C4’s debate on global warming boils over

Times Online ^ | March 15, 2007 | Sam Coates, Mark Henderson

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

I have witnessed scientific misconduct, normally committed by those that are paid by political programs, too numerous to list here.

Engineers have their "boondoggles". They don't create anything of value but they guarantee a paycheck.

[xcamel]

Exactly.

One of the oldest [Liberal] tricks in the book is to take the opposite side, then slowly manipulate the "facts" until the opposition "sees it your way" This is exactly what I see going on right here. Obvious natural processes and historical facts are slowly and inexorably being "adjusted" and manipulated to bring the "naysayers" back on to the reservation, as it were.

The opposer (former global warming skeptic) explains a series of 'Epiphanies" in the process if becoming "right minded" and drags as many gullible spineless skeptics back on to the farm with them.

[Osage Orange]

All past events?

Wow, they are smarter than the smartest woman in the world.

[Zon]

Excellent post. You've shown how the trivial CO2 influence on temperature has been blown way out of proportion by the AGW zealots -- asserting that it's a huge and important problem when it is just the opposite--a non problem. I call it the global warming hoax.

[qam1]

Claim: Temperatures rose for the first part of the century, then cooled for three decades before warming again. There is no link to carbon dioxide

Fact: Temperatures did follow this pattern, but again there is a good explanation. The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols – particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain

That's BS, Yeah we now have more environmental regulations since then, but China, India, Brazil, etc. do not, and back then those said countries were not significantly industrialized as they are today. And because of those countries there's more of a net pollution today then back then.

[ancient_geezer]

Is this true about the last decade? All I ever hear is that each year broke another record for warmest. Can someone point me to the data for this?

Here's a chart with sufficient resolution to show what's going on, the high spikes in temp are due to El Nino.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C_lrg.gif

 

However, seems we are peaking out in the the Solar cycle:

New Scientist - Hyperactive sun comes out in spots

 

 

The interesting test will be on whether or not ocean and tropospheric temperatures drop as this 1000 year high in solar activity reverses as it is predicted for coming decades.

 

NASA - Long Range Solar Forecast

 

And may already be showing up in falling ocean temperatures since ~2003

Sea Change in Global Warming
Patrick J. Michaels
The American Spectator, 8/25/2006
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10273

See also:

Global cooling effect
Terence Corcoran, National Post
September 16, 2006
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9e919563-e44b-4ca2-9706-8af9cf743c95

 

Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist
ST. PETERSBURG, February 6 (RIA Novosti) - Low solar activity could trigger a global freeze in the middle of the 21st century, a Russian astronomer said Monday.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html

[spunkets]

"1. 100 ppm is not insignificant.

The range was from 190 to 270 ppm, or about 80ppm. The insignificance I was referring to is the ability of the gas at either of those concentrations to result in a significant temp change. The temp changes given, are on the order of 1.5 orders of magnitude off.

"2. Change in CO2 ocean solubility is only a minor factor."

No.

"3. CO2 is a forcing factor that combined with other positive feedback effects can result in the observed temperature change.

No. The equilibrium temp reached is almost the same temp for either 190, or 270ppm [CO₂]. It is ~0.3^o higher. It can not be 8-10^oC higher. I used a 288K base temp with a 390W/M² solar E input, and IPCC's 5.35ln(C/C_o formula for the increased energy absorption for CO₂

"All of this will be explained "

OK. I wanted to post what you'll have to explain away though.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

That doesn't f*cking help the debate any. Obscene emails p!ss me off, g*ddammit!

[avacado]

WOW! Thank you very much! That's great information.

[cogitator]

Are you saying all the C02 was deposited in ice bubbles?

Ice core bubbles are samples of the atmosphere at the time of snow deposition. So they have a representative concentration of atmospheric CO2 at that time.

[cogitator]

See my profile, point #4, for clarification.

[cogitator]

How then can there be a runaway feedback?

There is no runaway feedback. CO2 concentrations top out at around 280 ppm during interglacials. The positive feedbacks are important for the transition out of a glacial period (and they are negative feedbacks for the transition INTO a glacial period!!!!).

Remember the requirement of AGW is that the warming should happen at height first, then transmit to the ground.

Global warming takes place because atmospheric CO2 absorbs longwave radiation emitted FROM the surface (the surface converts incoming shortwave (solar) radiation into longwave IR). Your statement doesn't make sense.

The programme showed an excellent correlation between solar sunspot activity and temperature change.

See the initial link in point #2 of my profile. Why did the temperature rise above current levels in the Mediaeval warm period?

According to the National Academy of Sciences assessment of the Mann "Hockey Stick", sufficient quantification of proxy climate data is unavailable for a definitive comparison of MWP temperatures to now. Qualitative indicators demonstrate that the MWP was approximately as warm as now. (The Little Ice Age was definitely colder than either.)

[cogitator]

So then it would be fair to say that we compounded the problem by being so proactive and successful in ridding the atmosphere of man-made aerosols that we have now come a cropper, eh?

To an extent, yes.

[cogitator]

cogitator is our Eric Hoffer; what he lacks in sophistication he makes up in single-minded dedication.

How sophisticated do you need me to be?

[cogitator]

Has any study taken ice cores from years since we have been measuring CO2 and then compared those directly to the recent records of CO2 data?

There are better plots available, but basically, the ice core data merges right into the Mauna Loa curve. What does that tell you? (And do I need to be more sophisticated?)

[cogitator]

Regarding your response to number 1, CO2 is a climate forcing factor, causing other climate system changes resulting in the full effect.

Regarding your response to number 2, I have encountered the author of the Web site here on FR before (by invitation). Because of his attitude and bearing, reasonable exchange of ideas is impossible. My profile will provide references indicating that the warming of the oceans in glacial-interglacial transitions only accounts for about 10% of the change in atmospheric CO2. If you need to believe otherwise, then such information won't be relevant to you. I, in fact, also thought that the warming of the oceans was the main factor in the glacial-interglacial CO2 change. This assumption is erroneous.

The equilibrium temp reached is almost the same temp for either 190, or 270ppm [CO2]. It is ~0.3o higher. It can not be 8-10oC higher. I used a 288K base temp with a 390W/M2 solar E input, and IPCC's 5.35ln(C/Co formula for the increased energy absorption for CO2

CO2 is not the only factor. A doubling of CO2 will account for about 0.8-0.9 C rise directly. (I suspect that you didn't use the equilibrium blackbody temperature, a very common error, because when that error is made, the result is ...... 0.3 C!!!). Other positive feedbacks, mainly increased water vapor, account for the rest.

OK. I wanted to post what you'll have to explain away though.

Already on my agenda, except the last part. If I have to, I can find the discussion on RealClimate where that error is explained. (Note that ancient_geezer disputes that the important effect is atmospheric warming; he has a counter-position that the surface warming for doubling CO2 won't be the same as the whole atmosphere warming. I've heard his argument and I only state what the IPCC and climate scientists say.)

[Ieatfrijoles]

This thread is heavier than any of the other threads out there.

[qam1]

See my profile, point #4, for clarification.

HUH? I never said it's been cooling since 1998

What I said was

1998 was the hottest year on record - It was
since then the temps have been slightly lower -They have been

and relatively stable. - They also have been, which even if we dismiss 1998 as an outlier, the stability of the 21st century so far shows the planet has stopped it's warming trend.

This fits with the solar hypothesis more than the AGW, the sun after it reached it's maximum activity in 1000 years in 1998 has stabilized just like the temps here on earth, meanwhile while even though we have continued to pump out CO2 in that time the temperature hasn't continued to increase.

[BillM]

I suggest you read the followingf and get back to us!

href="http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

[Ragnar54]

I agree with your post for the most part. However, the point of my question was a dig at the offered "explanation" for the lag between temperature increases and increases in atmospheric CO2. As the "Global Warming Swindle" program demonstrated, the real explanation is that CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature changes.

I'm personally rooting for an ironic conclusion to the GW debate:
1. Gore has it backwards: atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases (not the other way around).
2. Gore has it backwards: GW is actually beneficial (not harmful).
3. Gore has it backwards: Humans have not been causing GW, but have in fact been slowing it down (compared to the warming taking place on other planets). This last has not been proven, but seems reasonable if you consider that volcanoes only manage to eject a small percentage of their eruptions to a significant altitude; jet planes are much more efficient at dumping sulfur compounds at 30,000+ feet.

It may turn out that Gore does not have it backwards, but is merely 100% wrong on point 3.