Skip to comments.C4ís debate on global warming boils over
Posted on 03/21/2007 7:56:56 AM PDT by cogitator
click here to read article
Diurnal readings are in what range at sites other than Mauna Loa and how many actual sampling sites are there and what are their locations?
Is it live or is it Memorex?
I'll see you one doughnut.
Why does every cure for pollution or destruction of resources always come down to, "Turn off the Lights?"
Appreciate the conversation though....
It's the Igloo effect.
Clearly indicating the real cause behind GorebullWarming trends:
Well worth the read.
Gotta start somewhere!
Regarding your other posts in this thread; not sure what you mean by the Memorex question or your offer of a doughnut -- I'll make mine glazed with maple creme. Regarding Mauna Loa, they make daily measurements but amalgamate them into monthly averages; an article I found indicates that they do (easily) detect caldera degassing and QC those measurements out of the data set. As for other places, I'm sure it's being done (the World Ocean Circulation Experiment has done thousands of shipboard measurements to quantify and map the spatial and temporal variability of air-sea CO2 flux), but I can't point you to sources. Mauna Loa is the long-term reference record.
>>>That's BS, Yeah we now have more environmental regulations since then, but China, India, Brazil, etc. do not, and back then those said countries were not significantly industrialized as they are today. And because of those countries there's more of a net pollution today then back then.<<<
Very good point. Now we can sit back and watch as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" eventually "Swiftboats" the phony Algore movie ("A Convenient Lie", I believe it is called).
Well I'll be darned! The whole thing was caused by all that hot air about apartheid!
Now we're back to having all our eggs in one basket.
You said that you are editing and synopsizing what you read which is another way to say that you are not a source of the material you post.
The Memorex reference is to the commercial that used to run about fidelity to the original on recording tape; I see a link.
But then, I am often cryptic.
There's an old saying that sums up a person's certainty where he offers to bet a dollar to a doughnut; I just turned it around.
You know that you are only as certain as your weighted evidence and we have discussed the reasonable measures we could take as a society without causing harm before; but you also must recognize that the passion of the true believers will brook no resistance and they must strike while the "iron is hot," so can't we allow at least some volleying here even if it does go out of "bounds" now and then?
Where are the other sites?
How many are there?
I can't find a list on the Net.
I wish people would just step back and think about all this. Have you ever been on an airplane going cross-country or international and spent any real time looking out the window? Do you realize how unbelievably *big* this planet is, and how small we are compared to it? Aside from being scientifically bankrupt, the idea that anything we're emitting is changing the climate is simply preposterous. The world's just too big for that.
Stopping "global warming", if it exists, is about as realistic as stopping continental drift. [stole that line]
If "All M are things F" and "Some M are things U", one recognises the first proposition being A type and the second being I type. These propropositions taken together as major and minor premisis of a categorical syllogism, the only unconditionally valid conclusion would be the proposition:
"some things U are F" (comprising an argument having the form AII-3).
It makes no difference if the second proposition is converted to "some things U are M" (a valid conversion of an I type proposition), for the only proposition that would be unconditionally valid for the conlusion of the enthymeme would also be "some things U are F" (this argument would have the form AII-1).
NZerFromHK's field of studies for his Masters degree was statistics. In his reply (post #7) to Uncle Ike, he said:
"[while] doing a statistical analysis of RF-range EMF and its effects on human health. [I realized] You can produce a mathematical model that "proves" the existence of harmful effects, but some critical foundations of the model itself is based on numerous assumptions that may not have any scientific basis at all."That was in response to:
"whether or not climate change can be wholly attributed to human factors, it makes strong economic and environmental sense to treat it as human-caused and take action now. "Uncle Ike's sentiments are absolutely true, in that sophistry is a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"
Sophistry at its finest.....
The conclusion to the statement that Uncle Ike cites is dependenent upon several intertwined arguments (all being ultimately fallacious).
The first fallacy comitted being an appeal to emotion (Red Herring). One distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs, but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. The fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it, and the fact that we fear something being true is no reason to think it false; but the desire for something is often a good reason to pursue it, and fear of something else a good reason to flee. Nevetheless, even when appeals to emotion aim at motivating us, there is still a way that they may fail to be rational, namely, when what we are being persuaded to do has insufficient connection with what is arousing our emotion. It is my contention the appeal to emotion is fallacious because Argumentum ad Metum (aka Appeal to Fear) is being used.
The argument also makes the fallacious Argumentum ad Consequentiam. And is of the form:
(Belief in) GW leads to bad consequences.
(Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the truth of GW.)
Therefore, GW is true.
Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences (or vice versa) is often an irrelevancy. Since the irrelevancy of belief to truth-value is intuitively obvious, it is often suppressed in fallacious Arguments to the Consequences. However, one can tell that the fallacy is being committed because the supposed consequences do not follow from the proposition itself, but only from belief in it.
There are two types of cogent argument with which this fallacy is easily confused:
Psychologically, "wishful thinking" is believing something because of a desire - "wish" - that it be true. As a logical fallacy, Wishful Thinking is an argument whose premiss expresses a desire for the conclusion to be true. Of course, this type of thinking seldom takes the explicit form of an argument from a premiss about one's belief to the conclusion that one's wish is true. Such bald wishful thinking would be patently fallacious even to the wishful thinker. Rather, wishful thinking usually takes the form of a bias towards the belief in P, which leads to the overestimating of the weight of evidence in favor of P, as well as the underestimating of the weight against. A pragmatic or prudential defense of wishful thinking is based on the claim that one stands to gain from such belief, and that this is a sufficient reason to believe. If there is pragmatic value in believing a truth, but no evidence for it, then the only way that one can gain that pragmatic value is by a "leap of faith".
The salient point here is that pragmatic/prudential defense to Wishful Thinking is that its defense does not make the claim that the statement believed on faith will actually be true, or is even likely to be true. Rather the claim is that one can gain in some way by believing something that may be false for all that. While this may well be true, it is neither a logical nor epistemological defense of wishful thinking, unless one equates pragmatic value with truth.
Suppose I offer a prize of a million dollars to anyone who believes that pigs have wings. There is no doubt that, if you can only force yourself to do so, you stand to gain from believing this. However, the fact that you win a million dollars in no way tends to show that pigs have wings.
The trouble with both moral and pragmatic defenses to Wishful Thinking is that they do not show that wishful thinking is ever cogent, instead the following types of argument are supported:
No, that's not proven, and not really plausible either. See Myth: The most CO2 in 650,000 years
That's physically impossible with CO2 and climate because the relationship is highly nonlinear and can only be (semiaccurately) modeled over a small range (current conditions measured by satellites with a small delta) with lousy results outside that range.
No, see my previous link.
That's not correct. The models cannot be easily disputed since they are not predictive, and backed up by satellite measurements of key parameters (e.g. LW flux). Those models show that removing (just) CO2 leaves 88 percent, not 98 percent of GH effect. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
Regarding Mars: Global warming on Mars? "Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing."
IT's now a 4 Martian year (8 Earth) year global trend
But ROTFLMAO, I find it funny we are to infer global warming here on earth due to 20-30 year regional trends but not on Mars.
And yes being that both Earth & Mars are ~4.5 billion years old, on that timeframe 20-30 years or 100 or even 1000 years is just as insignificant as 3 or 4.
The argument that there are fewer dust storms today as opposed to the 1970's in fact actually indicates global warming on Mars. The warmer the atmosphere the lower the atmospheric pressure is, the lower atmospheric pressure is the harder it is for dust to become suspended in it (especially in Mars' wispy thin atmosphere) thus fewer incidence of dust storms.
But your links are dated Mine are from 2007, more updated and the phenomena has been shown to be global
"Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change on Mars," - Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," Feldman told Space.com. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated. In others, that process is slower and hasn't reached an equilibrium yet. Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter."
Hello! Coming out of an ice age = Global Warming.
Regarding Jupiter: "The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe. ... The global change cycle began when the last of the white oval-shaped storms formed south of the Great Red Spot in 1939. As the storms started to merge between 1998 and 2000, the mixing of heat began to slow down at that latitude and has continued slowing ever since." [No linkage to solar variability suggested]
Yes there is.
Jupiter doesn't have all the things like oceans or land that affects weather like we do here on earth and Jupiter has a near 0° axis tilt so there isn't even any seasons. What that amounts to is Jupiter has pretty stable weather, thats why storms last centuries and when a new storm forms its notable.
Theres only 3 things that drive Jupiters weather, it's fast rotation, internal heat and solar heat.
It's rotation surely hasn't changed and being that the internal heat is heat left over from when Jupiter formed 4.5 billion years ago, unless you can come up with a good explanation on how the internal heat has all of a sudden magically increased after all this time, that just leaves one thing left that could cause the changes on Jupiter. Solar variability.
Regarding Triton: " There are two possible explanations for the moon's warmer weather. One is that the frost pattern on Triton's surface may have changed over the years, absorbing more and more of the sun's warmth. The other is that changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat." [No link to solar variability suggested]
Changes in frost patterns & ices reflectivity both dont just happen by magic all by themselves, both suggest increased solar activity. Also the fact that's it's Triton that experiencing the most extreme global warming fits perfectly with the sun being the cause.
The frost pattern and changes in the ices reflectivity on Triton are caused by ice volcanoes, as the volcanoes leave prominent dark streaks across the surface (seen below)
Unlike Earth or even Io the volcanoes on Triton are driven solely by heat from the sun,
More heat from the sun = more volcanoes, more volcanoes = more dark streaks, more dark streaks = even more heat absorbed from the sun
Regarding Pluto: "The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit. ... Though Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989, a warming trend 13 years later does not surprise David Tholen, a University of Hawaii astronomer involved in the discovery. "It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon," Tholen said. "This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years." [No link to solar variability suggested, though there is a link to solar insolation, similar to Milankovitch forcing of Earth's climate]
While it's too far to know what exactly is going on, the fact is in the 14 years after it reached its closest approach to the sun it tripled in atmospheric pressure and has continued to heat up. It should be noted; in those 14 years, Pluto due to it's a widely elliptical orbit has moved 250,000 km further away from the sun. That is equal to moving the earth out to the middle of the asteroid field, yet it still heated up. Move Earth out that far between noon and 3 and tell me if we will still continue to heat up.
Plus it doesn't make sense, the Earth is hottest at 2 or 3pm because that's when the earth is re-radiating the most heat it absorbed, how can Pluto which is 1/1000th the size continue hold it's heat for 27 years while the much the larger earth starts to cool off in a few hours?
The above four bodies are the only ones we have been able to observe over a long period of time, if this was just natural variability we should expect to see some warming, some cooling and some remaining stable. The fact that all 4 and the earth all just happen to be heating up all at the same time suggest that the only one thing they have in common, the sun is too blame
I have no idea where you get Enceladus, but Saturn I agree that we haven't been able to observe it long enough to know exactly what's going on, but then again if your Messiah Al Gore can attribute 1 hurricane here (Katrina) on Earth to Global Warming then why can't we attribute a bigger hurricane on Saturn to it?
Global warming swindlers = evolution swindlers.
and backed up by satellite measurements of key parameters (e.g. LW flux).
Oops, seems something is missing in the the models:
"The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980's and 1990's is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period. The variations of the total net flux at the surface reflect the variations in the upwelling LW flux for the most part."
I never claimed that I was. I think I understand most of it.
And I hope you're impressed. I didn't know the name of the network or where info on it could be found until you prodded me. There's a lot of info on this site; good figures under "Media Center".
Nonetheless, the magnitude of the coupling needs to be known. Having modeled nonlinear systems myself I realize it's a much more difficult task than for linear systems. But it can be done. And you're right, you linearize within certain ranges were it has a somewhat linear characteristic.
And you must know where those limits and discontinuities are located.
According to the Vostok Ice Core Data of CO2/Temp vs Time, Temps had a significant lead over CO2 on the down slope. Something caused that. What? Could it have been caused by too high levels of CO2? The CO2 remained high for thousands of years while the Temps dropped. Why? Or was it the Sun?
If the coupling is insignificant or in the wrong direction, and/or the effects minuscule compared to other unknown naturally caused or for that matter unnaturally caused effects we really don't understand the processes with any reasonable degree of confidence. The degree of confidence that's required before we start recommending costly solutions.
I respect your acumen, but holding this one out as a useful possibility really pushes the envelope. I think I asked you this before -- what natural mechanism could plausibly do what you propose? If you propose a methane spike (maybe a seafloor slump releasing methane from clathrates), then some of that methane would oxidize to CO2 and there would be a longer-term detectable signal. You've got to have a mechanism with sufficient mass of C, an incredibly short atmospheric lifetime (both flux to and from the atmosphere). Pardon my lack of imagination, but I don't see it.
Thanks; I'm trying this from a CBS story today:
Looks like I may have tried too early.
And no linkage to solar variability is suggested. Linkage to sublimating ice deposits covered by dust is suggested. And the MGS saw changes in the polar ice deposits. Gee, what am I missing here?
For the other planets and moons, here's two things you need: a clear linkage to a solar-induced mechanism of change, and a clear indication that the output of the Sun has changed sufficiently to induce such a change.
Neither exist. It's fine to speculate as a counter-argument against the facts, but until you have actual research and results, it's just speculation.
See post 131.
One other thing. It is possible that the temperature of the oceans lagged the temperature of the atmosphere and hence delayed CO2 absorbtion. Regardless CO2 lagged temperatures.
Yes and definitely not. There are obvious long term mechanisms for the g-ig transitions (Milankovitch being the best example) that function slowly but can account for the full range in climate.
The mechanisms I am proposing are deplanktoning, deforestation, ocean warming, and many others which can combine to enhance the spikes. Whether they are related to today's spike is immaterial, I just show in my analysis that could pop up to today's levels and fade away in hundreds of years, much less time than the resolution of the older ice cores.
The answers to why temperature drops lead CO2 drops are similar to my previous post to cog. Some of the natural fluctuations of CO2 are caused by temperature fluctuations, for example, the change in plant life after a change in temperature. But the coupling both in the short and long run is highly dependent on many complex factors like vegetation, oceans and soil. Those multiple relationships are often at odds with one another. It requires a complex model to capture this, not a percentage or a magniture or any other oversimplified relationship of coupling.
It would be great to have the "complex model" that provides "precise" results. But in the absence of those "complex" models we have no choice but to use "rough" models go gain an understanding/insight into the magnitudes and directions of the effects on climate.
According to Al Gore the relation ship is "complex". Can we assume the modelers like NASA's Hansen understand these "complex" relations? And are they accurately modeled in their models? I doubt it.
Thanks for the clarification. And a fine post in #136, too.
I will be addressing this in point #5 in my profile; I have been delayed due to responses in a posting I made yesterday. I will briefly describe, and provide links to published articles, models that are used to examine glacial-interglacial climate processes. The models are pretty complex.
Hansen's main modeling effort is different than paleoclimatic modeling, though he participates to an extent, partly to get a better handle on climate sensitivity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.