Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like

    CO2 Emissions are good

    Disclaimer: No actual beliefs by the author are being presented.

    A- Ice age is coming now -- solar modeling proves
    Aym 10 - Individual Investor Magazine staff writer (Terrence "Experts: Food and fuel shortages imminent as new ice age dawns", Helium.com, December 30, http://www.helium.com/items/2051424-...ns?page=2)//KL

    Other scientists concur and some see the speed at which the temperatures will drop as frightening. Casy's organization has been at the forefront of the climate change controversy, correctly predicting in advance three important changes in the climate that many others missed: the end of global warming cycle (1999), a long term drop in the Earth’s temperatures (starting in 2006 to 2007) the unsettling prospect of an historic contraction of the Sun’s energy resulting in a never-before-seen solar hibernation. The hibernation is now recognized by NASA's Long Range Solar Forecast through 2022 and as well as the stunning slowdown of sun's activity. At the urging of colleagues from around the globe that concur with him, Casey has taken an unprecedented step. "In view of the importance of this new forecast I have notified the Secretary of Agriculture to take immediate actions to prepare the nation’s agricultural industry for the coming crop damage.” Mini or major Ice Age - either are a disaster While Casey sees a so-called mini-Ice Age occurring and lasting about 40 to 50 years, others like Robert Felix believes the data is there that supports a real possibility of a major Ice Age that could last several thousands of years. Felix believes the Earth's already entered the first stages of the mini-Ice Age and a bigger one might be close on its heels. Felix warns: " The next Ice Age could begin any day. Next week, next month, next year...it's not a question of if, only when. One day you'll wake up—or you won't wake up, rather—buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years." The last Ice Age happened to end almost exactly 11,500 years ago. Casey explains that "The present [solar] hibernation is proceeding in almost lock step as the last one which occurred from 1793 to 1830. If it continues on present course, while the cold weather impacts on food and fuel announced today are certainly important, they do not compare with what is to follow later. At the bottom of the cold cycle of this hibernation in the late 2020’s and 2030’s there will likely be years with devastating to total crop losses in the Canadian and northern US grain regions.” A scientific paper that presents his model, "The Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity" (also called the "RC Theory"), is gaining followers in the scientific community. Perhaps that's because of the fact that of his three predictions based on the RC Theory climate model, all three are occurring.

    B- CO2 is the only thing holding us back
    By Lewis Page
    Posted in Science, 9th November 2012 15:58 GMT
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11...2_can_save_us/

    A group of Swedish scientists at the University of Gothenburg have published a paper in which they argue that spreading peatlands are inexorably driving planet Earth into its next ice age, and the only thing holding back catastrophe is humanity's hotly debated atmospheric carbon emissions.

    "We are probably entering a new ice age right now. However, we're not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide," says Professor of Physical Geography Lars Franzén, from the Department of Earth Sciences at Gothenburg uni.


    C- Ice age causes extinction—it comparatively outweighs warming
    Chapman 8 (Phil, geophysicist and astronautical engineer, bachelor of science degree in Physics and Mathematics from Sydney University, a master of science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh,” 4/23/08, The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111116134873)

    What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time. If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale. For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun. We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits. We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades. The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible. All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake. In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

    D. Ice age coming, warming is key to prevent it
    Tzedakis et al 12 (Chronis – Professor of Physical Geography at University College London, BA in Geology, James Channell – Professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Florida, David Hodell – Professor at the Department of Earth Sciences at the Universit of Cambridge, Luke Skinner – Department of Earth Science and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, H.F. KLeiven, UNI Research, “Determining the natural length of the current interglacial,” 1/9/12, Nature Geoscience, http://www.nature.com.proxy.lib.umic...f/ngeo1358.pdf)

    No glacial inception is projected to occur at the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 390 ppmv (ref. 1). Indeed, model experiments suggest that in the current orbital configuration—which is characterized by a weak minimum in summer insolation—glacial inception would require CO2 concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv (refs 2–4). However, the precise CO2 threshold 4–6 as well as the timing of the hypothetical next glaciation 7 remain unclear. Past interglacials can be used to draw analogies with the present, provided their duration is known. Here we propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing 7 . Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240 5 ppmv.
    Udabindu yathāpi pokkhare
    Padume vāri yathā na lippati,
    Evaṃ muni no palippati
    Yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutaṃ mutesu vā.

  2. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  3. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,426
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Your first source appears to be a quack of climate science. He has no credential for it either in his professional life or his education and despite his claims there are few if any actual respected scientists that back him up. (thus he does not actually name anyone, just says "other scientists") He and his organization so far as I can tell are complete ********.

    Your second source distorts the scientific article they reference. That science is mainstream and postulates carbon sink vs output that is often believed to be part of the ice age phenomenon. But it in no way implies we will be buried in snow any time soon, its still in the thousand(s) years sort of scenario. He's saying that peat bogs are a carbon sink and they appear to be growing slowly in sweeden and that if that was also happening all over the world then it is the sort of effect that could reduce carbon in the atmosphere and trend towards an ice age. But we know that the carbon is increasing (partly due to our efforts) and thus we this mechanism isn't likely to take effect.

    While the third author is a respected person generally speaking, its not clear what his credentials in science are or if he is practicing any or just blowing hot air in that article. He makes a lot of conclusions without really explaining the reasoning. The best line is...

    "We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades"

    Wow bro, that sure is scary! So his guess is a coin flip that it will be warmer or colder? Not exactly what I would call as cause for concern.

    The last source represents a fairly mainstream view that normally we would expect a cooling period in the next 1500 to 20000 years but that our higher greenhouse gas levels could mitigate that. But he is in no way spouting the kind of nonsense of your first source talking about suddenly being buried under snow (which is such an absurd notion as to make anything else he says highly suspect).

    Conclusion: There isn't much too this. Its worth study and interest. Its well known the earth goes through ice ages and its possible we might prevent one which undoubtedly would be good for us. But we are talking "glacial" speed here not sudden frozen cities. The concern for global warming is a bit more immediate (though also honestly not so fast that its likely to actually be a serious threat to humanity, more like a costly inconvenience).

    I think climate alarmism needs to be tempered with common sense policy and continued study. Climate matters, but our understanding of it still needs some work. We should be interested in learning how it works and what we can do or have done to alter it. We should always be interested in efficient sources of energy that have minimal externalities.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Facts. The thing about facts is that they're true. It gives them a certain quality that other things lack. You know what I mean?


    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    Disclaimer: No actual beliefs by the author are being presented.

    A- Ice age is coming now -- solar modeling proves
    Aym 10 - Individual Investor Magazine staff writer (Terrence "Experts: Food and fuel shortages imminent as new ice age dawns", Helium.com, December 30, http://www.helium.com/items/2051424-...ns?page=2)//KL

    Other scientists concur and some see the speed at which the temperatures will drop as frightening. Casy's organization has been at the forefront of the climate change controversy, correctly predicting in advance three important changes in the climate that many others missed: the end of global warming cycle (1999), a long term drop in the Earth’s temperatures (starting in 2006 to 2007) the unsettling prospect of an historic contraction of the Sun’s energy resulting in a never-before-seen solar hibernation.
    So I stopped reading right here, because there's a somewhat simple problem with the OP at this point. This is totally, indisputably wrong. I say this based upon every scientific article by climatologists, the near entire collective of climatologists (>99%) who have formed a scientific consensus, and, more importantly, the massive mounds of empirical evidence that serves as the basis for all of the aforementioned statements.


    But let's take a few moments to debunk this horse****. (If you want the gist of where I'm getting this from and what I'm saying, read here and here).


    1.) Seven of the past ten years have been the hottest on record. The idea that we're in a "cooling phase" is simply laughably inaccurate and painfully dishonest. Here's a graph:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MetOffice.gif 
Views:	41 
Size:	31.4 KB 
ID:	3361

    Note that this goes in "inverse order", so the #1 hottest year (2010) is at the origin and you get cooler years as you go to the right. Also note that 2011 was the only slightly cooler year, and 2012 had the hottest El Nino year, but overall it was only the 10th most hot years. Out of all the years combined that we have data for (That's 160 if you're counting).



    2.) If that's not convincing, we can just look directly at the Average Global Temperature, decade-wise, over the last ~160 years:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	average-temps.gif 
Views:	41 
Size:	14.1 KB 
ID:	3362

    Notice how the 2000's were actually much hotter than the 1990's, and it just keeps on increasing? Yeah, so, sadly, the statement that "we're going through a phase of global cooling" is just utter nonsense.






    Global warming is not some ****ing conspiracy. We, as a society and as a species, should be past this by now. Moreover, we need to be past this if we are to be able to do anything at all. Hell, the Koch-brother's funded a long term study on global warming to disprove it. I'll repeat that for you --the Koch brothers. So they rounded up a bunch of scientists (From Berkley no less) and headed them up with the biggest climate-change skeptic they could find, a scientist by the name of Richard Muller. Richard Muller had a long history of global warming denial when they selected him. Until the study was released in July of 2012. So what were the results of the global warming skeptic scientists study? Well, not surprisingly:


    Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

    [...]

    Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

    These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.


    Again, the nicest quality about facts is that they have the distinct advantage of being true. It doesn't matter if you want to believe facts; it doesn't even matter if you do or don't believe in a fact; a fact is still irrevocably true. And the truth is, that global warming is happening, that it's real, and that if we don't do something about it, the current and future generations will have serious problems. Fact.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  5. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  6. #4
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    GP,

    While I agree that the graphical representations show that the more recent years are warmer...how can you justify using the terms "hotter" or "much hotter" when the difference we are talking about is a 0.4 - 0.5 degree C over the span of 50 years? That seems like it's just "alarmist" language to me.

    Also, I agree with you re: facts are facts regardless of what one's perceptions, feelings or beliefs are. But this is not a view shared by all. Subjectivists, example, believe that ALL reality is subjective and there are no actual facts that pertain to reality, only the mind. I would imagine that few, if any scientists are subjectivists.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  8. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    GP,

    While I agree that the graphical representations show that the more recent years are warmer...how can you justify using the terms "hotter" or "much hotter" when the difference we are talking about is a 0.4 - 0.5 degree C over the span of 50 years? That seems like it's just "alarmist" language to me.
    Let's be clear from the outset what the scales are, because most people don't understand this:

    1.) If we reach a 3 C increase, two very important things happen:

    a.) 25% to 50% of every species on the planet dies. Not members of every species, but the entire line of species, and the other 75% to 50% of species, respectively, will see huge death rates.
    b.) Our ability to do anything about the environment ceases exists at this scale. At this point, everything is out of our hands and we will, with 100% certainty, reach at least an increase of 5 C to 6 C increase to Earth's averaged global temperature.

    And there's an important caveat, which is "So why should I give a sh*t if it increases to 5 C to 6 C more?":

    3.) There's a time lag between when emissions happen and when they start taking full to affect heating the environment. So again, once we reach 3 C, we have no choice, we will reach 5 C.
    4.) 6 C is an extinction level event, our environment becomes catastrophically unstable. The last time this happened, 96% of species on the planet went extinct.

    Basically, almost every species on the planet will go extinct, sea levels will rise by many many feet submerging most the world's coast line destroying thousands of cities and villages (including New York), food will become incredibly difficult to grow, there will therefore be mass food shortages and famines, and with famines comes immense worldwide wars.


    And here's the kicker:

    5.) Scientists are pretty sure we're starting off at a base-line of +2.5 C at this time, no matter what we do.


    So to answer your question, Apok, no, I don't think that I'm being "alarmist", I think I'm being a "realist". As in, one who lives in this reality and not some made-up fantasy that an oil corporation made up to make people not feel bad for buying gas guzzlers, to not feel bad for not attempting to change their lives, and for not feeling the need to force their politicians to deal with reality. What happened in the last ten years, what's happening in this decade, and what will happen in the decade after that, will determine just what percentage of species on the planet will die, just how much unnecessary starvation will occur in the next 50 years and after, and just what the environment of the planet that we live off of and require will be --in other words, the future of our children. So yeah, I don't think that letting people understand and appreciate this makes me an "alarmist".


    Sources:

    http://americablog.com/2012/09/clima...ed-for-9f.html
    http://americablog.com/2012/07/hanse...l-warming.html
    http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/201...ature-big-deal
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis



    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    Also, I agree with you re: facts are facts regardless of what one's perceptions, feelings or beliefs are. But this is not a view shared by all. Subjectivists, example, believe that ALL reality is subjective and there are no actual facts that pertain to reality, only the mind. I would imagine that few, if any scientists are subjectivists.
    And it's their right to believe that, right up until they decide to demonstrate this by pouring gasoline on themselves and others and then start to light a match. Then it's the prerogative of other people to call them an imbecile for nearly killing themselves and others, and to stop them from engaging in their idiotic behavior.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  9. #6
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,724
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    1.) If we reach a 3 C increase, two very important things happen:

    a.) 25% to 50% of every species on the planet dies. Not members of every species, but the entire line of species, and the other 75% to 50% of species, respectively, will see huge death rates.
    b.) Our ability to do anything about the environment ceases exists at this scale. At this point, everything is out of our hands and we will, with 100% certainty, reach at least an increase of 5 C to 6 C increase to Earth's averaged global temperature.
    ...
    5.) Scientists are pretty sure we're starting off at a base-line of +2.5 C at this time, no matter what we do.

    Both of these claims are based on a paper by James Hansen (the same Hansen that is 0 for 3 on current climate predictions and who said that 2012 was the no later than date for intervention). It is filled with tacit assumptions, poor reasoning and weak data. The claim that a quarter of animals will go extinct is a throw away line at the end of his paper, it is not footnoted and there is no reason to think that Hansen is a biologist.

    Its important to note that Hansen, in this paper, attributes specific, recent heatwaves to AGW, despite his near distemper a few years ago arising from cold snaps, that "weather does not equal climate." He is taken to task by Martin Hoerling of NOAA. Hansen's deceptive language makes it seem that these anomalies were caused by global warming and absent AGW they would not have happened. But neither his data, nor his supporting papers support that. They argue, at most, that AGW added a tiny portion to it (Hansen's papers argues for about a 0.03% increase to the temperature, a 7.6% increase to the anomaly). These heat waves are naturally occuring phenomenon, as pointed out by Hoerling that may have had a pinch of help from AGW.

    A great argument, found here shows that using Hansen's data (which is also problematic), we still can't make the conclusion that any warming caused these events. The author compares DC temperatures from 1950-1980 and 1980-2012. In that example the later set is just about a degree warmer, on average than the former set (an increase entirely explained by the heat island effect). You'll notice that the latter set of data is virtually identical to the former set of data, but a degree warmer. It has the same number of "extreme" events, the same percentage of normal days.

    It is interesting, as well, that Hansen is only discussing temperature extremes (his definition is more than 3 standard deviations from the average, which for the DC 1950-1980 means a daily high of 80.4F) in the summer all discussion of winter anomalies is mysteriously absent.

    I find it telling that Hansen's study of extremes starts in 1950. Remember, base lining is important here. 1950-1970 was a colder than average period for the Twentieth Century. If he had included the rest of the century he would have found (as Climatologist John Christy found):

    • More state all-time high temperature records were set in the 1930s than in recent decades.
    • More state all-time cold records than hot records were set in the decades since 1960.
    • In a database of 970 weather stations, daily all-time high temperatures occurred more frequently before 1940 than after 1954.
    • The 1930s set twice as many daily maximum temperature records than were set in the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s.
    • More Midwest daily maximum temperature records were set in the heat waves of 1911 and the 1930s than in the 2012 heat wave.
    • The Palmer Drought Severity Index for the continental U.S. shows considerable interannual variability but no long-term trend from 1900 to the present.
    • The upper Colorado River Basin experienced more frequent multi-decadal droughts in the 19th, 18th, 17th, and 16th centuries than in the 20th century.


    Using the larger data set, suddenly Hansen's extremes don't appear that extreme.




    The absolute best, and most sober analysis of the paper can be found here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/06/the-new-climate-dice/

    I'll quote a few of her findings (emphasis mine)

    I like the general approach used in this study. However, the last sentence about the Holocene threw me for a loop. Even accepting the statements about Antarctic ice sheets and sea level rise at face value, how does this evidence lead to a conclusion that global temperature in the first decade of the 21st century is probably already outside the Holocene range? I agree that the ‘detection’ problem should be framed in the context of climate variability over the entire Holocene, but I have not seen anyone do that convincingly.

    I like several aspects of this paper. It puts longer term climate change into context of year to year natural variability (both globally and regionally). The analysis is straightforward and clearly presented. The writing is accessible to a general audience.

    The problem that I have with the paper is that the analysis does not support some of the inferences. The major conclusion (stated in the abstract) is:

    We conclude that extreme heat waves, such as that in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, were “caused” by global warming, because their likelihood was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming.

    First, an anomalously warm season may not correlate with the existence of an extreme heat wave. The study did not systematically consider all major heat waves during the period (they only mentioned the 2010 and 2011 heat waves), and assess whether these were predominantly associated with anomalously warm seasons.

    Second, the paper concluded from an analysis of U.S. temperatures in the 1930′s that “Also note that the extreme summer heat of the 1930s, especially 1934 and 1936, is comparable to the most extreme recent years.

    A critical issue IMO is interpretation of the variability in context of the major multidecadal ocean oscillations, e.g. AMO and PDO. The paper implicitly assumes that all of the warming since 1980 is AGW (whereas even the IPCC only says “most”, implying >50%). These modes of atmospheric and oceanic circulation are more likely to be associated with the blocking patterns that produce heat waves (this was particularly the case for the Moscow heat wave).

    IMO, if Hansen wants to draw this conclusion, the following analysis needs to be done. Go through the temperature data records since 1900, and search out the individual heat wave events. I would define heat waves in the context of two different definitions: 1) relative to the average local temperature for the entire period; 2) relative to the average local temperature for the decade. The combination of these allows interpretation of what is associated with the trend, vs interannual/decadal variability. Interpret the statistics globally and regionally, in the context of known modes of internal variability (e.g. ENSO, AMO) and the global warming trend. Then we would have the basis for assessing whether their conclusion is true or not.


    A more thorough, but less polite rebuttal can be found here: http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/08...eather-events/

    What the Hansen team concludes, however, is controversial. The researchers contend that the biggest, baddest hot weather extremes of recent years — the 2003 European heat wave, the 2010 Russian heat wave, the 2011 Texas-Oklahoma drought, the ongoing Midwest drought – are a “consequence of global warming” and have “virtually no explanation other than climate change.”

    There’s just one small problem. The reseachers do not examine any of those events to assess the relative contributions of natural climate variability and global warming. The study provides no event-specific evidence that the record-setting heat waves or droughts would not have occurred in the absence of warming, or would not have broken records in the absence of warming.


    Chase et al. 2006, a team of scientists from Colorado and France, found “nothing unusual” in the 2003 European heat wave that would indicate a change in global climate. Look at the global temperature map included in the study. During June, July, and August 2003, more than half the planet was cooler than the mean temperature from 1979 through 2003. Europe – a tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface – was the only place experiencing high heat. Does it make sense to attribute that local anomaly to global warming?


    Similarly, a National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) analysis found that the 2010 Russian heat wave “was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability.” The study specifically addressed the question of a possible linkage to anthropogenic climate change:

    Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.

    Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon conducted a “preliminary analysis” of the role of global warming in the Texas drought. Although far from definitive, it is (to my knowledge) the most detailed and thorough analysis to date....

    So I conclude, based on our current knowledge of the effects of global warming on temperature and precipitation, that Texas would probably have broken the all-time record for summer temperatures this year even without global warming.

    This drought was an outlier. Even without global warming, to the best of my knowledge, it would have been an outlier and a record-setter.

    * * *

    Until we learn more, it is appropriate to assume that the direct impact of global warming on Texas precipitation interannual variability has been negligible, and that the future variability trend with or without global warming is unknown.





    GP, can you point to a single climate model that has a better than 500 average for predicting future average temperatures?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  11. #7
    Harry Clague
    Guest

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Finally someone who believes that global warming is a fallacy. And finally someone that agrees with the cycle theory.
    Carbon is a very good things, I hate people who are saying now: we should have a price on carbon as well, if this happened then I think the whole world would go into disarray. Also to put things in laymen's terms: If there was more Carbon Dioxide then there would be more trees, because of the increase in trees, there would be more life( as more oxygen would be produced) and the whole world would look a lot different for the better.

  12. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,211
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Good for you Squatch... you have are in good company!

    I'm holding my breath for the argument that carbon is good since we are carbon based.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  13. #9
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,724
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Van, do you have an actual response? Or just spam?





    I think it is important to clarify the exact position.


    Is there climactic warming?

    I would answer yes to this question, given certain time scales there does appear to be warming. Over the last 500 years the Earth has warmed. Over the last 100 years warming appears to be relatively negligent (the usual 1.4C claim only covers the Norther Hemisphere). If you start at 50 years there appears to be some warming as well. From 20 years ago there is no warming.

    It depends on course when you start measuring, that is usually referred to as framing. So someone could make an argument based upon those timescales either way, but the scale picked would need to match the proposed mechanism. Regardless, I tend to think that there is pretty clear climactic warming.


    Do humans contribute to warming?

    Undoubtedly yes as well, all animals, by definition, do. We breath, for example which contributes CO2 to the atmosphere. We also engage in all kinds of activities that other animals do not however and that make our contribution relatively larger. However, when taken in total, our grand contribution is relatively limited. CO2 production from other sources is far, far higher than those contributed by human activity. Further, if we take the greenhouse effect as the effect we want to measure, we need to weigh all inputs into that system. IE, we need to consider all sources of human and natural input into the process and then weight those inputs by impact. For example, methane has a much higher impact upon the effect than CO2 and as such release of methane should be weighted higher when assessing the impact of humans on the climate.

    So while we definitely do have an impact upon the climate, if we just use the system above, we need to realize that our affect is relatively limited. What usually is invoked by AGW proponents is that there are feedback mechanisms (which usually account for more than 95% of our attributable warming) that make this a non-stable system. Little supporting evidence is currently available and I think it is fair to say that climate researchers are still grappling with that issue.


    Is carbon good?


    First, I want to point out that there is no "right" level of carbon in the atmosphere, as Van seems to believe. Rather, different levels have different impacts upon the climate that need to be analyzed. The current level of CO2 (and other gasses) has produced greater plant growth, higher crop output and a shrinking of many desserts.

    I think we should avoid the argument of what is the "right" level of carbon, since the climate and carbon levels have varied over time and it shows a profound misunderstanding of climate in general. Climate is a variable and emergent system that changes over time due to various stimuli. It is not a stable system balanced on a knife edge that will plummet if an input is changed. The climate is more like an emergent ant colony that adapts to stimuli and changes (sometimes for the better, sometimes to counter the stimuli, sometimes for the worse) rather than a mechanical system which stops working if a gear is made the wrong size.


    Summary


    Really, we still don't have a clear picture of what is going on in the climate. We do know that humans have some impact (duh) so we can at least form that as the lower bounds of our position. We also know that that impact is less than was reported in the initial IPCC report (since we followed exceeded the worst case scenario, but showed lower than the best case scenario warming). Somewhere between those two is an accurate assessment of humanity's impact. Currently we lack any climactic models that have associated observational test data. They simply don't exist yet because the new generation of models haven't had time to be tested against new climate data. Until that passes, positive claims about where we are on the continuum are mostly speculation.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  15. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Clague View Post
    If there was more Carbon Dioxide then there would be more trees, because of the increase in trees, there would be more life( as more oxygen would be produced) and the whole world would look a lot different for the better.
    Please support.
    Last edited by Scarlett44; November 1st, 2013 at 01:42 PM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  16. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    Please support.
    He cannot support it as carbon monoxide is what causes global warming. he seems to be thinking the stuff factories pump out is food for someone or some tree.

  17. #12
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan2 View Post
    He cannot support it as carbon monoxide is what causes global warming.
    "The natural concentration of carbon monoxide in air is around 0.2 parts per million (ppm)", according to the Australian version of the EPA. The ppm of carbon dioxide is about 375 ppm. If human are responsible for both, I'd say it was an obvious fact humans produce vastly more carbon dioxide than they do carbon monoxide, and Harry Clague is simply being consistent with the AGW theory.

    Further, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a pseudo-scientific/political organization, fails to even mention carbon monoxide as a greenhouse gas of concern with respect to global warming.

    Furthermore, and more to the point, Harry Clague stated that carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide was important to trees. He was asked to support that it was, and that being responsible for trees growing faster and healthier, conjoined with the known fact trees are a major source of oxygen in the atmosphere, and that all animal life depends in large part on oxygen for its fecundity, was at least partially responsible for that fecundity.

    By bringing carbon monoxide up in your post, and failing to even mention carbon dioxide, you've rendered your entire response a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan2
    he seems to be thinking the stuff factories pump out is food for someone or some tree.
    Well, at least he's thinking. You, on the other hand, seem to be parroting the party line, and otherwise giving your brain cells a rest.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dryaircomposition.png 
Views:	28 
Size:	12.5 KB 
ID:	3597  

  18. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    "The natural concentration of carbon monoxide in air is around 0.2 parts per million (ppm)", according to the Australian version of the EPA. The ppm of carbon dioxide is about 375 ppm. If human are responsible for both, I'd say it was an obvious fact humans produce vastly more carbon dioxide than they do carbon monoxide, and Harry Clague is simply being consistent with the AGW theory.

    Further, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a pseudo-scientific/political organization, fails to even mention carbon monoxide as a greenhouse gas of concern with respect to global warming.

    Furthermore, and more to the point, Harry Clague stated that carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide was important to trees. He was asked to support that it was, and that being responsible for trees growing faster and healthier, conjoined with the known fact trees are a major source of oxygen in the atmosphere, and that all animal life depends in large part on oxygen for its fecundity, was at least partially responsible for that fecundity.

    By bringing carbon monoxide up in your post, and failing to even mention carbon dioxide, you've rendered your entire response a strawman.

    Well, at least he's thinking. You, on the other hand, seem to be parroting the party line, and otherwise giving your brain cells a rest.
    I got confused.

  19. #14
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CO2 Emissions are good

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan2 View Post
    I got confused.
    It happens. What's a lot more rare is seeing someone admit it. Thanks for the treat. Your stock just went up in my portfolio analysis.

  20. Likes Charlatan2 liked this post
 

 

Similar Threads

  1. How dangerous is CO2?
    By Squatch347 in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: May 27th, 2011, 10:18 AM
  2. Good music? Good art? does it even matter?
    By cat's meow in forum General Debate
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: January 24th, 2007, 07:11 PM
  3. Good Actors, Not so Good Movies.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2005, 06:01 PM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 12th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •