|
Post by dwerth on Nov 27, 2009 16:06:46 GMT
Steve -
So do you completely discount the data from carefully done experimental data that has a margin of error of 3%? Because that is what it seems that you are doing. We CANNOT ignore empirical data that goes against the theory that we believe, just because we want to.
This of course goes both ways. Skeptics must not just say "the data was fudged, so we cannot use it, or any conclusions based off of it at all." But rather, they must say that "we must look at the actual, raw data, see if we can replicate the previous studies, to check their validity."
Steve, again, what we have here is an instance of correlation between CO2 and temperature, BUT you have most certainly not proven that CO2 was the prime forcer for the global mean temperature to rise in the last century. To prove that, would require that a ton of very complicated math be done, rather than just look at the graphs of two portions of a very complex system.
Steve, you also do yourself no credit in perpetuating a simplistic logic of how our climate works: Givens- CO2 is a green house gas. Man Made CO2 release has been increasing over time. Temperature has been increasing over time. Therefore, since temperature and CO2 levels have been increasing over time, man made CO2 release is the prime forcer for temperature to increase over time.
This is the essence of the logic used by pro-agw apologists. It does not hold up to scrutiny. First off, it presupposes a lack of other inputs into the system, ie the sun, ocean cycles, particulates, cloud formation, among many other inputs. Second, it jumps to an unsubstantiated conclusion: the increase in temperature is caused by the increase in CO2 release into the atmosphere caused by humans. It lacks any supporting logic / proof to build this case.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2009 16:27:16 GMT
Nautonnier, don't you think it strange that CO2 measurements were all over the place till they started being measured carefully at multiple independent and isolated locations. Then all of a sudden, CO2 has been rising steadily and gently at about 1-2ppm per year for over 50 years. Isn't it odd that CO2 levels have risen and fallen by 100ppm in short periods without any huge natural disruption (such as a three or four Yellowstone/Deccan traps like volcanoes going off at once, or the Amazon Rainforest going up in smoke and then growing back quickly). You do yourself little credit in promulgating this plot. Well as it happens one of the things that I _DO_ find puzzling is the monotonic (apart from diurnal variation) rise from Mauna Loa not only because it is measuring CO2 alongside an active caldera - but also due to effects such as the release of huge amounts of CO2 from such things as the fires in Indonesia - "between 0.81 and 2.57 Gt of carbon were released to the atmosphere in 1997 as a result of burning peat and vegetation in Indonesia"www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6911/abs/nature01131.htmlFor comparison with the uber-demon aviation... " The range of scenarios considered here projects that aircraft emissions of carbon dioxide will continue to grow and by 2050 will be 0.23 to 1.45 Gt C/year."www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/Climate/ipcc/aviation/006.htmNote the source. So in ONE year 1997, the peat fires in Indonesia generated nearly twice the CO 2 that aviation would if growth continues unchecked to 2050. Yet if we look at your CO 2 graph from all these perfect measuring stations - not a blip. This has two probable (lots more possible) explanations.... * the metrics are not very good * the amount of CO 2 added by the peat fires as huge as it is - is so small as to be unnoticeable against the normal background noise of natural variation. In the more recent metrics we are required to trust people who have now been shown to be somewhat less worthy of that trust - once bitten twice shy. Historic metrics (before peer review was a clique and before people could make fortunes out of the values reported), somehow seem more trustworthy. These more trusted metrics show that CO 2 was measured as being much higher in the 1800s than it is today they also seem to link quite well to the start of your Mauna Loa curve without a 'decline' having to be hidden. ========= On your last statement .... In another sphere - the statement was 'Trust but Verify' That is actually the scientific method - trust but replicate. 'Trust but Verify' is the process to be used now with 'climate scientists' - if there is any hesitation in provision of source data and process then research from a 'climate scientist' should immediately be disregarded. This _ was_ the requirement of the Journals these papers were published in - but these 'prestigious' journals failed to maintain their own standards. One thing EVERYONE needs to realize is that trust cannot be TAKEN - trust is something that has to be GIVEN. Once trust is violated and lost - it is very difficult to persuade people to give that trust again. Demanding trust actually reduces the chance of being trusted.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 16:47:03 GMT
Steve - So do you completely discount the data from carefully done experimental data that has a margin of error of 3%? Because that is what it seems that you are doing. We CANNOT ignore empirical data that goes against the theory that we believe, just because we want to. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Sources of CO2 include any living thing, combustion, volcano and so forth. The current CO2 measurements are done from a number of different locations in isolated places at different latitudes, and each measurement is a result of multiple samplings at multiple locations. I can absolutely believe that one could make a measurement today and find 450ppm. I believe that could be done now and that the result could be accurate within a few percent of the CO2 in the air sample taken. But I would claim that it is likely to be as a result of contamination from a nearby source of CO2. Strong claims require strong evidence. For CO2 to vary as much as appears in that plot it has to come from somewhere, and then disappear equally fast. But strangely, since careful measurements started, the measurements at different locations have varied in very similar ways. So I believe I have a number of grounds to challenge the analysis made. I don't really like being called an "apologist" as I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be apologising for. The "CO2" argument most definitely does not presuppose that there are no other causes of temp change. Other causes have been assessed by numerous different groups and the evidence points towards them *not* being a cause of much if any of the current warming. The CO2 argument has strong physical support - it is not just based on a noting of any correlation. The warming effect of CO2 was known well before any warming was measured, and the model predictions of 20-30 years ago made projections which substantially came true - ie. it got warmer. I've never claimed we know for certain the impact of AGW, but it is a serious risk and we shouldn't pretend it isn't even if we can't, or don't want to, do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 17:07:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 27, 2009 17:55:59 GMT
Steve -
In logic, an apologist is merely someone defending a certain postition. I am sorry if I was not clear in this.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 18:03:17 GMT
OK that's fine - I didn't know that. Normally the context is "X is just an apologist for terrorism/paedophilia/fascism/other really terrible things". so the connotation could be taken the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Nov 27, 2009 23:43:33 GMT
Thanks naut I just sited an example of forest fires releasing co2 and didn't have the info. and dwerth.. they use a form of greek logic.. 1. all animals have 4 legs. 2. Dogs have 4 legs. 3. Therefore, all animals are dogs. Logic 101
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Nov 27, 2009 23:53:40 GMT
Steve.. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. That is definetly not true. That's how this whole co2 thing got started. They were measuring co2 levels at the beach and it was the same in the mountains, and everywhere else, or so they said. CO2 was evenly distrubed around the earth.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 28, 2009 11:21:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Nov 28, 2009 16:06:05 GMT
Steve, Don't you realize you are in direct contradiction with your statements. You are trying to prove a point by saying co2 is not evenly distributed. Then when I bring up the fact that AGW based their data on co2 being evenly distrubited, you say I agree with you? Evenly distributed co2 is a salient point for AGW, their models depend on it. Or does the points change according to the arguments at the time. Kind of like adjusting the data
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 28, 2009 17:11:52 GMT
co2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, but at the surface it isn't. Plants cause a large daily cycle of co2 at the surface.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 28, 2009 17:18:39 GMT
"Somewhat" well mixed would be a better term socold. Well mixed it is not.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 28, 2009 18:56:07 GMT
"Well mixed" is a simplifying assumption - like the flat tropopause, no water vapor in the stratosphere, and of course slab unresponding tropospheres. The problem is that these simplifying assumptions take on a reality especially in the minds of those of a mainly mathematical bent. Its the way things are taught.
Then assumptions meet chaotic reality in the real world and are enforced on the empirical data; leading to linear and simple waveform trends being claimed for chaotic behaviors.
|
|
|
Post by dagrump on Nov 28, 2009 19:13:17 GMT
Let me see if I have this correct: CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, EXCEPT where it is NOT?
Ok! I think I have it now.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 28, 2009 19:38:39 GMT
The interesting thing about this chart is the strong NEGATIVE feedback: An increasing amount of CO2 is removed as the oceans cool, but the oceans have to heat much more to produce the same increase in CO2. Thus, if CO2 was a strong temperature "forcer" we'd have runaway COOLING. Thank heavens that the forcing theory is junk. I'll illustrate: Lets look at the temperature movement to change solubility by 0.05g/100g, centred at 24C. (0.15g/100g) To decrease solubility by .05 to 0.1, we must increase Temp by 16C, but to increase solubilty by .05 to 0.2, we only need decrease the temperature by 9C!. If there was strong temperature "forcing" by CO2, then Earth would simply be an Ice planet.
|
|