Climate Change: Modern Witch Hunts - Desmogblog.com

[Andre]

So whilst you amuse yourself by playing the persons instead of the ball, why not have another look at the ice age graph:

Remember this one? The big proof that CO2 caused the interglacials:

http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/images/thumb/3/39/300px-Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Ice_age

In a nutshell, the cause of those 100,000 years spikes (interglacials) is believed to be caused by the wobbles in the earth. However the forcing of those is very weak. So CO2 GHG effect was invented to boost the "warming" and indeed we see a tight correlation between the alleged paleothermometer of the "water"-isotopes (d18O and dD) and the CO2 concentration. And here is also the main booster of the global warming hype: "CO2 caused the Earth to come out of the ice ages".

Then it became apparent that CO2 lagged the isotope thermometers, slightly at first, no problem, this was also explained: "negative feedback", initial orbital forcing warming caused warming and increase of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is a strong greenhouse gas, boosting the warming as a negative feedback and hence lagging the isotope warming. But it's also clear that the lagging cannot be very big, a few years perhaps, not over an millenium as the current high resolution proxies clearly show:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/EPICA-CO2-LH-dD.GIF

I didn't spell it out on the first showing of this graph, for the viewers to realize it themselfs but we are looking at the most convincing refutal of the greenhouse gas hype. As CO2 lags isotope-temperature by more than a millenium it also follows the isotope temperature. When the CO2 is still rising for instance at 14,800 years, the temperature decides to drop, disdaining any notion of CO2 forcing. The CO2 follows some millenium later without a trace of a forcing character. Something similar happens at 12,200 years with the temps leveling off and CO2 following the leveling off another millenium later.

So the original trigger of the catastrophic climate hype now refutes the same. CO2 follows temperature and not the other way around. But what is the discussion about? Nothing but red herrings and hype. if you're against catastrophic greenhouse effect, you're a crook and with the departe of Inhofe another era of unfounded scaremongering demagoguery has free play

 

[Skyhunter]

So whilst you amuse yourself by playing the persons instead of the ball, why not have another look at the ice age graph:

I thought this thread was about witch hunts (witch=person) not futbol.

Remember this one? The big proof that CO2 caused the interglacials:

Where has any credible climate scientist ever offered what would be considered; "The big proof that CO₂ caused the interglacials:"

In a nutshell, the cause of those 100,000 years spikes (interglacials) is believed to be caused by the wobbles in the earth. However the forcing of those is very weak.

Good up to this point.

So CO2 GHG effect was invented

Now you lost me, I no longer trust what you are saying. You are setting up a strawman argument, which as we both know is a logical fallacy.

Here is the position that your "opponents" take. If you are going to argue against their position, at least present it fairly.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

 

[Andre]

I thought this thread was about witch hunts (witch=person) not futbol.

Well at the amazing speed you have others demonizing me, I thought it was wise to prove global warming wrong first before continuing exposing the hype.

Where has any credible climate scientist ever offered what would be considered; "The big proof that CO₂ caused the interglacials:"

Read up on your classics. Thats 1970-1980 consensus, when the hype was born and also the exact reason why the hype was born, converting from the new ice age hype. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm. But with a self sustaining hype nowadays, who needs a reason? So we can just deny it now.

Here is the position that your "opponents" take. If you are going to argue against their position, at least present it fairly.

Right:

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

Problem is that they switch of the amplifier at will and any of the abundant physics specialists here can tell you that this is not how interacting systems work. Let me visualize the problems here:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/EPICA-problem.GIF

Added the oceanic sea floor isotope temperature compilation "LR05" Benthic stack to confirm the early warming.

But If CO2 is going up, how can the "temperature" go down rather abruptly at the "problem"-areas without any gradual gradient which would be seen if the dropping temperature would indeed have to fight against the amplyfying warming of the CO2? This is where this reasoning shows to be invalid.

 

[Skyhunter]

Read up on your classics. Thats 1970-1980 consensus, when the hype was born and also the exact reason why the hype was born, converting from the new ice age hype. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm. But with a self sustaining hype nowadays, who needs a reason? So we can just deny it now.

If you insist on setting up strawman arguments there is no point in further discussion.

From your source

By the late 1970s, most scientists were convinced that orbital variations acted as a "pacemaker" to set the timing of ice ages.(43) Science magazine reported in 1978 that the evidence for the Milankovitch theory was now "convincing," and the theory "has recently gained widespread acceptance as a factor" in climate change.(44)

In climate science, where everything is subtle and complex, it is rare for an issue to be settled. By the late 1980s, it did seem to be an established fact that ice ages were timed by orbital variations. The chief question that remained in the minds of most scientists was what kind of feedbacks amplified the effect.

The problem is not so much with the data you provide, it is with your mischaracterization of the opposition. You are setting up strawman arguments, by attributing an easily discredited position to the "warmers" and then knocking it down.

Obviously the consensus opinion, from your own source, is that ice ages are triggered by orbital variations, not from CO₂.

The more important point to be made from all this studying of the ice cores is this: (also from your source)

The scientists who published these calculations always added a caveat. In the Antarctic record, atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 750,000 years had cycled between about 180 and 280 parts per million. The level in the late 20th century had now climbed above 370 and kept climbing. (The other main greenhouse gas, methane, was soaring even farther above any level seen in the long ice record.) Greenhouse warming and other human influences seemed strong enough to overwhelm any natural trend. We might not only cancel the next ice age, but launch our planet into an altogether new climate regime. The ice cores themselves gave convincing evidence of the threat, according to analyses published in the early 1990s. The "climate sensitivity" — the response of temperature to changes in carbon dioxide — could be measured for the last glacial maximum. The answer was in the same range that computer models were predicting for our future, raising confidence that the models were not far wrong.(53a)

What is happening to the atmosphere is unprecedented in the last 750,000 years. We are conducting a planet wide atmospheric experiment. I think you will agree, since you tend to discredit most of the scientific assertions, that we do not know enough to confidently predict the outcome of this experiment.

Should we just continue and hope for the best, based on the assurances of a few skeptical scientists, with curious ties to political think tanks funded by vested interests, that it won't be a problem. I say no. We need to stop the experiment before we trigger a reaction that no scientist has yet to even imagine.

 

[Andre]

If you insist on setting up strawman arguments there is no point in further discussion.

Better be a bit careful with those allegations; that those are abundant at your side of discussion, doesn't mean that they are commonplace at my side.

I said something about CO2 being the main cause of the glacial cycles. Perhaps I should have said: "main driving force" But look again:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

After 1988 =>after88

During the 1990s, further ice core measurements indicated that during past glacial periods, temperature changes had preceded CO2 changes by a few centuries. Was it necessary to give up the simple hypothesis that had attracted scientists ever since Tyndall in the 19th century — that changes in CO2 were a simple and direct cause of ice ages?

nuff said. Who needs fallacies with a closer approximation of reality on his side?

think you will agree, since you tend to discredit most of the scientific assertions, that we do not know enough to confidently predict the outcome of this experiment.
.

No, I know enough to know and to proof that nothing is what it looks like and if you indeed have followed my threads here and at UKww for the last three-four years you know that if we must scaremonger per sé, that the treats to the environment are rigorously different.

 

[Andrew Mason]

We are conducting a planet wide atmospheric experiment. I think you will agree, since you tend to discredit most of the scientific assertions, that we do not know enough to confidently predict the outcome of this experiment.

Should we just continue and hope for the best, based on the assurances of a few skeptical scientists, with curious ties to political think tanks funded by vested interests, that it won't be a problem. I say no. We need to stop the experiment before we trigger a reaction that no scientist has yet to even imagine.

This seems to me to be the real nub of the issue. We don't know what will happen, so why take such an enormous chance? It is not a whimsical chance - it is based on real evidence and real science. Besides, do we really think our present rate of consumption of fossil fuels can go on forever? Why not start now changing our dependency on fossil carbon?

I think we all can agree that scientists do not fully understand what the effects of green-house gas emissions will be. But we should all be able to agree that increased concentrations of CO2 and CH4 has an increased heat-trapping effect, which means that the temperature must rise in order for the Earth to reach thermal equilibrium with the incident (solar) radiation. This is just basic blackbody radiation physics.

If these emissions are combined with a period of high solar activity, the temperature rise will be greater. (If it is combined with period of low solar acitivity, the effect could be a slower rate of cooling). We don't know what the sun will do over the next 100 years. Are we going to simply hope that solar activity decreases? If I am approaching a blind curve and some scientist is urging me to drive in the oncoming lane, telling me that he is sure there is no other traffic on the road, I might be forgiven for not listening to him. There is no danger to the listening to the scientist who is urging me to keep to my lane, telling me that he is not sure whether there is oncoming traffic.

AM

 

[Skyhunter]

Better be a bit careful with those allegations; that those are abundant at your side of discussion, doesn't mean that they are commonplace at my side.

It was not a frivolous allegation. I could do a study but I will leave it where it is. I prefer to have a productive discourse.

I said something about CO2 being the main cause of the glacial cycles. Perhaps I should have said: "main driving force"

CO₂ is believed to be a main driving force in the network of feedback responses to the initial forcing of the Milankovitch cycles. This has not changed since 1970. How exactly CO₂ effects the climate during interglacial warming is not well understood, but the fact that it is a GHG and has a significant effect is accepted by almost all climate scientists.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

During the 1990s, further ice core measurements indicated that during past glacial periods, temperature changes had preceded CO2 changes by a few centuries. Was it necessary to give up the simple hypothesis that had attracted scientists ever since Tyndall in the 19th century — that changes in CO2 were a simple and direct cause of ice ages?

But that was not the consensus position, in fact there was more skepticism at that time than there is now. The science was and is still in it's infancy. Scientists did not know then, as they do not know now what mechanisms regulate the interglacial cycles. But scientists do recognize that CO₂ is a major component of warming during the interglacial periods.

For a little context; here is the next paragraph from your source.

A key point stood out. In the network of feedbacks that made up the climate system, CO2 was a main driving force. This did not prove by itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen in the 20th century. And it did not say how much warming the rise of CO2 might bring in the future. What was now beyond doubt was that the greenhouse effect had to be taken very seriously indeed. Joining the chorus were analyses of ancient climates, using geological data entirely independent of the computer models. They found a "climate sensitivity"— the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level — in the same range as computer models were predicting for future greenhouse warming. The authors concluded that continued emissions would produce a temperature rise of several degrees during the coming century, "a warming unprecedented in the past million years, and... much faster than previously experienced by natural ecosystems..."(55)

No, I know enough to know and to proof that nothing is what it looks like and if you indeed have followed my threads here and at UKww for the last three-four years you know that if we must scaremonger per sé, that the treats to the environment are rigorously different.

OK. Since you are so learned and knowledgeable...

What causes the ice ages and interglacials?

 

[Andre]

But scientists do recognize that CO₂ is a major component of warming during the interglacial periods.

Certainly, but as an effect, a system output, not as a cause.

What causes the ice ages and interglacials?

Apparantly you have not read all my threads.

However, a better question would be: what causes the variation in the proxies. The "ice age" is a number of conclusions in an iterative deductive process. If you go wrong in some place, you're bound to end up in a completely different place. For instance, if you were to observe South Greenland way below the Arctic circle, you'd have to conclude that we are still in an ice age. Looking at a more distant scale, the late Pleistocene, saw three major glacial advances and retreats completely out of phase with the ice cores 100ka cycle. When the ice cores declared the world to be extremely cold, palynological proxies showed many areas to be warmer than today. in a word, it's a mess.

The major faux pass was made in 1997 http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/jouzeletal97.GIF , when the ice core isotopes were declared to be temperature proxies. In reality they are seasonal precipitation indicators. When you take it from there, there seems to be a better fitting solution for many more, if not most/all(?), anomalies which would include the behavior of CO2. It's all in the Earth threads. But who am I?

 

[Andre]

Furthermore I guess that there is light at the horizon. The witch hunt may be dragging to an end when scaremongering get's critized like this:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061213/20061213_03.html

That Didn't Take Long -- Misrepresenting Hurricane Science

Roger Pielke Jr.,

Now that the WMO has issued a consensus statement on the state of climate science, scientists should be careful in how they characterize the overall state of the science. I have complete respect for scientists who have strong views on what the data, models, and theory shows, and fully expect them to make their case to their colleagues and others. However, scientists also should be careful not to represent their own views as in fact representing a consensus of the community when they do not, especially when making arguments for political action.

Here is an example of a scientist involved in the hurricane debate, Michael Mann of Penn State, making a demonstrably incorrect statement about the state of understanding of hurricanes and climate change six days after the WMO issued its consensus statement on tropical cyclones and climate change:

"It is the increasingly widespread belief by researchers that increasing sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are leading to increases in various measures of Hurricane activity over time, both globally, and for the tropical North Atlantic region whose storms influence the Gulf coast and East Coast of the U.S.."

Here is what the WMO says:

"The possibility that greenhouse gas induced global warming may have already caused a substantial increase in some tropical cyclone indices has been raised (e.g. Mann and Emanuel, 2006), but no consensus has been reached on this issue."

And on the existence of trends in storm intensity the WMO says:

"This is still hotly debated area for which we can provide no definitive conclusion."

This is a situation that Dr. Mann should understand well, as he has argued strongly for adherence to scientific consensus on his weblog, RealClimate. Dr. Mann's characterization about what researchers increasingly believe about hurricanes and climate change is not backed up by what the researchers themselves are saying. Why does this matter? Because Dr. Mann is using his characterization of the community's views on hurricanes and climate change as a basis for arguing for particular policy actions. As Dr. Mann writes:

"We are likely to see only increased warming and increased Hurricane activity, if we continue to increase atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations through fossil fuel burning."

To be clear -- I take no issue with Dr. Mann making an argument that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will reduce hurricane intensity. That is what he believes, and as a scientist conducting research in this area he is someone we should listen to. But when he characterizes the community's views as "widespread" and "increasingly" supporting his perspective, he has engaged in a mischaracterization. Mischaracterizations of science, by themselves, are perhaps of only scholarly interest. But when the mischaracterizations are used as tools of political advocacy they are no longer simply mischaracterizations of science, but instead, they are bad policy arguments.

For scientists wanting to use the notion of consensus as a tool of political advocacy, they risk being perceived as inconsistent when their actions change when they are the ones on the outside looking in.

 

[Skyhunter]

Furthermore I guess that there is light at the horizon. The witch hunt may be dragging to an end when scaremongering get's critized like this:

Frontiers of Freedom a really unbiased and scientific source.

BTW His argument is a strawman. Mann did not claim to represent the consensus position.

His statement was:

"It is the increasingly widespread belief by researchers that increasing sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are leading to increases in various measures of Hurricane activity over time, both globally, and for the tropical North Atlantic region whose storms influence the Gulf coast and East Coast of the U.S.."

If you google 'sea surface temperatures hurricanes', you will find numerous studies that support his assertion.

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050915_more_hurricanes.html

As a hurricane builds up energy, it feeds off heat from the water. As water heats up, it turns into water vapor. As water vapor rises, it cools, condenses into rain, and releases heat that fuels the hurricane. The higher the vapor rises, the more heat is released, and the more intense the storm.

http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/globalimpact/TC/Atlantic/sst.html

There is a high correlation with the local sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, which are known to influence the hurricane activity (Gray 1984).

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002900/a002907/index.html

The temperature of the world's ocean surface provides a clear indication of the regions where hurricanes and typhoons form, since they can only form when the sea surface temperature exceeds 82 degrees F (27.8 degrees C).

So IMO it is Roger Pielke Jr. that is doing the witch hunting here.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is another perspective on the GW "debate".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKJ2fu_Gluo&NR

[edit] Here is the http://www.luntzspeak.com/graphics/LuntzResearch.Memo.pdf

 

[Andre]

Would this http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml perhaps?

Table 6, which lists hurricanes by decades since 1851, shows that during the forty year period 1961 2000 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply! Based on 1901 1960 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during the period 1961 2000 was 75 and 28, respectively. But, in fact, only 55 (or 74%) of the expected number of hurricanes struck the U.S. with only 20 major hurricanes or 71% of that expected number. Even the very active late 1990s showed below average landfall frequencies. It could be noted that of the most recent four decades, only the 70's and 80's were significantly below normal in terms of overall tropical cyclone activity.

 

[Skyhunter]

I fail to see what the number of hurricanes making landfal in the US has to do with Mann's statement.

This is a perfect example of cherry picking and mis-representing.

Less hurricanes hit the US, so that must mean that the Earth is cooling right?

Give me a break. You can't take a local issue and use it as evidence of a global trend.

Here is a better and more relevant study.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091502234.html

According to data gathered by researchers at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the number of major Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, even though the total number of hurricanes, including weaker ones, has dropped since the 1990s. Katrina was a Category 4 storm when it made landfall.

 

[Andre]

I fail to see what the number of hurricanes making landfal in the US has to do with Mann's statement.

obviously the hurricanes not making landfall may very well have not been observed at all before the space era hence attempting to count all hurricanes is biased that way.

This is a perfect example of cherry picking and mis-representing.p

I wonder why falsifying evidence is cherry picking and misrepresenting science.

Less hurricanes hit the US, so that must mean that the Earth is cooling right?

Give me a break. You can't take a local issue and use it as evidence of a global trend.

considering that I only presented the paper we see here the fallacy known as the straw man.

A few more links:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=856
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=860
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=861

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/p...olicy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

And the witch hunt factor:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=50

Quoting from the Economist article:

For example, when Kevin Trenberth, head of the IPCC’s panel on hurricanes, recently suggested that there exists a link between climate change and the wave of powerful hurricanes last year, he was immediately challenged. Christopher Landsea, a hurricane expert at America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC panel, arguing that Dr Trenberth’s comments went beyond what the peer-reviewed science could justify. He wrote a public letter complaining that: “because of Dr Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.” Dr Trenberth retorts that “politics is very strong in what is going on, but it is all coming from Landsea and colleagues. He is linked to the sceptics.”

Translation from Weasel to English: "Dr Landsea is a heretic and is to be shunned with all the other infidels"

 

[Skyhunter]

obviously the hurricanes not making landfall may very well have not been observed at all before the space era hence attempting to count all hurricanes is biased that way.

Really? I guess there was not much ship traffic in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico either. I suppose a few Category 1's might have avoided detection, but seriously, do you really think a Cat 5 could go undetected?

I wonder why falsifying evidence is cherry picking and misrepresenting science.

Falsifying evidence? Who was falsifying evidence?

considering that I only presented the paper we see here the fallacy known as the straw man.

Actually I would call that sarcasm, not a strawman argument. Yes, you only presented the paper, but what point were you trying to make? Your argument was implied, so I just sarcastically spelled it out.

You quoted an article off a fundamentalist website implying that the World Meteorological Organization was critical of Mann's statement about higher sea surface temperatures being linked to increased hurricane activity. When I pointed out how ridiculous the article was, and demonstrated that it was a strawman, you then posted a chart on the number hurricanes making landfall in the US. A completely unrelated argument. What is known as a "Red Herring".

Now you expect me to read a bunch of garbage from the witch hunter McIntyre's blog. I don't think so.

Warmer sea surface temperatures are linked to the strength and duration of hurricanes. That is Manns assertion and I concur. I linked three studies that provide evidence of that. All you have done is dance in circles. If you believe SST's have no relationship to hurricane duration and intensity, provide some evidence or concede the point.

 

[Andre]

Now you expect me to read a bunch of garbage from the witch hunter McIntyre's blog. I don't think so.

Most grateful for conceding the bias and proving my point. Two nice fallacies in one sentence. McIntyre has been declared a crook because he succeeded in falsifying the hockeystick and crooks should be ignored. The basic ad honimem

The process of demonizing him is typical for the witch hunt. So why not browse climateaudit and realclimate for ad hominems and count the totals. Unfortunately, you will find one single occasion where Steve went wrong but that could be understandable since there is not one blog in realclimate pertaining the hockeystick, which is not deluding him. Consequently, the silly accusation of him be a witch hunter is the tu quoque variation.

Warmer sea surface temperatures are linked to the strength and duration of hurricanes.

No doubt about it but the correlation between SST's and CO2 is non existent.

 

[Skyhunter]

So why not browse climateaudit and realclimate for ad hominems and count the totals.

Climate Audit:

Didn't need to look very far. Here is the headline.

Gore has gotten a little stout over the years and a little jowly, as though he was subconsciously morphing into a shape more suitable to lead a penguin army.

No doubt about it but the correlation between SST's and CO2 is non existent.

That is your opinion not the consensus position.

 

[Andre]

No doubt about it but the correlation between SST's and CO2 is non existent.

That is your opinion not the consensus position.

Nice spinning, anyway do indicate where exactly it reads that the long term SST correlates with CO2. Shall we calculate the r2?

 

[Skyhunter]

Nice spinning

You are the one dancing in circles.

Mann said

"It is the increasingly widespread belief by researchers that increasing sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are leading to increases in various measures of Hurricane activity over time, both globally, and for the tropical North Atlantic region whose storms influence the Gulf coast and East Coast of the U.S.."

You and Roger Pielke Jr. are the ones constructing the strawman arguments.


Here is the latest on the PETM

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/G...rojected_By_Ancient_Carbon_Emissions_999.html

"If ancient methane 'burps' really occurred, as many believe," Caldeira said, "a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would warm the Earth by over 10 F (5.6 C). If that's what happened, we could be in for a mighty toasty future."

Human CO₂ emissions are overwhelming all other climate forcings. The body of evidence supports this assertion. The warming of the last three decades is unprecedented in the last 750,000 years. You have to go back 55 milllion years before we see anything similar. And the cause then was carbon.

"By examining fossils and ancient sediments on the sea floor, we can see that something very unusual happened to Earth's carbon cycle," Caldeira continued. "At the same time the climate near the North Pole became like Miami. We can tell it didn't take all that much carbon to make this change in climate."

So compute and deny all you want.

 

[Andre]

Nice spinning again

Mann also wrote:

"We are likely to see only increased warming and increased Hurricane activity, if we continue to increase atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations through fossil fuel burning."

In my English textbook "if" is used to indicate causality. So Mann explicitely states here that more fossil fuel burning causes more greenhouse gas (CO2) which causes increased Hurricane activity.

We have agreed that hurricanes depend on high sea surface temperatures and we have in that study sea surface temperature have behaved chaotically in the last century, and cannot be correlated to the concentrations of greenhouse gasses. We have also seen that hurricane intensity and landfall has basically decreased in the same period. So there is no indication whatsoever that justifies the claim that more greenhouse gasses cause increased Hurricane activity.

A second element in forming hurricanes is atmospheric conditions, most notably a strong vertical lapse rate. If more greenhouse gasses would mean more absorption of IR in the atmosphere then that would cause more atmospheric warming, which would decrease the lapse rate, which would decrease hurricane activity.

Whilst it is an hominem to point at a person discussing personal greedy motives, agendas etc it is not an ad hominem to point out that a person has demonstrated lack of trustworthiness on related subjects.

So it is an ad honimem to suggest that the owner of that http://www.desmogblog.com/national-posts-corcoran-pops-his-cork (CO2 emission allowances). That's just as lame as the demonizing the skeptics with the deluge of oil company fallacies.

But is not an ad hominem to challenge Manns trustworthiness by pointing out that with the hockeystick, he has already demonstrated having his own standards of between being effective, and being honest whilst dreaming up scary scenarios

 

[Andre]

Here is the latest on the PETM

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/G...rojected_By_Ancient_Carbon_Emissions_999.html

Human CO₂ emissions are overwhelming all other climate forcings. The body of evidence supports this assertion. The warming of the last three decades is unprecedented in the last 750,000 years. You have to go back 55 milllion years before we see anything similar. And the cause then was carbon.

The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum was something totally different. I'll open a thread in the Earth files about that.

 

[Skyhunter]

Nice spinning again

Mann also wrote:

"We are likely to see only increased warming and increased Hurricane activity, if we continue to increase atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations through fossil fuel burning."

In my English textbook "if" is used to indicate causality. So Mann explicitely states here that more fossil fuel burning causes more greenhouse gas (CO2) which causes increased Hurricane activity.

My mistake I didn't realize there were two separate quotes.

We have agreed that hurricanes depend on high sea surface temperatures and we have in that study sea surface temperature have behaved chaotically in the last century, and cannot be correlated to the concentrations of greenhouse gasses. We have also seen that hurricane intensity and landfall has basically decreased in the same period. So there is no indication whatsoever that justifies the claim that more greenhouse gasses cause increased Hurricane activity.

SST's affect the strength and duration of hurricanes. SST needs to be 82F for hurricanes to form. Hurricanes intensity and duration has increased in the last 35 years. CO₂ does contribute to global warming and is therefore a factor in increased hurricane activity.

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050915_more_hurricanes.html

The number of severe hurricanes has doubled worldwide even though the total number of hurricanes has dropped over the last 35 years, a new study finds.

A second element in forming hurricanes is atmospheric conditions, most notably a strong vertical lapse rate. If more greenhouse gasses would mean more absorption of IR in the atmosphere then that would cause more atmospheric warming, which would decrease the lapse rate, which would decrease hurricane activity.

Another factor is high altitude wind shear. I would postulate that both of these factors, lapse rate and wind shear, are significant factors in the decrease in the number of hurricanes, while increased SST is the major factor for increased intensity and duration.

Whilst it is an hominem to point at a person discussing personal greedy motives, agendas etc it is not an ad hominem to point out that a person has demonstrated lack of trustworthiness on related subjects.

So who has demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness? MBH98 has not, contrary to your belief the been debunked. As I am sure we will see when the IPCC AR/₄ is released in February 2007.

So it is an ad honimem to suggest that the owner of that http://www.desmogblog.com/national-posts-corcoran-pops-his-cork (CO2 emission allowances). That's just as lame as the demonizing the skeptics with the deluge of oil company fallacies.

When someone tells a bald faced lie, it is not ad hominem to call them a liar. It is a statement of fact. Fred Singer is a liar.

[edit]

I would not characterize NETeller as being "desperate".

CARBON trading specialists joined the rebound in small-cap stocks after Germany’s decision to recall excess permits sent carbon prices higher.

It seems to me that the idea is catching on so well that more and more companies are reducing their emissions thereby lowering the demand. I see that as a good thing.
[/edit]

But is not an ad hominem to challenge Manns trustworthiness by pointing out that with the hockeystick, he has already demonstrated having his own standards of between being effective, and being honest whilst dreaming up scary scenarios

But that link has absolutely nothing to do with Mann. Viscount Monckton, just like Stephen Schnieder, has engaged in media hype and distorting of science. However I do not lump him into the same category as Mr. Lindzen.

 

[Andre]

Perhaps http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/hurricanes1.pdf can enlighten us somewhat although I think that the job of the demonizers of the sceptics is getting increasingly difficult, especially when AR4 is out.

 

[Skyhunter]

Perhaps http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/hurricanes1.pdf can enlighten us somewhat although I think that the job of the demonizers of the sceptics is getting increasingly difficult, especially when AR4 is out.

Thanks for the link. I found it quite informative. Professor Gray seems honest in his assertions and I respect his opinion.

However it is just an opinion with only his experience and stature to back it up. I might point out that he focused on the Atlantic basin, and not the entire globe when citing statistics for hurricane intensity. He also relied on hurricanes making landfall in the US.

The other point that I find disturbing is his assumption that in 1933, with the robust shipping trade in the Atlantic, that 7 hurricanes were undetected. My impression is that he is drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence and erroneous assumptions.

Here is a better summary with links to many recent studies that show his opinion to be somewhat lacking.

In total, at least four studies, two based entirely on analyses of observations, and the other two based on climate model simulations, independently come to the conclusion that warming tropical Atlantic and Pacific SSTs cannot be purely attributed to any natural oscillation. These studies do not conclusively show a hurricane/global warming link, let alone determine what it's magnitude might be, but they do strengthen one pillar of that linkage.

There is still a robust debate on this issue, but clearly these studies support Mann's assertion that human-induced GW is a possible/probable cause.

[edit]
One more point, the fact that the stratosphere is cooling is evidence that the troposphere is absorbing IR. A clear sign of the greenhouse effect.
[/edit]

 

[Andre]

Thanks for the link. I found it quite informative. Professor Gray seems honest in his assertions and I respect his opinion.

Would it even be remotely possible that most, if not, all climate sceptics are honest and skillfull and have assertions which deserves to be respected, if it wasn't for the remorseless Exxon-hatred campaign?

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

The other point that I find disturbing is his assumption that in 1933, with the robust shipping trade in the Atlantic, that 7 hurricanes were undetected.

Undetected is one, unreported is another. Perhaps the single ship that encountered the hurricane didn't make it. There is no way of knowing the exact count of hurricanes prior to the satellites and relying on that count is most definitely giving an increase bias due to a improved detection mechanism.

Here is a better summary...There is still a robust debate on this issue, but clearly these studies support Mann's assertion that human-induced GW is a possible/probable cause.

That would imply that there must be a correlation between SST and CO2 which isn't there. Because general SST 's have risen the last three decades and so did CO2 isn't enough because the first three decades of the former century the situation was reversed. Appararent rising of CO2 with a significant drop of the SST's. SST's are dropping right now with rising CO2

Moreover the mechanism of heat transfer or IR with water is doubtful although RC has spun one somewhere. The IR penetration depth in water is some 15 micron, therefore it's just as likely that increased IR is increasing the evaporation rate, with the agitated water molecules directly at the first layer of the surface, which removes the added heat immediately. This is about the same as trying to heat water with hot air. You can test the effectiveness easily, just jot down how many weeks it takes to warm a jar of water one degree with a hair dryer. Why is a deep ocean so dark? Because visible light is completely absorpted, converting it to heat. Variation in clouds is likely to be the main >90% mechanism regulating the amount of heat that goes into the oceans, however the main >90% mechanism regulating SST's is the ocean currents up- and down wellings, redistributing heat.

the fact that the stratosphere is cooling is evidence that the troposphere is absorbing IR. A clear sign of the greenhouse effect.

There is little doubt that there is greenhouse effect, however due to saturation at the surface with high concentrations of water vapour, concentration changes have little effect in the lower troposphere. The stratosphere is much more near vacuum with a very low density of greenhouse gasses and nowhere near saturation. That has changed recently which an exponential growth of aviation pumping gigatonnes of water vapor and CO2 into the tropopause, just below the stratosphere. Little surprise that this has some effect on the radiation balance but that doesn't mean that we're heading to a climate disaster that we could have prevented.

 

[Skyhunter]

Would it even be remotely possible that most, if not, all climate sceptics are honest and skillfull and have assertions which deserves to be respected, if it wasn't for the remorseless Exxon-hatred campaign?

I would say many climate skeptics are honest, most are skillful, some have assertions that deserve respect, and some are contributing greatly to the body of geophysical knowledge. The reason I read your threads, is so that I can discover and separate out what is real science and what is junk.

This whole political debate was started by corporations, whose primary existence, by law, is to make a profit. Deciding that profits are just fine the way things are they did what corporations always do, they looked at the bottom line. They decided it was in the interest of profit to spend money to fight Kyoto. The Exxon Memo is real, it is no secret that Exxon funded political think tanks as part of it's strategy to fight Kyoto.

The result of this strategy to spread disinformation, was to obscure the real scientific debate. I want to know both arguments but I grew weary of all the junk science obscuring the minority opinion.

Then I found you. Debating with you has helped me get through the fog and see the landscape a little more clearly. I hope you enjoy these exchanges as much as I do.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

Monckton is not even American, why is he so concerned about Exxon's right to free speech.

IMO if you have no habeas corpus, you are not a person. Corporations are not persons, they should not automatically be given the same rights as persons.

Undetected is one, unreported is another. Perhaps the single ship that encountered the hurricane didn't make it. There is no way of knowing the exact count of hurricanes prior to the satellites and relying on that count is most definitely giving an increase bias due to a improved detection mechanism.

That would imply that there must be a correlation between SST and CO2 which isn't there. Because general SST 's have risen the last three decades and so did CO2 isn't enough because the first three decades of the former century the situation was reversed. Appararent rising of CO2 with a significant drop of the SST's. SST's are dropping right now with rising CO2

NOAA is a good place to find somewhat intelligent debate. (I found Pielke's economic argument to be somewhat off topic and mostly irrelevant.)

Moreover the mechanism of heat transfer or IR with water is doubtful although RC has spun one somewhere. The IR penetration depth in water is some 15 micron, therefore it's just as likely that increased IR is increasing the evaporation rate, with the agitated water molecules directly at the first layer of the surface, which removes the added heat immediately. This is about the same as trying to heat water with hot air. You can test the effectiveness easily, just jot down how many weeks it takes to warm a jar of water one degree with a hair dryer. Why is a deep ocean so dark? Because visible light is completely absorpted, converting it to heat. Variation in clouds is likely to be the main >90% mechanism regulating the amount of heat that goes into the oceans, however the main >90% mechanism regulating SST's is the ocean currents up- and down wellings, redistributing heat.

I agree with most of this. I find your hair dryer experiment to be meaningless hyperbole. Air is not a good conductor, but it is a good insulator. So to only emphasize lack of conductivity and ignore it's ability to insulate is distorting the affect of a warmer atmosphere and it's relationship to the ocean temperatures.

The biggest contributor to ocean thermodynamics is convection. Ocean currents, upwellings, sinkings, salinity's, and melting ice have an overwhelming influence on ocean temperatures. But to ignore or dismiss the significance of the thermal relationship of the atmosphere is reckless.

There is little doubt that there is greenhouse effect, however due to saturation at the surface with high concentrations of water vapour, concentration changes have little effect in the lower troposphere. The stratosphere is much more near vacuum with a very low density of greenhouse gasses and nowhere near saturation. That has changed recently which an exponential growth of aviation pumping gigatonnes of water vapor and CO2 into the tropopause, just below the stratosphere. Little surprise that this has some effect on the radiation balance but that doesn't mean that we're heading to a climate disaster that we could have prevented.

Aviation doesn't pump water vapor into the atmosphere, it does pump aerosols, and produce the famous contrails, but I have seen no credible study suggesting that airplanes are causing the stratospheric cooling.

There is brief study however, after 9/11 when all commercial air traffic was grounded for three days.

During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.

I would like to note also that most air traffic is over land, so whatever effect it has would be greater over land than at sea. If the land is being kept cooler by our aviation industry, and I am not drawing any conclusions, but if this is the case then the GHG could be being significantly underestimated.

So we may be in for a lot warmer world as we reduce air pollution. Not a llikely scenario in the immediate future.

 

[Andre]

But to ignore or dismiss the significance of the thermal relationship of the atmosphere is reckless.

It's a matter of quantities. Seeing the specific heat capacity of water and air, transfer (conduction) of heat of the air to water is infitinisimal small. Seeinfg the lack of penetration capacity of IR the transfer of IR energy to water is minimum. Visible light penetrates water a few 100 feet and transfers the radiation heat to energy. That's your heater of water. I gestimate >90%. Therefore when the IR radiation is increased, the atmosphere heats up slightly, transfer of that energy to the ocean is probably two orders of magnitude less. A very little part of a possible minimum increase gets some three-four orders of magnitudes less.

Aviation doesn't pump water vapor into the atmosphere.

Never did physics, did you? Suppose that fuel is something like: C_nH_2n Just a rough guess, then the chemical reaction of fuel burning is highly simplified:

C_nH_2n + 3O_2n -> nCO₂ + nH₂O

Hence the fossil fuel burning also contributes considerably to the sea level rising by directly producing water.

I would like to note also that most air traffic is over land, so whatever effect it has would be greater over land than at sea.

Not where I live, Most planes are over the Atlantic and most of them are over the northern hemisphere, many pass the North pole between China/ Japan and the US/Europe. Now would it be an idea to check in which grids the most changes are?

 

[Skyhunter]

It's a matter of quantities. Seeing the specific heat capacity of water and air, transfer (conduction) of heat of the air to water is infitinisimal small. Seeinfg the lack of penetration capacity of IR the transfer of IR energy to water is minimum. Visible light penetrates water a few 100 feet and transfers the radiation heat to energy. That's your heater of water. I gestimate >90%. Therefore when the IR radiation is increased, the atmosphere heats up slightly, transfer of that energy to the ocean is probably two orders of magnitude less. A very little part of a possible minimum increase gets some three-four orders of magnitudes less.

It would seem to me it is more than simple matter of quantities. Transference is also important. A warmer atmosphere will slow the rate that the ocean cools overnight.

Never did physics, did you? Suppose that fuel is something like: C_nH_2n Just a rough guess, then the chemical reaction of fuel burning is highly simplified:

C_nH_2n + 3O_2n -> nCO₂ + nH₂O

Hence the fossil fuel burning also contributes considerably to the sea level rising by directly producing water.

[edit]The rising sea levels thing sounds like an alarmist argument. [/edit]

I don't remember most of what I learned in high school. But why do we need to suppose?

Here is the IPCC database on fuel properties

Water is a significant emmission. But is it in the gigatons? And if it is, at what rate?

Not where I live, Most planes are over the Atlantic and most of them are over the northern hemisphere, many pass the North pole between China/ Japan and the US/Europe. Now would it be an idea to check in which grids the most changes are?

Absolutely, I think this is a good idea. Although perhaps more suited to the Earth forum.