Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

Quote from Dr. Michael Mann

Nowhere in that quote does he say that burning fossil fuels is the only thing that ever causes climate change. This quote, therefore, does not support your assertion that people are saying CO2 is the forcing factor behind all climate change.

FWIW the quote is 100% correct. Current climate change is widely accepted to be caused by human greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the largest contributor. You will not find support in the literature for any other currently significant cause.

 

[Trakar]

Quote from Dr. Michael Mann

A "primary cause" is not a sole causative factor. Dr. Mann properly attributes anthropogenic carbon emissions as the predominant, but not exclusive, forcing for modern climate change. Your source agrees with what we have been stating and you have been arguing against for the last page or so of discussion.

 

[Trakar]

There it is, the Theory of Global Warming explained. You even posted it yourself. So where's the problem?

(picking nits)

capitalization as you have done implies the existence of a specific and encompassing scientific theory concerning global warming. I am unaware of any such specific and encompassing scientific theory, can you link and reference this specific theory and what it states?

This appears to be a case where either the author of the web article or the researchers themselves used the term "theory" in its more colloquial definitional form.

 

[r-j]

There it is, the Theory of Global Warming explained. You even posted it yourself. So where's the problem?

This particular sidetrack started when I pointed out that the current warming doesn't match what climate models based on global warming theory predict. This was declared wrong, so I asked what the predictions of global warming theory were. As in, what do you say is predicted to happen? What is your source? (you meaning everyone who is participating here)

Rather than a simple answer, I see something like this.

can you show me a single scientific puvlication that claims that CO2 is "the only prime mover"?

More C02 - warmer world, less C02 cooler world - the interaction with the oceans and biosphere is complex but that's the basic mechanism.....it impacts the radiation from the planet into space.

Serious answer - there is no such thing as your Googleing and Wikipedia searches found.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming,

(Hint: there is no single, all encompassing "Theory of Global Warming")

Everyone notes that I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually shown with your searches.

"Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread,

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

. CO2 can be the main mover of climate at any particular time without it being the only thing that ever moves climate, which was the straw man you were trying to argue against.

This does not mean that there is a scientific theory called "the theory of global warming" that you seem to demand has to exist.

And you ask,

So where's the problem

I would bet you can't even see the problem.

 

[Reality Check]

Quote from Dr. Michael Mann

Dr. Michael Mann states the obvious- the primary cause (of climate change) is fossil fuel burning. This is what everyone here has been telling you, r-j.
Dr. Michael Mann does not state that the only cause of climate change is fossil fuel burning.

You may be under the mistaken impression that primary means only. It does not: primary

1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.
2. Being or standing first in a list, series, or sequence.
3. Occurring first in time or sequence; earliest.
4. Being or existing as the first or earliest of a kind; primitive.
...

Primary means that the item is in a list of at least two items.

r-j: Any problems with understanding that a primary cause means that there are other causes?

 

[Reality Check]

Rather than a simple answer, I see something like this.

The problem is that "I asked what the predictions of global warming theory" is a question about something that does not exist in science.

So rather than a simple answer to an ambiguous question you saw multiple posts trying answer whatever was behind the question.
The complex answer is

• Scientifically there is no such thing as "global warming theory" or "Theory of Global Warming".
• Scientifically there are climate science models that predict global warming.
• Thus there are no papers about any "Theory of Global Warming".
• But the internet contains common, English usage. Thus the term "global warming theory" exists on the Internet.

The actual predications are available widely if you want to look, e.g. start with the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

There is an issue with your post, r-j. How can you state that

"the current warming doesn't match what climate models based on global warming theory predict"
​

when you do not know what the climate models predict ("I asked what the predictions of global warming theory were")?

Thus I had better ask the obvious question.
r-j, please cite the scientific literature that you read to support the above statement.
Credible sources citing the scientific literature would be acceptable (no climate change denier web sites please!).

And what does "current warning" mean - this year, the last decade, the last 100 years or even the What has global warming done since 1998? climate change denier myth?

 

[Mikemcc]

This particular sidetrack started when I pointed out that the current warming doesn't match what climate models based on global warming theory predict. This was declared wrong, so I asked what the predictions of global warming theory were. As in, what do you say is predicted to happen? What is your source? (you meaning everyone who is participating here)

Rather than a simple answer, I see something like this.

And you ask,

I would bet you can't even see the problem.

Your first contention that 'current warming doesn't match ... climate models' is indeed incorrect, it still lies within the lower bounds of the model runs. If you want more details with regard to that look at the WG1 report from IPCC AR4 (AR5 when it's released next month). Also the idea that surface temperatures are the be-all and end-all of global warming is also incorrect. The CERES satellite data has shown that the Earth has continued to gain energy at a fairly constant rate.

 

[Trakar]

Nowhere in that quote does he say that burning fossil fuels is the only thing that ever causes climate change. This quote, therefore, does not support your assertion that people are saying CO2 is the forcing factor behind all climate change.

FWIW the quote is 100% correct. Current climate change is widely accepted to be caused by human greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the largest contributor. You will not find support in the literature for any other currently significant cause.

I'm sure it is no surprise to you, but at the risk of revealing to some what many understand as the obvious, it is not that a lot of effort isn't being expended to search for any other potential dominant climate factors and/or compounding cofactors. The body of climate science research is about the exploration of how a planet's atmosphere and surface interact to absorb, reflect, transmit, redistribute and re-emit the energies of accretion and insolation.

Anyone who discovers a better, more closely correlated explanation of all the existent evidences and which proves more closely predictive of future observations would quickly become the most notable and historic researcher of the modern era.

The last two hundred years or so of geophysical understanding is littered with the uncountable husks of flawed understandings and insufficient challenges to the principles that have survived to become the current framework of modern science.

Understandings will always grow and evolve, but improved understandings tend to focus the blurry aspects of historic observations and understandings they don't reject, negate or ignore such evidences.

 

[Pixel42]

I asked what the predictions of global warming theory were. As in, what do you say is predicted to happen? What is your source?.

That certainly isn't what you asked, though I'm prepared to believe it's what you intended to ask, and you just worded the question very very badly.

Unfortunately the expectation that there is a simple answer to this question again reflects a failure to grasp the fundamentals of climate science. There certainly are computer models which attempt to predict the consequences of increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on average global temperatures, and some which attempt to then predict the effect of that temperature rise on things like sea level and the strength and frequency of storms. But there are so many variables (e.g. how the global economy is faring (which affects the amount of CO2 emitted), whether El Nino or La Nina conditions are prevailing, variations in solar output and the amount of volcanic activity and so on) that even the best models are unlikely to be very accurate over periods shorter than several decades.

The most simplistic answer I can give you is that most models which assume business as usual ( i.e. that CO2 emissions are not going to be significantly reduced in the foreseeable future) predict an increase in average global temperature of around 0.15 - 0.2 degrees C per decade. The actual average global temperatures for each decade are given here, so you can compare the last few decades with this prediction for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_decades

 

[Trakar]

One can hardly blame r-j for being confused then. It's the scientists fault for not always being clear enough. By now, with us being so very clear, r-j will have grasped the basics of the greenhouse effect and learnt of the existence (who knew?) of Radiative Transfer Theory.

It's perhaps worth mentioning here that not even the wildest estimates of other forcings come close to matching what has occurred (let alone what will happen).



How r-j would know what is predicted for an increase in a greenhouse gas without even understanding the greenhouse effect is not obvious. Why r-j thinks he knows what is predicted is another matter (the answer also includes a hyphen .)



I knew it! I knew the colloquials were behind it all along! It was never about CO₂, it's always been about the vulgarisation of society in order to bring down capitalism and establish a one-world, lowest-common-denominator culture.

When we do it, it's irony. When the vulgar do it, it's sarcasm. I'm not surprised the colloquialist case is collapsing so abjectly.

Meanwhile stuff actually happens. The meandering jet-stream is, for me, an emerging issue : I don't recall discussing it until fairly recently. I understand it was predicted by some models but (like so many things) not this soon. Since it depends on the surface temperature gradient from equator to pole, it could be that the recent La Nina frequency has brought it forward. A few years of ENSO calm would give us a better snapshot of the current normal.

When I first heard about greenhouse warming it didn't occur to me I'd see any of it unfolding, if it even happened. Of course, in those days it seemed a good idea to name a sci-fi comic 2000AD.

You make my pedanticism seem so,...pedantic!

 

[Steve001]

Natural vs. human caused climate change

I want to brush-up on the salient markers that distinguish the former from the latter. I have a few climate change sites booked marked, but I'd like to know if any of you out there know of sites that specifically discuss the salient distinguishing markers?

 

[casebro]

Apparently the "man made co2" is from ancient coal, and has a different carbon isotope ratio.

Seems the basic question is whether a natural rise in temp is releasing CO2 from the ocean, or whether man's co2 is causing the rise in temp.

Though I never looked too deep, seems to me CO2 is fungible, and that having 'new' kinds in the air wouldn't necessarily mean that all the increase is from the newest addition.

 

[kedo1981]

It don't matter, manmade or natural
We are the only thing on the planet that can change it's behavior so it's our responsibility to do so.
At least thats the speech I make in any "climate change" conversation.

 

[Steve001]

I'm asking because I will find it useful for debating a AGW denier.

 

[Dinwar]

There are a few things you can look at.

Obviously, there are the orbital cycles--excentricity, procession, and axial tilt. Those have a very clear signal during ice ages in terms of temperature forcing. You can use those to make a prediction of what the temperature "should" be doing (in quotes because my research has convinced me that the signal is mostly if not completely masked during non-glacial periods).

There's also solar cycles. You can compare Earth, Mars, etc. temperatures based on solar cycles.

After that, most of our paleothermometers are actually driven by temperature, rather than driving temperature. C3/C4 plant ratios are an example of this--above I believe 350 ppm CO2 C4 plants dominate (I may have that backwards). Plant elevations are another example, as is the Mediterranian Sea level.

 

[DC]

This particular sidetrack started when I pointed out that the current warming doesn't match what climate models based on global warming theory predict. This was declared wrong, so I asked what the predictions of global warming theory were. As in, what do you say is predicted to happen? What is your source? (you meaning everyone who is participating here)

Rather than a simple answer, I see something like this.












And you ask,

I would bet you can't even see the problem.

in the long run more Co2 means a warmer world becuase the CO2 increase is a positive forcing on the climate, and aslong other forcings don't change, this will create warming. how much is not an easy question as we do not know the Climate sensitivity exactly. but with time we will find out.

 

[lomiller]

There are distinct signals for Greenhouse related and Solar related forcing and since current greenhouse gas changes are anthropogenic the greenhouse fingerprints are also anthropogenic fingerprints.

One of the fingerprints of greenhouse warming are cooling in the stratosphere. This is something that only occurs with greenhouse induced warming, solar induced warming would warm the upper atmosphere. Another is day – night temperature differences. Solar warming would be felt primarily in the day and therefore increase day/night temperature differences, while greenhouse gases would help trap heat at night and reduce day/night differences. A third fingerprint is that satellites measure a decrease in the energy escaping to space in the wavelengths impacted by CO2

Something else worth nothing is that global dimming by human induced aerosols have actually decreased the sunlight that reaches the earth but temperatures have climbed in spite of this reduction in solar energy.

 

[lomiller]

Apparently the "man made co2" is from ancient coal, and has a different carbon isotope ratio.

Seems the basic question is whether a natural rise in temp is releasing CO2 from the ocean, or whether man's co2 is causing the rise in temp.

Though I never looked too deep, seems to me CO2 is fungible, and that having 'new' kinds in the air wouldn't necessarily mean that all the increase is from the newest addition.

Fossil carbon does indeed have a different ration of isotopes than carbon already in the atmosphere, and this is one way we know the increase in CO2 is caused by humans. Even without isotope evidence, however, there are no other significant sources of CO2. The oceans are NOT contributing to increased CO2 levels, in fact they are absorbing more than half the CO2 we emit, and have absorbed so much they are turning more acidic, which is a major problem in its own right.

 

[Dinwar]

there are no other significant sources of CO2.

Depends on the highlighted word. I'm not convinced that enough work has been done on volcanic contributions to make that claim, for example. I'm not arguing, nor am I going to argue, one way or another on this; emotions run far too hot here for such a discussion to yield anything useful. I'm simply pointing out that what you're saying isn't necessarily true. There are other sources of CO2, some of them producing quite a bit; I've yet to see a rigorous analysis of such sources, is all I'm saying.

Something else worth nothing is that global dimming by human induced aerosols have actually decreased the sunlight that reaches the earth but temperatures have climbed in spite of this reduction in solar energy.

Venus demonstrates the mechanism for this quite dramatically.

 

[a_unique_person]

Dr. Michael Mann states the obvious- the primary cause (of climate change) is fossil fuel burning. This is what everyone here has been telling you, r-j.
Dr. Michael Mann does not state that the only cause of climate change is fossil fuel burning.

You may be under the mistaken impression that primary means only. It does not: primary

Primary means that the item is in a list of at least two items.

r-j: Any problems with understanding that a primary cause means that there are other causes?

he is also only referring to the current warming event, not all warming that has happened or will happen.