Global warming

Links GW thread 962-1277

North Pole 127-314 Global Warming Thread 962-1277

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?



Online Video and Audio

Global Warming: An Unsettled Science
Television interview (and transcript) 10 minute video of Singer and Avery "Physical evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycles"
the myth of global warming
scare tactics in Incon Truth - laugh - ignore - repeat
traveling global warming show
great global warming swindle
globale warming opportunities
canadians for global warming
doomsday called off
data from the great global warming swindle
Glenn Beck w. Durbin (Producer of GGWS)
1958 - Global Warming - It's NOT newly Known
Myron Ebell Discusses Global Cooling
Newsnight: CO2, they call it life, we call it a greenhouse gas
Freeman Dyson 2of2 Global Warming / Stratospheric Cooling
1of2 Bogus Climate Models
Global Warming Myth Exposed: The Video Al Gore Fears Most
MIchael Crichton on Global Warming Part 1 of 3
State of Fear: Science or Politics with Michael Crichton
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion
Atlantic ocean temperatures.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857805.jpg http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-058

CO2 - major driver of climate change?
Beck's study goes back to the year 1800 and is the summary of 135 separate published studies and over 90,000 separate tests on atmospheric CO2 concentration with a precision of better than 3%.http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

notice the pattern existing from the Mauna Loa measurements? What does it say?Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata...co2_mm_mlo.dat
This may help:http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt
This may help more. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
CO2 is a serial fertiliser. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...eB2C/Index.jsp
Law Dome ice core, antarctica. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
From Cape Grim Tasmania http://www.dar.csiro.au/capegrim/image/cg_CO2.pngA shorter record, but it validates Mauna Loa.

Economics and Global Warming
the full text of the paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?".
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/sc...h/11tiern.html But the best strategy, he (Lomberg) says, is to make the rest of the world as rich as New York
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Norton/
Quoting from Simon's book "Scarcity or Abundance? A debate on the Environment"
http://www.climateaudit.org/ Should NASA climate accountants adhere to GAAP?


http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/co...n-lomborg.html
Lomburg on the Cobert Report.
IPCC economic model assumptions. These are labeled B1, A1T, B2, A1B, A2, and A1F1.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/089.htm
Keller et al 2007 Environmental Research Letters "The regrets of procrastination in climate policy"
Pielke, Roger Jr., 2007 Science Direct "Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change."
Nordhaus 2007 The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy
Nordhaus, 2007 - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
The US does not release more CO2 than any other country per capita. And many countries emit more CO2 per dollar of GNP ,


Climate Cycles
Climate Change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: The possibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #410
Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Alarmism on climate has no basis in peer reviewed research, according to a tabulation of hundreds of articles. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
[/FONT]
Television interview (and transcript) 10 minute video of Singer and Avery "Physical evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycles".
Singer, Fred 2007 Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycle
Singer's summary of the 1,500 year climate cycle book in html.

R. Monastersky, "Viking Teeth Recount Sad Greenland Tale," Science News, vol. 19, 1994. from Singer 2007. "Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycle"

Solar
MHaze has linked to http://www.solarcycle24.com , the sun is currently in a state of relative calm.
Prediction of strong SC24:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ec_cycle24.htm
http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita...ik06GRLMar.pdf
Prediction of weak SC24:
http://www.spacew.com/news/05Mar2005/index.php
http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Ses...piyali_ihy.pdf
Schatten also predicts weak.
General information:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/S...2007_table.pdf
http://sidc.oma.be/news/094/SolarCycle24-eng.pdf
http://allesoversterrenkunde.nl/cont...ew_reco rds=1

Cryosphere
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi..._ neighbors=1
How does this fit into the equation? Apparently increased sea ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere:
The Antarctic has a different climate system compared to the Arctic.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-warming/
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...rctic_ice.html
Kilimanjaro is one example of intense research.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.south.jpg
NASA Finds Vast Regions of West Antarctica Melted in Recent Past
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-atd021207.php
A NEW RECORD FOR ANTARCTIC ICE EXTENT?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NE...ICE_EXTENT.doc
The models predicted that the Antarctic would not warm as quickly as the rest of the planet. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-warming/
As for Antarctica, the inner reaches have ice growing more plentiful not despite AGW but due to it. It goes without saying that temperatures are not going to increase the 50 degrees it takes the inner reaches to reach melting temperature, even if parts of them are heating .
Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
From the compilations of World Glacier Monitoring Service
The glacier is currently 12 km long and terminates 19 km from the Tasman Sea. It exhibits a cyclic pattern of advance and retreat,

AGW is a significant cause of Arctic ice retreat is a claim being made by... Dr. Ted Lambos, Glaciologist / US National Snow and Ice Data Center..... and a team of NASA scientists... ... and by a team of scientists from Scripps, Brookhaven, US Dept of Energy... ... and by a team of scientists from NCAR, UW, and McGill...


Rain, Drought, Hurricanes
No amount of chart-diving and suckling from ClimateAudit's teats is going to bring back any ice, break any droughts, or prevent any floods. This study How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring? Shows GW would increase rain by a factor of 3x over the predictions of the IPCC models. A paper by Gemma Narisma et al. that counted severe drought episodes showed no increase.

How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
[SIZE=-1] Alexander 2007 - trying to figure out how to predict rainfall. He relates solar activity to river flow, finds some correlations, raises some unanswered questions. Alexander has a very clear explanation of the sun's wobble and movements and how they affect the earth. nzclimate science.net/images/PDFs/alexander 2707.pdf

[/SIZE] as shown here rainfall in australia ...No sign of drought The last 12 months has seen low rainfall in the....Australia's rainfall is not decreasing in total (as is shown here),
the annual Australian rainfall, for example.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/r...&season=011 2

Looks like Victoria has lots of water.
Please check these charts and data from your own country then tell me if you still believe that. I agree you may be being told this is the by factions in your country.http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/

Propaganda, Disinformation and Misinformation

The green party of Australia have released a flyer that is sent to households. In it it describes the consequences if you vote liberal or labor at the forthcoming election.
The High Priest, Hansen, leading the prayer vigil in Greenland.
Australian Greenhouse Office.There is an active "Ministry of Truth" down under.
Alternate view: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...881513935.html

Various Subjects
LITTLE GREEN DATA BOOK
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Water vapour.
How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...ort-published/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...g-differences/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears/
Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-143.pdf
Wentz 2007 in Science is the issue.http://www.nasa-news.org/documents/p..._Much_More.pdf
This is the famed 'water vapour feedback'.
It seems Hansen has finally released his code. Link
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...4068db11f4&p=4
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/s...-litarete.html
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/diagn...ubprojects.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar...es/fig2-18.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sargo_%28SSN-583%29
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm
Anthony Watt's interim results. www.surfacestations.org
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2048#comments
UHI. It's already taken into account. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index...&submit=Search
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi.../pdf/R-274.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-145.pdf
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhink...JGR-A_2007.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...7-88-6-913.pdf
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/U...des/index.html
But some scientist suspect it is a cause of GW.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/


climate models with the IPCC climate sensitivity that take all this into account are able to reproduce 20th century temperature trends:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publicat...additivity.pdf
 
mhaze, why do you hate the earth? (sorry, couldn't resist. props to all on this discussion. very interesting. back to lurk.)
 
mhaze said:
Perhaps this will help. Here is a summary of 135 separate published studies of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere prior to Keeling's work.

Is there some period(s) of years that you can point to and show a mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Beck's study goes back to the year 1800 and is the summary of 135 separate published studies and over 90,000 separate tests on atmospheric CO2 concentration with a precision of better than 3%.
Click to expand...

Beck's paper really hasn't got much weight on this subject. The worst part of it in my opinion is how he takes every data point and draws a curve through every single one.

Other than that there's a stack of reasons why the reconstruction must be wrong.

He doesn't mention that site bias (not measuring precision) is what prevented accurate measurements back then. That's precisely why Callendar set up the Mauna Loa monitoring station so remotely - to avoid the contamination issues that plagued co2 measurements elsewhere.

Measurements taken in and around cities are subject to large variations in surface co2 that can be carried by the wind. co2 concentration can differ by location by as much as 100ppm. It's just not reliable.

Another good reason for Beck's reconstruction not being correct is that the record since Mauna Loa came online has shown co2 rising steady and smooth with less than 3ppm change from year to year, yet we are expected to believe that before the 60s co2 was jumping about year to year like crazy? As if it knew to start behaving once we started measuring it properly? In one case Beck's reconstruction has it jumping 80ppm and then falling again within a few years.

That raises another reason to doubt Beck's reconstruction. Current understanding of the carbon cycle can't explain how such rapid swings of that magnitude in atmospheric co2 could be possible.

The fact that the ice core records disagree is just the icing on the cake of reasons to believe the reconstruction is not correct.
 
David Rodale said:
No Unique, there isn't a perfect curve leading onto the Mauna Loa. If you'd bother to research the many tens of thousands of CO2 measurements prior to and after Mauna Loa, you'd know the "perfect trend" is bunk. You would also know about the "missing sink".

Aside from that, viewing the chart below, notice the pattern existing from the Mauna Loa measurements? What does it say? Even a wild guess?

Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f107c6ad21e.jpg
Click to expand...

It shows that the rise in co2 each year has accelerated over time as human emissions of co2 have accelerated over time, and it also shows the natural variation on top of this long term trend.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?
Click to expand...

The causation was determined long ago. Here is a paper from 1956
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AmJPh..24..376P

Radiation-convection models of the atmosphere are based on empirical data, and those show co2 is significant component of the greenhouse effect, and that increasing co2 causes warming.
 
oponol said:
Beck's paper really hasn't got much weight on this subject. The worst part of it in my opinion is how he takes every data point and draws a curve through every single one.

Other than that there's a stack of reasons why the reconstruction must be wrong.

He doesn't mention that site bias (not measuring precision) is what prevented accurate measurements back then. That's precisely why Callendar set up the Mauna Loa monitoring station so remotely - to avoid the contamination issues that plagued co2 measurements elsewhere.

Measurements taken in and around cities are subject to large variations in surface co2 that can be carried by the wind. co2 concentration can differ by location by as much as 100ppm. It's just not reliable.

Another good reason for Beck's reconstruction not being correct is that the record since Mauna Loa came online has shown co2 rising steady and smooth with less than 3ppm change from year to year, yet we are expected to believe that before the 60s co2 was jumping about year to year like crazy? As if it knew to start behaving once we started measuring it properly? In one case Beck's reconstruction has it jumping 80ppm and then falling again within a few years.

That raises another reason to doubt Beck's reconstruction. Current understanding of the carbon cycle can't explain how such rapid swings of that magnitude in atmospheric co2 could be possible.

The fact that the ice core records disagree is just the icing on the cake of reasons to believe the reconstruction is not correct.
Click to expand...

It is quite interesting, isn't it?

There is no question that the Mauna Loa does very precise measurements, however the chemical tests were said to be accurate to within 3%. 3% is fine for this work.

Now is there a substantial reason to throw out all, or part of the data?

If so, on what basis? Can you point to scientific studies that go through these 135 studies and invalidate them? I think not. That really is the quesiton, whether these studies have been refuted in the peer reviewed literature.

You bring up the fact that many of the tests may have been done near cities and may have been affected by the "co2 plume". Of course that was well understood, and please note, many were not so affected.

I fail to see the absence of bloated, gluttonous cherry pickers and rabid dogs of data dredging....
 
mhaze said:
It is quite interesting, isn't it?

There is no question that the Mauna Loa does very precise measurements, however the chemical tests were said to be accurate to within 3%. 3% is fine for this work.

Now is there a substantial reason to throw out all, or part of the data?
Click to expand...

Yes, the surface is the source of co2 into the atmsosphere and as a result there is a lot of contamination going at the surface which is carried about by the wind. Very few areas at the surface represent the co2 concentration of the atmosphere as a whole because of this contamination.

This paper documents the existance of this contamination
http://www.uni-duisburg-essen.de/im...inger2004.pdf#search="co2 urban mixing ratio"


You bring up the fact that many of the tests may have been done near cities and may have been affected by the "co2 plume". Of course that was well understood, and please note, many were not so affected.
Click to expand...

It wasn't understood, in fact back then it wasn't even understood there was a well mixed co2 concentration in the atmosphere. It was believe co2 was distributed unevenly precisely because that's what measurements were showing.
 
oponol said:
The causation was determined long ago. Here is a paper from 1956
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AmJPh..24..376P
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link.

"In contrast to other theories of climatic change, the carbon dioxide theory predicts a warming trend that will continue for centuries or as long as fossil fuels are burned in significant quantities. "
Click to expand...

A theory that's still standing up to observations of one heck of an experiment. Kudos to Plass and Gilbert.
 
mhaze said:
Here's a bet. The Arctic ice grows back and does not shrink to zero as alarmists are claiming may happen pretty shortly.
Click to expand...

I'm still aiming for precision on this "alarmist" word : if those who are making this claim - say, that Arctic sea-ice is gone by 2020 - turn out to be right, are (were) they still alarmists?

How about that one? No gentlemen's wagers, money escrowed at the start.
Click to expand...

I take from that the clear message that I'm not dealing with a gentleman.

You ask me to bet on "pretty shortly" and zero Arctic sea-ice. That won't happen until Greenland's northern coast stops calving icebergs, which will take some considerable time. (Unless things really go pear-shaped, of course.) I don't make bets where there's so much wriggle-room for the bookmaker.

I'll bet on your 60-80 year cycle not bringing us more summer ice in three to eight years.
 
mhaze said:
This is a perfect example of cherry picking and data dredging.

Yet with your cherry picked dredges you cannot show that simple correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Not even with my giving you your choice of a subset of the years? 1850 - present, 1950 - present, 1980 - present?

Not even with my providing additional sources - over 135 actual data sets with 90,000 results - which I am also not objecting to your cherry picking and data dredging from?

I do not know what else is humanly possible to do, to help AGW Warmers produce a solid, credible and scientific foundation for the manmade CO2 drives climate change hypothesis.

You can not say I did not try to help.

This is not good for the credibility of the AGW hypothesis that CO2 is the major driver of climate. What can be done to salvage this theory?
Click to expand...

The Mauna Loa record is validated by the Cape Grim. Oponol has already done an excellent job of filling you out on the rest of it.
 
mhaze said:
North Pole 127-314 Global Warming Thread 962-1277

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.



3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?
Click to expand...

Refer to the IPCC reports.
 
David Rodale said:
Depending on what SC24 does, it may very well be as warm as today, maybe even slightly warmer. However, if SC24 is weak as some predict, it will be cooler and continue downward from there. By all accounts SC25 will be much weaker. SC24 is the grey area. There is a 4-15 year lag response.
Click to expand...

You really have been spending a lot of time in ClimateAudit. Let me know how that works out for you. Myself, I like to get out more. As in outside. Beyond a controlled environment.
 
oponol said:
Beck's paper really hasn't got much weight on this subject. The worst part of it in my opinion is how he takes every data point and draws a curve through every single one.

Other than that there's a stack of reasons why the reconstruction must be wrong.

He doesn't mention that site bias (not measuring precision) is what prevented accurate measurements back then. That's precisely why Callendar set up the Mauna Loa monitoring station so remotely - to avoid the contamination issues that plagued co2 measurements elsewhere.

Measurements taken in and around cities are subject to large variations in surface co2 that can be carried by the wind. co2 concentration can differ by location by as much as 100ppm. It's just not reliable.

Another good reason for Beck's reconstruction not being correct is that the record since Mauna Loa came online has shown co2 rising steady and smooth with less than 3ppm change from year to year, yet we are expected to believe that before the 60s co2 was jumping about year to year like crazy? As if it knew to start behaving once we started measuring it properly? In one case Beck's reconstruction has it jumping 80ppm and then falling again within a few years.

That raises another reason to doubt Beck's reconstruction. Current understanding of the carbon cycle can't explain how such rapid swings of that magnitude in atmospheric co2 could be possible.

The fact that the ice core records disagree is just the icing on the cake of reasons to believe the reconstruction is not correct.
Click to expand...

Please review the methodologies precisely.

What is causing the CO2 fluctuations in the Mauna Loa record? Does it imply a long CO2 life cycle?
Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat


Do chemical laws apply to AGW such as Henry's Law Constant?
 
Last edited:
oponol said:
The causation was determined long ago. Here is a paper from 1956
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AmJPh..24..376P

Radiation-convection models of the atmosphere are based on empirical data, and those show co2 is significant component of the greenhouse effect, and that increasing co2 causes warming.
Click to expand...

Plass is not the answer. Here was a guy working with first generation computing equipment in the middle of the Cold War. Effects of radiation were of interest at that time, his work fell into that general category. He followed the work of Callender and elaborated it into something of a theory that CO2 changes drove all climate changes, entire ice ages and the like.

Plass was essentially an early theorist of CO2 causes global warming. Lab measurements tell us what we know about the CO2 molecule today.

Where are actual experiments in the layers of the atmosphere that are supposedly affected by CO2? That show the green house effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere, and which therefore prove what exactly climate sensitivity is?

Published experiments, data and methods, that are repeatable? Actual atmospheric experiments with real air molecules, at real altitudes, as the sun comes up and the layer warms?

That doesn't seem an unreasonable question, does it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom