Climate Change, Again

Yawn. Nothing new.

Back in October of last year it was pointed out that this guy never was a skeptic. This is just another fake story with a different angle on the same old hype.

http://junkscience.com/2011/10/24/richard-muller-no-skeptic/

Let's put aside cause and effect for a moment.

Do you, Usbport, an intelligent individual, believe that the earth is warming, or cooling or neither?

At this point in the journey, if we can't even agree on the simplest terms, forget the reasons, we're doomed.

There is no question that the Earth is warming. The Earth experienced a little ice age from the 1600s through the late 1800s. Since then the Earth has been warming.

This warming is what is usually cited when you read 'there is a consensus' on global warming.

The main problem that arises, then, is determining if there is any 'excessive' warming due to CO₂ generated by humans. There is no consensus on this point. A model can be made to show an X percent rise in temperature due to Y increase in CO2 but these models depend on a good supply of data, otherwise it's garbage-in, garbage-out. And, unfortunately the data cannot be trusted, as was shown in the 2 sets of infamous 'Climategate' emails. They are working with modified data sets and no longer have the original data. Even the original data is somewhat suspect because measurement locations were moved and little or no attempt was made to re-calibrate the measurements for the new locations.

I ascribe to Bjorn Lomborg's attitude toward global warming. Of all the environmentalists talking about climate, this guy is (IMHO) the one that makes the most sense. Here is a link to his TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html

It should be obvious to the most casual observer that all the billions of tons of CO² that man has prematurely and rapidly pumped into the air can't be good for us.

Remember LA in the 1940's and 50's? Eyes burning, breathing problems? I visited there and was amazed at all the trash in the air.

Had all this coal and gasoline naturally evolved into the atmosphere, we'd not have the problems we have today.

Global warming may be debatable, but health problems caused by pollution cannot be ignored. (Politicians are exempted from ignorance of the facts, since their income may depend on continued denial of the obvious)

We have been down this road before and I still do not think there is a significant link between CO2 and surface temperature.

However, linking CO2 to doomsday makes an excellent argument for regulating, profiting from, and controlling industry and people. Behold Carbon Credits.

Wanna buy some?

Also, the debate on global warming should not be confused with the obvious health perils caused by air pollution, to which CO² contributes.

The earth is constantly in thermal flux and the contribution of CO² to global warming won't be settled in our lifetimes.

Yes we have been down this road before, and recently too. I do have to ask ...

Did you review the data and analysis of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project that Richard Muller provided for all to review?

Did you read the New York Times opinion piece that Richard Muller wrote? In particular did you notice this sentence ... These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.

As we discussed earlier, a statistical correlation does not prove causality. However when a correlation is demonstrated to exist between two phenomena and no other proposed measured or calculated phenomena correlates with the measurement then it certainly is more likely that a cause and effect link exists between the two phenomena.

Let's have some particulars to debate. HOW exactly is the learned Dr. Muller claiming that CO2 "fits" better than anything else? Those Ice core samples that the AGW proponents LOVE to cite prove (again) that temperatures rise first, then co2 levels. Then temperature declines while CO2 remains elevated, and then co2 also declines, but more slowly than temperature. As I look at this play out over and over, I come for the conclusion that CO2 is reactionary, not causative. Instead of ALL this back and forth, why don't we get right down to the nitty gritty of the actual scientific principles involved? The good Dr. Muller needs to explain HOW and WHY he figures CO2 is causative when it certainly appears reactionary. I do hope he doesn't go into that thoroughly discredited "co2 as an amplifier of water vapor" nonsense. Sure like to see how he's going to get around the FACT that co2's effect is logarithmic and maxes out at about 100 ppm BELOW current levels. Love to see how he's going to get around the fact that we have had levels more than 10 times current levels, or that the mean (normal) level for co2 is four times the present level. Or better still, I would like to see Muller PROVE based on historical precedent (versus models that never work) that a warmer earth is somehow "bad." IF, IF, IF, the powers that be wanted us off fossil fuels, or at least on cleaner fuels, we could make the switch easily to natural gas and thorium reactors. Use your heads, people. We HAVE options. They aren't being pushed, just a new tax based on a beneficial gas that is a necessary part of the life cycle on this planet. Worrying about too much co2 is about as stupid as worrying about too much oxygen in the air. A deficit of co2 is much more worrisome than our HISTORICALLY LOW current level. The last geologic era that saw co2 levels this low was around 300 MILLION years ago.

CO2 is the straw man that will not die.

You still refuse to look at any link that disagrees with your preconceived ideas. I wonder why?

#13

We have been down this road before and I still do not think there is a significant link between CO2 and surface temperature.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how ill-informed and resistant to the influence of facts and new data.

However, linking CO2 to doomsday makes an excellent argument for regulating, profiting from, and controlling industry and people. Behold Carbon Credits.

Is there a report that links CO2 to doomsday? Muller certainly does not make that link. The IPCC reports do not make that link either. Political reactionaries, on the other hand, have tried to make that link and have tried to ascribe that linkage to scientists.

The science about the effects of lead and asbestos make excellent arguments for "regulating, profiting from, and controlling industry and people." Behold the profitible remediation industry. Why worry about brain damage in kids, or the thousands dying off from mesothelioma. Who cares? Better to keep Monsanto in business than to regulate asbestos, some would argue.

"Political reactionaries, on the other hand, have tried to make that link and have tried to ascribe that linkage to scientists."

They are not trying, they are making the link and they are making policy based on that supposed link. It's called AGW - Al Gore Warming - out of control.

Herein lies the problem. We observe a temperature rise and politicians see it as a venue for control. However, we really do not understand what is causing the temperature rise and we do not know to what extent humans are responsible.

I know everyone has their opinions, but we are trying to understand a complex problem that we can not easily get are arms around. It is not a simple science experiment where we stick a thermometer in a glass of ice.

That's not stoping politicians from hijacking the science for their own means. Carbon credits, for example, is simply a mechanism to tax and does nothing to reduce the global production of CO2. Not that they really care.

My opinion is that we should be doing more to understand the problem before taking the medication from an unmarked bottle as prescribed by over reacting politicians.

Your opinion may be different and I respect that, but if you do think differently, why not have a conversation with the 600+ million Indians that are now without electricity, essentially because they are trying to avoid using coal and fossil fuels.

Is this not a good example of the old saying "Cutting off the nose to spite the face?"

No the problem is that deniers have corrupted communication by claiming to be skeptics. I expected that you would dismiss this report without an examination because it disagrees with your opinion. Sadly you fell to my low expectation. You do recognize that global warming has been measured.

We observe a temperature rise ...

You recognize that humanity is increasing the CO2 level with the use of fossil fuel.

I do not disagree with your analysis and proof that humans are increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

You correctly insist that correlation does not prove causation. You must remember though that causation will always correlate. The lengthy, methodical report and analysis that Richard Muller has performed and that has been summarized in his opinion article clearly states that only the increase in CO2 levels track with the observed temperature rise. Muller also highlights that real rational skepticism is the only way that science can grow.

You are not a skeptic of global warming you are a denier of global warming. You deny global warming for political reasons. There are many things I dislike and even abhor about the politics of global warming. I will not confuse the politics with the science of global warming. I do not deny the science or the conclusion that we are most likely causing global warming.

1. I agree that the temperature is currently rising.

2. I agree that CO2 levels are rising and most likely due to humans.

3. I do not agree that more CO2 = higher temperature. There is historical evidence that I presented repeatedly to show that it does not going back millions of years. This means that the root cause or causes for climatic changes are probably not primarily driven by CO2.

4. I do believe that AGW has been hijacked by politics and purposely obfuscates any real science on climate change. Unfortunately, you can't help but confuse politics and science because of that.

5. I do not know, nor do I think anyone really does know, what percentage of observed climate change is anthropogenic. I make no claims either for or against, therefore it is impossible for you to claim I am a denier.

Yes, you've provided historical evidence that I believe is just another red herring in this debate. The time scale of your evidence is over such a broad time span that one should not claim that CO2 levels are the only factor that has changed along with temperatures during this time. I suspect that the other red herring presented in that thread, the Milankovitch cycle, along with factors of solar output and maybe even the continued cooling down from the moon forming collision four billion years earlier can be reasons for the difference in temperatures. You've shown a time span where CO2 levels do not correlate with temperature. So what. That was then, this is now. Show me something other than CO2 level that does correlate with this recent global temperature rise.

Red herring? Am I wrong in that you claim a link between CO2 concentration and temperature?

What I was pointing out was clearly that temperature and CO2 are not directly linking and there are other confounding factors. That is not a red herring because it is exactly relevant to your claim.

I don't know what other factors correlates with the current temperature changes we see in the last 150 years. I have nothing to prove there nor should I have to, because that would be a red herring.

My point was that the link you claim between temperature and CO2 also has historical evidence that clearly shows uncorrelated changes. You also imply that the "rules" for CO2 vs. temperature have changed between "then" and "now", but provide no data to back that ad-hoc claim up.

To be perfectly honest, I have very little invested in this debate. I started by stating that the CO2 versus temperature correlation is simply that, correlation, but not necessarily causation. I followed that claim with a proof that clearly shows unrelated trends between CO2 and temperature that are historical data that anyone can easily find themselves. That's all I wanted to show.

For whatever reason you seem to want to drag the argument to debating climate change and who's responsible and why. I really do not have much of an interest in debating that because I lack the time to do the detailed analysis required and I am not an expert on the subject. Perhaps Jerry would be a more interesting sparring partner as he is more versed on the subject.

I claim that the only thing so far presented by anyone I know of that correlates with the measured temperature rise of the last two hundred and fifty years is the rise in CO2 levels. I agree that this might be a coincidence. Since no other factor correlates though I still insist that CO2 levels are most likely the difference.

What you seem to be willfully confusing is that CO2 levels are not the sole factor that can change the average global temperature. So showing that CO2 did not correlate over the span of millions of years does not exclude CO2 from effecting global temperature over hundreds of years.

The rise in CO2. Good place to start. Take a look at Beck's research. He had levels above 330 in the 1800s. There is/was no gradual increase in co2. IT went up and down. It GOES up and down. Temperatures went up and down too, because that's what temperatures do, they go up and down. News flash, fellas, climate is not constant. There is no link between co2 levels and temperatures OVER THE SHORT TERM. The long term correlation, AGAIN, temperature increases first, then a lag of 100 to 1000 years, and then co2 increases. IF AGW proponents have ANY HISTORICAL (untampered) evidence that co2 causes a temperature increase, put it on the table.

Ahem, I am repeating myself but this thread starts with a link to Richard Muller's research that does a nice job of correlating temperature and CO2 levels. You refuse to look.

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how something might have a short-term effect, but not a long-term effect if the two are supposed to be correlated.

It is as if CO2 behaves in two different ways. Is there an accepted mechanism that describes that behavior?

You do realize that all of the CO2 concentrations in your chart are an order of magnitude greater than the levels in todays atmosphere. Also that all of the temperatures in your chart are considerably warmer than today's global average temperature.

Yes, but you will also notice that there isn't even a correlation between temperature and CO2 level.

So, how does the chart demonstrate that there would be a correlation between temperature and CO2 at a lower surface temperature?

I don't know of a mechanism that allows for that to happen at a specific surface temperature and to make a claim that it does necessitates a means for that to happen. Would you not agree?

No, I do not agree. A transformer is usually considered a linear device, however if the core saturates then this simple device turns non-linear and higher input voltages do not produce higher output voltages. Most things are non-linear in operation. So proving that anything does not track in one domain does not mean that they cannot track in another.

I agree. However, because non-linear systems exist does not, in itself, prove that CO2 is both non-linear and just happens to correlate to temperature at current surface temperatures. We need much, much more than that.

You would first have to demonstrate the non-linear action of CO2 and temperature, the mechanism behind it, and demonstrate it agrees with current and past observations to make your claim true. To my knowledge that has not been done by anyone.

Normally, a theory is valid until some confounding evidence shoots a hole in it. Only one such proof is necessary to invalidate a theory or hypotheses. In this case the theory is CO2 drives surface temperature. The long-term historical record of CO2 and surface temperature does not fit that theory even remotely.

In order for the theory to survive we need a way to explain that discrepancy to a pretty high standard.

Congratulations. You just described Co2. Beyond 100 ppm BELOW present level,(the saturation level),further increases in co2 have no effect.

I agree with a lot of what Bjorn Lomborg proffers in this presentation. Pertinent to this thread I greatly doubt that it will be rewarding to tackle global warming with our limited budgets and many more pending problems that will provide a bigger return from investment. However, when any faction distorts the discussion by corrupting the meaning of any of the frequently used terms (skeptic) that an economist needs to use to make a valid assessment across multiple disciplines as to where the money should be spent, then we all suffer from a poorly informed decision.

A criticism I have of Mr. Lomborg's presentation is that there is no discussion of the question itself that an economist is trying to answer in this presentation. Is an economist trying to maximize the total number of people helped, the number of people helped over time, the global wealth of the planet, the biological stability of the planet, the maximum sustainable population of the planet or any other question to be tackled. Depending on the question to be answered, a very different decision on how to allocate any and all funding to their problem will occur.

Pretty hard to trust or take seriously temperature data where the supposed increase doesn't exceed the margin of error.

Oh that's funny. The link you cite claiming that Richard Muller was never a skeptic has nothing by readers replies with citations of Richard Muller's earlier skeptical writings.

"... nothing by readers replies with citations of Richard Muller's earlier skeptical writings."

Hmm, seven* comments (at this moment), but I'm not seeing what you claim. If anything, they point out Muller's general agreement with global warming. The only thing mentioned that might be labeled "skepticism" is his questioning the quality of some of the existing work.

* Note: Three of the seven are "pingbacks" to other blog posts, and one of the three is 404.

I wasn't familiar with Muller, so I was unaware that he originally did express doubt in much of the research. (That doesn't change anything about my earlier post, regarding the content of those reader comments.)

Muller does identify himself as a previous skeptic:

"... Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. ..."

Following proper scientific principles, he studied the research and concluded:

"... Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. ..."

Now, as far as deriding Muller (and others) for skepticism of AGW research, it is important to determine the particulars:

... It's a scientist's duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I've analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn't changed. ..."

I am with him on this. Also, far too many people jump to absolutes -- questioning anything about AGW must mean that you don't believe AGW is happening.

When the thermometer on my patio reads 100F today, that's NOT global warming -- that's summer in So. Cal.!

How can we possibly discuss anything complicated when the meaning of a single word like "skeptic" cannot be recognized. The first definition from that Google search I believe makes my point.

A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

You are correct that I exaggerated a little. Of the seven total replies only the four replies that independently start a reply thread are initially viewable. One of those four threads, Otter, only comments that he hasn't seen Muller's work at his approved web sites. The other three replies then explains the methodical questioning Muller applies to the global warming debate. A few of the replies do question the simplicity of Muller's analysis but those do also recognize that the book being discussed is intended for laymen. Two of the sub-replies again discuss how Muller questions the facts. The sub-sub-reply (number 7) fell somewhere into the bit bucket.

Those who disbelieve any opinion and who refuse to listen to an opinion differing their own are not skeptics, they are (dis)believers, or fanatics, or devotees, or drones, or deniers. Global warming "skeptics" are corrupting the meaning of the term.

"Those who disbelieve any opinion and who refuse to listen to an opinion differing their own are not skeptics, they are (dis)believers, or fanatics, or devotees, or drones, or deniers. Global warming "skeptics" are corrupting the meaning of the term."

I absolutely agree.

Another case of ideology trumping objectivity.

I can't wait for our collection of the He Man Global Warming Hater's Club to dismiss this report. I find it particularly telling that only some of the global warming skeptics involved in this study accept the conclusion even though before they started the study they claimed they would accept the result no matter what it concluded. I loved Judith Curry's rejoinder that a simple curve fit is not a good method to understand the results. If that doesn't show an irrational bias, I do not know what does. I recommend that people read the cited New York Times opinion that the former skeptic and lead scientist Richard Muller wrote. He properly chastises many global warming alarmists and emphasises that reasoned skepticism is how science progresses.

After all is said and done

The next ice age will come

This planet counts on it

From time to time

Agreed. The process is continuous. Not withstanding those who incorrectly proclaim that CO² is not at least a partial cause of climate change, the earth has been thermal cycling since day 1. It's just the period that changes.

And then the timescale. If a sudden 1000 year ice or hot age should happen then we as a species should be able to counteract such by adjusting. Not with carbon tax or other political measures but through changing were, how and with what we build in the future.

Being practical about the situation and not panic or take sides in useless discussions is the answer. Opinions, even the most educated, only change the color of the panic button.

Just what is happening in the red center of Australia at the moment is something no living person has ever witnessed. A few earth dwellers had to change tack or became fertilizer for the next time no water is there.

The need to change our lifestyles is undisputed. What we are causing in health problems is more damaging than any ice age. Our combined greed is the main cause and we will have to pay, be it with our health and that of our grand children's children.

I am not a skeptic, denier nor an alarmist just a realist who would not build a house near the beach, at least not on our east-coast. To blame a 'person' or party for this is absurd. I'll go with the flow and hope all goes well, Ky.

There are people who claim that man doesn't really add that much CO2 to make a difference. However, at the same time man has cutting down the rain forests that could have dealt with the extra CO2. Now you have a serious problem that did not exist thousands or millions of years ago. There used to be a balance, but we tipped it.

Kindly refer to the chart from the previous co2 discussion regarding sales of air conditioners. You will note that co2 levels have been as much as 10 times higher in the past. You will note that the last geologic era in which the planet had levels this low was 300 million years ago. You will note that the mean or average co2 level is about 4 times the present level. So, what tipping point are we at, exactly? Assuming you could prove FIRST< that co2 actually causes an increase in temperature

What hath I wrought?

This thread's starting to sound very...............endless.

It must be real. Somebody's already making money off it.

From a web site of a university.↓

Our full-time MBA with Strategic Carbon Management

"It demands alternative business tools, fresh ways of thinking, and a new generation of managers. That's what the MBA with Strategic Carbon Management is designed to produce. The course focuses on business management in general and carbon management in particular, because the two go hand in hand. You will emerge with a skillset that is already in great demand and will only become more so in the future."

Err... I think Carbon Footprint goes hand in foot, not hand in hand.

However, if the whole carbon credit thing turns out to be a bust it will be foot in mouth. :)