Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
plasticpig said:
ludo said:
Picking up on Kerplunks point about ice cores:
The Vostok ice cores show that current CO2 levels are unprecedented at least over the last 400,000 years (1).
note there is no cherry picking here, I have just used the original Vostok ice core dataset (and the instrumental record and other ice cores for the insert), without choosing a particular start date. If you have a longer ice core dataset, do feel free to post it.
Ice core data is not necessarily valid with regards to CO2 levels.The Vostok ice cores show that current CO2 levels are unprecedented at least over the last 400,000 years (1).
note there is no cherry picking here, I have just used the original Vostok ice core dataset (and the instrumental record and other ice cores for the insert), without choosing a particular start date. If you have a longer ice core dataset, do feel free to post it.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html...
Article said:
Ice, the IPCC believes, precisely preserves the ancient air, allowing for a precise reconstruction of the ancient atmosphere. For this to be true, no component of the trapped air can escape from the ice. Neither can the ice ever become liquid. Neither can the various gases within air ever combine or separate.
This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C," Dr. Jaworowski explains, "and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to -- 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure -- high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air."
Because of these various properties in ancient air, one would expect that, over time, ice cores that started off with high levels of CO2 would become depleted of excess CO2, leaving a fairly uniform base level of CO2 behind. In fact, this is exactly what the ice cores show.
"According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time," Dr. Jaworowski sates. "The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years -- it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.
"Yet other indicators of past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata, show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by more than 50 parts per million, between 270 and 326 parts per million. We also know that there have been great fluctuations in temperature over that time period -- the Little Age just 500 years ago, for example. If the icecore record was reliable, and CO2 levels reflected temperatures, why wouldn't the ice-core data have shown CO2 levels to fall during the Little Ice Age? "
This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C," Dr. Jaworowski explains, "and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to -- 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure -- high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air."
Because of these various properties in ancient air, one would expect that, over time, ice cores that started off with high levels of CO2 would become depleted of excess CO2, leaving a fairly uniform base level of CO2 behind. In fact, this is exactly what the ice cores show.
"According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time," Dr. Jaworowski sates. "The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years -- it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.
"Yet other indicators of past CO2 levels, such as fossil leaf stomata, show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by more than 50 parts per million, between 270 and 326 parts per million. We also know that there have been great fluctuations in temperature over that time period -- the Little Age just 500 years ago, for example. If the icecore record was reliable, and CO2 levels reflected temperatures, why wouldn't the ice-core data have shown CO2 levels to fall during the Little Ice Age? "
Ferdinand Englebeen said:
Too many of the objections made by Jaworowsky are either completely outdated, physically impossible (even the reverse of what he alleges) or based on wrong age data.
here is the full article http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworows...Note Englebeen is a skeptic who has studied this in some detail, but you can also find other critiques of Jarowski elsewhere.
ludo said:
LongQ said:
Of course we also need to be confident with the veracity of the data it we are to derive useful information.
Starting in 1979 to match the availability of the satellite record is reasonable and conceptually better than relying solely on ground based reading, given 'the science', but only provided we can verify the numbers. I'm not sure we can.
Satellite measurements are not full proof values and have always required adjustment and interpretation even before the 'raw' data are released. Changes in ground based stationbs, the operation of them and, more recently, changes to the technology used, mean there is no consistency for many of them. In fact there is an ever reducing consistency of location for historical record comparison. Statistical techniques may overcome these limitations and give valid interpretations but right now I'm not convinced that such techniques exist reliably enough to allow the conclusion that people seem to be drawing. Worse, I don't think we are scientifically anywhere close to being able to form a useful and appropriate policy for future social development.
It seems to me that most of the values that underpin the calculations that point to climate calamity are based on some nth level iteration of various sets of raw data that themselves are of suspect probity. Because they are 'the data' they are not open to critical assessment? I hope that is not the general view.
As a result of this caution I rarely trust any graph to be a representation of 'truth'.
I would just point out that I deliberately used the UAH satelite data (a) because it shows the weakest trend not the highest (so I couldn't be accused of cherry picking) (b) because it doesn't use any ground based station data and (c) becuase is it curated by two noted sceptics, Roy Spencer and John Cristy. If they are satisfied that the various corrections are neccessary, I don't really see why we should doubt them.Starting in 1979 to match the availability of the satellite record is reasonable and conceptually better than relying solely on ground based reading, given 'the science', but only provided we can verify the numbers. I'm not sure we can.
Satellite measurements are not full proof values and have always required adjustment and interpretation even before the 'raw' data are released. Changes in ground based stationbs, the operation of them and, more recently, changes to the technology used, mean there is no consistency for many of them. In fact there is an ever reducing consistency of location for historical record comparison. Statistical techniques may overcome these limitations and give valid interpretations but right now I'm not convinced that such techniques exist reliably enough to allow the conclusion that people seem to be drawing. Worse, I don't think we are scientifically anywhere close to being able to form a useful and appropriate policy for future social development.
It seems to me that most of the values that underpin the calculations that point to climate calamity are based on some nth level iteration of various sets of raw data that themselves are of suspect probity. Because they are 'the data' they are not open to critical assessment? I hope that is not the general view.
As a result of this caution I rarely trust any graph to be a representation of 'truth'.
As I said before I posted the image, data are not the same thing as information and that correllation does not imply causation
Edited by ludo on Wednesday 14th October 10:54
My comments were general rather than a specific response to your post.
Most science subjects and research are open to new learning and discoveries and adjustments or improvements to techniques.
Today we have internet driven arguments about statistically generated estimated trends of temperature change by amounts that could not be reliably measured until quite recently. I sometimes wonder of all of this circus is the fault of technology and the science that developed it. Why do they do that? Because they can. No other reason that matters.
Humanity (especially the members with higher levels of intelligence, whatever that is) likes to feel involved and in control of matters well beyond the local survival needs. We, mostly, also dislike being seen to be wrong, no matter what the subject is.
A good scientist (by my understanding of the term) will accept alternative observations about their pet subject(s) and amend or event retract as required. Within what they do they will offer their best interpretation of what they have but then revise as required - as I believe Christy did for some of the rather esoteric adjustments from satellite measurement feeds. They attempt to present a 'current best understanding' but recognise any areas of weakness or questionability ready to improve the understanding as research progresses. It's a question of admitting how little we (or they) know rather than claiming how much we (or they) know.
If you have a problem that seems to be inexplicable from current knowledge it is very easy, as an 'expert', to start one's diagnosis (or advice when assisting others) from the wrong point - form step 2 or 3 rather than going back to the basics. So people rarely re-check the assumptions about measurements (data) presented. Once they have been referenced a few times they take on a 'truth' of their own, no matter how much work is required to convert the 'RAW' to the 'presentable'. We skip the basics of our core expertise as 'given' when sometimes they are not. So when a puzzle arises - "Where did all that extra carbon go? Why is there no heat in a place where the theory says there should be?" - people question the process (at least as far as publically released information seems to be concerned) more often than they question the core assumptions that have become 'gimmes' but may actually be wrong.
We all do it. And even if we learn not to do it we will, over time, let the standards lapse and be caught out again. I reckon its about an 11 year cycle ...
One of the things I find most troubling about the whole of Climate Science is that it seems that some rather poorly understood aspects of it have 'data' associated with them that, in the absence of anyone actively (or successfully) seeking a better understaninding, become defacto values that are unquestionable. If the next pet hypothesis does not work out, few seem to question the 'accepted' data even if the mos logical solution seems to be that the numbers as presented just don't stack up. It's all a bit like elective tunnel vision. People only see what they want to see. Or. more kindly, what sits most comfortably within their 'experience' and expertise.
It puts me in mind of a motoring story from long ago. (Cue relevance to a motoring forum!)
Someone in what is now Cumbria bought a brand new Mk2 Ford Cortina. Loved it but noticed that it did not seem to like turning right. Over the course of many visits to the suplying dealer in the next few months no problem was found. Eventually a Ford engineer (or maybe an independent motor engineer - can't recall) was sent to check the car out and discovered that all the manufacturing tolerances allowable (more generous than today's standards) had built up one way at the front and the other way at the back thus effectively putting the axle alignment something like 2.5 inches out. Hence the problem. However the only recognisable symptom at the time was the difficulty the car had turning right. (Actually I would guess it was especially good at turning left, but how would the driver know what was normal?) Checking manufacturing tolerance individually, if it was done, would not have shown up the problem since all were within specification.
In recent times I experienced something similar with a Vauxhall Omega although on that occasion it was not so much engineering tolerances as adjustable suspension settings being wrong and the only real evidence was dangerous (and difficult to see) tyre wear. None of the 'experts' I dealt with spotted the problem for what it was but the generic advice from non-experts about having a 4 wheel alignment check led to a resolution of the problem. These days I tend to be a little selective about the 'experts' I trust on motoring matters. It seems reasonable to apply the same caution to Climate Science.
LongQ said:
Hi ludo,
My comments were general rather than a specific response to your post.
No problem, I was mainly just pointing out that even if you reverse-cherry pick, choosing the datasets that give the least support to your arguments, you will still find yourself incorrectlly accused of cherry picking.My comments were general rather than a specific response to your post.
LongQ said:
Most science subjects and research are open to new learning and discoveries and adjustments or improvements to techniques.
Today we have internet driven arguments about statistically generated estimated trends of temperature change by amounts that could not be reliably measured until quite recently. I sometimes wonder of all of this circus is the fault of technology and the science that developed it. Why do they do that? Because they can. No other reason that matters.
I think the problem is that people present statistical trends and don't bother checking whether they are statistically significant (for instance the 30 year trend is, the short term trends that show cooling aren't as they are just picking up on the cyclical nature of ENSO). The problem is that the media tend to report only part of the statistics, without discussing the uncertainties involved.Today we have internet driven arguments about statistically generated estimated trends of temperature change by amounts that could not be reliably measured until quite recently. I sometimes wonder of all of this circus is the fault of technology and the science that developed it. Why do they do that? Because they can. No other reason that matters.
A good example of why the media and politicians never report the uncertainty is given by the reaction to a full answer to the "no human signal" attrition loop question. The answer is yes, there is a visible signal, with good supporting evidence for the causal chain, however the signal is not absolutely unequivocal as the interpretation of the data depends on assumptions about the variability and the other forcings involved. However there are very few people in the P&P (at least it would seem - not directed at you!) that are happy with the full answer, with its discussion of the uncertainties, and they bay for a simple, but misleading "yes"/"no" answer and are unhappy that I won't give them the straw man/soundbite that they want.
Sorry, a politician would go for the soundbite, but as a scientist, I prefer the full answer, that may not be as satisfying, but at least it isn't overstating the evidence provided by the data, and so is more honest.
LongQ said:
Humanity (especially the members with higher levels of intelligence, whatever that is) likes to feel involved and in control of matters well beyond the local survival needs. We, mostly, also dislike being seen to be wrong, no matter what the subject is.
Being wrong is the best way of learning, if you are doing research not all of your hypotheses will be correct, and often the best papers are the result of finding that an apparently reasonable idea doesn't work in practice. I am working on a paper at the moment where the experiments showed that my initial intuition was wrong (and I shall mention that in the paper).LongQ said:
A good scientist (by my understanding of the term) will accept alternative observations about their pet subject(s) and amend or event retract as required. Within what they do they will offer their best interpretation of what they have but then revise as required - as I believe Christy did for some of the rather esoteric adjustments from satellite measurement feeds. They attempt to present a 'current best understanding' but recognise any areas of weakness or questionability ready to improve the understanding as research progresses. It's a question of admitting how little we (or they) know rather than claiming how much we (or they) know.
you will rarely find me saying that the science is settled on AGW, except in a few places, such as the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2, where the evidence actually is unequivocal. How much warming will result is far less certain!LongQ said:
If you have a problem that seems to be inexplicable from current knowledge it is very easy, as an 'expert', to start one's diagnosis (or advice when assisting others) from the wrong point - form step 2 or 3 rather than going back to the basics. So people rarely re-check the assumptions about measurements (data) presented. Once they have been referenced a few times they take on a 'truth' of their own, no matter how much work is required to convert the 'RAW' to the 'presentable'. We skip the basics of our core expertise as 'given' when sometimes they are not. So when a puzzle arises - "Where did all that extra carbon go? Why is there no heat in a place where the theory says there should be?" - people question the process (at least as far as publically released information seems to be concerned) more often than they question the core assumptions that have become 'gimmes' but may actually be wrong.
We all do it. And even if we learn not to do it we will, over time, let the standards lapse and be caught out again. I reckon its about an 11 year cycle ...
yes, that is why I wanted to go right back to the start and get agreement on the very basic issue (the cause of the rise in CO2) before going onto less basic matters.We all do it. And even if we learn not to do it we will, over time, let the standards lapse and be caught out again. I reckon its about an 11 year cycle ...
LongQ said:
One of the things I find most troubling about the whole of Climate Science is that it seems that some rather poorly understood aspects of it have 'data' associated with them that, in the absence of anyone actively (or successfully) seeking a better understaninding, become defacto values that are unquestionable. If the next pet hypothesis does not work out, few seem to question the 'accepted' data even if the mos logical solution seems to be that the numbers as presented just don't stack up. It's all a bit like elective tunnel vision. People only see what they want to see. Or. more kindly, what sits most comfortably within their 'experience' and expertise.
It is more that scientists publish papers showing that something is plausible under our current understanding of the physics, possibly something extreme, which then gets reported in the media as scientists claiming that it is likely to happen or that it will happen. The climatologists though know that this is not what the paper is saying, and don't read more into it than "if this is plausble within the current theory, and if that doesn't sound right, does that suggest the theory is wrong". It is just the style of academic writing that leaves a lot of that implicit.LongQ said:
It puts me in mind of a motoring story from long ago. (Cue relevance to a motoring forum!)
Someone in what is now Cumbria bought a brand new Mk2 Ford Cortina. Loved it but noticed that it did not seem to like turning right. Over the course of many visits to the suplying dealer in the next few months no problem was found. Eventually a Ford engineer (or maybe an independent motor engineer - can't recall) was sent to check the car out and discovered that all the manufacturing tolerances allowable (more generous than today's standards) had built up one way at the front and the other way at the back thus effectively putting the axle alignment something like 2.5 inches out.
you have obviously seen the "before" readout from the last geo on my Elise! Someone in what is now Cumbria bought a brand new Mk2 Ford Cortina. Loved it but noticed that it did not seem to like turning right. Over the course of many visits to the suplying dealer in the next few months no problem was found. Eventually a Ford engineer (or maybe an independent motor engineer - can't recall) was sent to check the car out and discovered that all the manufacturing tolerances allowable (more generous than today's standards) had built up one way at the front and the other way at the back thus effectively putting the axle alignment something like 2.5 inches out.
LongQ said:
Hence the problem. However the only recognisable symptom at the time was the difficulty the car had turning right. (Actually I would guess it was especially good at turning left, but how would the driver know what was normal?) Checking manufacturing tolerance individually, if it was done, would not have shown up the problem since all were within specification.
In recent times I experienced something similar with a Vauxhall Omega although on that occasion it was not so much engineering tolerances as adjustable suspension settings being wrong and the only real evidence was dangerous (and difficult to see) tyre wear. None of the 'experts' I dealt with spotted the problem for what it was but the generic advice from non-experts about having a 4 wheel alignment check led to a resolution of the problem. These days I tend to be a little selective about the 'experts' I trust on motoring matters. It seems reasonable to apply the same caution to Climate Science.
yes, read both sides of the argument, the truth is likely to be somewhere between the extremes, be doubtful of anyone who has no doubt of anything, it has rarely been the hallmark of good science!In recent times I experienced something similar with a Vauxhall Omega although on that occasion it was not so much engineering tolerances as adjustable suspension settings being wrong and the only real evidence was dangerous (and difficult to see) tyre wear. None of the 'experts' I dealt with spotted the problem for what it was but the generic advice from non-experts about having a 4 wheel alignment check led to a resolution of the problem. These days I tend to be a little selective about the 'experts' I trust on motoring matters. It seems reasonable to apply the same caution to Climate Science.
ludo said:
I think the problem is that people present statistical trends and don't bother checking whether they are statistically significant (for instance the 30 year trend is, the short term trends that show cooling aren't as they are just picking up on the cyclical nature of ENSO).
Is the 30 year trend more statistically significant than the > 20,000 year trend that TB posted up? Or merely more expedient in trying to show "evidence" that attempts to support the models?
Genuine question - not a dig.
FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
I think the problem is that people present statistical trends and don't bother checking whether they are statistically significant (for instance the 30 year trend is, the short term trends that show cooling aren't as they are just picking up on the cyclical nature of ENSO).
Is the 30 year trend more statistically significant than the > 20,000 year trend that TB posted up? Or merely more expedient in trying to show "evidence" that attempts to support the models?
Genuine question - not a dig.
tests of statistical significance are mechanistic, they either are significant or they are not. If they are not significant it is a logical error to use them as evidence of anything. If they are significant, then they are evidence, but you need to bear in mind the usual caveats such as the tests do have a false positive rate, so the result isn't certain, and a statistically significant trend may not be a meaningful trend.
In the case of 10-year versus 30-year trends, the 30 year trends tend to be statistically significant because they are long enough to contain several ENSO cycles, which is the strongest source of variability over short (decadal) timescales. The decadal scales tend not to be significant as they are on about the characteristic timescale of ENSO cycles, so they only tell you about ENSO, rather than long terms trends.
ludo said:
FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
I think the problem is that people present statistical trends and don't bother checking whether they are statistically significant (for instance the 30 year trend is, the short term trends that show cooling aren't as they are just picking up on the cyclical nature of ENSO).
Is the 30 year trend more statistically significant than the > 20,000 year trend that TB posted up? Or merely more expedient in trying to show "evidence" that attempts to support the models?
Genuine question - not a dig.
ludo said:
tests of statistical significance are mechanistic, they either are significant or they are not.
Eh? I thought tests of significance were based on confidence intervals (by which ever test you use (Chi squared, T-test etc.)), rather than simply a binary yes or no/. e.g. how did you come to the conclusion above (in bold added by me) that the 30 year trend has more significance than the 20,000 year trend.
FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
I think the problem is that people present statistical trends and don't bother checking whether they are statistically significant (for instance the 30 year trend is, the short term trends that show cooling aren't as they are just picking up on the cyclical nature of ENSO).
Is the 30 year trend more statistically significant than the > 20,000 year trend that TB posted up? Or merely more expedient in trying to show "evidence" that attempts to support the models?
Genuine question - not a dig.
FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
tests of statistical significance are mechanistic, they either are significant or they are not.
Eh? I thought tests of significance were based on confidence intervals (by which ever test you use (Chi squared, T-test etc.)), rather than simply a binary yes or no/. FunkyGibbon said:
e.g. how did you come to the conclusion above (in bold added by me) that the 30 year trend has more significance than the 20,000 year trend.
I didn't say (or even imply) that the 30 year trend has more significance than the 20,000 year trend. The test has been done for the 30 year trend, see Tamino's blog. I haven't seen a calculation for the 20,000 year trend, but it is pretty obvious just looking at it that it will pass the test. I didn't give a simple "yes" it is significant because I don't know that for a fact, it is just my impression looking at the graph, and as I have pointed out I try and avoid undue certainty.ludo said:
We have been out of the last glaciation for about 11,000 years, why the sudden rise in CO2 now if it is just a response to that?
I asked about warming not CO2 levels.ludo said:
I didn't say (or even imply) that the 30 year trend has more significance than the 20,000 year trend.
How on earth is your response below (copied from the post above) not an implication that the 30 year trend is more significant than the 20,000 year trend?FunkyGibbon said:
Is the 30 year trend more statistically significant than the > 20,000 year trend that TB posted up?
Or merely more expedient in trying to show "evidence" that attempts to support the models?
Genuine question - not a dig.
Or merely more expedient in trying to show "evidence" that attempts to support the models?
Genuine question - not a dig.
ludo said:
I would have thought so,
"I would have thought so" - suggests an implication to me.kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
so any comments on this TB?
No idea what you expect me to say.kerplunk said:
err ok you seem to have written an editorial piece
If you say so.ludo said:
I note that you chose not to attempt to refute the observation that there has not been a temperature change in the last 800 years big enough to explain the observed rise in C02 using the "C02 lags temperature by 800 years" argument, that is strong evidence for the rise being of anthropogenic origin.
No, it isn't, especially if you are still implying 'all of it' because there are different climate forcings producing different climate responses by various mechanisms, with feedbacks (overall negative) not forgetting various couplings between the forcings, and each process in all of these will have a different characteristic timescale in the climate response and any subsequent carbon dioxide shift - remember it's always that way round. The ~800 year lag applies particularly to recent glacial-interglacial transitions.Something as facile as the point you were trying and failing to make barely warrants attention.
FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
We have been out of the last glaciation for about 11,000 years, why the sudden rise in CO2 now if it is just a response to that?
I asked about warming not CO2 levels.FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
I didn't say (or even imply) that the 30 year trend has more significance than the 20,000 year trend.
How on earth is your response below (copied from the post above) not an implication that the 30 year trend is more significant than the 20,000 year trend?FunkyGibbon said:
Is the 30 year trend more statistically significant than the > 20,000 year trend that TB posted up?
Or merely more expedient in trying to show "evidence" that attempts to support the models?
Genuine question - not a dig.
Or merely more expedient in trying to show "evidence" that attempts to support the models?
Genuine question - not a dig.
ludo said:
I would have thought so,
"I would have thought so" - suggests an implication to me.If I had meant to say the thirty year trend was more significant than the 20,000 year trend, I would have said so. It would be a ridiculous thing to say though, which is why I didn't say it.
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I note that you chose not to attempt to refute the observation that there has not been a temperature change in the last 800 years big enough to explain the observed rise in C02 using the "C02 lags temperature by 800 years" argument, that is strong evidence for the rise being of anthropogenic origin.
No, it isn't, especially if you are still implying 'all of it' because there are different climate forcings producing different climate responses by various mechanisms, with feedbacks (overall negative) not forgetting various couplings between the forcings, and each process in all of these will have a different characteristic timescale in the climate response and any subsequent carbon dioxide shift - remember it's always that way round. The ~800 year lag applies particularly to recent glacial-interglacial transitions.Something as facile as the point you were trying and failing to make barely warrants attention.
Perhaps I should ask for a visible signal in the tremperature data responsible for the post industrial rise in CO2, wich an established cause and effect mechanism?
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I note that you chose not to attempt to refute the observation that there has not been a temperature change in the last 800 years big enough to explain the observed rise in C02 using the "C02 lags temperature by 800 years" argument, that is strong evidence for the rise being of anthropogenic origin.
No, it isn't, especially if you are still implying 'all of it' because there are different climate forcings producing different climate responses by various mechanisms, with feedbacks (overall negative) not forgetting various couplings between the forcings, and each process in all of these will have a different characteristic timescale in the climate response and any subsequent carbon dioxide shift - remember it's always that way round. The ~800 year lag applies particularly to recent glacial-interglacial transitions.Something as facile as the point you were trying and failing to make barely warrants attention.
Perhaps I should ask for a visible signal in the tremperature data responsible for the post industrial rise in CO2, wich an established cause and effect mechanism?
Out of interest, what detailed mechanisms have you personally established or seen published for the forcings and their couplings on atmospheric, oceanic and surface biogeographical response to the recovery (warming) from the little ice age about 300 years ago? Mechanisms that will contrast with other mechanisms you have established or seen published for other periods with different climate response to different forcings giving different atmospheric consequences?
No model GIGO allowed; give the mechanisms.
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I note that you chose not to attempt to refute the observation that there has not been a temperature change in the last 800 years big enough to explain the observed rise in C02 using the "C02 lags temperature by 800 years" argument, that is strong evidence for the rise being of anthropogenic origin.
No, it isn't, especially if you are still implying 'all of it' because there are different climate forcings producing different climate responses by various mechanisms, with feedbacks (overall negative) not forgetting various couplings between the forcings, and each process in all of these will have a different characteristic timescale in the climate response and any subsequent carbon dioxide shift - remember it's always that way round. The ~800 year lag applies particularly to recent glacial-interglacial transitions.Something as facile as the point you were trying and failing to make barely warrants attention.
Perhaps I should ask for a visible signal in the tremperature data responsible for the post industrial rise in CO2, wich an established cause and effect mechanism?
Out of interest, what detailed mechanisms have you personally established or seen published for the forcings and their couplings on atmospheric, oceanic and surface biogeographical response to the recovery (warming) from the little ice age about 300 years ago? Mechanisms that will contrast with other mechanisms you have established or seen published for other periods with different climate response to different forcings giving different atmospheric consequences?
No model GIGO allowed; give the mechanisms.
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I note that you chose not to attempt to refute the observation that there has not been a temperature change in the last 800 years big enough to explain the observed rise in C02 using the "C02 lags temperature by 800 years" argument, that is strong evidence for the rise being of anthropogenic origin.
No, it isn't, especially if you are still implying 'all of it' because there are different climate forcings producing different climate responses by various mechanisms, with feedbacks (overall negative) not forgetting various couplings between the forcings, and each process in all of these will have a different characteristic timescale in the climate response and any subsequent carbon dioxide shift - remember it's always that way round. The ~800 year lag applies particularly to recent glacial-interglacial transitions.Something as facile as the point you were trying and failing to make barely warrants attention.
Perhaps I should ask for a visible signal in the tremperature data responsible for the post industrial rise in CO2, wich an established cause and effect mechanism?
Out of interest, what detailed mechanisms have you personally established or seen published for the forcings and their couplings on atmospheric, oceanic and surface biogeographical response to the recovery (warming) from the little ice age about 300 years ago? Mechanisms that will contrast with other mechanisms you have established or seen published for other periods with different climate response to different forcings giving different atmospheric consequences?
No model GIGO allowed; give the mechanisms.
The recovery from the LIA started 300 years ago and has continued through to the end of the last century. Beyond that I wanted to know how, through your knowledge of climate forcing mechanisms and response timescales for each, that the recent rise in carbon dioxide starting ~100 years after the LIA ended, isn't continuing. There's nothing in the science to suggest that the carbon dioxide response to a climate shift caused by various different forcing(s) should be either identical, or uniform over time; partition equilibria don't show linear behaviour in terms of temperature sensitivity (see van't Hoff). There's no reason why responses to different forcings with different magnitudes and couplings and feedback and timescales should be directly comparable.
Without detailed mechanisms you can't assert anything, but you do continue to try. When you post what I think you're going to post, in your state of blissful whatever, I'll remind you of what has been said.
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
so any comments on this TB?
No idea what you expect me to say.We've gone from a thousand years to hundred's of thousands of years looking for it with no sign so I guess we need to wind back even further?
However if we go too far back we start introducing lots of other variables so it seems sensible to stick to periods when the earth looks like it does now - the continents in the same place, same sun etc. The Isthmus of Panama closed about 3 million years ago and is thought to have had a profound effect on the earth's climate that we have today, so if we're to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges, I think we should be particularly interested in evidence for this period.
Is there any solid evidence within the last 3 million years or so of similar temp/co2 responses?
Is my reasoning good here or is 3 million years also a cherry pick?
Interested in your thoughts.
kerplunk said:
err ok you seem to have written an editorial piece
turbobloke said:
If you say so.
well I wasn't expecting Al Gore to be introduced into the paleo evidence I guess 
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I note that you chose not to attempt to refute the observation that there has not been a temperature change in the last 800 years big enough to explain the observed rise in C02 using the "C02 lags temperature by 800 years" argument, that is strong evidence for the rise being of anthropogenic origin.
No, it isn't, especially if you are still implying 'all of it' because there are different climate forcings producing different climate responses by various mechanisms, with feedbacks (overall negative) not forgetting various couplings between the forcings, and each process in all of these will have a different characteristic timescale in the climate response and any subsequent carbon dioxide shift - remember it's always that way round. The ~800 year lag applies particularly to recent glacial-interglacial transitions.Something as facile as the point you were trying and failing to make barely warrants attention.
Perhaps I should ask for a visible signal in the tremperature data responsible for the post industrial rise in CO2, wich an established cause and effect mechanism?
Out of interest, what detailed mechanisms have you personally established or seen published for the forcings and their couplings on atmospheric, oceanic and surface biogeographical response to the recovery (warming) from the little ice age about 300 years ago? Mechanisms that will contrast with other mechanisms you have established or seen published for other periods with different climate response to different forcings giving different atmospheric consequences?
No model GIGO allowed; give the mechanisms.
The recovery from the LIA started 300 years ago and has continued through to the end of the last century. Beyond that I wanted to know how, through your knowledge of climate forcing mechanisms and response timescales for each, that the recent rise in carbon dioxide starting ~100 years after the LIA ended, isn't continuing. There's nothing in the science to suggest that the carbon dioxide response to a climate shift caused by wvarious different forcing(s) should be either identical, or uniform over time; partition equilibria don't show linear behaviour in terms of temperature sensitivity (see van't Hoff). There's no reason why responses to different forcings with different magnitudes and couplings and feedback and timescales should be directly comparable.
Without detailed mechanisms you can't assert anything, but you do continue to try. When you post what I think you're going to post, in your state of blissful whatever, I'll remind you of what has been said.
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
so any comments on this TB?
No idea what you expect me to say.We've gone from a thousand years to hundred's of thousands of years looking for it with no sign so I guess we need to wind back even further?
kerplunk said:
Is there any solid evidence within the last 3 million years or so of similar temp/co2 responses?
What makes you think our complex chaotic non-linear coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system is so simple that there should be? Suggestion: don't rely on the IPCC for anything, except perhaps a decent pension if you land a job.
You and ludo are still on an interesting - to some - but irrelevant diversion.
Whatever the carbon dioxide shift was caused by, it isn't doing anything that isn't vanishingly small to global climate.
Why does it exercise you so much? Is it precisely because there IS no temperature change linked to human activity, that variations in this essential trace gas are seen as a substitute?
You guys need to explain why you think such a line is worth pursuing. Is it a personal thing, some sort of taxonomy confusion? Carbon dioxide isn't measured in Kelvin or deg C or deg F or anything remotely similar. It's global cooling you fear and want to tax us on right? Not global aerial plant food?
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I note that you chose not to attempt to refute the observation that there has not been a temperature change in the last 800 years big enough to explain the observed rise in C02 using the "C02 lags temperature by 800 years" argument, that is strong evidence for the rise being of anthropogenic origin.
No, it isn't, especially if you are still implying 'all of it' because there are different climate forcings producing different climate responses by various mechanisms, with feedbacks (overall negative) not forgetting various couplings between the forcings, and each process in all of these will have a different characteristic timescale in the climate response and any subsequent carbon dioxide shift - remember it's always that way round. The ~800 year lag applies particularly to recent glacial-interglacial transitions.Something as facile as the point you were trying and failing to make barely warrants attention.
Perhaps I should ask for a visible signal in the tremperature data responsible for the post industrial rise in CO2, wich an established cause and effect mechanism?
Out of interest, what detailed mechanisms have you personally established or seen published for the forcings and their couplings on atmospheric, oceanic and surface biogeographical response to the recovery (warming) from the little ice age about 300 years ago? Mechanisms that will contrast with other mechanisms you have established or seen published for other periods with different climate response to different forcings giving different atmospheric consequences?
No model GIGO allowed; give the mechanisms.
The recovery from the LIA started 300 years ago and has continued through to the end of the last century. Beyond that I wanted to know how, through your knowledge of climate forcing mechanisms and response timescales for each, that the recent rise in carbon dioxide starting ~100 years after the LIA ended, isn't continuing. There's nothing in the science to suggest that the carbon dioxide response to a climate shift caused by wvarious different forcing(s) should be either identical, or uniform over time; partition equilibria don't show linear behaviour in terms of temperature sensitivity (see van't Hoff). There's no reason why responses to different forcings with different magnitudes and couplings and feedback and timescales should be directly comparable.
Without detailed mechanisms you can't assert anything, but you do continue to try. When you post what I think you're going to post, in your state of blissful whatever, I'll remind you of what has been said.
You are out of your depth.
I answered your question, but your state of knowledge and understanding is too weak to see it.
You see...actually, very little. That's an evidence-based view.
As i've already answered your questions fully eben if you can't see it, here's one from me, in focus for you.
Not wishing to hide it away in a longer reply
This doesn't require any scientific knowledge or understanding to explain, so fire away.
Not wishing to hide it away in a longer reply
A reminder that I just said:
You guys need to explain why you think such a line is worth pursuing. Is it a personal thing, some sort of taxonomy confusion? Carbon dioxide isn't measured in Kelvin or deg C or deg F or anything remotely similar. It's global warming you fear and want to tax us on right? Not global aerial plant food?
So what's the answer? Why are you vexed by sources and shifts in a gas that's having such a vanishingly small impact that it isn't doing anything to global climate?This doesn't require any scientific knowledge or understanding to explain, so fire away.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 14th October 15:39
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
I note that you chose not to attempt to refute the observation that there has not been a temperature change in the last 800 years big enough to explain the observed rise in C02 using the "C02 lags temperature by 800 years" argument, that is strong evidence for the rise being of anthropogenic origin.
No, it isn't, especially if you are still implying 'all of it' because there are different climate forcings producing different climate responses by various mechanisms, with feedbacks (overall negative) not forgetting various couplings between the forcings, and each process in all of these will have a different characteristic timescale in the climate response and any subsequent carbon dioxide shift - remember it's always that way round. The ~800 year lag applies particularly to recent glacial-interglacial transitions.Something as facile as the point you were trying and failing to make barely warrants attention.
Perhaps I should ask for a visible signal in the tremperature data responsible for the post industrial rise in CO2, wich an established cause and effect mechanism?
Out of interest, what detailed mechanisms have you personally established or seen published for the forcings and their couplings on atmospheric, oceanic and surface biogeographical response to the recovery (warming) from the little ice age about 300 years ago? Mechanisms that will contrast with other mechanisms you have established or seen published for other periods with different climate response to different forcings giving different atmospheric consequences?
No model GIGO allowed; give the mechanisms.
The recovery from the LIA started 300 years ago and has continued through to the end of the last century. Beyond that I wanted to know how, through your knowledge of climate forcing mechanisms and response timescales for each, that the recent rise in carbon dioxide starting ~100 years after the LIA ended, isn't continuing. There's nothing in the science to suggest that the carbon dioxide response to a climate shift caused by wvarious different forcing(s) should be either identical, or uniform over time; partition equilibria don't show linear behaviour in terms of temperature sensitivity (see van't Hoff). There's no reason why responses to different forcings with different magnitudes and couplings and feedback and timescales should be directly comparable.
Without detailed mechanisms you can't assert anything, but you do continue to try. When you post what I think you're going to post, in your state of blissful whatever, I'll remind you of what has been said.
You are out of your depth.
I answered your question, but your state of knowledge and understanding is too weak to see it.
turbobloke said:
You see...actually, very little. That's an evidence-based view.
Quite difficult for us to take an evidence-based view if you won't tell us what your evidence is!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff