207772/koch-richard-muller-gore-cicerone-polar-bears-friedman/

Wake me up if something good happens.

I'll give you a holler. It's the weekend....................I should have all of the world's problems solved by Monday.

Here we go. How about the IPCC itself?

global mean temperature will increase by about 0.3 °C per decade during the [21st] century. They judge that global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 °C over the last 100 years, broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.

1. Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections)
2. There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies)

In 2010, an independent investigation into the IPCC recommended that the body focus more on explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature, and less on lobbying activities. Gee, ya think.

The topic is very interesting indeed. There are many views and it is a very lengthy blog. Kindly see link below

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43826957/tradeclimate.pdf.

This will give you an idea of how this climate change issue was used as an excuse to push for trade talks between developing and developed countries. Indian economy was forced to open up to allow dumping of goods and technologies from developed countries. India and China with huge middle class population was seen as a large target market for white goods made in developed world. This climate change talk- was just an instrument to push Indian and Chinese economies.

If you debunk all theories of climate change, why should UN climate talks continue nay further? Why should developed world be allowed to have access to market in these economies. There are many other repercussions of such debunking theories.

Developed nations want only the cake- access to these large markets- without taking responsibility for reducing emissions!!!!When the deadline of 2012 was nearing and developed nations were unable to meet their commitments under Kyoto protocol, they just started questioning the finding and concepts put up by these Nobel prize winners- I am not at all an expert. I am just an outsider watching this blame game being exchanged. Public will know teh truth, as tehy are usffering because of climate change- may be teh cause is still unknown.

I've reached one rock solid conclusion.....................the US can't seem to be able to decide where we stand. One minute we're banning light bulbs, and then..............

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858404576134553990567750.html

Huh, when I first found the article it showed the whole thing, now it wants me to subscribe, but you get the idea.

"now it wants me to subscribe" fairly well answers your question on where the US stands.

Not just the US.........................it's called blowing a bunch of save the planet smoke out the arse, and business as usual. Not much point in me worrying about it.

I spent about an hour this morning going over the IPCC website, meetings, summaries, etc., and I have reached the conclusion, that while there are people there that may genuinely be concerned about the climate, the primary focus seems to be controlling populations of people through social engineering. Fossil fuels will continue to be burned.

India has dropped out of the IPCC. A vote passed in the US house to stop funding as part of a bill in front of congress in Feb. of this year. I can't find info on whether the senate passed it or not.

The controversy surrounding both the IPCC, and the UN in general is pretty overwhelming.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf

human factor, in the 1400 population 378,000,000 six hundred years later 7billion population, with an estimated increase of 3billion in the next 40 yrs or so ten billion people exhaling carbon dioxide with a methane exhaust lol. We better get a handle on our carbon footprint pretty soon u think. With China and India having newly emerging middle classes they would be the best places to study the human impact, on global warming u think. Either way the faster we get off of fossil fuels the better is for mother earth and mankind. By the way not a believer in Global Warming not enough clear information but while the debate is still taking place humans are the largest contributors in emissions so any thing we can do to lesson that would be good just saying:)

I agree. I've got an idea to address that issue and will be be starting a thread soon.

No rational person would say that burning things for energy and transportation is a good thing. At the very least, it pollutes the air we breath.

I'm looking specifically at ways to curb consumption, (the only real answer, I think), without overly burdensome political mandates and agendas, and also without sacrificing basic comfort.

I think the IPCC started off as a worthwhile scientific clearinghouse for data, but unfortunately, it got hijacked by people, (mostly non scientists), whose agenda's go far beyond reducing CO2.

The answer is simple, but solution is NOT practical. The environment damage at rapid rate is because of desire of human beings to have a better standard of living. Here is some interesting statistics. Pl see the rate of growth of population. Hence the policies of various governments across the world - should be cut down population growth- not to leave it to natural forces. In India- unfortunately population control issue is never discussed- as it get drwoned by votebank politics, mojority / minority reservation policies. Islamic conuntries do not respect population control- ere religious sentiments coem in teh way. So - solution is known- but not pratical.

•ONE BILLION IN 1804 »103 YEARS LATER •TWO BILLION IN 1927 »33 YEARS LATER •THREE BILLION IN IN 1960 »14 YEARS LATER •FOUR BILLION IN 1974 »13 YEARS LATER •FIVE BILLION IN 1987 »13 YEARS LATER •SIX BILLION IN 2000 »11 YEARS LATER •SEVEN BILLION IN 2011

No rational person wants fresh fruits and vegetables in winter? No rational person wants to live in a green area but work elsewhere? No rational person thinks power tools and computers are a good thing? No rational person thinks travel is a good thing? Where do we get energy and transportation beyond sailing ships and horses except by burning things? Photovoltaics and wind turbines cannot be manufactured and installed without burning things.

With all around us melting, there is a problem.

The correllation of temperature and CO2 is quite congruent over the past 150 years.

And all in all, you cannot ignore the decreasing pH of the oceans,

which will collapse the food chain eventually.

This issue is the most important ever addressed by this species,

homo sapiens-sapiens:

Or Ignored, as the case may be.

"The correllation of temperature and CO2 is quite congruent over the past 150 years." "Quite congruent" is a matter of opinion. One can argue that the CO2 lags the temperature change. Or direct your attention to the records of the 1930's, when fuel use went down but temperatures increased at record rates. How many times does one have to repeat the experiment before the hypothesis of fuel use adds to climate change is disproved?

A correlation, of course, says nothing about causation. Those who drink expensive wines have fewer children than those who don't. Does wine cause infertility? Could we solve the world's population problems by supplying the teeming billions with expensive wine?

You are correct that a correlation need not prove causation. However, you seem to also think that we cannot test the infrared transmission properties of the gasses in our atmosphere. The only way that any thermal energy can leave our planet is by infrared radiation. The more CO2 that resides in our atmosphere there is less infrared energy that can leave through it. So we not only have a correlation that CO2 levels predicts the average global temperature but we also have a corroborating mechanism that supports a rise in CO2 means a rise in the global average temperature.

Now is this correlation and corroboration sufficient to convince everyone about global warming, obviously not. Let's remember that there are still advocates of a flat Earth. Is this sufficient to convince all rational people, again obviously not for I consider you and many other global warming deniers as rational people. Is this and other correlations and corroborations sufficient to convince a vast majority (+95%) of those trained in the multiple disciplines around climatology, yes this is sufficient to convince a vast majority of those trained in the field. Does this mean that the scientific majority have to be correct, no it does not. To successfully refute the scientific majority requires more than just denial of some data and highlighting the large number of individuals trying to game this scenario.

1. Yes, the only way IR leaves the Earth is through the atmosphere, and we have tested the transmission properties, via satellites, and they don't seem to agree with the silly computer models.

2. How do you explain the inverse correlation between fuel use and warming in the 1930's? Why repeat the experiment, as advocated by the "vast majority", the Kyotophiles? Do you expect a different result?

3. I am not a "global warming denier". Of course the globe has been warming, and the ice caps have receded, and the mastodons are extinct, and I'm glad! What I deny is that there is strong evidence (not computer models) that man is causing global warming.

4. I invite you, or some of the "vast majority trained in the field", to present the evidence. They do not. Even though the "evidence" was gained at public expense, they will not release the raw data, freedom of information act or no, and they expect us to accept on faith their summaries and conclusions and unverified computer projections from "proprietary" unpublished programs.

Would you take a "life saving drug" that had been tested once -- the patient died -- but which the proponents claimed is sure to work, based on their computer simulations?

5. The chattering classes inundate us with junk science and dubious policies, like saving the world by banning plastic shopping bags or forcing mercury into our light bulbs. It seems any idiocy can be justified by "global warming," even the redesign of Coca Cola cans. Where is the risk-benefit analysis?

Are you familiar with the work of Hans Seuss?

I teach environment management and I use this particular blog to explain what goes on in the mind of participants from developed nations- denigrating the people from developing nations. The language used is atrocious. What is spoken in Climate change conferences, what is meant for media, is far different- here I got the real inside story. The difference in understanding of realities between scientists and politicians is clear. Those attending and negotiating at UN Conferences are politicians, heads of states, cabinet rank ministers, and they do not get backing of scientists- especially those drawing hefty salaries- care a hoot.

Environment will degrade anyway- now that the clock has been pushed to 2020. Let CEOs etc draw hefty packages, bonuses, who cares.

It has been a very interesting blog anyway.

I think you read too much into the comments

Here we are not in our offices, and here it is after work hours.

You are standing in a bar without booze - this is where we vent our frustrations as well as design and speculate. As you would in a bar, you need to take all with a grain of salt.

Should you wish to hold these conversations up to scrutiny, you might consider what you say after hours first.

As for backing of the scientists, most of us are not scientists, we are engineers. We do not set policy, we mostly are obligated to adhere to policies and regulations. And much of what passes for policy associated with climate change has promised great turmoil in our fields, and changes we sometimes do not approve of and sometimes do not understand.

But one of the fundamental mistakes you make is thinking most politicians or policy makers (at least in my country where we are trying to elect a president who doesn't believe in evolution) have any relationship with scientists or science. So we greatly fear the things they promise at conferences will be poor science and poor policy.

That is what you hear.

So in short what we say here CAN be outrageous BECAUSE it doesn't count.

When the new policies are decided on, we will adhere as they impact our fields.

And come back here and complain and whine.

...

As for denigrating the developing world, China has more solar power online already than the US. They are also on the verge of putting 1 billion people in cars. I would not deny them cars, but I wish I had an electric car for them to drive.

Did the developed world use climate talks to force open India's markets? I don't know, but it is the kind of thing I would suspect a politician of.

If like Diogenes you are traveling the world looking for an honest man you may have found the right place.

We may be wrong, but we will tell you what we think.

And you can feel free to give us hell, that is what this place is for.

But do not grant us more importance than we hold.

Wait a minute!!!

Are you saying that the people that make policy decisions don't check in with CR4 banter first?

No wonder everything is so F'd up.

shall we always strive to keep our comments rageous?

There are 10 types of people. People who understand binary and those who don't.. Genuine. I stole it fair & square...

When the new policies are decided on, we will adhere as they impact our fields.

It's close to a GA, but not quite.

When new policies are decided on by the freaking morons we insist on putting into power..........................and they make no sense................I, for one, will not adhere to them.

I WILL MAKE MY VOICE LOUDER AND LOUDER UNTIL THEY LISTEN. I'M TIRED OF BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO BY GREEDY IDIOTS...............AND I'M NOT ALONE................THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US!!!!

Let me suggest a new hypothesis. All of us who played with a rotating top (and we also were told in engineering college- about rotational inertia)- are aware how a rotating top spins and is steady over a small nail.

As the rotational speed comes down, the top tilts and its axis of rotation shifts downwards due to gravity. Then the top stops and falls down.

Now let us look at the earth - it is just about 1 % or so solid surface, with a large liquid inner core. It is spinning on its own axis with liquid core to give stabilization (hope I am right). There is a slight tilt towards the sun. This tilt is going on changing- may take thousands of years. We do not have metrological data for thousands of years. It is possible that the spin axis will become parallel to rotational axis round the sun someday, when the arctic will face the sun and may be Antarctic away from the sun. The ice will melt so much and sea level rise so much. Most continents will vanish. The tilt will continue further and the poles will change North becoming- South and South becoming North upwards. This will go on and on. This Brahmakumaris (in their spiritual talk) called the cycle. May be we will have another cycle of rebirth, new continents will get formed, new inventions will be made then. What happens to technological innovations we have now? May be there will be more tsunamis and drown huge continents before a new cycle begins.

Now what we are seeing - is it attributable to CO2, NO, SO2 etc in the air and pollution level going up? Is global warming really correlated with this?- God only knows.

Sounds good.

But wouldn't that top analogy mean a huge gravitational presence below Earths axis?

You are absolutely right. I too have been thinking aloud. Let me try to explain- why is our planetary system in one plain & why not in 3 D? Now look at so many galaxies floating or sort of suspended in universe. Are they all also like our galaxy / planetary system in a single plain or in 3 D? Now imagine a so called black hole at the center of a huge sphere- are all galaxies in a kind of a plain tangentially organized over this sphere? Then you can consider - earth revolving on its axis, rotating around the sun in a plain, further subject to kind of a gravitational force from a black hole at the center of a sphere. - It all sounded too complex for me- and I stopped thinking beyond this. Let me hear from you- if you have nay more theories.

If this theory gets accepted - all our climate change politicians can relax and let the scientists go to sleep and not bother about carbon emission etc etc. The world can go on merrily as at present and not bother about UNFCC etc etc. Nobel prize given for Climate Change etc can be withdrawn. No need for all that Davos or Durban talks at all!!!!!!