What caused the sea to inundate Beijing within the past 80,000 years?

[nesp]

After reading several papers and seeing gore's movie on GW I'm still searching for solid scientific causal evidence (versus correlations or circumstancial) that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming in the post-industrial age. I accept we are in a warm epoch, atmospheric CO2 is higher than average, humans have made CO2 levels higher, and natural CO2 levels correlate historically with temperatures. This may be enough for some, but it still does not prove human causality. I'm not rejecting the thesis of human causality for global warming, just would like to read a scientific argument that doesn't rely on correlation, circumstances, or simulations. Is that's all there is?

 

[sneez]

Good thinking, the same reasoning has to be applied to the anti-human GW camp [this should read anti--human--caused] (just read some anti human GW papers). Its all statistics - induction -... Now what do we do? Each camp claims their data, their conclusion, their inferences are correct.

Now, both camps acknowledge that there is warming in certain regions and even in global average. Point has to be given to the non-linear thinking camp where we note that even local temp change can have global effects. There is much thoughts going this way as it should.

But yes, you need to choose which one to belief just like with any science.

 

[nesp]

As a statistical problem GW suffers because it's impossible to conduct a controlled experiment, so perhaps all we can do is rely on correlations. There is nothing wrong with that, it just makes it impossible to quantify statistical inferential error.

I note much of the alleged inference comes from complex models and simulations, which has its own problems -- assumptions, modeling accuracies, etc. And if GW is like other fuzzy sciences I'm pretty sure a model that gives the "wrong" answer is thrown out or tweaked until it gives the right answer.

I said perhaps this is the best we can do. I've wondered, what would lead me to accept human caused GW (or not accept it) on a more solid basis? How about an energy budget calculation from first principles? The atmosphere is a storage system. So much heat comes in from the sun and earth, so much goes out from reflectance and earth/ocean conduction. Starting with a balanced temperature, how much delta T is expected from, say, a 100ppm CO2 increase? Not saying this is a simple calculation but, if from first principles, the answer is either a negligible increase, or a lot, that may say whether human caused GW is reasonable. With a gazillion papers out there, surely someone has attempted such a calculation?

 

[sneez]

Go to goole scholar and type your question there. "co2 increase temperature calculation", and others variations of that. There are tons of papers on that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles." [continued]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/

 

[nesp]

Thanks, sneez. So it appears that my question was first posed by Arrhenius in 1896 and remains a topic of current research, see "Arrhenius’ 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect in Context," with an abstract here
http://www.ambio.kva.se/1997/Nr1_97/feb97_2.html

Arrhenius' 1896 prediction from first principles was that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would warm the Earth by 5-6 °C. From what I understand current models predict a 1.5-4.5 °C.

I'll read more about that, thanks.

 

[Andre]

Just for the record, this was the fate of the mega post I prepared here.

The question posed is the main discussion item http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/debate.aspx?did=1 .

But there is no significant correlation between CO2 and temperature. Not in the ice coes, not in the hockeystick, not even now. It takes quite an effort to substantiate that but it's all in http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/debate.aspx?did=1 . Highly recommended for comparing the science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems that over 600 leading scientists and a world class panel says that you're wrong.

 

[Andre]

It seems that over 600 leading scientists and a world class panel says that you're wrong.

Fallacy: appeal to authority

How many handfuls of small boys are required to remark that emperor wears no new clothes?[/url]

None of those 600 leading scientists discovered a fatal failure in the interpretation of the ice cores, which has led to demonstrated false interpretations, http://www.aip.org/history/climate//rapid.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, I could ask the guy who is asking for money down by the freeway, but I choose to put my faith in the experts; and not unqualified internet debates among amateurs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By the way, those who are not experts are supposed to appeal to authority. That's why we have experts.

 

[Andre]

Ah, the emperor wears clothes.

Try these for a change:

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf
http://www.knmi.nl/~laatdej/2006joc1292.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MAP...tmp...16Z
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i03/abs/ef050276y.html

When experts keep telling that they are right because the models say so then they have abandoned the scientific method and hence rely on autority.

 

[sneez]

Well, there is no need for this layman heated discussions. When CFCs were the issue a protocol controling CFC was proposed. That was so much fought against and scientists payed by corporations were to find evidence that CFCs do not cause ozone hole and ozone depletition. Let's guess, evidence was found that CFCs do not cause ozone depletition and x other reasons were found. Now we know that CFC do cause ozone hole and all the mechanism, it was through heterogenos chemistry that was not known or considered before in the atm that this was confirmed. The protocol is in effect and there is ozone recovery.

Just a note from history how things usually happen.

The truth is that both sides are worthy investigating and no need yet to call for scientific dishonesty (in general for any of the supporters of either theory). This should be learning experience.

Ander i find your papers good reference points to other point of view.

 

[nesp]

<When experts keep telling that they are right because the models say so then they have abandoned the scientific method and hence rely on autority.>

Andre, I agree, and thanks for those links, that is the type of first principles paper I've been trying to find. As I commented earlier, sneez pointed me to other first principle papers that argue for anthropogenic warming. I can accept that different studies may conclude different results, based on their assumptions, data accuracy, etc. But I can't accept arguments based on blind reliance on experts, black box computer models, corporations, or politicians. Furthermore, I'm always suspicious when I see thousands of "experts" reproducing similar results, it smacks to me of stacking the deck by funding certain answers. If the science is good, a few studies are enough, then we should move to the next problem.

 

[sneez]

"If the science is good, a few studies are enough, then we should move to the next problem."

I understand your emotion, but its way too simplified. Science is historical and philosophical as much as political and at the last little experimental. Do not let intro books into science fool you. I also had my romantic views of science shattered after couple years of doing it.

If you belief that white light is composed of colors you are victim of what you call blind reliance. If you belief there is inverse square law of gravity the same, and i could continue for some time. (But they would close the thread, so let's proudly claim we belief all those things, and abhore "experts").

just making a point...that its not that easy and let experts be experts. Susan solomon who is on the review comitee is such a good scientist that none of us can approach her in life time. (figurativelly). She has level of science which all of us should be learning. Dont throw everyting into one bag. She contributed to geosciences as much and profoundly as many known main stream physicists.

 

[billiards]

With reference to the original post, there is no conclusive evidence that the observed global warming is caused by industrial anthropogenic gas releases. I am of the opinion that we have contributed to global warming, it is undeniable that we have raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is undeniable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This does not mean that we have caused global warming, it is possible that the Earth was heating up anyway! Perhaps we're just making it worse than it would otherwise have been?

Besides, it is not the CO2 itself which we should be most worried about. We must be concerned with the possible effects of the melting of the ice sheets, and the onset of positive feedback mechanisms that could trigger a large mass of greenhouse gases to be released.

 

[Andre]

The question is what effect has radiative gas anyway. Without greenhouse gasses, the atmosphere cannot exchange radiative energy. The key word is "exchange". Sure there is greenhouse effect, about 0.95K per doubling CO2 in radiative balance without any feedbacks, but there is also increased radiation out, as seen by the increased cooling of the stratosphere. Moreover (need to find the papers later) but satelite measurements reveal that IR with CO2 signature (freq spectrum) is mainly emitted from a cold source (around -55C) which suggest stratosphere, while water vapor signature has a much warmer source, suggesting troposphere. This would make the feedback idea a bit complicated.

Furthermore positive feedback, which is required to boost up the doubling temperature to 1.5 - 4.5 degrees or what is it, is never been proven yet disproven by several separate mechanisms.

Here is one:
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf

Here is another
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/epica5.GIF

the last glacial transition in the EPICA Dome C ice cores shows a clear lagging of the CO2 signal not influencing the leading isotope signal. This used to be the main straw of the empirical global warming positive feedback evidence until the high resoltion of todays proxies are telling us a completely different story. So this graph moves from positive evidence of global warming to refuting the mechanism of global warming due to the increase of greenhouse gas. But who wants to know that.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/mencken.htm

 

[sneez]

Andre, indeed CO2 has cooling effect middle atmos. but also a warming effect.

The rate of CO2 cooling is also more involved it depends on 1) kinetic temp, 2) CO2 abundance, 3) rate coeff for collisional deactivation of CO2(0,1,0), 4)
O(3P) number density.

The CO2 cooling rate is not the same in the strato and meso as it is in lower thermosphere. Different bands of CO2 have different effect.

There are many uncertainties which may introduce 50% error. Those are O(3P) concentration and rate coefitients co2->o.There is significant from solar near IR heating of CO2 through vib energy being thermalized by N2.

CO2 cooles atm at night generally BUT net heating can still result at cool high levels due to absorbtion of lower level radiation.

Clear and complete discussion of mechanism of cooling and heating by all molecules relevant is in the book : NON-LTE radiative transfer in the amtosphere by lopez-puertas.

The point is the more optically thick troposphere (in ir )the bigger the GH effect. CO2 is major contributor to that.

To be more complicated, there are ozone feedbacks to variations of CO2 and with that related dynamical phenomena which may reinforce CO2 proceses.
O3 is very important for radiative balance of atmos.

It would be foolish to argue about these things just from radiative perspective or just chemical or dynamical. Thats why its not so easy. It would be nice to say "all else remaining the same, doubling of CO2 has this and that effect". Well, its not that simple. The rates and effects we observe are due to all the interaction of all players. Thats why using those and leaving all else the same will not tell us much or it will be incomplete picture.

Yes, if we have laboratory atmosphere, we can, but in real one there is still more science needed to go both ways.

 

[nesp]

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]

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/Publications/PDF_Papers/M00037347.pdf


That about how much i know about this, which is very little...

 

[Andre]

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 modeled with modtran here

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

The idea is to change the Greenhouse gas concentrations note the difference in I_out and then change the ground T offset to match the original I_out. 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.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Kreutz_J__1_%5b2%5d.pdf

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.

In the language of dynamic nonlinea...o replicate such potential effects?[/QUOTE]

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 http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Kreutz_J__1_%5b2%5d.pdf (same link) of Giessen first

 

[nesp]

<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]

"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]

"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 http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/fortiespike.GIF were obtained in Ireland, Austria, Germany, India, Alaska and Scandinavia. Note that some values compare but not with the ice cores.

 

[sneez]

i c, thanx

 

[heusdens]

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]

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 http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/mencken.htm .

 

[sneez]

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 I am 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]

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 http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/ext-refs-new.pdf , 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/debate/debate.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]

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]

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]

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 theoretical 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, 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/refuting%20the%20Greenland%20paleo%20thermometer1.pdf
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refuting%20the%20Greenland%20paleo%20thermometer.pdf

 

[sneez]

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]

<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.