Global warming causality


by nesp
Tags: causality, global, warming
nesp
nesp is offline
#19
Jan24-07, 10:52 AM
P: 59
Andre, sneez, I appreciate the complexity of the GW science much better from the papers and comments you've provided. The Karner paper is interesting in its findings contrary to positive feedback, though the data set is pretty sparse. And the CO2 temperature (proxy) graph puts into question the causality that is so widely claimed.

One further question, how well do these studies and models account for the rate of CO2 increase rather than its absolute level? Are the predictions of x degrees change for y percent change in CO2, with or without feedback, based on steady state end states, or do they account for the shock of rapid CO2 increase we've seen in the last couple of hundred years?

In the language of dynamic nonlinear systems, could such a shock cause a rapid bifurcation of global climate into a different state without much warning? Analogous to, say, laminar fluid flow quckly becoming turbulent.

I'm aware of the theoretical scenario in which Greenland melts causing ocean currents to change and throwing the earth into an ice age. I'm not referring to that kind of macro causality. What I mean is, could the shock of rapid CO2 increase cause some fundamental change in the dynamics, say a reversal from antipersistence to persistence between atmospheric transfer at different levels, and climatic dynamics are suddenly reversed? Are climate models sufficiently granular to replicate such potential effects?
sneez
sneez is offline
#20
Jan24-07, 12:22 PM
P: 355
One further question, how well do these studies and models account for the rate of CO2 increase rather than its absolute level? Are the predictions of x degrees change for y percent change in CO2, with or without feedback, based on steady state end states, or do they account for the shock of rapid CO2 increase we've seen in the last couple of hundred years?
As far as i know (i may be wrong), the rate of CO2 is assumed constant or change lineary or only responds to SSE. This is huge problem in the models, for the rate might be more important than the actual concentration.


What I mean is, could the shock of rapid CO2 increase cause some fundamental change in the dynamics, say a reversal from antipersistence to persistence between atmospheric transfer at different levels, and climatic dynamics are suddenly reversed? Are climate models sufficiently granular to replicate such potential effects?
I did not study on my own these models but from what i know in general about them the answer is, no.

There is going on much research and finally realizing that phtochemistry and chemistry itself is non linear. Its all dynamic processes from radiative transfer to chemistry, but to solve those equations is not possible. So we develop methods of solving them numericaly (and or SSE-steady state approach used most of the time). There is plethora methods but all have pros and cons and ALL OF THEM cannot be generalized to long term. Most of them do not conserve (converge) in long time, and many other problems.

There is much uncertanties with vegetation forcing, ocean-atm feedback etc.

It has been shown that even local changes in vegetation (too small to resolve in models) can have large scale irreversible impact in temperature (like turning amazon forest into desert) (this is not GW). Hysteresis or irreversibility -> changes that perist in the new post disturbance state even when the original level of forcing is restored. This may be consequence of multiple stable equilibrium in the coupled systems-> which atm certainly is.

Then there is issues of how to distribute probabilities in the models of events happening...

For your sake read this of understanding: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu.../M00037347.pdf


That about how much i know about this, which is very little...
Andre
Andre is offline
#21
Jan24-07, 02:47 PM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Quote Quote by nesp View Post
One further question, how well do these studies and models account for the rate of CO2 increase rather than its absolute level? Are the predictions of x degrees change for y percent change in CO2, with or without feedback, based on steady state end states, or do they account for the shock of rapid CO2 increase we've seen in the last couple of hundred years?
the relationship between reradiation CO2 is modelled with modtran here

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/c...radiation.html

The idea is to change the Greenhouse gas concentrations note the difference in Iout and then change the ground T offset to match the original Iout. The T-offest it your (blackbody) greenhouse effect. I did that here on a large range to show the saturation effect (mark the logarithmic scale) interest, showing that we are talking about a few tenths of a degree over a very large range.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/modtran-rad-bal.GIF

But the question is also how true is the CO2 concentration hockeystick. Accurate and less accurate CO2 measurement has been done since Napeleon. Guy Callendar, who wanted to proof greenhouse effect, cherry picked those close to the desired hockeystick and ignored dozens of others with a completely different story.

This one for instance.

There will be a very interesting publication somewhere in a few months, hopefully if it makes it through peer review. But the author has a very good case.

http://In the language of dynamic no...;/QUOTE]<br />

Not really.
The notion of flikkering climates, tipping points of no return etc originate from the wild isotope roller coaster rides of isotopes of the Greenland ice cores. It took some study but this may now be considered refuted. It's all here in the old threads but I'll elaborate later.

I'm aware of the theoretical scenario in which Greenland melts causing ocean currents to change and throwing the earth into an ice age. I'm not referring to that kind of macro causality.
The story of the ice age is radically different. It's all here too but perhaps try the story of Herrn Wilhem Kreutz (same link) of Giessen first
nesp
nesp is offline
#22
Jan24-07, 04:00 PM
P: 59
<Guy Callendar, who wanted to proof greenhouse effect, cherry picked those close to the desired hockeystick and ignored dozens of others with a completely different story>

Yes I've seen that, and noted that the error was embedded in his biased normalization of data for principal component analysis. I like Karner's approach using ARIMA models from the link you provided, not that they are necessarily better than PCA but time domain methods are more transparent and harder to cherry pick.
sneez
sneez is offline
#23
Jan24-07, 04:08 PM
P: 355
"Accurate and less accurate CO2 measurement "

WHat do you mean? CO2 is constant and well known upto 50km or so. That is the very assumption for ability to sense atm from satellites to derive temp and other gassess conc.
Andre
Andre is offline
#24
Jan25-07, 06:37 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Quote Quote by sneez View Post
"Accurate and less accurate CO2 measurement "

WHat do you mean? CO2 is constant and well known upto 50km or so. That is the very assumption for ability to sense atm from satellites to derive temp and other gassess conc.
It's the chemical measurement of CO2, like capturing CO2 of a certain volume of air in some kind of a solution and then measure the quantity somehow. very many variables and very many possibilities of introducing errors. For instance, if you'd use suphur acid for drying the air first to avoid changes in the solution and you weren't aware of the fact that CO2 also dissolves in sulphur acid a little. Then you'd really have a problem.

So around 1960 the chemical measurement was abandoned. Instead gas chromatography is used. But with the chemical method, those monthly averages here were obtained in Ireland, Austria, Germany, India, Alaska and Scandinavia. Note that some values compare but not with the ice cores.
sneez
sneez is offline
#25
Jan25-07, 08:29 AM
P: 355
i c, thanx
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#26
Jan25-07, 09:46 AM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
If the scientific debate (models/interpreting data/etc) do not make it possible to make a distinction between either the 'human caused global warming' case or the opposite case, there is only one way of resolving the issue.
Quit emitting green houses gasses, wait another 100-200 years, and see if global warming continues or stops.

We would need to quit substantially on emitting too many green house gasses anyways, because we are reaching peak-oil / peak-gas in a matter of decades.

It would be good for both problems (greenhouse/global warming and peak-oil and drastic price increases due to relative shortages) to think of other ways of running the economy, for instance by investing more money into durable/renewable alternatives.

If the price mechanism is right and the price effects of entering peak-oil are correct, it would be very worthwhile to invest in techniques for replacing fossil fuels, since they will become economically feasible in the long run.

Only by entering this kind of arguments, can you determine a policy of what would be good to do. So it's not just a theoretical issue, but a very practical one, implied by the laws of economy!!!
Andre
Andre is offline
#27
Jan25-07, 11:19 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
I disagree. Science is above all a matter of finding the truth.

Abusing it, to force the world upon changing its energy habits may be a most exemplary good cause corruption, but it kills the science and brings us back to the dark ages with devils and dragons at will of those who want to rule.

Recheck Henry Louis Mencken.
sneez
sneez is offline
#28
Jan25-07, 11:45 AM
P: 355
I disagree. Science is above all a matter of finding the truth.
Hypothetically and in perfect world..,yes
Abusing it, to force the world upon changing its energy habits may be a most exemplary good cause corruption, but it kills the science and brings us back to the dark ages with devils and dragons at will of those who want to rule.
Your complaint and what you are implying is premature & logical fallacy on top of it.
Andre, i get a feeling you already made up your mind, when many more of your kind of belief did not. Nobody is abusing science as far as IPCC panel goes and other scientists which do climate studies. There have been anti-GW camp sponsored by corporations who was to instigate this debate intitially and the hard core GW camp formed as well.

From your opinions, I think you are loosing the balance here. GW is no doubt happening. The question is how much of it is due to human processes. And no side of the debate should exclude this factor, for that is big scientific dishonesty. So unless im getting the wrong message from you, there legitimate concern for humans on this issue. More science has to be done and improved for this strong opinions to be voiced.

You should konw better than this, sorry to say
Andre
Andre is offline
#29
Jan25-07, 01:12 PM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Constructing the hockey stick was a clear case of good cause corruption, proven beyond any doubt. After conviction you're allowed to call the suspect the offender.

Anyway, after studying all this, I think my understanding of all paleoclimate events at the last glacial maximum might be slightly above average. But when it appears that a single hypothesis can fit all those anomalies, a hypothesis that dwarfs any notion of CO2 causing climate changes, then I think that my personal perception can be substantiated that the amount of heating to be attributed to GHG is insignificant.

Meanwhile, in the back yard, we have been holding off the warmers:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/...ate.aspx?did=1

To me there are obviously two options. Either accept that global warming is hot air or don't read the discussion. But that would be believing in preconceptial science

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/preconceptual.GIF

Anyway I uploaded the complete discussion as txt document here just in case the NERC site gets reorganised:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/nercnext.txt

92k words, 204 pages text. Advice to right click and save to disk. Then open with a text editor.
billiards
billiards is offline
#30
Jan25-07, 02:28 PM
P: 745
And what is this dwarfing hypothesis????

Simply that CO2 didn't cause previous warming events? News flash: humans weren't releasing CO2 then!!!!

Do these events correspond with -ve d13C ratios?
Are these records global?

What about the fact that -ve d13C ratios are associated with layers containing unsual mounds, could these mounds have been caused by methane seepage thereby explaining the global warming?
sneez
sneez is offline
#31
Jan25-07, 03:17 PM
P: 355
Andre, i do not doubt your knowledge is about average and/or about mine on this issue. I even understand your frustration when you know (perceive) something contrary to majority. But I do not understand your conclusions and the way you present them (at least here). I read couple of links you posted. Not that i understood everything, no, but i am beginnig scientist and have a good understanding of what is a fact and what is not. 'Many' of the things you claim to be true as a fact are not a fact. If I was little more interested in putting you more substantial counter arguments I can see from the papers to be able to do so very easily, and it has been done by real scientists. (search JRE database on climate, and you find 'replies' as a title to deniers of HGW, not that GW is cause entirelly by humans or any implications of that, just a figure of speech)

Some of the papers are just research and not conclusions! You make them conclusion through your phiolosophy you pre-conceived. But i am not up to accusing you. I think you are good researcher. You basically claim to have 100% correct science in the field which is by its nature not possible to be so!

There is one fact alone, YOU DO NOT KNOW for a fact what you claim to know!
Andre
Andre is offline
#32
Jan25-07, 03:26 PM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Quote Quote by billiards
And what is this dwarfing hypothesis????

In terms of strategic settings I think I'm not ready yet to discuss new hypotheses and thus change from attacker into defender. It must be beyond any doubt that current paradigms about the last glacial transitions (and thus all 100ka cycle transitions) fail to explain the interaction between all events. Especially these:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/d18o-lh-ch4.GIF


The greenhouse potential of Methane is usually seriously overrated. Here is the theorical effect in a blackbody setting. But I think I posted that before.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/modtran-rad-bal.GIF

The d13C excursions have been explained with local assumptions like a C3-C4 shift due to the Bolling warming. Problem is that this spike is no warming, which also shatters the explanation for the d18O spike as I explained elsewhere.
Andre
Andre is offline
#33
Jan25-07, 03:47 PM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Quote Quote by sneez View Post
Andre, i do not doubt your knowledge is about average and/or about mine on this issue. I even understand your frustration when you know (perceive) something contrary to majority. But I do not understand your conclusions and the way you present them (at least here). I read couple of links you posted. Not that i understood everything, no, but i am beginnig scientist and have a good understanding of what is a fact and what is not. 'Many' of the things you claim to be true as a fact are not a fact. If I was little more interested in putting you more substantial counter arguments I can see from the papers to be able to do so very easily, and it has been done by real scientists. (search JRE database on climate, and you find 'replies' as a title to deniers of HGW, not that GW is cause entirelly by humans or any implications of that, just a figure of speech)

Some of the papers are just research and not conclusions! You make them conclusion through your phiolosophy you pre-conceived. But i am not up to accusing you. I think you are good researcher. You basically claim to have 100% correct science in the field which is by its nature not possible to be so!

There is one fact alone, YOU DO NOT KNOW for a fact what you claim to know!
Hold-it. I'm not claiming to know it all, otherwise I would not be talking about hypothesis, would I, or then it would be Andre's law, which exists here BTW.

Anyway if you need to combine the oceanic proxies, the ice cores, the geologic glacial paleobotanic and paleontologic data, the orbital cycles, the geophysic implications as a specialist you have a problem with the overview, as a generalist you have a problem with details but at least you can think of all simultaneously.

Remember that all I wanted to do is solve the extinction of the mammoth megafauna.

Anyway the hypothesis is here within the threads. Simple to find And I know that it's only the beginning of something very big that will take ages to understand as you can always continue to ask why. It's just the Popperian philosophy.

Perhaps have a look at a part of the NERC discussion that I uploaded when the site was down for recuperation.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refut...ermometer1.pdf
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refut...hermometer.pdf
sneez
sneez is offline
#34
Jan25-07, 06:30 PM
P: 355
Thanx Andre, i went through some of the discussion, but its 200+ pages :D


Why do you put such an emphasis on BB computation of increasing some gass? It is important but the GW stuff is recognized comes from the coupling and potential positive feedbacks which is not well understood.
nesp
nesp is offline
#35
Jan25-07, 09:21 PM
P: 59
<Quit emitting green houses gasses, wait another 100-200 years, and see if global warming continues or stops.>

And, if we're wrong, find out that we've destroyed the world's economy and the earth is still warming? Wouldn't it be better to be certain before making drastic changes?

Peak oil, if true, is a more urgent driver for change. $5-10 dollar gas in the US might drop GHG emissions whether or not they caused GW. I say might because if the alternative is wood burning fires and electric cars from coal fired plants we may produce more GHG than from oil.
Andre
Andre is offline
#36
Jan26-07, 12:34 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Quote Quote by sneez View Post
Thanx Andre, i went through some of the discussion, but its 200+ pages :D
Try the find functions for key words. "Model" would be a good one, "positive feedback" may work as well.

Why do you put such an emphasis on BB computation of increasing some gass? It is important but the GW stuff is recognized comes from the coupling and potential positive feedbacks which is not well understood.
It's not understood because it's non existent. Try the find function. I also posted that here earlier in the thread I think, the Karner Non-persistency study and the high resolution isotope-CO2 proxies of the EPICA Dome C ice core:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/epica5.GIF


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Can Global Warming Cause ... Earth 88
Global Warming Earth 35
global warming Earth 0
global warming Earth 5
Global Warming Earth 10