Richard Alley Explains CO2 and Climate: Deep Time to Present Day

American Geophysical Union ^ | Last Week | American Geophysical Union

[cogitator]

I found this on one of the blogs I read ( The Energy Collective). Richard Alley is a noted glaciologist, at Penn State, peripherally associated with Michael Mann. Feel free to ignore this if that bugs you. In the lecture, he explains how CO2 is linked to climate throughout paleohistory -- feel free to ignore that if it bugs you, too. The science is true if it bugs you or not. He pokes fun of climate change skeptics -- another reason to ignore this.

I.e., it will take people with a real interest in the subject, who don't care about the side issues, to watch this and gain a better understanding of the issue. If you aren't one of those people, don't bother.

I will not respond to any comments about this, directed to me or not. I'm presenting it for the benefit of FreeRepublic denizens who want to get in on the ground floor and understand the relationship between CO2 and climate.

The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Climate History

Part of this will be featured in my upcoming (still months away) blog.

[Marine_Uncle]

A big Semper Fi to you both. Like you my elder bro has been around for many years, a NMR, quantum physic’s chemist echo your statements. The bull shit being slung by some supposed “scientist” is beyond measure.

[sig226]

Make sure the blog excerpts the quotes from Dr. Alley when he says that he’s moderately sure of his theory because they haven’t found anything else that explains the data.

He also said he was “really sure” about the fossil record he cited as proof of the effect of carbon dioxide cycles on climate. He said that the fossil record shows it. Then he said that he can’t actually measure the fossil record precisely enough to see if it says what he says it proves.

The fallacies that I saw in the first few minutes were bare assertion, causal oversimplification, appeal to probability, argument from ignorance, and correlation / causation. Carbon dioxide is one potential cause for warming. There are others, even though they may not be known or understood. There was carbon dioxide and there was warming. What if something else caused it? Further, what is the correct temperature for the earth? It’s a false premise to even assume that we know what that number is based on our very limited experience.

Good old argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem, appeal to authority, and appeal to emotion get thrown in every time this is debated, and typically by its supporters. I’ll say it over and over again, all the scientists believe it, you’re not worth a response if you disagree, I know what I’m talking about.

Argument from silence is never a pretty thing. No, I can’t prove that AGW is false. That does not make it true.

[grey_whiskers]

He says he reads The Energy Collective.

This site is sponsored by Siemens.

Gee, no conflict of interest there, is it?

Here's some of what Siemens has to say about the site source:

"Siemens is pleased to announce that it is the enabling sponsor of The Energy Collective (http://theenergycollective.com), the Web’s leading community for energy policymakers, executives and activists who are committed to finding common-ground solutions to global energy and climate concerns. Launched in November 2007, The Energy Collective’s roster of contributors includes many of the most recognizable and influential bloggers, journalists and entrepreneurs active today. “One of the things that attracted us to The Energy Collective is its ‘big tent’ approach to energy and climate issues,” said Mark Derbacher, Vice President, Energy Communications, Siemens Energy Sector. “Its contributors represent the whole diverse spectrum of perspectives. Yes, they’re passionate advocates, but deeply pragmatic as well and focused on the kinds of technological and innovative solutions that Siemens can offer today.” The Energy Collective numbers among its contributors such energy luminaries as Professor Robert Stavins, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, leading sustainability journalist Marc Gunther, author and energy policy advocate Joe Romm, whose work NY Times columnist Tom Friedman called “indispensible,” and David Hone, Climate Change Advisor for Royal Dutch Shell."

So it's merely a front group for the multinational companies hoping to get rich off of our money by proposing "green" solutions to non-existent problems, and to be the favorite toadies of the new globalist regime.

Notice the prominent blurb assigned to the New York Times' Friedman.

Nice try, though.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

The science is true if it bugs you or not.

How would you know? You've admitted you're too stupid to get a degree in the field, so you cut-and-paste from shill and whore websites.

Incidentally, in keeping with best practices, will you go public with all your funding sources for your up-and-coming blog?

Cheers!

[machogirl]

“The science is true if it bugs you or not.”

Don’t agree, sorry.

[dila813]

I am a skeptic because I have this insane theory of solar heating.

Go a head and laugh at me, you wouldn’t be the first.

Since the Sun has entered a cooling phase, we will be seeing who is laughing in 10 years, no?

[goseminoles]

Are you dyslexic or can you not spell?

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[SandwicheGuy]

Without the data it’s just someone’s opinion and someone’s opinion isn’t a reason to dismantle our entire industrially dependent civilization.

Thank you for posting. That was the most coherent and cogent post I've read on global warming and is now my template.

[SandwicheGuy]

Are you dyslexic or can you not spell?

Aw man, the guy had a great post and your comment is this? How pedantic.

[SandwicheGuy]

There are some (including you two) really informed people on this thread who can make a complex subject understandable. Thanks for posting.

[NittanyLion]

I had Richard Alley for a class. I’m not speaking to the science, but on a personal level I can tell you that the dude’s a nutjob.

[Brugmansian]

I had Richard Alley for a class. I’m not speaking to the science, but on a personal level I can tell you that the dude’s a nutjob.

A minute into the video and my impression was he is mentally off. Is that a criteria for being involved in AGW? We have Alley, Al Gore , Rajendra Pachauri . . .

[goseminoles]

LOL!!

[bkepley]

http://www.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html

With few exceptions nobody suggested that the finds were a hoax until the very end.

[CottShop]

[[Are you dyslexic or can you not spell?]]

Neither- I have neurological problems that make my typing act liek I’m dyslexic, and I’m too mentally exhausted from health condition to really care to fix all my backerds-ly spelled words (My brain fumbles so many letters, and I post so often that it would be nightmare just goignhtrough and spellchecking everything- I just gave up doing so a long time ago- I know it’s a pain to read my posts- but mostly, I just post to vent- don’t really expect anyone to read my posts lol)

[CottShop]

[[The bull shit being slung by some supposed “scientist” is beyond measure.]]

What’s especially frustrating is that NOONE in govenrment is seriously putting a stop to this fraud, and world leaders all converged on copenhagen as though there was no controversy, and as though the world will simply beleive them IF they pass an accord or mandate since they are ‘scientists’, and apparently can’t be questioned- those who do call them to the carpet to prove their case are denigraded and maligned.

By all rights, the GOP should be launching massive investigations since things liek cap and trade are such a serious assault on our rights and finances, and will cripple htis nation. The mainstream media went absolutely Berzerk over Bernie Madoff (and rightfully so) but my gosh- this ‘man-caused’ global warming fraud is magnititudes more serious a fraud than Bernie comitted

[CottShop]

[[There was carbon dioxide and there was warming. What if something else caused it?]]

Somethign else DID cause the warming- the Sun- CO2 simply rose AFTER the warmign happened- just as it always has- even BEFORE the industrial age-

[[Further, what is the correct temperature for the earth?]]

Great question- there were periods throughout history (which the IPCC ‘scientists’ and the CRU ‘scientists’ sought to hide from the public) which were warmer than today, and which, accordign to ice core sampels, showed significant CO2 rises AFTER the warmign began (the CO2 rises didn’t happen until 800 years AFTER the warming began infact)

[sig226]

"Show me another 500 years of recorded data from standard monitoring stations around the world. Correlate the temperatures with the CO2 partial pressure of the atmosphere and I’ll believe in global warming."

It still wouldn't work. The system is too complex to allow for correlation to prove causation. It would be more convincing, but it still does not have a scientific experiment to prove it. That would require two identical suns and two identical planets. The experimenter would have to raise the carbon dioxide level on the planet in the experimental group and ensure that the level in the control group remained constant. Then every other difference would have to be simulated. So if a volcano explodes on one planet, that amount of heat, ash, and gas has to be released on the other planet.

This experiment will never happen.

[sig226]

The weathering theory has a problem. It was too late to go fishing for the carbon dioxide / temperature graphs last night, but here's one for the record:

Alley proposes that volcanic eruptions release the carbon dioxide, which increases the greenhouse effect and causes the tmperature to rise. So far, so good. CO₂ leads the temperature increase. But then the temperature falls, even though the CO₂ level is high and remians high for 15,000 years. The decline does not follow. This suggests that the absorbtion theory is wrong, and that temperature is not coupled with CO₂.