The environmental debate thread

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

I see you are now offering new and quite different graphs to support your case. This is probably a good idea. I was distinctly unhappy with your earlier sulphate graph. Not only did it gives values all over the joint, and have little or no connection with temperature change, but it was also based on limited sampling. It was all Greenland based, and we were required to make the dubious assumption that Greenland represented the globe.

 

Anyway, looking at your new graphs.

 

The sulphate graph. This one shows a very different picture to your Greenland graph. It is a clear increase in cooling influence from sulphate in the air, following a rough exponential curve from 1850 to just before the year 2000.

 

This graph does not support any special sulphate driven coolings, since there are no specific peaks in sulphide effect. The special cooling that happened just before 1910 is not matched on this graph by any special sulphate coolings. I trust this will convince you?

 

The warming period of 1910 to 1940 is matched by a continuing increase in the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols according to this graph. Does this convince you that this warming had nothing to do with a reduction in sulphate cooling?

 

The solar effect graph. You have already stated that such graphs up to about 2005 are obsolete. Your two graphs here are 1995 and 1993, so you cannot refer to them for your arguments. For what it is worth, both show cooling influences to the end of the 19th Century and warming influences from just before 1910. Thus, the solar influence is (by these graphs) a better candidate for a drive of early warmings/coolings than sulphate aerosol. Having said that - yes, there will be other influences also.

 

The final new graph - volcanoes. Thes show what I have been saying all along. Vulcanism is a short lived influence on global temperature change.

[swansont]

To swansont

 

I see you are now offering new and quite different graphs to support your case. This is probably a good idea. I was distinctly unhappy with your earlier sulphate graph. Not only did it gives values all over the joint, and have little or no connection with temperature change, but it was also based on limited sampling. It was all Greenland based, and we were required to make the dubious assumption that Greenland represented the globe.

 

<sigh> Appeal to ridicule. Why is it dubious? Especialy when it is known that the aerosols stay in the atmosphere for years at a time, so that there should be reasonable mixing.

 

And it isn't up to you to be happy or unhappy with data. It is what it is. Anyway, there is an average level given with the graph, even if it is hard to see.

 

Anyway, looking at your new graphs.

 

The sulphate graph. This one shows a very different picture to your Greenland graph. It is a clear increase in cooling influence from sulphate in the air, following a rough exponential curve from 1850 to just before the year 2000.

 

This graph does not support any special sulphate driven coolings, since there are no specific peaks in sulphide effect. The special cooling that happened just before 1910 is not matched on this graph by any special sulphate coolings. I trust this will convince you?

 

The warming period of 1910 to 1940 is matched by a continuing increase in the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols according to this graph. Does this convince you that this warming had nothing to do with a reduction in sulphate cooling?

 

The Greenland graph did not separate out volcanic activity from industrial activity. So looking at the anthropogenic sulfate cooling of this graph will do absolutely nothing to convince me of volcanic forcings.

 

(section 6.15.1 "In addition to different forcing mechanisms of anthropogenic origin, two natural forcings have also been considered: solar irradiance variations and stratospheric aerosols of volcanic origin.")

 

I specifically noted the relevant graph as "graph d"

 

The solar effect graph. You have already stated that such graphs up to about 2005 are obsolete. Your two graphs here are 1995 and 1993, so you cannot refer to them for your arguments. For what it is worth, both show cooling influences to the end of the 19th Century and warming influences from just before 1910. Thus, the solar influence is (by these graphs) a better candidate for a drive of early warmings/coolings than sulphate aerosol. Having said that - yes, there will be other influences also.

 

Same note as I made above. I didn't offer this as evidence of anything.

 

The final new graph - volcanoes. Thes show what I have been saying all along. Vulcanism is a short lived influence on global temperature change.

 

You need to actually look at the graphs — all of it. The scale on the left is in W/m^2. Even though the specific data in the other graphs aren't germane to this particular point, look at the scale: tenths of W/m^2. These volcanic effects are bigger. By an order of magnitude, over similar time scales!

 

Now, look at the duration: the 1883 peak doesn't subside for eight years. The 1900 peak goes to zero once, and is otherwise present until 1911.

 

And yes, that's relatively short-lived. That's part of the point! The activity between 1900 and 1910 lowered the temperature during that time. So when you pick 1910 as a starting point, you are cherry-picking your example — it's a lower temperature than it would have been if not for the volcanic activity. The decrease in the levels after that cause the temperature to go up.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"And it isn't up to you to be happy or unhappy with data. It is what it is."

 

If we are not discussing data and its interpretation, we are not discussing science. Good science requires scepticism, and that scepticism must extend to data as well as interpretation. There are thousands of examples in the history of science where false conclusions have been drawn from shakey data. If I cannot challenge data, then I cannot do science.

 

Swansont said

 

"I didn't offer this as evidence of anything."

 

True. But I did. Our argument stems from my view that sunspot activity is a major driver of warming/cooling, and your denial of that view. The graph you posted supports my view.

 

"Now, look at the duration: the 1883 peak doesn't subside for eight years."

 

That is deceptively worded. It does not disappear for that time, but it subsides almost immediately. It very rapidly loses most of its impact. And by 1910, it is down to about 0.5 W/m2. For most of the warming period of 1910 to 1940, vulcanism effect is essentially zero.

 

I am still very puzzled about the cooling period of 1940 to 1950. Previously, I believed it to be due to a drop in sunspot activity, based on a Max Planck Institute graph which showed that to be the case. Swansont showed some later data that indicated the opposite - that sunspot activity actually increased from 1940 to 1950. Obviously, some other factor must be driving the cooling from 1940 to 1950. The usual candidate is ascribed to sulphate aerosols. However, when I look at Swansont's graph b, there is nothing special about the sulphate aerosol effect for that period. His graph d also shows no vulcanism to explain it.

 

Anyone got a better explanation for global cooling 1940 to 1950??

[Reaper]

If we are not discussing data and its interpretation, we are not discussing science. Good science requires scepticism, and that scepticism must extend to data as well as interpretation. There are thousands of examples in the history of science where false conclusions have been drawn from shakey data. If I cannot challenge data, then I cannot do science.

 

Arguing semantics here are we? The skepticism is valid only if 1) you have contradictory data or 2) the interpretation is not adequate given known laws/principles of physics/biology/chemistry/etc, or given known phenomenon and causes thereof, or 3) the results aren't, weren't, or can't be replicated, or 4) arbitrary controls or methods (or lack of them) were involved/used. Many of the conclusions that were refuted in the history of science is because of these reasons.

 

All of the graphs, principles, mathematics, evidence, et.c that Swansont, among others, provided clearly show that their conclusions are reasonable. What this means to the policy makers (or our puny civilization for that matter) is irrelevant.

 

Your personal feelings aren't considered valid criticism.

 

 

=========================

 

So, if you want to disprove these models and predictions otherwise, you have to show that at least one of the four things I described are present. 1 and 3 are out for the count for your side since there is such overwhelming evidence in favor of the predictions made and they have been consistently shown to be accurate. And the conclusions involved are certainly possible given 2. So, your only recourse is to rely on #4, and so far all of your examples have been refuted.

[SkepticLance]

Scepticism of data is also called for when (5) the data is incomplete. I pointed out that data from Greenland alone may not be applicable to the world as a whole. For example : if some local event raised or lowered sulphate aerosol levels near the data sampling point.

[iNow]

I'd say that skepticlance has been given a fair shot to prove his points and support his skepticism, but after 205 posts, we really are no where different than where we started.

 

What a waste of time.

 

If we're going to debate, we should debate solutions to the issue which we are all in agreement upon. Instead, we have to debunk nonsense and misrepresentations.

 

It'd truly be different if you cited studies in support of your points, lance. It'd truly be different if you weren't just playing debate games.

 

Again though... If you like debate, why not debate how best to mitigate the risk from the warming... which you've openly acknowledged is occurring and is impacted by humans?

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

"And it isn't up to you to be happy or unhappy with data. It is what it is."

 

If we are not discussing data and its interpretation, we are not discussing science. Good science requires scepticism, and that scepticism must extend to data as well as interpretation. There are thousands of examples in the history of science where false conclusions have been drawn from shakey data. If I cannot challenge data, then I cannot do science.

 

Your objection was that it gave values "all over the joint"

 

 

Swansont said

 

"I didn't offer this as evidence of anything."

 

True. But I did. Our argument stems from my view that sunspot activity is a major driver of warming/cooling, and your denial of that view. The graph you posted supports my view.

 

No, I don't think it does, but that's not the issue at hand.

 

"Now, look at the duration: the 1883 peak doesn't subside for eight years."

 

That is deceptively worded. It does not disappear for that time, but it subsides almost immediately. It very rapidly loses most of its impact. And by 1910, it is down to about 0.5 W/m2. For most of the warming period of 1910 to 1940, vulcanism effect is essentially zero.

(emphasis added)

 

YES! Exactly!

 

Vulcanism = cooler. No vulcanism = warmer !

 

"down to 0.5 W/m^2" – 0.5 W/m^2 is pretty big compared to the other forcings.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

1910 to 1940. OK. Point taken about the vulcanisms. I have to agree. It looks like vulcanism is one of the influences leading to warming.

Can you explain the mechanism? Not that you have to. Just that I am curious. Your sulphate aerosol graph (b) shows that it is not via sulphate aerosol, since that seems unrelated to the pattern of vulcanism.

 

Note to iNow and Lockheed. Swansont has set the example of how to debate, by using real facts. You guys are very poor debaters. Just opinions and personal comments.

 

I do not believe it is just vulcanism, of course. As we have agreed, there are a number of factors involved and sunspot activity certainly correlates with warmings and coolings. And please don't give me the old saw about correlation not equalling causation. That would apply equally to vulcanism.

 

Let me also repeat my question about 1940 to 1950. Can anyone explain why that is a cooling phase when sunspot activity continues to increase, greenhouse gases continue to increase, there is no special vulcanism, and sulphate aerosol change is unexceptional?

[iNow]

Note to iNow and Lockheed. Swansont has set the example of how to debate, by using real facts. You guys are very poor debaters.

I prefer to think of myself as "much less patient" than swansont, but hey, I'm not going to lose sleep over your comments by any means. Cheers.

 

 

 

 

Just opinions and personal comments.

Funny how you deride us yet that's precisely what you've just done yourself.

 

 

Hi, my name is Kettle. Pot, was it?

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

If you choose to take some honest advise as derision, that is your affair.

[iNow]

To iNow

 

If you choose to take some honest advise as derision, that is your affair.

 

More opinion and personal comments.

 

 

Why do you keep calling me black and suggesting it's bad?

[swansont]

1910 to 1940. OK. Point taken about the vulcanisms. I have to agree. It looks like vulcanism is one of the influences leading to warming.

Can you explain the mechanism? Not that you have to. Just that I am curious. Your sulphate aerosol graph (b) shows that it is not via sulphate aerosol, since that seems unrelated to the pattern of vulcanism.

 

Graph b is anthropogenic sources only. So the volcanic forcing graph can still include sulfate aerosols.

[DrDNA]

I'd say that skepticlance has been given a fair shot to prove his points and support his skepticism, but after 205 posts, we really are no where different than where we started.

 

What a waste of time.

 

It would go a lot quicker if everyone agreed.

[iNow]

It would go a lot quicker if everyone agreed.

 

Also, if people cited evidence in support of their claims and didn't misrepresent what others have said.

[DrDNA]

Ok. I promise to cite evidence in support of all my claims if you promise to agree with everything I say.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

I accept that your graph (d) of vulcanism shows low levels 'coinciding' with the 1910 to 1940 warming. However, there are still some problems you might like to comment on.

 

1. Lack of vulcanism as a major (not the only) cause for the warming of 1910 to 1940 suffers from exactly the problem you were so scathing about when I suggested that increases in sunspot activity was a major cause. That is, it continues to 1950. We know that the warming went from 1910 to 1940, and was followed by a significant cooling from 1940 to 1950.

 

We now have three warming influences going from 1910 to 1950. We have increases in sunspot activity, a dearth of vulcanism, and the minor increase in CO2. I know of no driver from 1940 to 1950 large enough to cause a cooling in the face of those three warming influences.

 

2. Lack of vulcanism from 1910 to 1950 seems to be constant. Warming over the 1910 to 1940 period is an increase. To keep temperature rising for three decades should require an increasing warming 'force' - not a stable condition, which suggests that, while lack vulcanism may have had an impact initially, it cannot be a mjor effect for the last couple of decades of that period.

 

3. We still lack a mechanims by which lack of vulcanism can drive warming. I am not arguing against it, but I am puzzled. You say that your graph (b) of sulphate aerosol represents only anthropogenic. OK, though I did not see any such statement in your reference. When I go back to your Greenland graph, I see no correlation at all between the vulcanism and sulphate aerosol change.

 

In other words, there is no evidence that the effect of vulcanism or its lack operates through changes in sulphate aerosols.

 

Perhaps you might like to comment?

[iNow]

In other words, there is no evidence that the effect of vulcanism or its lack operates through changes in sulphate aerosols.

SkepticLance, this is not an attempt at distraction, nor a personal comment, but a request at clarification.

 

Are you suggesting that:

 

a) There is no evidence that volcanoes eject sulfates?

b) There is no evidence that sulfates impact climate?

or

c) There is no evidence that sulfates impact frequency of volcanic eruptions?

 

 

I am honestly not clear, and appreciate if you could list which of the above three possibilities (or other if appropriate) best reflects your meaning. Cheers.

 

 

 

 

3. We still lack a mechanims by which lack of vulcanism can drive warming. I am not arguing against it, but I am puzzled.

I recall reading that a volcanic eruption deposits ash into the atmosphere which essentially blocks light, hence cools the planet. It's not that a lack of volcanism drives warming, but that a lack of volcanism means there is one fewer cooling agent.

[swansont]

To swansont

 

I accept that your graph (d) of vulcanism shows low levels 'coinciding' with the 1910 to 1940 warming. However, there are still some problems you might like to comment on.

 

1. Lack of vulcanism as a major (not the only) cause for the warming of 1910 to 1940 suffers from exactly the problem you were so scathing about when I suggested that increases in sunspot activity was a major cause. That is, it continues to 1950. We know that the warming went from 1910 to 1940, and was followed by a significant cooling from 1940 to 1950.

 

I didn't claim that vulcanism was the cause of warming through 1940. I claimed that it caused the cooling around 1900-1910 (of around 0.2 ºC), and the subsequent return to previous levels was due to the return of vulcanism to much lower levels. CO2 accounted for perhaps 0.1 ºC of the warming during that whole span from 1900-1940. Possibly less, and probably not much more.

 

Which means that solar could not be reponsible for 0.4 ºC of warming during that period, and that was the claim to which I was objecting.

 

Other factors would be a combination of other GHGs, changes in surface albedo, ozone. Small individually, AFAIK, so we've ignored them.

 

We now have three warming influences going from 1910 to 1950. We have increases in sunspot activity, a dearth of vulcanism, and the minor increase in CO2. I know of no driver from 1940 to 1950 large enough to cause a cooling in the face of those three warming influences.

 

2. Lack of vulcanism from 1910 to 1950 seems to be constant. Warming over the 1910 to 1940 period is an increase. To keep temperature rising for three decades should require an increasing warming 'force' - not a stable condition, which suggests that, while lack vulcanism may have had an impact initially, it cannot be a mjor effect for the last couple of decades of that period.

 

It's been noted that we are currently not in equilibrium; if CO2 were to magically stabilize the earth would continue to warm several tenths of a degree. I don't know what the equilibrium status was back then, but it's not accurate to say that you need changing conditions to see a temperature change — it depends on what the time constant of the system is.

 

3. We still lack a mechanims by which lack of vulcanism can drive warming. I am not arguing against it, but I am puzzled. You say that your graph (b) of sulphate aerosol represents only anthropogenic. OK, though I did not see any such statement in your reference.

 

It's in the main body, as I noted in post #202

section 6.15.1 "In addition to different forcing mechanisms of anthropogenic origin, two natural forcings have also been considered: solar irradiance variations and stratospheric aerosols of volcanic origin."

 

Which means that graphs a and b are anthropogenic sources.

 

When I go back to your Greenland graph, I see no correlation at all between the vulcanism and sulphate aerosol change.

 

In other words, there is no evidence that the effect of vulcanism or its lack operates through changes in sulphate aerosols.

 

Perhaps you might like to comment?

 

You don't see the peaks in graph d of the IPCC report replicated in the Greenland data? I see the peaks in 1810, 1815, 1830, 1883, 1902 and 1910.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

A request for clarification is always welcome.

 

You asked

 

Are you suggesting that:

 

"a) There is no evidence that volcanoes eject sulfates?

b) There is no evidence that sulfates impact climate?

or

c) There is no evidence that sulfates impact frequency of volcanic eruptions?"

 

I am not suggesting any of these. I was referring to Swansonts graphs. Purely on the basis of these graphs, and particularly the Greenland graph compared to the vulcanism graph (d), there is no evidence of correlation betwen high (or low) vulcanism and high (or low) sulphate.

 

I know that volcanoes eject sulphates. I have stood on the edge of a crater of an active volcano, and had to adjust my gas mask to stop the SO2 entering. SO2 gas, of course, converts to sulphate. However, there are literally hundreds of volcanoes giving off sulphate. Does this translate into increases or decreases on a global scale according to specific eruptions? I do not see the evidence in Swansonts graphs.

 

For example : the volcano I was on was White Island, in NZs Bay or Plenty, which pretty much continuously - year in and year out - emits SO2. It has the occasional more intense eruption, and killed a bunch of people in 1911 when a hot and acidic lahar swamped a sulphur mining camp. However, sulphate emissions are continuous.

[swansont]

I recall reading that a volcanic eruption deposits ash into the atmosphere which essentially blocks light, hence cools the planet. It's not that a lack of volcanism drives warming, but that a lack of volcanism means there is one fewer cooling agent.

 

We've gotten tripped up on this before, so let's recognize that there are two ways of looking at it:

 

- A decreased cooling term will look like a warming term if you look at the slope (i.e the changes) of the effect.

 

- But if you look at the effect itself, there can be a larger or smaller reduction in temperature from some baseline.

 

So an "impulse" of some cooling forcing will cause temperature to go down, and then it will go back up. If you use the first definition, there's a cooling and then a warming. If you use the second, there is always cooling from the original temperature, but it gets larger and then smaller.

 

Let's try and not mix the definitions up.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"Which means that solar could not be reponsible for 0.4 ºC of warming during that period, and that was the claim to which I was objecting."

 

Sounds like a communication break down. I never said, or intended to say, that solar was responsible for all 0.4 C warming. The term I used was 'dominant cause'. If solar is responsible for 0.21 C of the 0.4 C, then we can call it dominant.

 

"You don't see the peaks in graph d of the IPCC report replicated in the Greenland data?"

 

Some of the peaks are there, but there are some really big gaps also. For example : in the Greenland graph, 1915 to 1950 shows significant sulphate, of the order of 60 to 70 ng/g, with peaks to much higher levels, compared to an average over the 19th Century of about 25. The vucanism graph shows minimal impact at this time.

[swansont]

Swansont said :

 

"Which means that solar could not be reponsible for 0.4 ºC of warming during that period, and that was the claim to which I was objecting."

 

Sounds like a communication break down. I never said, or intended to say, that solar was responsible for all 0.4 C warming. The term I used was 'dominant cause'. If solar is responsible for 0.21 C of the 0.4 C, then we can call it dominant.

 

But if volcanic activity is responsible for 0.2 ºC and CO2 for 0.1 ºC, then solar is responsible for, at most, 0.1 ºC (assuming no other factors of this order of magnitude)

 

"You don't see the peaks in graph d of the IPCC report replicated in the Greenland data?"

 

Some of the peaks are there, but there are some really big gaps also. For example : in the Greenland graph, 1915 to 1950 shows significant sulphate, of the order of 60 to 70 ng/g, with peaks to much higher levels, compared to an average over the 19th Century of about 25. The vucanism graph shows minimal impact at this time.

 

 

The Greenland graph is all sulfates. The IPCC curves divide forcings between anthropogenic and natural sources. So you have to look at both graph b and graph d. Graph b shows an increase in the magnitude of the sulfate forcings. Note that these are yearly averages (and graph d shows three-year averages), so it won't show all of the peaks from the Greenland data (I suspect you'll get seasonal fluctuations, which makes the graph noisier)

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said :

 

"But if volcanic activity is responsible for 0.2 ºC and CO2 for 0.1 ºC, then solar is responsible for, at most, 0.1 ºC (assuming no other factors of this order of magnitude)"

 

We could end up arguing this one also. The vulcanism effect should have its biggest impact at the beginning of the 30 year period. Since there is not further change in vulcanism for 30 years, it is not likely to have a continuing effect. Thus, to suggest it is a big part of the 0.4 C rise over 30 years appears unlikely. Sunspot activity, on the other hand, rise quite substantially throughout the period.

 

The thing that still puzzles me, and which no-one here seems to have addressed, is the cooling of 1940 to 1950. How can that have happened?

 

It appears to me that either :

1. There is a novel factor of substantial power at work (but which one?).

2. or someone got the data wrong.

[JohnB]

or

3. Temperature is actually a pretty poor indicator of the global energy system.

[gcol]

or

3. Temperature is actually a pretty poor indicator of the global energy system.

 

That is thought provoking. What might be a better indicator?