Care to comment further on that "correlation"? My observation is that it damn sure isn't a linear one. It isn't even proportional.
From here.
Posted on 07/02/2006 8:35:11 AM PDT by maine-iac7
Editor's note: Global warming is unlikely to be a dangerous future problem, with or without the implementation of such programs as the Kyoto Protocol, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science...
The global mean temperature is never constant, and it has no choice but to increase or decrease--both of which it does on all known time scales. That this quantity has increased about 0.6ºC (or about 1ºF) over the past century is likely. A relevant question is whether this is anything to be concerned about....
It doesn't even matter whether recent global mean temperatures are "record breakers" or even whether current temperatures are "unprecedented." All that matters is that the change over the past century has been small....
Kyoto, itself, will have no discernable impact on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change...
The scientific community is committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible...
The main victims of any proactive policies are likely to be consumers, and they have little concentrated influence. As usual, they have long been co-opted by organizations like Consumers Union that now actively support Kyoto.
(Excerpt) Read more at heartland.org ...
Wots he no? Did he ever go to Haavaad? Was he ever vice-president? Was ever once elected president, but had it taken away on the minor technicality that the people who he claims wanted to vote for him are too stoopid to make a hole in a piece of paper.
(If I unnerstan him correctly, he claims he should be president because people who are too stoopid to make a hole in piece of paper wanted to vote for him.)
BYE
Here's why I call your GW fantasies a religion. You have to read the whole thing.
I'm not confused. It was a humor, something those of you on the left seem to be totally immune to.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Care to comment further on that "correlation"? My observation is that it damn sure isn't a linear one. It isn't even proportional.
From here.
BYE
It's not just DUmmies. I have a Republican co-worker who devoutly believes in man-made global warming. I had my wife print out a recent column with statements by international climatologists and scientists trashing Gore's stupid flick. My friend had been made to believe that no competent professional scientists disputed man-made global warming. He's like many other average Americans. He believed everything he read in lib papers about G-W.The Gore-science debunking article didn't totally convince him, but at least now I've put some seeds of doubt in his head.
from Wikipedia article on Carbon Dioxide, History section
Because, historically, the changes in the carbon cycle have been caused by changes in the temperature (caused by changes in the earth's orbit) it is difficult to say to what extent the reverse will be true.
We're now in uncharted territory and it's my contention that a massive change in atmospheric composition is most likely to lead to some sort of very uncomfortable dislocation and least likely to have no serious consequences whatever.
What? No reply to my post discrediting the hockey stick? Not surprised. When one liberal shiboleth gets discredited just move on to the next scare tactic.
After your last few posts I ceased to regard you seriously. You didn't discredit the hockey stick, you just quoted John Daly. Who's John Daly? A talented amateur - no more and no less. Why should I believe his arguments? I don't.
What he does show - unquestionably - is that real scientists on all sides of the argument are aware of the historical evidence, of solar variations, of wobbles in the earth's orbit and movement, of volcanoes, etc. They have not sorted it all out. That's why there's so much dispute.
Partisans on all sides seize on whatever supports their views - on the Left evidence that unrestrained economic activity is bad, on the Right that it's good. Disgusting.
Me? I think it highly unlikely that a massive discharge of unwanted byproducts of industrial activity into the atmosphere, ground, and oceans, and unrestrained destruction of natural habitat to make room for houses and malls, will turn out to be a good thing for humanity.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are 25% above 500,000 year maximums and rising...and this rise is almost certainly due to human population growth and concomittant industrialization. You want to believe that's not something to be concerned about? Something which has very serious consequences to life on earth?
That strikes me as very strange.
It can strike you strange, however seeing as CO2 is a minor contribution to climate and mankind's share of it even less, it strikes me that the left's focus on such is more than a little bit hype and a whole lot political in its focus.
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural
% Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999%
0.001% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502%
0.117% Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294%
0.066% Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903%
0.047% Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025%
0.047% Total 100.00% 99.72
0.28%
In point of fact, the warming effect of CO2 increases only as the log of concentration.(i.e less effect as total concentration increases.) It's contribution is only 0.2o C in direct radiation effects for each doubling of CO2 concrentration.
So small an increase is barely discernable in the natural background noise in global temperature variations do to natural factors such as variation in solar activity operating on the atmosphere as well.
Where is the correlation of measured CO2 concentrations vs atmospheric temperatures, that the global warming modelers and envio-politicians say must exist?
- "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.
***
Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]
- "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "
[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]
- "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."
Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis
- "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."
The current measurement data doesn't seem to support the model projections at all, something appears to be overlooked or overstated their thinking:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
| Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide |
| Rise In Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in figure 1 (1).  Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations in parts per million by volume, ppm, at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. These measurements agree well with those at other locations (1). Periodic cycle is caused by seasonal variations in CO2 absorption by plants. Approximate global level of atmospheric CO2 in 1900 and 1940 is also displayed (2). The annual cycles in figure 1 are the result of seasonal variations in plant use of carbon dioxide. Solid horizontal lines show the levels that prevailed in 1900 and 1940 (2). The magnitude of this atmospheric increase during the 1980s was about 3 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) per year (3). Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year. *** Figure 4 shows the annual average temperatures of the United States as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). The most recent upward temperature fluctuation from the Little Ice Age (between 1900 and 1940), as shown in the Northern Hemisphere record of figure 3, is also evident in this record of U.S. temperatures. These temperatures are now near average for the past 103 years, with 1996 and 1997 having been the 42nd and 60th coolest years.  Figure 5: Radiosonde balloon station measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures at 63 stations between latitudes 90 N and 90 S from 1958 to 1996 (15). Temperatures are three-month averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1996 is shown. The slope is minus 0.060 ºC per decade. Especially important in considering the effect of changes in atmospheric composition upon Earth temperatures are temperatures in the lower troposphere at an altitude of roughly 4 km. In the troposphere, greenhouse-gas-induced temperature changes are expected to be at least as large as at the surface (14). Figure 5 shows global tropospheric temperatures measured by weather balloons between 1958 and 1996. They are currently near their 40-year mean (15), and have been trending slightly downward since 1979.  Figure 6: Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit, MSU, measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures between latitudes 83 N and 83 S from 1979 to 1997 (17,18). Temperatures are monthly averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1997 is shown. The slope of this line is minus 0.047 ºC per decade. This record of measurements began in 1979.  Figure 7: Global radiosonde balloon temperature (light line) (15) and global satellite MSU temperature (dark line) (17,18) from figures 5 and 6 plotted with 6-month smoothing. Both sets of data are graphed as deviations from their respective means for 1979 to 1996. The 1979 to 1996 slopes of the trend lines are minus 0.060 ºC per decade for balloon and minus 0.045 for satellite. Since 1979, lower-tropospheric temperature measurements have also been made by means of microwave sounding units (MSUs) on orbiting satellites (16). Figure 6 shows the average global tropospheric satellite measurements (17,18) the most reliable measurements, and the most relevant to the question of climate change. Figure 7 shows the satellite data from figure 6 superimposed upon the weather balloon data from figure 5. The agreement of the two sets of data, collected with completely independent methods of measurement, verifies their precision. This agreement has been shown rigorously by extensive analysis (19, 20). While tropospheric temperatures have trended downward during the past 19 years by about 0.05 ºC per decade, it has been reported that global surface temperatures trended upward by about 0.1 ºC per decade (21, 22). In contrast to tropospheric temperatures, however, surface temperatures are subject to large uncertainties for several reasons, including the urban heat island effect (illustrated below). During the past 10 years, U.S. surface temperatures have trended downward by minus 0.08 ºC per decade (12) while global surface temperatures are reported increased by plus 0.03 ºC per decade (23). The corresponding weather-balloon and satellite tropospheric 10-year trends are minus 0.4 ºC and minus 0.3 ºC per decade, respectively.  Figure 8: Tropospheric temperature measurements by satellite MSU for North America between 30º to 70º N and 75º to 125º W (dark line) (17, 18) compared with the surface record for this same region (light line) (24), both plotted with 12-month smoothing and graphed as deviations from their means for 1979 to 1996. The slope of the satellite MSU trend line is minus 0.01 ºC per decade, while that for the surface trend line is plus 0.07 ºC per decade. The correlation coefficient for the unsmoothed monthly data in the two sets is 0.92. Disregarding uncertainties in surface measurements and giving equal weight to reported atmospheric and surface data and to 10 and 19 year averages, the mean global trend is minus 0.07 ºC per decade. In North America, the atmospheric and surface records partly agree (20 and figure 8). Even there, however, the atmospheric trend is minus 0.01 per decade, while the surface trend is plus 0.07 ºC per decade. The satellite record, with uniform and better sampling, ismuch more reliable. The computer models on which forecasts of global warming are based predict that tropospheric temperatures will rise at least as much as surface temperatures (14). Because of this, and because these temperatures can be accurately measured without confusion by complicated effects in the surface record, these are the temperatures of greatest interest. The global trend shown in figures 5, 6 and 7 provides a definitive means of testing the validity of the global warming hypothesis. |
"Climate models are recognized as being rather poorly validated primarily because of (earlier) lack of computer power and a continuing lack of adequate observational data (Gates et al., 1990). Although both issues are steadily being solved, it seems unlikely that very high levels of confidence in climate model projections are achievable within the next decade."
MECCA Analysis Project, 1997"Surface temperatures have increased 1 to 1.5F during the last 130 years. Most of that increase occurred prior to 1940 and prior to the larger increase in CO2. The National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that 75 percent of any increase [in global temperature over the last century] may be due to natural causes such as solar output, cloud effects and the vertical mixing of ocean waters. It is also noted that the earth warmed to a higher degree before the industrial revolution than after. "
John Paul Pitts, Midland Reporter-Telegram, Oct. 9, 1997
Surely all the global warming hype has nothing to do with anything political</sarc>
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; see also (Dixy Lee Ray in 'Trashing the Planet', 1990) and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).
"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing"
(Tim Wirth 1990, former US Senator) as quoted in NCPA Brief 213; September 6, 1996"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)"The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models"
(Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office)"The trouble with this idea is that planting trees will not lead to the societal changes we want to achieve"
--(Kyoto Delegate, 05 December 1997)
One of the contributors to the UN/IPCC reports had this to say concerning the direct radiative effects of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above."
"Increased Atmospheric CO2: Zonal and Seasonal Estimates of the Effect on the Radiation Energy Balance and Surface Temperature" (V. Ramanathan and M. S. Lian), J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 84, p. 4949, 1979.
The UN/IPCC models achieve their results by selectively multiplying changes in heat balance for changes in CO2 concentration 10 times and more over that of any other mechanism of thermal variation. Where radiative forcing of CO2 is selectively multiplied by 10, other mechanisms of similar magnitude are not allowed to be enhanced by the same thermally driven "atmospheric feedback processes described".
The atmospheric "feedback processes described" are those implemented into UN/IPCC climate models. They constitute speculative and inadequate mechanisms at best, presumptive at worst, by which the atmosphere might respond to changes in radiative heat balance.
None of the "feedback processes" are based in any measured direct or parametric relationship selectively coupled to CO2 concentrations alone. This selective sensitivity (i.e. instability in the model) is inferred to be a cause of greater change than the presumed initiating power input to the system.
In otherwords, according to the UN/IPCC modelers, we have a case of selective CHAOS, butterflies create hurricanes but dragonflies can't.
Using your graphic, a 0.27oC change in Earth's surface temperature for each CO2 doubling is depicted:
and is a confirmation of what we can estimate from first principles:
Given:
The temperature of the Earth's surface with an atmosphere is 288oK (+15oC).
and the blackbody temperature of the Earth without atmosphere at 255oK (-18oC)
One may apply the Stefan-Boltzman relation:
E=sT4
where:
E = total amount of radiation emitted by an object per square meter (Watts m-2)
s is a constant called the Stefan-Boltzman constant = 5.67 x 10-8 Watts m-2 K-4
T is the temperature of the object in K
to determine the total GHG radiative forcing necessary to maintain the atmosphere/surface greenhouse temperature at the current 288oK surface temperature of the earth.
Under constant albedo conditions (CO2 does not contribute to earth's albedo) The total flux at the Earth's troposphere/surface system due to greenhouse factors is:
Flux (E288) at the Earth's surface with atmosphere = 5.67*10-8(288oK)4 = 390.08 w/m2
Blackbody flux (E255) without atmosphere = 5.67*10-8(255oK)4 = 279.74 w/m2
==================================================================
difference = 110.34 w/m2
The (natural + anthropogenic) CO2 contribution is 3.6% of atmospheric greenhouse warming. When expressed in terms of overall radiative forcing acting on both atmosphere and surface all radiative flux associated with CO2 must, of necessity, be:
0.036*110.34 w/m2 = 3.97 w/m2
However, CO2 IR flux at the surface from CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is less than half that total CO2 contribution of 3.97w/m2 for the system, (at least half of the CO2 radiant forcing is emitted and/or scattered by clouds & dust upward to be lost to space and atmospheric heating rather than contributing towards global surface warming.)
Re-cycling of Infra-Red Energy
According to Dr Hugh Ellsaesser's IPCC submission, "The direct increase in radiative heating of the lower atmosphere (tropopause level) due to doubling CO2 is 4 wm-2. At the surface it is 0.5 - 1.5 wm-2". Schlesinger & Mitchell (1985), estimated this surface flux at 2 wm-2. Thus, depending on the model, or modeler, the estimates for increased surface flux following a CO2 doubling, varies between +0.5 and +2 wm-2. An above-averaged figure of +1.5 wm-2 will be assumed here for purposes of analysis and comparison.
At the current surface temperature (288oK) Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 340ppmv can only add 1.5w/m2 at the surface for a total surface radiative forcing of
390.08+1.5 = 391.58w/m2
providing a
(391.58/5.67*10-8)0.25-288oK = 0.277oK (C)increase in surface temperature for doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
A result well within any reasonable expectation of our rough estimate of 0.27oC associated with CO2 doubling derived from the paleo CO2-temperature record above.
I didn't discredit the hockey stick. You're right about that. Reputable scientists have though. If John Daly is just a talented amatuer he has the sense to rely on others research and common sense at least. Why did I post the link? Because the hockey stick theory was accepted uncritically by the environmental movement to the extent it was adopted by greens with no regard to whether or not it had been proven. That's characteristic of the green movement hence my reference to a religion.
Your contention that CO2 will create environmental dsisaster is just that, a contention. The science is unsettled but the left has no problem using it to create fear in the general public. By the way, CO2 levels have been as high as 5 times the current level in the past so the contention that current levels spell doom are overstated.
One other note. I never took you seriously since I know by your posts your a true believer and true believers can't be reasoned with. Have a nice liberal day.
You're right about my contention. But it's not just a contention, it's a common-sense observation. Sure, co2 levels have been much higher in the distant past...and supported very different life forms. That doesn't make me feel better.
I don't say that doom is in the cards. I say that the changes in atmospheric co2 levels are more likely to result in severe unpleasantness than the opposite. Common sense no? I'm just saying that dumping huge amounts of garbage into our environment is more likely to result in a garbage dump than an earthly paradise.
I am not the Left and you're discussing the issue with me.
Please don't insult me. Your liberallarry name and your uncritical acceptance of environmental propaganda are all I need to ascertain that you're a leftist.
From the Office of Al Gore:
"This traitor must be strung up and hung by the neck till dead! Environmental rapist! Die die die!"
Excellent posts. Thanks for the information.
I say that the changes in atmospheric co2 levels are more likely to result in severe unpleasantness than the opposite. Common sense no?
And jsut where is common sense in that statement? Observing the marginal increases that go with even a doubling of CO2 (0.2oC) would merely move us toward an optimal temperature underwhich vast areas of the world flourished in the golden age of Greece & the rise of Rome.
Common sense tells me to to forget about global warming hype and its chicken little syndrome:
|
Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle Figure 1-1 Global warming
Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years |
Especially looking forward to where natural cycles of the the last 420kyrs have indicated the real disaster and problem lays.
|
Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle
Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years
Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice |
Above the maximum possibly, 25% above is doubtful. Ice cores average the CO2 concentrations for several decades or more into one reading. There's no way to get enough granularity to know that there weren't spikes like the current one within the last half million years. I would be shocked if there weren't some.
I was just reading Smithsonian Sept 2003 "Mystery of Africa's Killer Lakes" describing how in Aug 21, 1986 an explosion released a billion cubic yards of CO2 at Lake Nyos killing people and all animals wide area. That's 473,709 tons of CO2, whereas manmade CO2 production is about 6 billion tons per year, so not much in comparison. But there were undoubtedly larger ones in the past. The volcano feeding the lake puts out CO2 at a steady low rate but there are many known exceptions. In short, what seems like constant low levels of CO2 may actually be an artifact of the way it is measured.
--- Your wiki graph shows a rise in co2 levels of 200 ppm in the last 200 years. Yet the 'distant past graph' shows a gradual decline in co2 levels over the last 500k years from much higher levels.
-- Your [& Gores] prediction that this 200 ppm rise will bring on "severe unpleasantness" is sheer speculation.
Gore's position is understandable, in a political sense. Your's is not.
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
