Give me your opinions about global warming

[swansont]

Weren't you telling me earlier that sunspots were a better indicate of climate change than solar irradiance? That's like the third time I've read something of yours which contradicted something else you said.

 

Seconded. And I was using a graph that Lance had previously referenced. And "total reconstructed irradiance" sounds suspiciously like ... a model.

[Mr Skeptic]

Weren't you telling me earlier that sunspots were a better indicate of climate change than solar irradiance? That's like the third time I've read something of yours which contradicted something else you said.

 

I haven't had much luck arguing with him either, in the thread about aging. He seems convinced that a correlation between age and cancer means that age (as opposed to mutations) causes cancer. Perhaps he needs to learn about correlation and causation? For someone named SkepticLance, he sure has the power of conviction!

[SkepticLance]

Mr Skeptic

 

No. Age does not cause cancer. However, age does not prevent cancer, as you tried to tell me. Ageing is correlated with a higher cancer rate, and something associated with ageing is therefore related to the cause of cancer. The problem is always communication. What people think they read is not what I think I said. Or something like that.

 

To Swansont.

 

When I used the phrase, 'reconstructed irradiance', I was simply using the terminology that the Max Planck Institute used in their posting. Yes, it is not the terminology I used in my postings earlier. The reason is because it was not my wording. I regard 'irradiance' as confusing, since it suggests electromagnetic radiation, when the causative factors may be related to the other properties of sunspots. eg. magnetic effects, or solar wind. Thus, I use the term 'sunspot activity' in preference. But when I am showing a graph produced by an authority like the Max Planck Institute, I think I may be justified in varying from this habit to remain consistent with their terminology.

 

Your current tactics in this debate are not helpful. To attack a slight change in wording, because I am quoting instead of writing my own words, is to evade the central point. We should be discussing science, not semantics.

 

Another reference to the impact of sunspots.

 

http://www.agu.org/meetings/sm07/sm07-sessions/sm07_GP54A.html

 

"Does the earth's magnetic field influence climate?

 

* Courtillot, V (courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr), Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005, France

Fluteau, F (fluteau@ipgp.jussieu.fr), Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005, France

Gallet, Y (gallet@ipgp.jussieu.fr), Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005, France

Le Mouel, J (lemouel@ipgp.jussieu.fr), Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005, France

 

The main agents which are invoked are solar variability, changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas content, or internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system. Evidences for connections between climate and magnetic field variations have received less attention and will be reviewed. On the 10-100yr timescale, that of recent secular variation, there appears to be a rather good correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature. The correlation applies until the 1980's, suggesting that solar irradiance may be a key forcing function of climate until then, when the correlation breaks and (anomalous?) warming may emerge from the signal "

 

In other words, until about 20 to 30 years ago, what they call 'solar irradiance' (more correctly - sunspot activity) is the most potent factor in climate change.

 

The title of the paper refers to the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that occur during times of high sunspot activity, and which cause cosmic ray flux to reduce.

[swansont]

Note the phrasing that the corellation is suggesting an impact, not concluding it. They go on to propose a mechanism — i.e a model — by which the earth's magnetic field is affected. I also find it interesting that you did not include the rest of the abstract, which includes "In conclusion, no forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in the past century."

 

They seem to be agreeing with the view that you can't come to the conclusions that you have drawn.

 

And "total reconstructed irradiance" sounds suspiciously like ... a model.

 

And from that same conference to which Lance linked, there is this from the Max Planck group (emphasis added)

 

"Solar irradiance variations have been recorded only since 1978. Clearly, there is a need to extend these records into the past in order to evaluate their possible influence on the Earth's climate. Here, a reconstruction of solar irradiance back to the Maunder minimum from the surface magnetic flux is presented. The reconstruction is based on a simple physical model that builds on the sunspot number records and sunspot areas where available. Since the sunspot area records generally consist of a compilation of data from multiple observatories, a proper cross-calibration is essential. The use of data of different sources directly combined can lead to errors in estimating the increase of solar irradiance during the past centuries. Thus, a brief description of the cross-calibration of sunspot areas is also presented."

 

 

Gee, models models everywhere.

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont.

 

Yes, the MPI are cautious in their wording. They talk of correlation more than cause. This is correct scientific phraseology, and reflects the normal scientific conservatism. And in what way does this change my point?

 

Saying no single factor has, by itself, driven warming this past century is also correct. As I repeatedly said, AGGs are the dominant drivers of the past 30 years, and sunspot activity appears to be the dominant drive earlier. Thus, no single driver. I agree.

 

And of course, even when one or other driver is dominant, other drivers are still active, even if their impact is less.

 

A comment about models. I am sceptical of the global climate models for very good reason. However, I have never said that all models are worthless or that all models are wrong. In suggesting this, you are putting words into my mouth. Not that there is anything new about this.

 

In an earlier posting, I expressed my view of models and calculations. In short, the reliability and accuracy of models depends of how many assumptions, simplifications, and substitutions you put into the model. More complex models tend to be less reliable, because they tend to have more such error causing processes.

 

Some models can be quite complex and still accurate, if the assumptions, simplifications, etc are kept to a minimum. For example : Astronomers often set up models of orbital systems, which can be incredibly complex, but still very accurate, due to the fact that they deal with hard data as a basis, and calculations based on extremely accurate equations describing the action of gravity.

 

Simple models, with few error causing processes are also often accurate, and I have no problem with them being used. Very complex models need to be regarded with scepticism.

[waitforufo]

iNow in post 242 shows the image below.

[ATTACH]1636[/ATTACH]

 

 

This is the same image in a different scale with the y axix as % atmosphere.

[ATTACH]1637[/ATTACH]

 

You really wonder why average people are not worried about global warming?

[iNow]

You really wonder why average people are not worried about global warming?

 

Not at all. It's because they have no clue what a 36% increase means, or how percentage of overall atmosphere is not a valid method of measuring this impact.

 

Btw, I'd suggest that average people are worried, and justifiably so. It seems only those insistent on ignoring information and being intellectually dishonest are not worried. Also, what is the source of your chart?

[Mr Skeptic]

Not at all. It's because they have no clue what a 36% increase means, or how percentage of overall atmosphere is not a valid method of measuring this impact.

 

It seems to me the climatologists/biologists are also not too certain what a 36% increase means, though it will almost certainly have bad consequences. The rate of increase is even more worrying.

 

Btw, I'd suggest that average people are worried, and justifiably so.

 

Not all of them. I think it depends a lot on what color they vote.

 

It seems only those insistent on ignoring information and being intellectually dishonest are not worried.

 

That seems likely, but it is sometimes hard to tell what with the journalists always telling "both" sides of a story.

 

Also, what is the source of your chart?

 

His chart looks accurate, as if he just changed the scale from 260-380 ppm to 0-1. Why do you ask?

[iNow]

His chart looks accurate, as if he just changed the scale from 260-380 ppm to 0-1. Why do you ask?

 

Context.

Also, credit where it's due.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Not at all. It's because they have no clue what a 36% increase means, or how percentage of overall atmosphere is not a valid method of measuring this impact.

 

Btw, I'd suggest that average people are worried, and justifiably so. It seems only those insistent on ignoring information and being intellectually dishonest are not worried. Also, what is the source of your chart?

Has the average doom monger any clue that carbondioxide isnt the only greenhouse gas?

Have they any lack of ignorance to the fact that CO2 can increase but overall greenhouse gases actually do not?

Have they any understanding what a 500% decrease is(the decrease of greenhouse gases since the early earth)?

Are they simpletons that dont know that spikes are a natural occurrence in climate, and in fact a flat-line in any graph with complex patterns and very many variables would actually be the anomaly?

And by the way the "average person" actually follows the trend of jumping on the global warming bandwagon these days, or dont you believe the assertions of your own fad-scientist friends if it doesnt suit you at the time?

 

 

 

Yes, like Jim Hansen, perhaps one of the foremost proponents of anthropogenic greenhouse gases being the dominant forcing...

 

Well OK, you've dug up one muppet from an enormous organization:D. As a whole you will find that NASA do not support the outrageous popular culture claims. For one thing, I challenge you or any wacko to find on NASAs websites(the climate and earth science ones in particular) where they even mention it....I often read their site and have never seen one word of endorsement for your cause. It is also of note that a NASA chief(Griffin) was flamed and discredit was thrown against his name earlier this year because he publicly argued with a green activist that science has been taken over by politics in regard to climatology.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-06-06-griffin-regrets-warming-comments_N.htm

[swansont]

iNow in post 242 shows the image below.

[ATTACH]1636[/ATTACH]

 

 

This is the same image in a different scale with the y axix as % atmosphere.

[ATTACH]1637[/ATTACH]

 

You really wonder why average people are not worried about global warming?

 

Changing the scale of a graph is a common misdirection tactic (or tactic of emphasis), because the average person does not know how to properly read a graph and interpret statistics. Same as when OJ's lawyers derided having only xx amount of a DNA sample (small fraction of a gram); it could be a little or a lot, depending on the context. If it were ppm of nerve gas in the atmosphere, would one have the same reaction?

[ghstofmaxwll]

I for one am indeed worried about global warming( why do you insist on thinking people who dont accept prevailing global warming theories as fact are not worried about there even being a possibility?), that still does not change ones stance on scientific integrity and lack of it there in, when it comes to cashing in on the commercialization.

[iNow]

Has the average doom monger any clue that carbondioxide isnt the only greenhouse gas?

Have they any lack of ignorance to the fact that CO2 can increase but overall greenhouse gases actually do not?

Have they any understanding what a 500% decrease is(the decrease of greenhouse gases since the early earth)?

Are they simpletons that dont know that spikes are a natural occurrence in climate, and in fact a flat-line in any graph with complex patterns and very many variables would actually be the anomaly?

And by the way the "average person" actually follows the trend of jumping on the global warming bandwagon these days, or dont you believe the assertions of your own fad-scientist friends if it doesnt suit you at the time?

Show me data which refutes the issues of global climate change and we can discuss that. Your questions above about what the "average" person does or does not know are not relevant to discussion and only serve to show your self-righteous attitude, not counter the facts of the situation.

 

 

 

 

I for one am indeed worried about global warming( why do you insist on thinking people who dont accept prevailing global warming theories as fact are not worried about there even being a possibility?), that still does not change ones stance on scientific integrity and lack of it there in, when it comes to cashing in on the commercialization.

 

My honest answer (or, more specifically, my opinion) is that it sounds exactly the same as when a creationist doubts natural selection.

[Mr Skeptic]

Changing the scale of a graph is a common misdirection tactic (or tactic of emphasis), because the average person does not know how to properly read a graph and interpret statistics.

 

The graph with the pictures of smoke and stuff, scaled to almost the maximum, might also be a little misleading. What if it were scaled to about 6000 ppm, as comparison to the estimates of CO2 levels millions of years ago?

 

Same as when OJ's lawyers derided having only xx amount of a DNA sample (small fraction of a gram); it could be a little or a lot, depending on the context. If it were ppm of nerve gas in the atmosphere, would one have the same reaction?

 

Well, CO2 isn't nerve gas. I would be completely unworried about 1000% increase in, say, a noble gas (other than radon) in the atmosphere. Though I am fairly sure that CO2 will cause warming, I do not believe the end of the world scenarios that some of the more crazy people are suggesting. It might even be a good thing, if it didn't happen so quickly.

[waitforufo]

iNow,

I said

iNow in post 242 shows the image below.

...

 

This is the same image in a different scale with the y axix as % atmosphere.

...

 

By using the word "same" I thought it would be understood that you, iNow, are the source of my data.

 

I have attached the data again.

 

This shows the "same" data on the same scale but in terms of % atmosphere. My curve fitting is not perfect but close enough.

[ATTACH]1648[/ATTACH]

 

This is the same data in % atmosphere. The y axis maximum is now 1%

[ATTACH]1649[/ATTACH]

 

This is the same data in % atmosphere. The y axis maximum is now 100%. This plot gives a visual perspective of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to all the atmosphere.

[ATTACH]1650[/ATTACH]

 

With regard to this scale change as a misdirection tactic, what was the context of the original scale provided by iNow? Show an average person the last plot above, explain that the curve represents a 30% increase in CO2, then explain why they should reduce their standard of living to prevent global catastrophe. Good luck with that.

 

With regard to Jim Hanson, isn't he just a shill for George Soros? I mention this because this forum often discredits scientists based on their funding.

[1veedo]

Well, CO2 isn't nerve gas. I would be completely unworried about 1000% increase in, say, a noble gas (other than radon) in the atmosphere. Though I am fairly sure that CO2 will cause warming, I do not believe the end of the world scenarios that some of the more crazy people are suggesting. It might even be a good thing, if it didn't happen so quickly.

It might not be nerve gas but a small fluctuation of CO2 in the atmosphere has huge consequences on the climate.

[swansont]

The graph with the pictures of smoke and stuff, scaled to almost the maximum, might also be a little misleading. What if it were scaled to about 6000 ppm, as comparison to the estimates of CO2 levels millions of years ago?

 

 

 

Well, CO2 isn't nerve gas. I would be completely unworried about 1000% increase in, say, a noble gas (other than radon) in the atmosphere. Though I am fairly sure that CO2 will cause warming, I do not believe the end of the world scenarios that some of the more crazy people are suggesting. It might even be a good thing, if it didn't happen so quickly.

 

All of this points to context. If you fail to provide it, the data are meaningless. Comparing to millions of years ago is meaningless, since the ecosystem was different. You'd be worried about radon, I presume, because you understand the consequences at some level, which basically proves the point.

 

With regard to this scale change as a misdirection tactic, what was the context of the original scale provided by iNow? Show an average person the last plot above, explain that the curve represents a 30% increase in CO2, then explain why they should reduce their standard of living to prevent global catastrophe. Good luck with that.

 

That's a political issue, rather than a scientific one.

 

With regard to Jim Hanson, isn't he just a shill for George Soros? I mention this because this forum often discredits scientists based on their funding.

 

No, that's a smear tactic that has been tried by some.

 

Hansen works for the government, and AFAIK that's where his research funding comes from. The purported Soros link was through the "Government Accountability Project" which helps defend whistleblowers, and Soros gave some money to that organization. Hansen ended up not accepting help from them, since he was worried that people might accuse him of impropriety. (imagine that!) http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf

[Mr Skeptic]

All of this points to context. If you fail to provide it, the data are meaningless. Comparing to millions of years ago is meaningless, since the ecosystem was different. You'd be worried about radon, I presume, because you understand the consequences at some level, which basically proves the point.

 

Context is important. Life could survive high CO2 back then, and should be able to survive it now. It won't be the end of the world, and the CO2 levels are not "the highest they have ever been".

 

I understand there will be consequences, probably severe ones. But life will continue. Many things will adapt. Many won't. Some will prosper, and some will die. It has happened before. Perhaps the heating will be too quick. Perhaps some of those genes from 400,000,000 years ago are still floating around. Perhaps life will migrate away from the equator. Perhaps there will be longer growing seasons. How are people so certain global warming is a bad thing?

[swansont]

A comment about models. I am sceptical of the global climate models for very good reason. However, I have never said that all models are worthless or that all models are wrong. In suggesting this, you are putting words into my mouth. Not that there is anything new about this.

 

In an earlier posting, I expressed my view of models and calculations. In short, the reliability and accuracy of models depends of how many assumptions, simplifications, and substitutions you put into the model. More complex models tend to be less reliable, because they tend to have more such error causing processes.

 

Some models can be quite complex and still accurate, if the assumptions, simplifications, etc are kept to a minimum. For example : Astronomers often set up models of orbital systems, which can be incredibly complex, but still very accurate, due to the fact that they deal with hard data as a basis, and calculations based on extremely accurate equations describing the action of gravity.

 

Simple models, with few error causing processes are also often accurate, and I have no problem with them being used. Very complex models need to be regarded with scepticism.

 

 

I was remembering various times you said that models aren't evidence.

 

"In science, the only evidence that is truly acceptable is Empirical. That is: real world experiments or observations. Processes of logic and computer models do not qualify."

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=285014&postcount=21

 

"Evidence not derived from real world experiment or observation is not good science."

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=328656&postcount=131

 

"I guess it depends on your definition of the word 'data'. I tend to restrict its meaning to actual information gained from real world observation and experiment, rather than the results of computer models."

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=328810&postcount=138

 

 

So when is it OK to use models? When it agrees with your position?

 

Context is important. Life could survive high CO2 back then, and should be able to survive it now. It won't be the end of the world, and the CO2 levels are not "the highest they have ever been".

 

 

That's specious resoning, and who exactly are you quoting here? I don't think it's me. I can't find where I've claimed that.

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont

 

Re models.

 

I have said several times that the basis of science is empirically gained data. That is true, and has been for nearly 400 years.

 

I have also said that models were useful scientific tools. In this sense, they can be like a microscope, or a chromatograph. In themselves, not science, but useful tools for expanding science.

 

When can models be used? When they have been tested, and shown to be correct. When they do not involve unknowns, such as unwarranted assumptions. The more complex a model is, the more likely it is to involve unknowns. In global climate models, what is the impact of the phytoplankton blooms that come from the warming of previously frigid oceans?

 

This parameter is not described, because it is an unknown, and therefore assumed to have no impact. Such assumptions are inevitable in complex models, and operate to make such models unreliable.

 

Swansont, I think you must be getting desperate. You have stopped attacking my position on scientific grounds, and are resorting to semantic argument, suggesting that scientific papers cannot support me because they are written in proper conservative style, and now assuming that I treat all models alike.

 

Why do you not either :

1. Admit that I am correct, or

2. Return to arguing the science?

 

I am not arguing against the accepted principle that AGGs cause global warming, at least in recent decades. I am arging that, in the period when AGG increase was trivial, sunspot activity was a more potent driver of climate change. Why do you see that as an unreasonable statement? Bearing in mind the mass of evidence to support it?

[Pangloss]

I dunno, waitforufo's (0-1.0, i.e. relatively flat) figure actually looks pretty darn alarming to me -- it's still climbing and showing no signs of leveling off. But I can certainly see why that form of display would not be alarming to the general public, suggesting that a change of display parameters would better demonstrate why the climb is more relevent to them than the above chart would seem to indicate. After all, we'd all be dead LONG before the number reached "1.0". A chart that gives a better perspective on the danger seems reasonable to me.

 

The danger is that once you've started mucking with charts it becomes tempting to show a chart that doesn't just put into correct perspective, but rather shows the steepest climb possible for the given data. That should be avoided even if it gives people the desired impression.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Show me data which refutes the issues of global climate change and we can discuss that. Your questions above about what the "average" person does or does not know are not relevant to discussion and only serve to show your self-righteous attitude, not counter the facts of the situation.

The data against it is your own ridiculously weak, short-term, one dimensional climate data!

 

Im self-righteous??? Who are the treehuggers trying to push green policies on everyone no matter how it affects them economically?

 

 

 

 

 

 

My honest answer (or, more specifically, my opinion) is that it sounds exactly the same as when a creationist doubts natural selection.

 

No! Natural selection has been shown to be right with every test given to it, and has copious and varying evidence (living and fossil) to back it up. It is still to this day tested for failure and never treated as absolute fact by scientists...... Hence scientific integrity.

 

Global warming claims however are based on assertion over scant evidence and have derived from the popular culture section with an ever increasing mercenary scientist following......Hence irrational hysteria and big buck chasers .

Furthermore your type wouldnt know what the word "honest" was if you never even heard of the word politics.

[swansont]

Why do you not either :

1. Admit that I am correct, or

2. Return to arguing the science?

 

Because you say things like "you are putting words into my mouth. Not that there is anything new about this." and I choose to defend myself aginst such allegations.

 

I am not arguing against the accepted principle that AGGs cause global warming, at least in recent decades. I am arging that, in the period when AGG increase was trivial, sunspot activity was a more potent driver of climate change. Why do you see that as an unreasonable statement? Bearing in mind the mass of evidence to support it?

 

The reason I object to your conclusions is because you haven't made your case — you haven't quantified anything. You can't arrive at the conclusion to which you come based on the evidence you have provided. You have not provided a "mass of evidence." One thing that gives me pause about the solar irradiance and T curve to which you've linked is that it doesn't show the 11-year cycles that are known to exist. Why is that? You've accepted the model without critiquing the methods used to generate the curve.

 

If there is an effect from CO2, and it depends on how much you have, then you shouldn't see, nor expect to see, the great correlation between solar irradiance (or is it sunspots? You use these interchangeably at times, and not at others). You should see this correlation only after you have subtracted out the other effects. Unless you are contending that other terms have no effect at all, but you have to justify that, too. Just saying the CO2 increase is trivial is not evidence-based. In short, you've noticed a correlation (which can happen randomly, especially over limited spans and when you smooth out the data) but haven't addressed the idea of whether that correlation should actually be there, that good, or what it should actually look like.

 

Your dismissal of climate models because they haven't been tested against empirical data ignores the fact that they are back-tested, and this has been pointed out repeatedly.

[waitforufo]

That's a political issue, rather than a scientific one.

 

I'm glad to hear that global warming isn't a political issue.

 

good, or what it should actually look like.Your dismissal of climate models because they haven't been tested against empirical data ignores the fact that they are back-tested, and this has been pointed out repeatedly.

 

Back-tested? Show me a paper or report that shows modeled results where the modeling begins in the year 1007 and predicts the "global climate" accurately from that day to today.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said

 

"Because you say things like "you are putting words into my mouth. Not that there is anything new about this." and I choose to defend myself aginst such allegations."

 

I have been told much worse. Just today, in another thread an idiot who disagreed with me called me a total bastard. If you are thin skinned, you should not be contributing to these threads. And yes, you did put words into my mouth. And yes, there is nothing new about it, though you are not the main culprit.

 

Swansont also said

 

"One thing that gives me pause about the solar irradiance and T curve to which you've linked is that it doesn't show the 11-year cycles that are known to exist. Why is that?"

 

It depends on which scientific study you are quoting. The papers I have checked on this issue tend to use a kind of evened out trend, rather than following the exact year by year effect which, as you rightly pointed out, goes up and down according to the 11 and 22 year cycles. The Max Planck Insitute results which I have been quoting show trends that are 'compensated' for the cycles. There are other papers that look at the changes within one cycle, and show an effect equivalent to about 0.2 Celsius global temperature within one cycle.

 

Swansont also said

 

"You should see this correlation only after you have subtracted out the other effects. Unless you are contending that other terms have no effect at all, but you have to justify that, too. Just saying the CO2 increase is trivial is not evidence-based."

 

As I have pointed out before, I am sceptical of the calculations of various forcings. However, some things are obvious, even if you do not carry out probably spurious calculations.

 

CO2 increase was about 10 ppm over the 60 year period from 1880 to 1940. ie. 0.17 ppm per year. Over this time period, it was pretty steady year by year. After 1976, and to 2007, it averaged over 1 ppm per year. I think the difference is sufficient to conclude that the warming effect from CO2 before 1940 was 'trivial' compared to the last 3 decades.

 

At the same time, there was a significant global cooling from 1880 to 1810, and a substantial (0.4 C) warming from 1910 to 1940. The cooling was preceded by a drop in sunspot activity and the warming by a substantial rise in sunspot activity.