Global Warming to Stop - CO2 Role Exagerrated

[Kitchener]

I believe it is the first step in the process that will ultimately completely discredit the IPCC and the 'science' it is pushing.

Well, that's a fact about you. Yet when one multiplies the force of your opinion by the degree of your recognized expertise on the matter, the resulting evidential factor is not interestingly distinct from zero.

[Riverwind]

Well, that's a fact about you. Yet when one multiplies the force of your opinion by the degree of your recognized expertise on the matter, the resulting evidential factor is not interestingly distinct from zero.

I am always amazed at people who think they can ignore facts because they don't come from someone that they consider to be an 'expert'. You can look up the relevant details in the IPCC report yourself, however, my claim that the IPCC insists that only CO2 can explain the current rise in temperature is a fact (read Chapter 9). You can also get lost in the weasel words in this particular paper, however, this paper does claim that natural factors are as significant as CO2. You don't need a degree in climate science to understand how those two claims contradict each other.

You also need to consider that numerous skeptical scientists with qualifications that are as good as or better than the authors of this paper have been saying for years that natural factors are being ignored. You also have to remember that this paper has only come out because the world has failed to warm as predicted by the IPCC. I find it strange that you would put your faith in the weasel words created by people trying to explain why their wrong instead of looking at science done by people that correctly predicted that the world would not warm as fast as the IPCC claimed.

[Kitchener]

I am always amazed at people who think they can ignore facts because they don't come from someone that they consider to be an 'expert'.

You're amazed at people who don't accept as "facts" the interpretive conjectures of every anonymous internet scribbler they encounter?

Huh.

Then common sense amazes you.

You can look up the relevant details in the IPCC report yourself, however, my claim that the IPCC insists that only CO2 can explain the current rise in temperature is a fact (read Chapter 9).

Which IPCC report are you talking about? The complete 4th report has 6 chapters. In its Summary for Policy Makers (i.e., the least nuanced version!), the section on "Causes of Change" absolutely does not say that only CO2 explains all of the current rise. In fact, it doesn't even say that CO2 is the only anthropogenic factor in warming. From p.5 of the SPM:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic

GHG.

It then goes on to discuss CH4 and N2O in some detail.

Did you read any of this?

The report also qualifies its conclusions quite carefully, in descending order of evidential confidence, while explicitly not claiming that all warming is anthropogenic:

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human

activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures

since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the

observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic

warming over the past 50 years averaged over

each continent (except Antarctica).

It does indeed mention natural factors, even in the brief summary version, in the course of acknowledging the limits of the methodology in generating regionally fine-grained predictions:

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic

forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns

of warming and their changes are simulated only by

models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain

in simulating and attributing observed temperature

changes at smaller than continental scales.

In sum, the things about which you seem to be confused, unclear, ambiguous, or just plain wrong are not hard to find. Why should I, or anyone else, trust your extrapolations when these seem so clearly in the service of preconceptions to which you are absolutely committed?

Notice that none of this is to deny that the role of CO2 may have been overemphasized. Evidence for this conclusion could mount as study progresses. That's how good science works: currently well-evidenced explanations and predictions might yet encounter better evidence for a slightly modified conclusion. But I don't see much except ideology in the triumphal over-interpretation of a single letter to Nature, and an accompanying conspiracy theory about most climate science and scientists.

[eyeball]

This paper is interesting because it, despite the numerous weasel words and caveats, acknowledges that natural influences can be as significant as CO2. I realize that the people who wrote this particular paper do insist that these influences are 'temporary' and that they still cling to the CO2 hypotheses. However, this paper does represent a major shift in the was AGW alarmists talk about natural influences. I believe it is the first step in the process that will ultimately completely discredit the IPCC and the 'science' it is pushing.

OTOH natural causes as significant as CO2, especially if they contribute to warming or just as dangerously, temporarily mask the effects, could possibly double the jeopardy we face. This in no way diminishes the need to adopt a precautionary approach in the absence of so much uncertainty.

You can also get lost in the weasel words in this particular paper, however, this paper does claim that natural factors are

as significant as CO2. You don't need a degree in climate science to understand how those two claims contradict each other.

You shouldn't need a degree to also understand that a natural cause could also amplify a man made cause. I've linked to the other possibility that other things could be masking the predicted effects of CO2, like global dimming man made and otherwise. Beyond your implication that some contradiction exists you leap to the automatic conclusion that some canceling-out effect exists as a result. You don't have to be a scientist to see that your conclusions are being affected by your economic and ideological leanings. Your repeated use of words like weasel could indicate either. Your inability to remain neutral on the topic indicates these don't automatically cancel each other out...I find that strange.

[Riverwind]

Which IPCC report are you talking about? The complete 4th report has 6 chapters.

It has 11 chapters: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Notice that none of this is to deny that the role of CO2 may have been overemphasized. Evidence for this conclusion could mount as study progresses. That's how good science works: currently well-evidenced explanations and predictions might yet encounter better evidence for a slightly modified conclusion.

The evidence already exists. The IPCC has choosen to ignore it because the IPCC has a mandate to show that climate change is a problem that requires action by government. Its reports have as much credibility as a report on the effectiveness of a drug funded by the drug company that sells it.

[Riverwind]

OTOH natural causes as significant as CO2, especially if they contribute to warming or just as dangerously, temporarily mask the effects, could possibly double the jeopardy we face. This in no way diminishes the need to adopt a precautionary approach in the absence of so much uncertainty.

How many trillions should we spend preventing a rogue asteroid from hitting the earth? Perhaps we should spend trillions moving people out of california before the next big one? The precautionary prinicipal does not require absolute certainty but it does require some. The fact is we know next to nothing about how the climate works and these climate models have yet to produce any meaningful predictions that have come true (yes, there have has some 'successes' but a no more than a broken clock that is right twice a day). This most recent paper highlights the failure to predict the effect of ocean currents.

You shouldn't need a degree to also understand that a natural cause could also amplify a man made cause.

If natural factors amplified the warming in the 20th century then all of the model projections are wrong because they over estimated the effect of CO2. Edited May 4, 2008 by Riverwind

[Kitchener]

It has 11 chapters: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Could you quote the actual passages from "Chapter 9" that support the precise claims you actually made -- in contradiction to the actual quotes I gave from the IPCC itself?

Thanks.

The evidence already exists. The IPCC has choosen to ignore it because the IPCC has a mandate to show that climate change is a problem that requires action by government.

Yes, there's the conspiracy theory. I'm afraid I also doubt the alleged "facts" touted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists too.

[Riverwind]

Could you quote the actual passages from "Chapter 9" that support the precise claims you actually made -- in contradiction to the actual quotes I gave from the IPCC itself?

The quotes you already provided repeat what I have said:

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns

of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.

In other words, the warming was entirely due to CO2 and a few other GHGs according to the IPCC. The IPCC did not consider the possibility that the oceans could have contributed to the warming over the last 50 years. However, this most recent paper makes it clear that the oceans do have a significant effect and that the IPCC analysis is flawed because it left them out.

Yes, there's the conspiracy theory. I'm afraid I also doubt the alleged "facts" touted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists too.

No conspiracy theory - it is simply a statement of conflict of interest. I would not accept the word of a drug company that studies its own drugs because of the conflict of interest nor would I trust the word of executives of companies when they report the finances without independent audits.

The IPCC is a 'spin machine' that seeks to make the case for action on CO2 as strong as possible. For example, the SPM was prepared *before* the technical reports and the technical report authors were told to produce reports that supported the SPM. How can anyone expect objectivity from a process where the conclusions are written before the analysis?

Edited May 5, 2008 by Riverwind

[August1991]

OTOH natural causes as significant as CO2, especially if they contribute to warming or just as dangerously, temporarily mask the effects, could possibly double the jeopardy we face. This in no way diminishes the need to adopt a precautionary approach in the absence of so much uncertainty.

In face of so much uncertainty, what precautionary approach do you suggest?

At bottom, Riverwind's point which is painfully obvious from this Nature article and the first Argo results is that current models of climate equilibrium don't work well. We know that the world's oceans absorb and release several hundred times more CO2 every year than is emitted by human activity. Moreover, the world's oceans are a ballast to atmospheric temperature. Nevertheless, we simply don't know enough about how our planet arrives at an equilibrium temperature.

Before we embark on a costly process to limit CO2 emissions, we better have a clear understanding of what's involved.

In 1919, in a moment of hysteria, the US passed a constitutional amendment forbidding the sale of alcohol. It was a disaster. I fear that this current hysteria is similar.

Some people have a moral agenda; they want to change human nature. Skepticism and the scientific method are the best antidotes to superstition and emotional beliefs.

[Kitchener]

The quotes you already provided repeat what I have said:

Ah. So the quote saying that it's not only CO2 is what supports your claim that the IPCC said it is all CO2. And the quote saying that anthropogenic effects explain most of the warming is what supports your claim that the IPCC says CO2 explains warming, period. And the quote in which they include some natural effects supports your claim that they considered no natural effects!

Fair enough. I guess this is "painfully obvious" -- to anyone who already has decided, independent of any actual data or reasoning.

In the meantime, the blinkered, superstitious AGW masses will have to go on wondering how data, trends, and correlations drawn over thousands of years are vitiated by a report of an oceanic cycle reported as operating decadally. Not having access to the highly liberating "P=not-P" rule of inference demonstrated above, this just won't seem to obvious to them...

Edited May 5, 2008 by Kitchener

[Riverwind]

And the quote in which they include some natural effects supports your claim that they considered no natural effects!

This quote from the IPCC is unambiguous:

"During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling."

According to the IPCC nothing natural can explain any component of the warming in the last 50 years (at until the IPCC needed to explain why the planet is not warming as fast as it said it would).

In the meantime, the blinkered, superstitious AGW masses will have to go on wondering how data, trends, and correlations drawn over thousands of years are vitiated by a report of an oceanic cycle reported as operating decadally.

Every 1000 years or so the planet goes through a warming spell. If you want to go back that far there is no rational reason to insist that this particular warming spell was caused by humans. The entire IPCC argument depends on the assertion that there is no evidence for natural factors operating over the last 50 years which makes GHGs the culprit by default. This argument falls apart as soon as ocean induced cooling is brought into the picture,

[eyeball]

If natural factors amplified the warming in the 20th century then all of the model projections are wrong because they over estimated the effect of CO2.

What about factors that may have masked the warming? Our projections about the effects of CO2 could have been underestimated.

[noahbody]

What about factors that may have masked the warming? Our projections about the effects of CO2 could have been underestimated.

Even after word came out that the whole thing could be a hoax, many people bought shares in Bre-ex. There's a sucker born every minute.

[Riverwind]

What about factors that may have masked the warming? Our projections about the effects of CO2 could have been underestimated.

The climate models have had a problem with temperatures that don't seem to increase as fast as they should in the past. This has led to some speculation that aerosols and similar types of pollution cause a net cooling effect. However, aerosols can only explain cooling in the past because we don't have any reliable aerosol data. This lack of data allows climate scientists to estimate the amount of aerosols by simply calculating the amount required to explain the observed trend (i.e. global dimming is a convenient fudge factor added to models to get their outputs to match the historical record).

Fortunately, the modellers can't manipulate the aerosol numbers over the last few years as easily so they have to look for other explanations.

It is also worth noting that aerosols cause heating AND cooling and some studies have suggested that as much as 50% of the recent warming could be due to aerosol like black carbon instead of CO2. Of course the alarmists don't want to talk about that because controlling emissions of black carbon is a lot easier to do and does not require major changes to social and economic policies.

Here is a graph that illustrates the flexible nature of aerosol cooling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate...Attribution.png

If you look carefully you would see that aerosols almost exactly cancelled the effect of CO2 until the end of the 70s. It would be an amazing coincidence if the aerosol numbers came from actual measurements instead of being set to a value that makes the models work.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Riverwind

[margrace]

Hay Maybe 10,000 people dead in Burma, the storm of the century but that doesn't matter to the people who deny the weather is changing and it is getting warmer. No Money in that is there.

[Riverwind]

Hay Maybe 10,000 people dead in Burma, the storm of the century but that doesn't matter to the people who deny the weather is changing and it is getting warmer. No Money in that is there.

I have bad news for you: natural weather disasters have always happened and always will happen. There is not shred of *real* evidence (i.e. based on real data rather than imaginary climate models) that warmer temperatures actually lead to more storms/hurricanes/severe weather events. Edited May 5, 2008 by Riverwind

[Drea]

Nature abhors a vacuum - that is why the CO2 religion has found the most fertile soil among groups of people who don't believe in traditional religions.

That is ridiculous. My mother earth is going through her natural changes. She is still recovering from her last ice age. And yes, humans contribute somewhat, but even without human beings the earth would still be warming...

Next she goes through menopause...

Hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes are PMS...

May Mother Earth Continue to Bless You and Yours

[margrace]

So the basic consensus on here seems to be that this is a natural thing that is happening. So are you all saying that it is natural for thousands of people to die in these storms. What is the earth getting rid of?

Mother earth will protect herself from anything that is a danger to her and man obviously must be a danger and she is getting rid of us. You are saying that anything we do, polution for instance, makes no difference, we are all going to die?

[White Doors]

So the basic consensus on here seems to be that this is a natural thing that is happening. So are you all saying that it is natural for thousands of people to die in these storms. What is the earth getting rid of?

Mother earth will protect herself from anything that is a danger to her and man obviously must be a danger and she is getting rid of us. You are saying that anything we do, polution for instance, makes no difference, we are all going to die?

1) yes, we are all going to die.

2) You think 'mother earth' is a sentient being?

[bush_cheney2004]

... You are saying that anything we do, polution for instance, makes no difference, we are all going to die?

Of course we are all going to die. You wanna live forever? If you mean humankind, we've only been here a short time, and will just as quickly be gone.

About 10,000 people were also killed in 1900 (Galveston Texas Hurricane).....was that also from "climate change" due to "anthropogenic forcing"?

Edited May 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Drea]

So the basic consensus on here seems to be that this is a natural thing that is happening. So are you all saying that it is natural for thousands of people to die in these storms. What is the earth getting rid of?

The earth is just humming along doing what it does. It is a planet with no "sense" of "who" or "what" is upon it's crust.

Mother earth will protect herself from anything that is a danger to her and man obviously must be a danger and she is getting rid of us. You are saying that anything we do, polution for instance, makes no difference, we are all going to die?

I'm sorry Margrace, but the earth doesn't have feelings and thoughts.... what occurs on the earth (hurricanes, etc) are not thought-out actions by a vindictive earth. Just nature. While we may think it cruel, it's not. It's life on planet earth and sometimes people and animals die for no "reason".

[noahbody]

Hay Maybe 10,000 people dead in Burma, the storm of the century but that doesn't matter to the people who deny the weather is changing and it is getting warmer. No Money in that is there.

Here's a quote from an interview with Gore's mentor, the grandfather of the greenhouse effect.

Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse?

Revelle: People are always saying the weather's getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes ... .

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id...19-778c0973526e