Mars melt and Global Warming

[CapelDodger]

Unfortunately, SurrealClimate fails to explain a) why temperature rise causes carbon dioxide rise but never the reverse

Rubbish. The positive CO2 feedback when oceans are warming are matched by a positive CO2 feedback when oceans are cooling. Cooling oceans dissolve more CO2, atmospheric CO2 decreases leading to more cooling, and a new glaciation is precipitated. It's the standard model of ice-ages and has been for many decades.

What the lag means is that "Greenhouse Warming" is simply wrong. It also means that the forcing supposed in climate models is magnitudes too large. Whatever is causing the temperature to rise and fall, it isn't greenhouse gases.

Again, rubbish. The lag is about 800 years - as you've pointed out previously, CO2 measurements based on ice-cores provide at best a 100 year definition - in a warming that commonly takes 5,000 years, so most of the warming follows increased atmospheric CO2. Up goes the CO2, up goes the temperature. Positive feedback. Up goes the temperature, the atmosphere gets wetter, perhaps more positive feedback.

There's no mystery about what's causing the increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans today or why the world's heating up. There's no salvation to be found in this ice-epoch, no relevant example to interpret. All we have to go on is the basic science, such as CO2's infrared spectrum.

 

[shanek]

A major component, quite possibly the dominant component, of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to release of CO2 from warming oceans. Other things being equal, warmer water dissolves less CO2 than cooler water. The release of CO2 from the oceans reduces the CO2 content of the oceans and increases the atmospheric content. An equilibrium is reached when the relative CO2 contents of oceans and atmosphere are in balance at the prevailing temperatures. In this case CO2 is acting as a feedback to warming initiated by other processes. Just as a wetter atmosphere is a feedback to warming initiated by other processes.

Okay, so then, wouldn't that mean that CO2 being released from Hummers would stop more CO2 being released from the oceans as they would reach equilibrium faster?

There's no salvation in the past. This is uncharted territory we're in.

That much seems to be clear, but I still think it's worth it to at least look at the past and ask questions about it. I noted that earlier when I saw that, on the charts that were linked to, the glacial melting was at the normal high while temperatures weren't. Yes, something's different now; but since that particular part of the graph covers about 10,000 years then there's something else going on now other than our CO2 emissions.

 

[shanek]

Again, rubbish. The lag is about 800 years - as you've pointed out previously, CO2 measurements based on ice-cores provide at best a 100 year definition - in a warming that commonly takes 5,000 years, so most of the warming follows increased atmospheric CO2. Up goes the CO2, up goes the temperature. Positive feedback. Up goes the temperature, the atmosphere gets wetter, perhaps more positive feedback.

But that still leaves the question of why in those cases the CO2 doesn't have the automatic feedback that you keep talking about. In fact, on those graphs, temperatures are still going up as the CO2 goes down. So, what causes the CO2 to go down again?

 

[Shabaz]

OK, I'm going to bow out of the discussion with rockoon about conclusions derived from palaeoclimatology. I honestly don't know that much about it beyond the hockey stick and related studies, and there mostly because of all the hubbub around it, so I feel a bit out of my depth here. I hope he doesn't mind.

However, I hope it is not unfair to ask if you have anything to read up on the great predictive of the palaeoclimatological field (at least, you seem to imply some predictive power by stating that things are "likely" to be the same as things found in that data, but correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious if the type of conclusions you say can be derived from them really can, and if so, exactly what they are.

Also, you stated that the models need to be "proven", and that they can't be validated with empirically gathered data. As two gentlemen before me snidely pointed out towards each other, nothing in natural sciences is proven in an absolute sense, so you must be referring to something else. Now I don't want to quibble over the words "proven" or "validated", but I'm curious exactly how a model could be shown to have predictive value then. That is, how would a GCM be shown to have predictive value according to you? I have some rough idea how they currently do it, but your take on it seems to be a different one, so I'm curious what it is.

As a final point, I only registered a few days ago here, although I've been aware of Randi and his foundation and its website for much longer. But I came across a global warming thread while I was waiting to be approved, and it honestly was a pretty interesting read. So I just wanted to express my appreciation for the people here who actually argue this topic with some seeming actual understanding and reference to the underlying science, it's appreciated, and makes for interesting reading.

 

[CapelDodger]

Okay, so then, wouldn't that mean that CO2 being released from Hummers would stop more CO2 being released from the oceans as they would reach equilibrium faster?

CO2 isn't being released from the oceans. It's being absorbed by the oceans, that's why they're becoming increasingly acidic, which is a problem in itself. The CO2 that's been released from many millions of years of sequestration has had a marked impact in a century-and-a-half. That would include the Hummers' fuel. Equilibrium is far from being reached because the atmospheric over-pressure of CO2 increases year by year, at about 2ppm, faster than the warming ocean's tendency to reject it.

Remind me - why is it important that wankers who want to drive around in Humvees but wouldn't dream of signing-up should be able to do so? A total derail I acknowledge, but I'm curious and know no better authority to ask.

That much seems to be clear, but I still think it's worth it to at least look at the past and ask questions about it. I noted that earlier when I saw that, on the charts that were linked to, the glacial melting was at the normal high while temperatures weren't. Yes, something's different now; but since that particular part of the graph covers about 10,000 years then there's something else going on now other than our CO2 emissions.

Of course other things influence climate and the past can tell us something about them, but the important thing that's going on now is 380ppmCO2 and rising and the inevitable result.

 

[shanek]

CO2 isn't being released from the oceans. It's being absorbed by the oceans, that's why they're becoming increasingly acidic, which is a problem in itself. The CO2 that's been released from many millions of years of sequestration has had a marked impact in a century-and-a-half. That would include the Hummers' fuel. Equilibrium is far from being reached because the atmospheric over-pressure of CO2 increases year by year, at about 2ppm, faster than the warming ocean's tendency to reject it.

Okay. Thanks for the answer. This GW thread is going much better...

Remind me - why is it important that wankers who want to drive around in Humvees but wouldn't dream of signing-up should be able to do so? A total derail I acknowledge, but I'm curious and know no better authority to ask.

First of all, I don't know how I'm any kind of authority. Second, I really don't understand what you're saying. "Signing up" for what?

And for the record, my car gets 31 mpg.




Of course other things influence climate and the past can tell us something about them, but the important thing that's going on now is 380ppmCO2 and rising and the inevitable result.[/quote]

 

[jimecallaw]

(quote=RichardR;2393072 wrong /quote) sorry I can't post links yet

Hmm! it's doesn't quite refute the information I was told on my tour of the wine estate, as this was regarding the ability of England to produce wines with the same grape varieties as the Loire valley, but then I can't find that information on the web, so we can't verify it's veracity. I realise England can and has produced wine over a much longer period, but the information I had was about quite specific varieties, which needed specific conditions. I guess though I'll downgrade this on my list of queries about global warming.

Another bit of information I picked up from travels was about the earthquakes in lanzarotte, these quakes were so severe that the planet went dark for a long period, this seems quite a severe outcome, but not particularly disastrous for human kind as a whole, could the particles of ash have had a cooling effect as they blocked out sunlight balanced by a warming effect from greenhouse gases released?

 

[jimecallaw]

Actually as a bit of an afterthought, rather than discuss the causes of global warming or even whether it's occurring. I wonder if we should not discuss the solutions.

It seems a tall order to restore the hole in the ozone layer whilst reducing greenhouse gases. can we really fix these problems? or should we be putting our efforts into strategies to cope with increased temperatures?

 

[PixyMisa]

I thought volcanoes put CO2 into the atmosphere? Or do they also put out enough sulfate aerosols to counteract it?

Short term, yes, major volcanic eruptions can have a substantial cooling effect. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 was followed by the "year without a Summer", with Summer frosts and snowstorms and widespread crop failures in Europe and North America. The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 had similar effects.

 

[Schneibster]

Another bit of information I picked up from travels was about the earthquakes in lanzarotte, these quakes were so severe that the planet went dark for a long period, this seems quite a severe outcome, but not particularly disastrous for human kind as a whole, could the particles of ash have had a cooling effect as they blocked out sunlight balanced by a warming effect from greenhouse gases released?

This was the scenario proposed for "nuclear winter," with the most extreme scenarios being a return to the "snowball Earth" attractor. Unlikely, but possible.

The cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s was almost certainly due both to increased particulates and increased sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, which was caused by burning dirty coal that contained a lot of sulfur in the rebuilding of Europe and the industrial expansion in the US after WWII, along with industrialization of some third-world countries. This apparently offset a fair bit of the warming that would otherwise have occurred during that period; but it has not apparently been a great deal of help, as it did not affect the carbon count, and so when the particulates and sulfur dioxide went away, the temperature climbed rather rapidly to essentially the equilibrium it would have had without the sulfur dioxide and particulates ever having been released.

 

[CapelDodger]

.. I really don't understand what you're saying. "Signing up" for what?

For the armed forces. The Humvee was designed as a military vehicle. Most people that are in the military can't afford one for themselves. Most people that want and can afford one don't join the military. I'm just making wild unsupported allegations here, which I'll refuse to stand by .

 

[rockoon]

evidence please:

dates of the higher concentration and the quality of the obs relative to the current satellite record; or the instrumental record; or high sampling rate proxies that overlap with the previous two?

Either a strawman or you don't understand the subject you are trying to debate about.

In no way did I suggest such data should be used in place current instrument records.

I first exposed CapelDodgers lie.

Then, in response to a 3rd party, I suggested that it should be used in place of model forecasts.

You know, all those models which are used in an attempt to manipulate policy, which have never been validated. There isnt even a theory as to how they might be validated any time soon. The IPCC even admits this.

If you still don't understand why this is an important point, then you don't understand science. I already explained it clearly.

 

[rockoon]

if that really were a central tenet of science, not much geophysics would make the cut.

Most geophysics work doesn't make the cut, because a lot of the work is simply cataloging.

The scientific method has 4 core steps:

A) Observe the universe
B) Formulate a hypothesis to explain the observations
C) Use the hypothesis to predict new observations
D) Have others independently verify the ability of the hypothesis to predict new observations.

Which ones are present in the work related to climate models?

weather forecast models are not "proven to be predictive" but they are demonstrated to be of value.

Actualy, weather forecast models ARE proven to be predictive. They arent 100% predictive but they beat other methods. Weather forecasting is significantly different from long term climate modeling.

Weather forecasters test their models out every single day.
Climate modelers have never tested their models.

so i am curious: are you tending toward to argument that, by construction, climate questions can never be answered?

or are you merely stating that you do not believe todays state-of-the-art models are sufficient?

I am saying that there are an infinite number of possible climate models that fit the record.

Do you contest that?

Since none of the existing ones have been verified to be predictive, we cannot conclude which, if any, are useful models.

Do you contest that?

We favor some over others merely because they fit assumptions about the future, and thats not science.

Do you contest that?

or are you bogged down in that un-identifiability distraction of philosophers: that we could never identify the "perfect model" even with vast accurate observations?

I, and the whole human race, is bogged down by the fact that some people (particularely some policy makers) put more stock into climate models than they currently deserve.

 

[rockoon]

OK, I'm going to bow out of the discussion with rockoon about conclusions derived from palaeoclimatology. I honestly don't know that much about it beyond the hockey stick and related studies, and there mostly because of all the hubbub around it, so I feel a bit out of my depth here. I hope he doesn't mind.

I don't mind.

But I think you are being a little disingenuous about my opinion on the matter. I am certainly not claiming that there is great volumes of useful data in the record that could for certain be used to extrapolate the future.

But there is most definately some data available, even if CapelDodger lies about it being there. The data doesnt always show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, indicating that there are significant unexplained factors.

Also, you stated that the models need to be "proven", and that they can't be validated with empirically gathered data.

They can be validated with emperically gathered data on new phenomonon predicted by the climate model.

The unfortunate thing is that whenever data comes in indicating a new phenomonon, the climate models arent validated by it so instead they are adjusted to model it too.

Infinite is the ability of mathematics to mimick any function. There are an infinite number of processes which will mimick an arbitrary function no matter how complex that function appears to be.

It is actualy quite trivial (and quite common) for a computer programmer to write a program that will spit out a system of equations that mimicks a desired arbitrary output, for instance.

Such techniques are used in everything from Artificial Intelligence (neural networks especialy) to Financial Forecasting. Much to the disappointment of financial forecasters, it is not possible to gleen a superior understanding of the function being mimicked using these techniques.

That is, how would a GCM be shown to have predictive value according to you?

One method is to predict a new phenomenon with one and then to go find evidence that the phenomenon actualy exists. You probably know enough about the Theory Of Relativity to know that this is precisely how it was validated. Relativity was devised to explain an existing measured phenomenon (the constant speed of light) and was used to predict new phenomenon (the bending of light, the variability of time, and so forth)

Another is the accurate prediction of future data. In 40 years, climate models will be on a better footing because many existing ones will be rejected based on their inability to predict, while the survivors (if any) will have a proven value.

 

[a_unique_person]

But there is most definately some data available, even if CapelDodger lies about it being there. The data doesnt always show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, indicating that there are significant unexplained factors.

So what?

 

[shanek]

Another question about these charts:

I know in the economics world when you want to show trends over time, you make your graphs with a logarithmic scale. That way, a 10% rise is always represented by the same distance on the graph, no matter how high or how low. Someone showing growth who didn't use this scale would have trouble being taken seriously; they'd accuse him of exaggerating the growth by not using a logarithmic scale. The only exception is when the ratio is already built in to the figures.

So, why are all the GW graphs linear? The Celsius scale is linear, as is the ppmv of CO2 concentrations. So, in order to do these graphs properly, shouldn't they be using logarithmic scales? We are attempting to show change over time, after all.

 

[lenny]

It seems a tall order to restore the hole in the ozone layer whilst reducing greenhouse gases. can we really fix these problems?

we do not always "fix" them, but we often stop making them worse. quite a bit of success here, acid rain, DDT, ... unfortunately it is much easier to get action after significant damage is done...

or should we be putting our efforts into strategies to cope with increased temperatures?

ummmm, both?

when driving at high speed in the dark, working on an improved air-bag might be a good idea, but you might want to slow down a bit too.

 

[lenny]

I know in the economics world when you want to show trends over time, you make your graphs with a logarithmic scale.

that depends on what you are trying to show. the majority of time series plots of real data in applied economics are linear. (price with time). not the the number of plots is a very good indicator of importance or good practice.

in general, with temperature we are not looking for multiplicative effects (as you might be with interest rates); you could look at log plots for exponential growth of course, but this is just as easy to see on a linear scale.

the type of graph depends on the point you are trying to make and, of course, so do the sanity checks you add to the graph make sure you are not fooling yourself.

ps. if you did want logarithmic temperatures, you'd want to use degrees K (to avoid nasty effects of negative temperatures, among other reasons).

 

[shanek]

that depends on what you are trying to show. the majority of time series plots of real data in applied economics are linear. (price with time).

Everything I've seen about economics says that price with time graphs should use a logarithmic scale.

in general, with temperature we are not looking for multiplicative effects (as you might be with interest rates); you could look at log plots for exponential growth of course, but this is just as easy to see on a linear scale.

But one of the critiques of the linear scale in economics is that you're giving people the wrong impression. You might be showing people that your fund is growing, when in fact the rate of growth is decreasing. This would show very well on a ratio scale but a linear scale would make it look like the growth rate was continuing to rise.

In Al Gore's movie, he shows the hockey-stick and shows CO2 levels being way, way above what they were and growing at a much faster rate. He even gets up on a forklift to try and make the point. He did that, not because it's good science, but because he wanted to scare people with runaway CO2. Otherwise, he would have just shown the graph and not bothered with the forklift. Had the graph been done on a ratio scale, the rate at which CO2 levels are increasing would be shown more accurately, but they wouldn't scare people as much.

Anyone doing that in the economics world would have a hard time being taken seriously.

ps. if you did want logarithmic temperatures, you'd want to use degrees K (to avoid nasty effects of negative temperatures, among other reasons).

Yeah, you can't have 0 and negative temperatures on a log scale. Maybe it wouldn't make much difference on the temperature graphs as we're just talking about a small percent of the overall increase (that's assuming that 200K is twice as hot as 100K; am I right?), but the CO2 concentrations I would think should most certainly be shown logarithmically.

 

[lenny]

The scientific method has 4 core steps:

A) Observe the universe
B) Formulate a hypothesis to explain the observations
C) Use the hypothesis to predict new observations
D) Have others independently verify the ability of the hypothesis to predict new observations.

Which ones are present in the work related to climate models?

thanks for the questions.

can you just clarify if your claim is that any attempt at extrapolation is not science?

do you object to the study of future climate itself, or merely to the way it is being done now?