Bob Park and Global Warming

[Brian the Snail]

No. What you "showed" was that carbon dioxide increases can be much more rapid over a given short period of time than the long term trend would suggest. It's a chaotic system, not one which is in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Yes, but how exactly does this contradict what I wrote? My point here was that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently rapidly rising. This was originally stated in Morchella's post. You decided to nit-pick about her not presenting sources, and that she wasn't precise enough about the meaning of "rapid" (presumably because you disagreed with it?) People present you with evidence, and finally you say:

I don't doubt that periodically carbon dioxide can rise rapidly over decades or even a century or two, but such events are not unique to the last 150 years as Phaycops has shown.

Fair enough, but if you didn't doubt this in the first place, why were you so keen on sources?

I have not changed my story. I have pointed out that carbon dioxide enrichment has not been shown to cause temperature rise, even in the distant past when the level was much higher.

That's not what I was refering to, see above.

Already answered.

Sorry, but where?

I have no doubt that carbon dioxide enrichment has a human component. But from the delayed response to climate warmth that carbon dioxide has shown from every study, it would have risen anyway.

By 30% over 150 years?!! Can you be more explicit please- is the human component predominate or not?

From the perspective of geological time, current carbon dioxide levels are anomalously low. Such a presentation can even be seen in the IPCC's scentific report.

Yes, if you are looking at timescales of millions of years. But then, how is this relevant?

If you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll see that the quote you cherry-picked is from my response to Phaycops, who was concerned with the use of the "hockey-stick figure", which I took to refer to davefoc's posting of the graph of CO2 levels over the last millenium. She then went on to discuss the links between carbon dioxide and global warming. Although I thought her first concern was valid, I was simply pointing out the graph was used only to establish the rapid rise of CO2 levels over the last 150 years, and said nothing about the link between CO2 and global warming.
------------------------------------------------------
But in a chaotic system like the climate, large rises (and falls) can happen for no reason (apart from the flap of a butterfly's wing, perhaps).

I posted the section of my post you quoted, so that you could read it again. I fail to see how your reply addresses what I actually wrote. Could you enlighten me?

 

[Brian the Snail]

Lots.

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
....
{snip}

Thank you for the references. Perhaps, instead of cutting and pasting, it might have been better if you'd just posted a link:

http://www.co2science.org/edit/v6_edit/v6n26edit.htm

Are you one of the authors of this article. If not, then I think it's only fair that you credit the original authors.

I'll get back to your question tomorrow.

 

[CapelDodger]

From kookbreaker:

I'm sorry, but my reading comprehension must be off, are you claiming that there was no Little Ice Age?

As I put it, it was an "essentially North Atlantic" incident. Since our western history was so influenced by it the assumption tends to be that it was world-wide, but the evidence is against that. The Little Ice Age is very obvious in European history, but there are no signs of it in the history of China or the Indian Ocean. This is why the subject wasn't contentious until some people suddenly had a reason for making it so.

 

[Diamond]

Yes, but how exactly does this contradict what I wrote? My point here was that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently rapidly rising. This was originally stated in Morchella's post. You decided to nit-pick about her not presenting sources, and that she wasn't precise enough about the meaning of "rapid" (presumably because you disagreed with it?) People present you with evidence, and finally you say:

Oh right. When I insist on evidence for claims its "nitpicking". Its alright for Morchella to make a claim without any evidence? Really?

As for the rapid rise point, I asked Willie Soon, co-author of the meta-study, whether the current rise in carbon dioxide was unusual in the climate record, and he said no.

What I did point out was that on short timescales, carbon dioxide appears to surge, then fall back, which is what you'd expect in a chaotic system. The overall trend may be a lot less than the shorter timescale would suggest.

By 30% over 150 years?!! Can you be more explicit please- is the human component predominate or not?

A: Nobody knows. There must be a component to the rise in carbon dioxide which is man-made, but nobody knows what proportion. Carbon dioxide levels would have risen anyway. The carbon cycle is not the simple picture of arrows pointing up, down and sideways. One of the favourite tactics is to stress the residency time of carbon dioxide as around 100 years, where other reputable studies put it near 40.

Carbon dioxide levels do spurt on short timescales as can be seen from ice core records. The rapid rise after (long after) the temperature rises is characteristic in those records.

Yes, if you are looking at timescales of millions of years. But then, how is this relevant?

Only to demonstrate that carbon dioxide enrichment many times the current level has been the norm on earth, all without man-made sources, and without causing a dreaded run-away Greenhouse so beloved of scaremongers.

I posted the section of my post you quoted, so that you could read it again. I fail to see how your reply addresses what I actually wrote. Could you enlighten me?

Only that sharp rises and falls in chaotic systems like the climate can happen for no reason at all. The fallacy is one of composition: carbon dioxide is rising, temperatures are rising, carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas", therefore rising carbon dioxide is causing warming and is a BAD thing.

The only reason that the "carbon dioxide enrichment" issue is even brought up is because its supposed to be the "smoking gun" of global warming proving that man's production of carbon dioxide is tipping over the natural balance, when its nothing of the kind.

 

[CapelDodger]

From Diamond:

A 50% increase in a trace gas is still a trace gas

Seventy-some percent of the atmosphere is nitrogen, which makes no greenhouse contribution. Another twenty-odd is oxygen, then there's a percent or two of noble gases; again, no greenhouse contribution. So this 'trace' gas (comforting word, but, of course, misleading; try a trace amount of sarin) is in fact a significant part of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That greenhouse effect warms the planet by at least 30C. An increase of 50% in one component of that 30C could easily explain an increase of 0.6C.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is established physics, there's no doubt that it happens. And there's no doubt that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect and thus the temperature. The debate is actually about how much effect it will have, given the feedbacks and complexities of climate and geography.

Re the Hendy et al study, the glacial expansion in New Zealand did not coincide exactly with glacial expansion in the Northern hemisphere, and there was no expansion at all during a later expansion in the Northern hemisphere. The New Zealand expansion has been previously attributed to local conditions - but then, that was before anyone had an interest in making it seem something else. You are left with the problem that a correlation is evidence, but a lack of correlation isn't.

Cooler water around Australia may well have meant warmer water elsewhere, meaning overall stability. There probably was some global-scale cooling, but not on the scale that was seen in the North Atlantic, and it's that scale of variation that is being touted as a global experience. If it was, why didn't people notice? We're not talking thousands of years ago or desolate locations, we're talking hundreds of years ago in densely populated regions outside the North Atlantic; where's the evidence?

 

[CapelDodger]

From Diamond:

The very success of our species has been adaptation to a changing climate. Now we think we can stop the climate from changing by preventing adaptation (technological progress). I think that idea is extremely dangerous.

Now the idea that we should research new forms of energy-source and power-unit is an attempt to stop progress. Is it not a form of adaptation to use new technology to avoid greenhouse warming? Is the only adaptation you favour adaptation after the event?

It's that kind of superficial insouciance that's dangerous. There are 6 billion people on the planet living in a way that is based on the current climate. You may think you have the resources to buy your technological way out of any adverse effects but that's not the common experience (and you could be wrong). There are no freehold wildernesses to expand into now; the world has borders drawn all over it. When climatic regions shift no account will be taken of borders, and when people have to move, they'll move. Good for arms sales no doubt, but not a recipe for a happy world.

 

[CapelDodger]

From Diamond:

Only to demonstrate that carbon dioxide enrichment many times the current level has been the norm on earth, all without man-made sources, and without causing a dreaded run-away Greenhouse so beloved of scaremongers.

Misrepresentation again. The problem is not a "runaway greenhouse effect", it's an increased greenhouse effect. You add "runaway" to create a strawman.

And the world has most certainly been much warmer in the past, with higher carbon dioxide levels. The current period of Ice Ages started about 4m years ago, when Antarctica drifted over the South Pole and started building up an ice-cap. The Ice Ages became more severe after 2.3m years ago, when Panama closed up. The climate at any era is dependent on the geography, orbit, how dusty a region the solar system is passing through, vulcanology (the planet was very quiet on the volcano front last century, so why you claim that CO2 would have risen anyway I don't know) and quite probably such things as recent supernovas in the galactic neighbourhood. And on the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Oh right. When I insist on evidence for claims its "nitpicking". Its alright for Morchella to make a claim without any evidence? Really?

When you know that the claim is true, and generally accepted and well established, then yes, it is 'nick-picking.' It's also petty, pointless, and time consuming. It's like asking for a citation for Newton's laws of motion, or evidence that the sky is blue. No honest debate can proceed under these kinds of conditions.

As for the rapid rise point, I asked Willie Soon, co-author of the meta-study, whether the current rise in carbon dioxide was unusual in the climate record, and he said no.

Okay, then that settles it.

So, if in science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual, then what does the authority of a single individual add up to?

Only that sharp rises and falls in chaotic systems like the climate can happen for no reason at all. The fallacy is one of composition: carbon dioxide is rising, temperatures are rising, carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas", therefore rising carbon dioxide is causing warming and is a BAD thing.

The only reason that the "carbon dioxide enrichment" issue is even brought up is because its supposed to be the "smoking gun" of global warming proving that man's production of carbon dioxide is tipping over the natural balance, when its nothing of the kind.

Hmmm...I'm still not sure how this relates to anything I said. In fact, I would agree with it.

 

[davefoc]

Diamond, Brian the Snail put into words exactly how I have felt about some of your posts when he said:

When you know that the claim is true, and generally accepted and well established, then yes, it is 'nick-picking.' It's also petty, pointless, and time consuming. It's like asking for a citation for Newton's laws of motion, or evidence that the sky is blue. No honest debate can proceed under these kinds of conditions.

You are arguing for a position that is not without evidence. But you have chosen to fight over issues that are generally agreed to by both sides of the debate.

The fact is that sea levels are rising , CO2 levels have been rising unlike at any time in history on any charts that I have seen including the one Phaycops referenced and there has been a recent trend showing rising global temperatures.

The global warming debate is generally not about those accepted facts but rather the degree that humans are a causative factor and are the current trends of sea level rise, temperature rise and CO2 concentration likely to continue and what are the consequences of that.

 

[kookbreaker]

From kookbreaker:

As I put it, it was an "essentially North Atlantic" incident. Since our western history was so influenced by it the assumption tends to be that it was world-wide, but the evidence is against that. The Little Ice Age is very obvious in European history, but there are no signs of it in the history of China or the Indian Ocean. This is why the subject wasn't contentious until some people suddenly had a reason for making it so.

It seems there is some evidece of it... certain crops being abandoned in China due to extreme winters. I beleive it was the Southern Hemisphere that got off light.

 

[Diamond]

When you know that the claim is true, and generally accepted and well established, then yes, it is 'nick-picking.' It's also petty, pointless, and time consuming. It's like asking for a citation for Newton's laws of motion, or evidence that the sky is blue. No honest debate can proceed under these kinds of conditions.

Cobblers. There was no evidence presented, and guess what? Lots of evidence that what she said was wrong, false or misleading.

Okay, then that settles it.

So, if in science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual, then what does the authority of a single individual add up to?

I'd say a lot. It could be that he was simply stating a fact too obvious to be repeated, like asking for a citation for Newton's Laws of Motion or evidence that the sky is blue.

 

[Diamond]

You are arguing for a position that is not without evidence. But you have chosen to fight over issues that are generally agreed to by both sides of the debate.

I call BS on that statement. If a claim is so obvious why is it so easily refuted? Is this an excuse for not bothering to present evidence? Is this a skeptic forum or what?

If the position is not without evidence, then how does Morchella's position get compared with Newton's Laws of Motion?

The fact is that sea levels are rising

...as they have been doing since the end of the last Ice Age...

Funnily no-one actually points to data showing this rising sea level as anything anomalous. Taking out sites of rising or falling land, the trend for the sea has been up to 3cm/century for 10000 years. On the scale of decades (which is how long most records are) there has been virtually no recent sea level rise at all.

CO2 levels have been rising unlike at any time in history on any charts that I have seen including the one Phaycops referenced

Wrong again. CO2 levels are not particularly high for the Earth as even the IPCC will point out:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm#331

"Atmospheric CO2 concentration has varied on all time-scales during the Earth’s history (Figure 3.2). There is evidence for very high CO2 concentrations (>3,000 ppm) between 600 and 400 Myr BP and between 200 and 150 Myr BP (Figure 3.2f)"

... and there has been a recent trend showing rising global temperatures.

Well duh. And the connection between CO2 levels and rising temperature is???? Hello? Can we have some evidence of rising carbon dioxide causing warming?

The global warming debate is generally not about those accepted facts but rather the degree that humans are a causative factor and are the current trends of sea level rise, temperature rise and CO2 concentration likely to continue and what are the consequences of that.

In other words never mind the facts, they're tedious and could be misleading if looked at too closely.

I'm impressed by this argument: our minds are made up so lets talk about who is guilty for it and by how much.

 

[Diamond]

From Diamond:

Misrepresentation again. The problem is not a "runaway greenhouse effect", it's an increased greenhouse effect. You add "runaway" to create a strawman.

Please don't try to patronize me. Just present some evidence that a) carbon dioxide is rising rapidly b) carbon dioxide is unprecentedently high c) carbon dioxide is causing warming and d) on balance, rising carbon dioxide is a bad thing.

And the world has most certainly been much warmer in the past, with higher carbon dioxide levels. The current period of Ice Ages started about 4m years ago, when Antarctica drifted over the South Pole and started building up an ice-cap. The Ice Ages became more severe after 2.3m years ago, when Panama closed up. The climate at any era is dependent on the geography, orbit, how dusty a region the solar system is passing through, vulcanology (the planet was very quiet on the volcano front last century, so why you claim that CO2 would have risen anyway I don't know) and quite probably such things as recent supernovas in the galactic neighbourhood. And on the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide rise is not simply a product of vulcanism but a product of life itself as well as weathering and other natural processes. But carbon dioxide has not caused temperature rise, but has been shown to be caused by temperature rise.

Why you persist in this argument when shown so much evidence is beyond me.

 

[Diamond]

From Diamond:

Now the idea that we should research new forms of energy-source and power-unit is an attempt to stop progress. Is it not a form of adaptation to use new technology to avoid greenhouse warming? Is the only adaptation you favour adaptation after the event?

Only if it is greenhouse warming. A nice big assumption that you decline to back up with evidence that no other source of warming coiuld be causing the rise.

It's that kind of superficial insouciance that's dangerous. There are 6 billion people on the planet living in a way that is based on the current climate. You may think you have the resources to buy your technological way out of any adverse effects but that's not the common experience (and you could be wrong). There are no freehold wildernesses to expand into now; the world has borders drawn all over it. When climatic regions shift no account will be taken of borders, and when people have to move, they'll move. Good for arms sales no doubt, but not a recipe for a happy world.

Here we go again: "The Limits to Growth" and the Malthusian argument. Debunked years ago and yet still rearing their ugly heads.

 

[Diamond]

Seventy-some percent of the atmosphere is nitrogen, which makes no greenhouse contribution. Another twenty-odd is oxygen, then there's a percent or two of noble gases; again, no greenhouse contribution. So this 'trace' gas (comforting word, but, of course, misleading; try a trace amount of sarin) is in fact a significant part of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That greenhouse effect warms the planet by at least 30C. An increase of 50% in one component of that 30C could easily explain an increase of 0.6C.

Again a guess. Because the climate is a loosely coupled chaotic system, NOTHING at all could cause a rise like that.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is established physics, there's no doubt that it happens.

Yes, but how big is it? Does carbon dioxide itself have much heat retaining power? I find it interesting that you still don't mention water vapour even though its far and away the most dominant greenhouse gas. Try saying it :"Water vapour"

And there's no doubt that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect and thus the temperature.

Except that absolutely no studies of ancient climate have been produced to prove such and assertion. None.

The debate is actually about how much effect it will have, given the feedbacks and complexities of climate and geography.

No. First you establish that your premises are valid.

Re the Hendy et al study, the glacial expansion in New Zealand did not coincide exactly with glacial expansion in the Northern hemisphere, and there was no expansion at all during a later expansion in the Northern hemisphere. The New Zealand expansion has been previously attributed to local conditions - but then, that was before anyone had an interest in making it seem something else. You are left with the problem that a correlation is evidence, but a lack of correlation isn't.

Rather like rising carbon dioxide and rising temperatures? Naaah.

Cooler water around Australia may well have meant warmer water elsewhere, meaning overall stability. There probably was some global-scale cooling, but not on the scale that was seen in the North Atlantic, and it's that scale of variation that is being touted as a global experience. If it was, why didn't people notice? We're not talking thousands of years ago or desolate locations, we're talking hundreds of years ago in densely populated regions outside the North Atlantic; where's the evidence?

Now you're bluffing. The evidence for past temperature changes is done via proxies, since the thermometer was only invented in 1609 and not used in temperature records until the 18th Century. Unless you'd like to claim that China and Japan were not populated with civilizations your claim does go rather flat. All reonstruction of past temperatures (with very few exceptions) are done using isotopic proxies, either in Europe or elsewhere.

I particularly loved this bit:
" There probably was some global-scale cooling, but not on the scale that was seen in the North Atlantic, and it's that scale of variation that is being touted as a global experience." which was presented without a scintilla of evidence. The plain fact is that the cooling seen in the North Atlantic was also seen in civilizations in China, Japan and Far East Asia, as well as the Incas of Peru who noted that glaciers advanced at this time.

 

[CapelDodger]

From Diamond:

Now you're bluffing. The evidence for past temperature changes is done via proxies, since the thermometer was only invented in 1609 and not used in temperature records until the 18th Century. Unless you'd like to claim that China and Japan were not populated with civilizations your claim does go rather flat. All reonstruction of past temperatures (with very few exceptions) are done using isotopic proxies, either in Europe or elsewhere.

You prefer isotopic proxies to the testimential histories of the highly literate societies involved. You accuse me, for no imaginable reason, of traducing these civilisations when my entire point has been that you and the denialists that are providing you the teat ignore their testimony. The Little Ice Age in Europe, and the significance of climate change on human history, was recognised a long time ago by Europeans because it had such a profound effect on Europe. There are no similar signs in the rest of the world, and if there were, denialists wouldn't be resorting to these proxies.

 

[davefoc]

Diamond,
I am going to try to explain this in as polite and clear a way as possible.

The CO2 level is today higher than any time in the last 160,000 years according to the graphs phaycops referenced.

No place in those graphs does the CO2 level rise any where near as fast as 50% in 200 years.

The time of rapid rise in the CO2 level begins about the beginning of the undustrial revolution and it is widely believed that the cause of the rapid rise in CO2 level is human activity.

According to one site I looked at the CO2 levels are higher today than anytime in the last 420,000 years.

There is no argument that if one looks at the entire history of the earth one can find conditions that are extreme by today's standards. This is almost irrelevant to the discussion. No one denies that changes in the tilt of the earth, the evolution of life, asteroids, etc can have very significant effects on the earth's climate.

The facts listed above are generally accepted by, as near as I can tell, all sides in the global warming debate. If you do not agree with them, then present some information to show how they are in error.

 

[Diamond]

From Diamond:

You prefer isotopic proxies to the testimential histories of the highly literate societies involved. You accuse me, for no imaginable reason, of traducing these civilisations when my entire point has been that you and the denialists that are providing you the teat ignore their testimony. The Little Ice Age in Europe, and the significance of climate change on human history, was recognised a long time ago by Europeans because it had such a profound effect on Europe. There are no similar signs in the rest of the world, and if there were, denialists wouldn't be resorting to these proxies.

It is you who are in denial. There is clear evidence from China, Japan and Peru of historical records demonstrating anomalous cold at the same time as the "Little Ice Age" in Europe.

Your denial is quite profound. Both historical records and proxies taken from around the world give the lie to your claim. The proxies demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of such reports. Perhaps the reason you discount them is because you don't regard the Chinese or Japanese as literate, which to my mind is a form of racism. The Chinese for example, were inveterate recorders of their history in minute detail.

I am no denialist of clear evidence like that, but you clearly are to support an agenda which is dubious and religious in nature.

The proxies are the scientific independent measure of how the temperature changed well away from the North Atlantic and you discount them all. How's that for denial?

 

[Diamond]

Diamond,
I am going to try to explain this in as polite and clear a way as possible.

That will be a change.

The CO2 level is today higher than any time in the last 160,000 years according to the graphs phaycops referenced.

The graphs phaycops has referenced have no error bars. The lines shown are the median position. Interestingly you don't bother with the evidence even from the IPCC.

No place in those graphs does the CO2 level rise any where near as fast as 50% in 200 years.

The time of rapid rise in the CO2 level begins about the beginning of the undustrial revolution and it is widely believed that the cause of the rapid rise in CO2 level is human activity.

Correlation does not prove causation. Carbon dioxide levels are likely to have risen strongly in response to the Medieval Warm Period some 800 years previously. It is a supposition that the Industrial Revolution started around 1850 when coal was heavily used in China since the 14th Century and by the Europeans from the 18th.

Its a fallacy called "post hoc ergo propter hoc": It came after therefore it was caused by.

According to one site I looked at the CO2 levels are higher today than anytime in the last 420,000 years.

See the comment above. To make the case you would have to look at the methodology used to reconstruct the CO2 levels and the error bars.

There is no argument that if one looks at the entire history of the earth one can find conditions that are extreme by today's standards. This is almost irrelevant to the discussion. No one denies that changes in the tilt of the earth, the evolution of life, asteroids, etc can have very significant effects on the earth's climate.

You discount them all in favour of the "carbon dioxide causing warming" solution. Like for example, the clear evidence that the sun has brightened since the 17th Century as measured directly by satellites, and by proxies which measure isotopic ratios which change according to the solar flux.

Carbon dioxide NEVER has CAUSED warming. Ever. In the history of the Earth. EVER.

You have presented no evidence. Please go away and find some.

The facts listed above are generally accepted by, as near as I can tell, all sides in the global warming debate. If you do not agree with them, then present some information to show how they are in error.

The error is in accepting the argumentum ad populum of "The facts listed above are generally accepted by, as near as I can tell, all sides in the global warming debate" without clear evidence presented. You presented no evidence at all.

 

[davefoc]

Diamond,
You do realize that nothing you said above, including the contradiction of things that I didn't say, presented any evidence that what I did say was wrong in any way, didn't you?