Where do you stand on the GW/AGW issue?

[mhaze]

A clinician would well known the meaning of the term "Multifactorial", and the serious risks of betting, on insufficient evidence, on CO2 (one possible causative agent), of something that might or might not even turn out to be a serious ailment.

 

[hammegk]

The Aussies & Europeans are completely willing to punish the US taxpayer with the bet; i.e. follow the money.

 

[a_unique_person]

There! You said it! AUP, you apparently just got it!

Now, run with that concept.

How is it possible, now that you've declared that you understand how complex this science is, to put all your eggs in the CO2 basket? If it is so complex, then it can't possibly be all chalked-up to CO2, a "simple explanation" can it?

When I go to my doctor, and ask why one type of blood pressure pills works better than another, he gives me a simple explanation. I press him for more detail, then after a few minutes of babbling, I take his point. He is the doctor, I am the patient, he studies these things in detail. The blood pressure tablets work.

One of the defining aspects of todays society is specialisation. We are no smarter now than we were 100,000 years ago, yet we can collectively send men to the moon, travel around the world, run massive cities, have a laser beam in every home. This doesn't happen because we are all geniuses, it's because we specialise. Sooner or later, you have to defer to the expert. That's why we have a sophisticated scientific method, it has been proven to, overall, get it right when it comes to collating and 'proving' the advance of scientific knowledge.

What is the risk I take in accepting their expertise? Despite the constant attacks of gloom and doom, we will get a world less reliant on fossil fuels. When you look at how much strife their is around the world due to the politics of fossil fuels, that has to be a good thing.

We will have more efficient transport systems. In cities that are choking on traffic, another good thing.

We will have lower fuel bills due to more efficient buildings.

Just as companies have had massive advances in computer technology due to the upgrades they did to meet the Y2K problem, so will companies benefit from modern technology when they upgrade old plant and equipment.

Putting your "pony" analogy aside, what I'm asking for is simple: put the concentrations of CO2, and the purported physical properties of the substance, to the test at the concentrations we are discussing. This would be demanded in any other scientific investigation of a purported causative agent in any system. It is in medical science when someone makes a claim that could have an impact on human lives (and, I can name numerous examples where people thought one thing based on retrospective analysis and were later proved wrong prospectively). Things clearly are far more complex than they appear at first blush.

Did you read the links? Please do so first. There are a lot of answers to your question there.

All that we have now is a big helping of association that is being interpreted as causation. Nothing more.

No, not at all. Read the links.

If you look at what some are purporting this substance, CO2, can do at the concentrations in question, you will begin to understand why some of us are skeptical. We are talking seemingly homeopathic-level concentration increases in the atmosphere over decades.

Something is rotten in Denmark (no offense, Claus).

-Dr. Imago

That you would phrase a question like that indicates to me that you do not understand the basics of the physics. You will have to do some homework. Read the links I provided.

 

[a_unique_person]

I know this isn't fair Mhaze, but I wonder if you'll comment on this unattributed blurb in relation to the first study you cited?

It's a worry, and yet one more point a lot of people just don't seem to get.

 

[mhaze]

Quote:
It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases.

​

I know this isn't fair Mhaze, but I wonder if you'll comment on this unattributed blurb in relation to the first study you cited?

Life's not fair.

What of the quote from Schwartz? Obviously it is a sidetrack from my main point, but I have no problem with that, or the quote. Let us say hypothetically that another scientist had wished to one up Schwartz (HA! That'd be an accomplishment! Good luck...) and chose to research aerosols and rebut the conclusions of Schwartz regarding climate sensitivity by looking at this issue of aerosols. Guess what? That ain't happened. But he is welcome to go at it.

I believe that it is correct, these mainstream published articles of the last year

• not rebutted in the peer reviewed literature
• should be tentatively considered valid

One might choose to withhold judgment waiting for more studies to confirm these results. That's the conservative approach suggested by Slimething and Dr. Imago. Such a conservative approach might make sense scientifically irregardless of whether one's prior inclination was pro or anti AGW.

Nevertheless, we seem to have significant "anti AGW" peer reviewed studies popping up, and no rebuttals.

 

[a_unique_person]

Schwartz was one upped before he even published. He should read up on the enhanced greenhouse effect, which he completely ignored, and positive feedback mechanisms, which he also ignored.

 

[mhaze]

Schwartz was one upped before he even published. He should read up on the enhanced greenhouse effect, which he completely ignored, and positive feedback mechanisms, which he also ignored.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[mhaze]

The Aussies & Europeans are completely willing to punish the US taxpayer with the bet; i.e. follow the money.

You mean if we were to look at the trillions of dollars on the AGW table of proposed "solutions", and look at where that money was going, we might learn something?

I think I'm getting it. You mean some people would wind up with the trillions and some would have lost them? Wow.....

 

[Dr. Imago]

That you would phrase a question like that indicates to me that you do not understand the basics of the physics. You will have to do some homework. Read the links I provided.

Huh? Did I ask a question before?

No, I said, essentially, I asserted that we are talking miniscule concentrations of a neglible gas that has not been proven, in a controlled setting, to exert the effect that it is purported to exert at the concentrations in discussion. How is that hard to undertstand? Miniscule annual changes. If we are releasing 7 gigatonnes of CO2 each year, it is into a 5,100,000 gigatonne atmosphere. Fart in a windstorm. Literally.

AUP, I am a physician who has, in addition to completing undergraduate and graduate course work in the sciences, has also taken a 4-year graduate-level specialty education in medicine. I've then continued training in anesthesiology, a four-year discipline, through which I'm approximately 5/8th's of the way completed. I am immersed in science on a daily basis, including the intracacies of human physiology, biochemistry, and - yes - the physiology of CO2 as a human metabolic byproduct. I have published peer-reviewed articles, as well as have been a reviewer in book chapter publications. I understand the complexities systems-based science, and I'm frequently amused at how "pop science" (as protrayed by the media) frequently misinterprets and completely gets wrong the basic things I know and use everyday to make my patients lives better.

I'm not going to read your links. If you are going to strive to insult me, at least attempt to do more than a sophomoric job of it.

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

Huh? Did I ask a question before?

No, I said, essentially, I asserted that we are talking miniscule concentrations of a neglible gas that has not been proven, in a controlled setting, to exert the effect that it is purported to exert at the concentrations in discussion. How is that hard to undertstand? Miniscule annual changes. If we are releasing 7 gigatonnes of CO2 each year, it is into a 5,100,000 gigatonne atmosphere. Fart in a windstorm. Literally.

Did you read the links I provided? Apparently not.

AUP, I am a physician who has, in addition to completing undergraduate and graduate course work in the sciences, has also taken a 4-year graduate-level specialty education in medicine. I've then continued training in anesthesiology, a four-year discipline, through which I'm approximately 5/8th's of the way completed. I am immersed in science on a daily basis, including the intracacies of human physiology, biochemistry, and - yes - the physiology of CO2 as a human metabolic byproduct. I have published peer-reviewed articles, as well as have been a reviewer in book chapter publications. I understand the complexities systems-based science, and I'm frequently amused at how "pop science" (as protrayed by the media) frequently misinterprets and completely gets wrong the basic things I know and use everyday to make my patients lives better.

Then you would understand the importance of many trace elements in the human body, and the ability of trace elements to disrupt our biological mechanisms and kill us. Just because something is present or absent in trace quantities does not mean it is insignificant and can be ignored.

I am also surprised that you ask for something that is absent in many areas of medicine, simple test for a complex issue that proves or disproves it.

I'm not going to read your links. If you are going to strive to insult me, at least attempt to do more than a sophomoric job of it.

You ask for evidence, then when it is presented, you refuse to read it . One is a history of the discovery of the significance of CO2, the other why there is an enhanced greenhouse effect, both written by scientists. They aren't a newspaper article, or something I cooked up.

-Dr. Imago

 

[bobdroege7]

These conclusions may be tentatively made:

1. Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.
2. Natural variability explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century
3. climate models fail test against real clouds.....reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent

1.

Make them tentatively because conclusion one and conclusion two are mutually exclusive.

In other words either the climate is sensitive to CO2 doubling or its all natural.

It can not be both.

Pick one

 

[bobdroege7]

[*]Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.

Others publish different values for climate sensitivity, from the journal climate dynamics

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060825-0942-environment-climate.html

Schneider said the study, published in the journal Climate Dynamics, indicated that the outer ranges of likely temperature rises were 1.2-4.3 Celsius if carbon dioxide levels doubled.

It was before Schwarz, so maybe Schwarz is the latest and greatest.

 

[a_unique_person]

Schwarz has the problem, he has ignored prior research and tried to re-invent the wheel.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
These conclusions may be tentatively made:

1. Climate sensitivity is far lower than Gore and the IPPC claim, likely 0.6-1.1C for CO2 doubling.
2. Natural variability explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century
3. climate models fail test against real clouds.....reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent

Make them tentatively because conclusion one and conclusion two are mutually exclusive. In other words either the climate is sensitive to CO2 doubling or its all natural. It can not be both. Pick one

They are not exclusive because at current rates we would not reach a doubling of CO2 (with CO2 staying in the atmosphere for hundreds of years) until what, 2070?

Schwartz calculates that man's CO2 stays in the air for only 5-15 years. at that rate there could never be a problem.

As Varoche has pointed, Schwartz is concerned and should be that his work might be misconstrued or over generalized. Does a low climate sensitivity mean nations don't need to control pollution, black soot, Asian brown cloud, aerosols?

With respect to #2 Tsonis is saying that the effect of man's CO2 on global temperature is negligibly low.

Schneider said the study, published in the journal Climate Dynamics, indicated that the outer ranges of likely temperature rises were 1.2-4.3 Celsius if carbon dioxide levels doubled. It was before Schwarz, so maybe Schwarz is the latest and greatest.

Well, yes.

Make them tentatively
​

I think that's reasonable. But note the three studies, from completely different lines of research, interlock to destroy the IPCC theory of radiative forcing, and thus their primary conclusions about AGW. That is why I think we need to look for the presence or absence of rebuttals at the peer reviewed level. (AUP's opinion doesn't matter any more than mine or yours)

 

[a_unique_person]

My bad, re-reading Realclimate on Schwartz,

In short, the global temperature time series clearly does not follow the model adopted in Schwartz's analysis. It's further clear that even if it did, the method is unable to diagnose the right time scale. Add to that the fact that assuming a single time scale for the global climate system contradicts what we know about the response time of the different components of the earth, and it adds up to only one conclusion: Schwartz's estimate of climate sensitivity is unreliable. We see no evidence from this analysis to indicate that climate sensitivity is any different from the best estimates of sensible research, somewhere within the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2.
A response to the paper, raising these (and other) issues, has already been submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and another response (by a team in Switzerland) is in the works. It's important to note that this is the way science works. An idea is proposed and explored, the results are reported, the methodology is probed and critiqued by others, and their results are reported; in the process, we hope to learn more about how the world really works.


That Schwartz's result is heralded as the death-knell of global warming by denialist blogs and Sen. Inhofe, even before it has been officially published (let alone before the scientific community has responded) says more about the denialist movement than about the sensitivity of earth's climate system. But, that's how politics works

 

[a_unique_person]

Make them tentatively because conclusion one and conclusion two are mutually exclusive.

Any port in a storm....

 

[Dr. Imago]

Did you read the links I provided? Apparently not.

I'm already well familiar with the Arrhenius (etc.) arguments. I want a modern "proof of principle" using current, high-fidelity equipment. Why is this so hard to understand?

Then you would understand the importance of many trace elements in the human body, and the ability of trace elements to disrupt our biological mechanisms and kill us. Just because something is present or absent in trace quantities does not mean it is insignificant and can be ignored.

Again, with the continued false analogy with a closed system. Maybe this is the reason why so many people believe the AGW/CO2 arguments are plausible. That camp falsely believes that we're talking about such strict tolerances.

I am also surprised that you ask for something that is absent in many areas of medicine, simple test for a complex issue that proves or disproves it.

Well, you don't understand human research, apparently. For prospective research, there are IRB's and ethics committees and informed consent. When you are proposing something that may have a negative impact on human lives, you have to make sure you've ensured that every contingency is considered and there is a way to stop the study if it is clear that more harm than benefit is occurring.

Having said that, there are numerous examples where retrospective analysis and what was thought to be true was subsequently proven wrong when looked at prospectively in controlled settings. Take the case for the "miracles" of Vitamin E, for example.

You ask for evidence, then when it is presented, you refuse to read it . One is a history of the discovery of the significance of CO2, the other why there is an enhanced greenhouse effect, both written by scientists. They aren't a newspaper article, or something I cooked up.

Again, I want a "proof of principle" experiment using modern equipment. This is not a hard thing to do. I'm not asking for much.

-Dr. Imago

 

[mhaze]

Again, I want a "proof of principle" experiment using modern equipment. This is not a hard thing to do. I'm not asking for much.-Dr. Imago

I'd like to see the folks evacuated from the Winslow, Arizona meteor crater, than have large amounts of CO2 pumped into it from downwind, say on a day when the wind is relatively calm.

That could yield some quite interesting results. But note that increasing the local concentration of CO2 over several hundred meters of altitude is a different thing than increasing it's concentration over the entire atmosphere. The differences can be enumerated, but this would still be an actual atmospheric test of CO2's effects.

And for those who compulsively shriek, wouldn't that kill all the varmits, deer, etc that might live in that crater? Answer: Yeah, so what. Just have a no limit hunting season for a week before the gas is dumped...

 

[mhaze]

My bad, re-reading Realclimate on Schwartz,

Got any peer reviewed rebuttals? Oh, someone has submitted a rebuttal? Was it accepted? We've got some promises and assurances of some published rebuttals?

Gosh, that will help me sleep at night, knowing that vigilant AGW believers are promising to publish rebuttals.

Hmmm.....

Were they accepted for print?

Don't know?

Hmm...

 

[Schneibster]

Think you've seen terrorism? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Check this out:

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000733/index.html

ETA: Here's an article from the International Herald Tribune on it: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/europe/food.php

Read between the lines: the climate changes in Australia and the Ukraine have affected grain production; farmers are selling out in Australia and moving to Tasmania where water is available. And looking to amortize the investment.

That ain't some hypothetical. That's the real world: people will be starving within the year if that doesn't get fixed. Guess what they're gonna do about it? Same thing they always do; and if they can't put together an army to do it, I guess the Taliban and Al Qaeda showed 'em how to get the bread sliced, didn't they?

If your whole village starved, and someone rescued you and showed you how to get revenge, and told you who to get it against, would you do it? How about if you didn't have any education except what your rescuers taught you, and that included a religion that says that anyone who believes differently than you deserves to be killed, or that their fate is unimportant?

Think about it. The science is all very well, but if this doesn't get fixed soon, there's gonna be the devil to pay and no pitch hot. Not to mention, we got our own problems with apocalyptic religions here in the US, and this is just gonna play right into that scenario, right? And like always, when things get dangerous, people are gonna look for a strong ruler- and that's gonna work out just the same way it always has.

Hope everybody on the "buttheresnoglobalwarming" side likes autocratic theocracies. Because that's where this is all going.