Simple Question About AGW

[anor277]

That you will never see.
For newcomers, AGWrs claim that the physics about their pet theory is very sound.....CO2 have some properties that make it a "greenhouse gas".

But......... the real question is : Those properties are still in effect when CO2 is in a 1000 PPM dilusion (almost homeopatic) on air? And what happens when this CO2 is stored in large masses of water?

Just to weigh in on a question of units, 1000 ppm is hardly a homeopathic dilution; it is orders of magnitude greater than a homeopathic dose. 1 part per million is 1 milligram per litre; therefore 1000 ppm is 1 g per litre. Such a concentration would certainly kill you if the gas was hydrogen cyanide, another greenhouse gas; it is also 2-5 times the concentration at which common drugs are prescribed. This concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere will be nicely proportional to the concentration of the gas in sea water; it is envisioned that the enhanced concentration of this acidic oxide will spell the end of all coral reefs.

There are some other questions, and AGWrs have come with nice theories about this, but a controlled experiment we haven't see.

Capital idea; what sort of experiment do you envision? And how do we extrapolate the results of this experiment (that will inevitably fail to include important variables) to actual global warming?

 

[Dr. Imago]

Capital idea; what sort of experiment do you envision? And how do we extrapolate the results of this experiment (that will inevitably fail to include important variables) to actual global warming?

There isn't one experiment. There are a series of independent validating experiments, much like the two I describe above, that give "proof of principle" to much of what is currently being held out as meaningful observation and upon which conclusions are being made.

Re-read my post above.

-Dr. Imago

 

[mhaze]

Here's one with tree rings We mustn't forget the unprecedented warming in the Arctic either
Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
Abstract
The article concludes the Arctic has actually cooled in the last 1500 years, and as we all know now (at least those that didn't assimilate) the recent ice melt was due to wind and oceanic circulation patterns and not temperature.

Expect to have to keep repeating that!

But it looks like the authors made a serious effort to avoid the problems.

covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated.

And they assert.

The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions

 

[mhaze]

I've set out the experiment before, and will state it again. Select your trees. Place appropriately calibrated measuring devices near those trees. Let trees grow. Send tree rings to scientists in a blinded manner a set period of time from when the experiment was initiated. And, have them attempt to correlate the data in a blinded manner to the actual observations. Not done yet. Why? -Dr. Imago

Steve McIntyre did a bit of it -

“Bring the proxies up to date” was the title of one of my earliest posts. Michael Mann had explained that doing so required the use of heavy equipment (like tree ring borers) and travel to out-of-the way sites such as Bishop, California or even Niwot Ridge, a full 45 minute drive from UCAR world headquarters in Boulder CO. As a result, Mann explained that few proxies were available after 1980 and it was therefore necessary to keep using bristlecone and other series ending in 1980 or so.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1278
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89

 

[CapelDodger]

YES! i've seen a LOT more proAGW than noAGW science papers and granted i most likely don't fully understand the science, but all i'm seeing is correlations! normally i read evo bio papers (for fun, believe it or not). compare and contrast.

While the theory itself is robust, quantifying AGW in the real and rather messy world is the current focus of interest. That's why you see a lot to do with correlations because we're only just starting to get a good data flow. When it comes to historical data we can't really do experiments on it - that experiment has been run and all we can do is extract the data, and interpret it as best we can.

i don''t know enough about it to know what experiments *should* be done, but the stuff i have seen is suggestive, sure. but i've seen NO papers that'd convince me that AGW is a nailed-down theory, let alone that it's gonna be a disaster that we have to fix NOW before it happens or.... else.

There is only one experiment that will tell us everything we want to know, and it's been underway for some time now.

The HITRAN database is founded on thousands of careful observations of greenhouse gas absorption at various pressures and concentrations. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ted-gassy-argument-part-ii/langswitch_lang/in . That's an example of experiments that have been done.

and when i express my skepticism i get offered links to tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories from so-called skeptics. i expect the climate scientists are working in good conscience (unlike many internet posters and conspiracy nuts). but... there hasn't been enough time and enough research done to sort the wheat from the chaff. fads and trends hit science as much as any human activity, and until it's done and dusted we don't KNOW.

You used the word "superficial" earlier, and you're right. We're mostly not scientists, we're interested observers. Much of what we talk about is how we and other people react to the subject.

I can't think of any sceintific "fad" that has had the longevity and impact of AGW, and it's not showing any sign of going out of fashion. If anything it's becoming more prominent more rapidly than ever (despite the best efforts of the shiny-hat brigade). That's not a scientific argument, but then I'm not a scientist. I'm having to make judgements on what I see and hear, like everybody else.

I've long concluded that AGW is going to have a material impact. It must have been fifteen years ago that I said "The next ten years will tell", and they told. It's happening all around us. I'm not often unequivocal because I do hate to be wrong, but in this case I'm comfortable. For what that's worth.

 

[mhaze]

Just to weigh in on a question of units, 1000 ppm is hardly a homeopathic dilution; it is orders of magnitude greater than a homeopathic dose. 1 part per million is 1 milligram per litre; therefore 1000 ppm is 1 g per litre. Such a concentration would certainly kill you if the gas was hydrogen cyanide....

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.

 

[mhaze]

....incidentally, i'd service Ann Coulter.....

Impressive depth of scientific understanding noted.

i get offered links to tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories from so-called skeptics

Where are the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories?

 

[David Rodale]

Steve McIntyre did a bit of it -

“Bring the proxies up to date” was the title of one of my earliest posts. Michael Mann had explained that doing so required the use of heavy equipment (like tree ring borers) and travel to out-of-the way sites such as Bishop, California or even Niwot Ridge, a full 45 minute drive from UCAR world headquarters in Boulder CO. As a result, Mann explained that few proxies were available after 1980 and it was therefore necessary to keep using bristlecone and other series ending in 1980 or so.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1278
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89

The Dendros (Mann et al) said it was too hard and expensive to update the proxies, so Steve McIntyre did it himself for the grand total of.......$5000. Maybe the warmers on JREF would donate $20 to offset the huge cost?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2183
Per unRealClimate:

While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar sites). For historical reasons, many of the important records were obtained in the 1970s and 1980s and have yet to be updated.

Do you think there may be another reason they don't update the Mann proxies?

 

[Alric]

Fine. Let's put it in a bottle and do the test. Argued in principle. Why has no one proven it in practice?



Gibberish.

I've set out the experiment before, and will state it again. Select your trees. Place appropriately calibrated measuring devices near those trees. Let trees grow. Send tree rings to scientists in a blinded manner a set period of time from when the experiment was initiated. And, have them attempt to correlate the data in a blinded manner to the actual observations.

Not done yet. Why?

-Dr. Imago

How do you think the equation and its constants were calculated. By measurement.

On the tree ring point. You do understand all proxies agree. The tree rings agree with glaciers which agree with coral growth which agree with pine needles...etc. There is your validation.

 

[Alric]

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.

The sever effects level of some contaminants in ppm range. Hardly homeopathic.

 

[Alric]

Here's one with tree rings We mustn't forget the unprecedented warming in the Arctic either
Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
Abstract
The article concludes the Arctic has actually cooled in the last 1500 years, and as we all know now (at least those that didn't assimilate) the recent ice melt was due to wind and oceanic circulation patterns and not temperature.

As usual the contrarian spin is different from the conclusion of the paper. This is reporting temperature at a local scale and includes a well documented period and area of local warming.

Consider this paragraph taken from the discussion of the quoted paper:

Although the paleoclimatic records show a high degree
of similarity in North Fennoscandian and, possibly, North
Atlantic trends over the last millennia, it is important to
also note that there are large regional differences in the
timing and the magnitude of climatic periods such as the
‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ (Hughes and Diaz 1994;
Crowley and Lowery 2000) and the ‘‘Little Ice Age’’
(Bradley 1992; Jones and Briffa 2001). Hence, although the
climate of northern Fennoscandia seems to have been
significantly warmer during medieval times as compared to
the late-twentieth century, the published composite records
of northern hemisphere climate (Moberg et al. 2005) do not
show a conspicuously warm period around AD 1000.

The discussion should always center on global or at least hemispheric temperature averages. I know some of you don't believe in global temperatures but such is the analyses needed. At least that is what real climatologists use when discussing climate change. For a strong argument against AGW contrarians would have to produce a graph like this:

But without the increased temperature at the end.

 

[CapelDodger]

The article concludes the Arctic has actually cooled in the last 1500 years, and as we all know now (at least those that didn't assimilate) the recent ice melt was due to wind and oceanic circulation patterns and not temperature.

They conclude that the Arctic was warmer than now in the 6thCE? That seems rather unlikely unless we have a lot more Arctic warming to come.

This 1500 year cycle does not fit well with Scandinavian, Russian, or Icelandic history. Nor British history, for that matter. It may look cool on a graph but it doesn't measure up to the real world.

 

[CapelDodger]

As usual the contrarian spin is different from the conclusion of the paper. This is reporting temperature at a local scale and includes a well documented period and area of local warming.

They just can't seem to grasp what the G in AGW stands for. A habit born of limited horizons, IMO. They'll stick the G on anything. Something in the Arctic? Stick the G on it. Something in the Antarctic? Stick the G on it. Something about hurricanes? ...

For a strong argument against AGW contrarians would have to produce a graph like this:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ima...ng/450px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

But without the increased temperature at the end.

In twenty years they might have one. Twenty years ago they hoped they'd have one by now, but they're not disheartened. It could start tomorrow and blow the whole AGW scam out of the water. After all, warming stopped in 1998 didn't it ?

 

[fsol]

As usual the contrarian spin is different from the conclusion of the paper. This is reporting temperature at a local scale and includes a well documented period and area of local warming.

Consider this paragraph taken from the discussion of the quoted paper:



The discussion should always center on global or at least hemispheric temperature averages. I know some of you don't believe in global temperatures but such is the analyses needed. At least that is what real climatologists use when discussing climate change. For a strong argument against AGW contrarians would have to produce a graph like this:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ima...ng/450px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

But without the increased temperature at the end.

This paper was bought up here recently and I quoted the very same paragraph to make the very same point as you have just done. Funny that...and they wonder why no one takes them seriously.

 

[David Rodale]

As usual the contrarian spin is different from the conclusion of the paper. This is reporting temperature at a local scale and includes a well documented period and area of local warming.

Consider this paragraph taken from the discussion of the quoted paper:



The discussion should always center on global or at least hemispheric temperature averages. I know some of you don't believe in global temperatures but such is the analyses needed. At least that is what real climatologists use when discussing climate change. For a strong argument against AGW contrarians would have to produce a graph like this:

But without the increased temperature at the end.

What's a "real climatologist"? Is James Hansen a "real climatologist"? Warmers like to use logical fallacy in their arguments, so to clarify for all, define what a "real climatologist" is compared to a "real scientist". Let's get that out of the way before we bury the hockey stick once and for all ok?

P.S.
The article is concerning the Arctic, and since you apparently didn't read it, that was the subject of my post.

 

[varwoche]

Crrrnk ... !

Huh? What challenges? I'm not the one making specific claims. I am the one challenging people to do additional science that will either prove or disprove their current claims.

... that's the sound of ...

It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. ... But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

... goalposts moving hither and yon, backtracking away from borderline CT.

 

[anor277]

Just to weigh in on a question of units, 1000 ppm is hardly a homeopathic dilution; it is orders of magnitude greater than a homeopathic dose. 1 part per million is 1 milligram per litre; therefore 1000 ppm is 1 g per litre. Such a concentration would certainly kill you if the gas was hydrogen cyanide, another greenhouse gas; it is also 2-5 times the concentration at which common drugs are prescribed. This concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere will be nicely proportional to the concentration of the gas in sea water; it is envisioned that the enhanced concentration of this acidic oxide will spell the end of all coral reefs.

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.

Just replied to say that I made an error in the post above. The parts per million range is expressed differently in terms of gaseous versus aqueous concentration. 1000 ppm CO₂ represents about 2 g of CO₂ per cubic metre (if I've done my sums correctly this time) of atmosphere, not 1 g per litre as I mistakenly said before. My apologies for my error, I was out by 3 orders of magnitude. Still as Alric said above these are orders of magnitude above homeopathic doses, and I am surprised that human production of carbon dioxide (2-3 ppm (by volume) annually according to mhaze) is so high.

 

[a_unique_person]

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.

Experts estimate that less than a microgram (one millionth of a gram) of the radioactive substance could have been responsible for Mr Litvinenko's death.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6190144.stm

It depends, doesn't it? Something can be significant in small doses, depending on the physics of the situation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Fine. Let's put it in a bottle and do the test. Argued in principle. Why has no one proven it in practice?

-Dr. Imago

This was established over a century ago, 1896

The next major scientist to consider the question was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages. In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

 

[mhaze]

How do you think the equation and its constants were calculated. By measurement.

Lab measurements, not atmospheric.

On the tree ring point. You do understand all proxies agree. The tree rings agree with glaciers which agree with coral growth which agree with pine needles...etc. There is your validation.

No o o o...