[cogitator]

This is a multi-recipient, multi-topic reply to attempt to save time and "tame" a wild thread a bit. Sorry for the delay, but sometimes you have to take a break, especially when a break can coincide with a national holiday.

I apologize in advance for missing something (or someone): if you have a point that you want me to address, put it up here.

For Dominic Harr:

You have *got* to stop ignoring what I say and simply repeating over and over again, "It's true -- Co2 and temp are linked". Slow down, listen to my points, and respond to them, one by one. That will be a 'conversation', a 'debate'. Then, I'll respond to your points. And we'll both learn a few things, and maybe both our minds will be better for it.

Those charts I'm posting are a big slam-dunk against your position. They *are* convincing to most folks. They show a large history of temp fluctuation that can not be related to Co2.

Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere alter Earth's radiative balance. There is no doubt of this point. Ask why I'm certain, everyone is certain on this, even the credible skeptics. There are some fringe skeptics who might try to argue this point, but because that is so far from reality, it's pointless to address.

Because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 alters Earth's radiative balance, the general understanding of the climate science community (both paleoclimate and modern) is that higher CO2 enhances the likelihood of warmer global temperatures, and lower CO2 enhances the likelihood of lower global temperatures because of the physics of Earth's radiative balance. ** This does not, in any way, indicate that there are not other, important, influences on Earth's climate. ** But... influences that affect climate over time-scales of 1,000 -- 10,000 -- 100,000 -- 1,000,000 year and longer are not likely to have a noticeable influence on climate on the century-scale (except at unique hinge points, such as glacial and interglacial terminations -- this addresses your comment in #340).

It's also important to address the "ocean burps" link -- the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Despite the uncertainties that might accrue in the interpretation of data that lends insight into what happened 55 million years ago, this event is the best example of Earth's temperature being influenced primarily by a significant change in Earth's radiative balance caused by a change in atmospheric composition.

By the way, scientists very commonly "qualify" their public comments. It's habit; skeptics like to interpret this as uncertainty. That can be misleading (but when one is looking to reinforce their viewpoint, it's normal behavior).

The third, and most damaging, point you have to address is, "When compared to past global temp changes, the current temp changes are not in any way unusual." ... You haven't even shown that anything out of the ordinary is going on here. Less than 1 degree in 100+ years???

Assessed out of context, that might seem inconsequential. But one, the more recent warming trend is much faster than that. (By the way, I prefer Centigrade to Fahrenheit to reduce confusion.) The 20th century had a warming trend of 0.6 C. The last 25 years of the 20th century had a warming trend of 0.4 C -- more than double the "full century" rate. Estimates for the next century converge on 2-3 C by 2100; 3C would be five times the 20th century rate. AND this would be in the context of the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, which due to alteration of Earth's radiative balance has a potential warming effect. Nobody expects a first-principles cooling effect from increasing CO2, despite the possibility of thermohaline circulation alteration. Finally, although analysis of past temperature variability is difficult, the testimony of most climate records indicates that a 2-3 C rise over 100 years is unusual.

For hinckley buzzard:

25 years ago climatologists were warning us of the imminent new Ice Age.

Because of a slight cooling trend in the 60s and 70s, there were some over-hyped media predictions of a new Ice Age. These reports were not grounded in serious science. For one thing, the models were ridiculously simple compared to current state-of-the-art, so most of the media hype was based on observations and not predictions (particularly published scientific predictions).

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No

The global cooling myth

For Frumious Bandersnatch:

From my understanding of the Glacier issue, we have only studied a small fraction of the world's glaciers. Of those, about half are receding and half are proceeding.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 provides a good overview. This does address the effects of the end of the Little Ice Age.

Even if all the corn grown in the U.S. were converted into ethanol, it would not even come close to solving our vehicle energy needs.

Corn is only the leading edge. Real gains would be made from cellulosic ethanol from biomass, switchgrass, and maybe another grass grown in Illinois I just read about.

For hgro and scpg2:

Martians are have the same global warming problem. How do the lefty crisis mongers explain that?

Thusly: Global warming on Mars?

For saminfl:

Why?

Why what?

For aruanan and Gail Wynand:

The land-based temperature records are an artifact caused by urban heat islands.

The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island

There are most definitely local urban temperature effects. Urban Heat Island Effect. The Wikipedia link here is recommended.

For Steve van Doorn:

I was watching I think it was the History Channel the other day. I wish I paid more attention but the Scientist was explaining what ‘could’ (Hypothesis) of happened to ships in the Bermuda triangle. He was hypothesizing the possibility that a very large volume of CO2 could bubble out of the earths crust. He was showing how if the Ocean had this much CO2 in the water any ship passing through the area would lose buoyancy.

A Japanese research vessel was lost several years ago (1980s?) due to a submarine eruption taking place under their ship. The bubble effect apparently did cause the ship to sink. For the hypothesis above to be credible, there would have to be an explanation of why sufficient CO2 (or more likely, methane) would be released in that oceanic region.

For Gail Wynand and Dominic Harr:

Surely, if you can forecast average GLOBAL temperatures for 2100, you can forecast the tempurture in one North American location in the next 14 days?

There is a big difference between weather forecasting and global climate modeling. Weather models are based on fluid dynamics. General Circulation Models (GCMs) are based on input/output (flux) physical relationships, and aren't based on fluid dynamics. The common "if you can't forecast the weather, how can you forecast the climate?" debating device obscures the more pertinent question of how climate is actually modeled. (Note that if you allowed me error bounds, I could probably reliably forecast a maximum or minimum temperature for most locations in North America fourteen days from now with reasonable accuracy just by examining climatological data. And I'd be wrong sometimes. So are meteorologists.)

For Ghost of Philip Marlowe:

Ice core samples are not global, they are local. And the climatic and atmospheric characteristics of polar regions are very different from temperate and equatorial regions. It's like saying what you find in the air in your freezer you'll also find in your basement.

That's a good point, and it's not a point climate scientists have ignored. The atmosphere is somewhat well-mixed, so over time changes will integrate and be incorporated into the ice cores; it does vary with the parameter being measured. One way this could be addressed would be to measure the CO2 concentration in the Antarctic and compare it to the Mauna Loa data. I'd expect that there would be year-to-year differences. I would also expect that the Antarctic, like Mauna Loa, would show a generally increasing trend. Precipitation samples the global temperature by getting stable isotope ratios (primarily oxygen). Trends in this data from both poles, and from mountain glacier cores, show similar patterns, but there is always regional variability. [Note that I also appreciate what palmer said about oceanic sediments.]

For jonrick46:

The "inconvenient truth" is that being discussed by University of Ottowa professor and 1992 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize winner, Jan Veizer. In an article published in Geoscience Canada, titled "The Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle," Veizer describes how fluctuations in cosmic ray activity can affect cloud formation. Such fluctuations are the result of activity going on in the cosmos.

Several years ago FR hosted a long discussion of Veizer and Shaviv; it was an interesting episode and generated a lot of scientific interest. Veizer is a really good scientist -- I've even met him, not that it means anything. I could not possibly encapsulate all of the debate, even the peer-review controversy that was generated. So start here:

A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver

Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate

Googling "Veizer Shaviv" finds a lot more, especially if you like scientific arguments.

As for Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (and Lassen), I've followed that too.

Solar influences on cosmic rays and cloud formation: A reassessment

Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations (PDF -- warning, this is very detailed)

For StopGlobalWhining:

You probably wouldn't believe it if I told you that Antarctica has been cooling since 1986. Check it out, or if you prefer, I'll send you some peer-referred journal citations.

Certainly I'd believe it; it's true. The signficance to the overall climate trend understanding is quite minimal.

Antarctic cooling, global warming?

For Gail Wynand:

McKitrick, R. and Michaels, P.J. 2004. A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data. Climate Research 26: 159-173.

McKitrick Mucks It Up Note: McKitrick and Michaels did attempt to correct the simple error they made. Some of that discussion is found here, described by the person who discovered that error: McKitrick (go to "McKitrick update")

And a summary note: at times I sound impatient, peevish, or overbearing on this subject. I don't know everything -- I admit that -- and climate science is not exact. However, much of the subject matter which was raised here has been discussed before, and in some cases, many times before. The RealClimate Web site (as evidenced by links from there) provides good context despite biases.

And in case anyone is encountering me for the first time: I support nuclear power and wish we had more. I don't, and never did, support the Kyoto Protocol. I believe that the free market will force a lot of changes in energy infrastructure and policy that will have ramifications for the global warming issue. I also believe that government at every level could do more to encourage and promote energy conservation (and I think rising costs, even as seemingly minor as fuel for school buses, will start forcing such promotion and encouragement). And finally, though it isn't nearly as glamorous an issue as global warming, one of my major fears where I feel not enough is being done is the decaying status of our major roadways, especially bridges. If you ever drive I-70 from Frederick to Baltimore and just count the number of bridges and overpasses, you'll see what I mean.

[palmer]

There is a big difference between weather forecasting and global climate modeling. Weather models are based on fluid dynamics. General Circulation Models (GCMs) are based on input/output (flux) physical relationships, and aren't based on fluid dynamics. The common "if you can't forecast the weather, how can you forecast the climate?" debating device obscures the more pertinent question of how climate is actually modeled. (Note that if you allowed me error bounds, I could probably reliably forecast a maximum or minimum temperature for most locations in North America fourteen days from now with

Thanks for the reply, cog. Too little too late (just kidding). The weather / climate modeling is a false dichotomy. Climate modeling depends entirely on weather either explicitly modeled or modeled by various assumptions and parameters. As I type there is a strong convective complex moving in, carrying heat and moisture to the upper atmosphere and triggering other climate-altering weather from it's outflow boundary that is just now sweeping through.

The climate models can handle this in two ways as I mentioned, they can model weather events or they can add parameters accounting for weather events. Here's an example of the former: http://www.noaatech2004.noaa.gov/abstracts/ab5_kerr_orlanski.html and here's one of the latter: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/IGCM.pdf Here's a sample from their text: The parameters selected were (A) a non-dimensional linear multiplier of the sensible and latent heats, (B) the convective precipitation rate in mm/day at which convective clouds start to form, (C) the large-scale cloud supersaturation for the liquid water path calculation, (D) the convective cloud supersaturation for the liquid water path calculation, and (E) the relative humidity at which large-scale clouds are assumed to completely cover a grid-box.

Note that the parameters they are talking about are just the ones they tuned out of 29. Model parameters like these are the most important factor in determining the effect of the forcing that climate alarmists need to achieve alarming results. It is not the rate of cloud formation (and other cloud parameters) that determines the cloud effects on climate, it is the clouds. The parameters are added simply because the models do not have the fidelity to model cloud formation. They can model clouds as a general set of parameter but not specific individual clouds. Why is this important? Simply because the parameters are not reality, not even good approximations of reality and certainly not good approximations of a wetter reality. An accurate model will exist someday and make this argument moot, but until then there are only parameters and alarming parameters.

[Steve Van Doorn]

This does not, in any way, indicate that there are not other (besides CO2 which man produces 3% of the total CO2 amount to the atmosphere) , important, influences on Earth's climate.

Good you are learning.

[Dominic Harr]

Hi again. Hope you had a good break!

First, I would like to ask you a simple question that I think can go a long way here: What is the 'margin of error' on these estimates? This is very important. You're claiming that there has been a .6C temp change in global average temp in the past 100 years. Is that within the margin of error?

Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere alter Earth's radiative balance. There is no doubt of this point.

Perhaps. But how much? The PPM now is what, 200? And increased by man about 20-30, or so? And in the past, it's been > 2000?

Co2 increases may only raise the temp 1 degree total, period. The models certainly can't tell us, cuz they are all very inaccurate, as evidenced by that other article you just posted.

The 20th century had a warming trend of 0.6 C. The last 25 years of the 20th century had a warming trend of 0.4 C -- more than double the "full century" rate. Estimates for the next century converge on 2-3 C by 2100; 3C would be five times the 20th century rate. AND this would be in the context of the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, which due to alteration of Earth's radiative balance has a potential warming effect.

My friend, this paragraph is priceless.

.6 C in 100 years. And actually, it went up until the 50s, then down until the 80s, then up again. But we'll ignore that.

I'll just go back to my first question, above. Isn't that well within the margin of error for a recreated estimate of a global average? So there may not have been any warming at all.

Then you cite 'estimates' of changes 5 times that over the next 100 years. With no basis in reality. As your other article clearly stated, their models are wildly inaccurate. And in many cases just flat out wrong.

Yet you claim that these estimates are reliable?

I'm sorry, I just can't possibly understand how you can say that.

There is a big difference between weather forecasting and global climate modeling.

Of course, but they are similar too -- complex systems that they do not understand well.

Again, your other article you posted made it clear, didn't it? Their models are still wildly inaccurate.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The last 25 years of the 20th century had a warming trend of 0.4 C -- more than double the "full century" rate.

But it has fluctuated even during that time frame. For instance, the decade of the 80s had a general cooling trend (not much, mind you) which was captured by U.S. satellites even after corrected for error.

Also, a lot of trends are localized, so to extrapolate them in a global sense is not fair (e.g. Al Gore indicates that a lot of glaciers are melting. This is true, but out of context, as we know from the small subset of glaciers studied that about half are melting and half are expanding).

One of the big bugaboos of global warming theorists is that it would cause the oceans to rise significantly. It is well known that all of the free floating ocean ice could melt tomorrow without measurably increasing the ocean depth. What we have to worry about is the landlocked ice - most especially the West Antartica Ice Sheet. But this is not even close to melting, so this rising oceans scare a bunch of bunk.

I've noticed that CO2 has replaced CFCs as the new scare tactic. If you recall, it was absolutely "proven" that CFCs would cause dramatic climate change. The problem with that premise was that this was being touted well after CFCs were generally banned and Mt. Pinatubo (which put more CFCs into the atmosphere than all human industry has) proved otherwise.

It seems to me that CO2 is that latest scare de jour. You might keep in mind that an honest assessment of any climate model predicting the future is to see how well it predicts the past. So far, no climate model has a very good track record in this regard.

One last set of things. So far, we don't know if climate change is caused by human activities or not. Increased sun activity (of which, coincidentally, there has been a great amount in the last century) would be far more plausible. But even given that, is global warming necessarily bad? I know the assumption is, but just a few degrees change increases the crop land available.