|
Post by gridley on Apr 9, 2009 17:09:33 GMT
If you calculate the extra amount of CO2 in the air each year and compare it with CO2 emissions calculated from statistics of oil, coal and gas burning, you find that the latter is 2 to 3 times larger than the former. So there is definitely no room for "degassing. steve, all that proves is that something is removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Given that, it is certainly possible that whatever is removing the CO2 is in fact removing the portion of it caused by outgassing as well. I'm not saying the CO2 is driven by the temperature, just pointing out that the specific statement I've quoted above isn't necessarily true. There is plenty of room for other sources of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 9, 2009 17:14:12 GMT
I'm not claiming that we can map our destiny. I'm claiming that it is obvious that CO2 must cause warming, it is obvious that warming is occurring, it is obvious that there are few other validated explanations for the warming. Here, BTW, I agree completely with steve. CO2 does help keep the earth toasty warm, the base trend over the past 20 years (and longer) has been warming, and there are only a few possible causes for such a trend. I think we agree that the sun is one of those possible causes, though I believe I currently assume it to have a higher probability and greater impact than steve. :-)
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Apr 9, 2009 18:19:01 GMT
Well, then, Mars, with a CO2 atmospheric component in excess of 95% should be toasty warm. However, the atmospheric heat level on Mars is now cooling (Hubble), and has been since the Viking landings. Just like Earth.
In re: Copernicus. Simply put, lying on a couch one day, Copernicus thought that if the universe was infinite in size, and rotated around the Earth, then the velocity of the outer universe, wherever that might be, would also be infinite. He reasoned this to be impossible and deduced that the Earth must therefore rotate around the Sun. He discounted the ptolemaic model which did not include the infinity variable. He explained. He did not model.
Models are created from parameters, parameters are the result of decisions, decisions result from desired outcomes (politics), and outcomes are not explanations, and consequently have no predictive value in reality.
Also, all the works of Copernicus, including his explanation of heliocentricism, were widely accepted. He was encouraged to publish, especially by Pope Paul III. He just did not feel confident enough to do so. Maybe because he wasn't a "scientist." His education was in the canon law. Much like Descartes. I think Hubble was a civil lawyer. I guess our current education models have no requirement for historical accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Apr 9, 2009 18:21:14 GMT
But if your model that shows temp increasing as CO2 increases. Then looking to the real world and see the same results doesn't mean that your model is correct. The correlation is there, but it may not be causation. Are the rising temperatures causing CO2 to increase? There is nothing in my statements that would imply this, so I do not understand your point. The point is, CO2 continues to increase, but temperature does not. Therefore, the models used to promote the concept of AGW are invalid. This does not imply that if temperatures continued to increase, that the hypothesis is correct. It would simply mean that the hypothesis may not be incorrect. To some that may seem like a logical subtlety, but it is actually quite important. By ignoring this fact, the AGW proponents and the media continue to dupe much of the public.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 9, 2009 20:37:27 GMT
I'm not claiming that we can map our destiny. I'm claiming that it is obvious that CO2 must cause warming, it is obvious that warming is occurring, it is obvious that there are few other validated explanations for the warming. Here, BTW, I agree completely with steve. CO2 does help keep the earth toasty warm, the base trend over the past 20 years (and longer) has been warming, and there are only a few possible causes for such a trend. I think we agree that the sun is one of those possible causes, though I believe I currently assume it to have a higher probability and greater impact than steve. :-) Again, though, if one is to use the base trend of the past 20 years and warming from such a short period as evidence of CO2-driven warming (which everyone from the IPCC to Hansen to Gore has done), then one must also explain why the warming has ceased (or at the very least slowed considerably) over the past 8-12 years, while CO2 concentrations have continued to climb.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 9, 2009 23:51:06 GMT
But if your model that shows temp increasing as CO2 increases. Then looking to the real world and see the same results doesn't mean that your model is correct. The correlation is there, but it may not be causation. Are the rising temperatures causing CO2 to increase? There is nothing in my statements that would imply this, so I do not understand your point. The point is, CO2 continues to increase, but temperature does not. Therefore, the models used to promote the concept of AGW are invalid. This does not imply that if temperatures continued to increase, that the hypothesis is correct. It would simply mean that the hypothesis may not be incorrect. To some that may seem like a logical subtlety, but it is actually quite important. By ignoring this fact, the AGW proponents and the media continue to dupe much of the public. I think that this is one of the most important points that the AGW proponents on this board routinely dodge with arguments such as: * If there is acceptance that temperatures have dropped then it was forecast by at least one of the models that there will be an inflexion and this is just weather causing that inflexion * More commonly - its NOT cooling if you measure from this point to this point its actually warming (the past the peak but its still hotter than 1990 argument) These claims avoid the IPCC report that as CO 2 rose so temperatures would rise and that CO 2 has risen faster than the AR4 report expected and temperatures have at best stalled and probably started falling. As you state this means that the forecast is invalid. The hypothesis modeled has been falsified. Even if the 2 responses given are true - the model and hypothesis are false. There is no need to drop into the weeds of how or why and enter arguments on physical laws - the black box models built on the hypothesis are incorrect. The IPCC ensemble forecast warming effectively rising linearly correlated with CO 2 increases and that has not occurred.
|
|
|
Post by savethesharks on Apr 10, 2009 3:25:24 GMT
At what point.....with so much public, taxpayer-funded money at stake behind these failed models...can we just use the "F" word in reference to these models that have failed to produce???
(The "F" word being "FRAUD"). Not really blaming the modelers, as much as the ones on the front line. I won't mention any names. Gore-Holdren-Hansen...et. al.
In other fields, such as the business and politics, "fraud" is a criminal offense.
Not sure why the scientific fraud of the current orthodoxy...should not be held accountable to the same standards.
Chris Norfolk, VA
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 10, 2009 12:46:25 GMT
There is nothing in my statements that would imply this, so I do not understand your point. The point is, CO2 continues to increase, but temperature does not. Therefore, the models used to promote the concept of AGW are invalid. This does not imply that if temperatures continued to increase, that the hypothesis is correct. It would simply mean that the hypothesis may not be incorrect. To some that may seem like a logical subtlety, but it is actually quite important. By ignoring this fact, the AGW proponents and the media continue to dupe much of the public. I think that this is one of the most important points that the AGW proponents on this board routinely dodge with arguments such as: While we're onto logical subtleties, if I throw 20 dice and get zero sixes, does this falsify the model that says I should get about 3 sixes? Does it prove an alternative theory that the dices must be unbalanced? I'm not saying that the forecast you refer to was correct, but why is that dodging the argument? If 4 or 5 out of 20 IPCC climate projections can show 8 years of temperatures that are cooler than what is observed, then why can't we say that the lesser warming of the last 8 years may be in the reasonable bounds of "weather" or "climate variability". Certainly, I hope that the models are wrong, unfortunately I am also accounting for the previous 20 years of warming, and am being less optimistic than you in my choice of end points - going for averages rather than picking out 1998.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 10, 2009 14:41:03 GMT
Again, though, if one is to use the base trend of the past 20 years and warming from such a short period as evidence of CO2-driven warming (which everyone from the IPCC to Hansen to Gore has done), then one must also explain why the warming has ceased (or at the very least slowed considerably) over the past 8-12 years, while CO2 concentrations have continued to climb. While Gore/Hansen/etc. may not accept this, it is actually fairly easy to explain: There are several major drivers of the earth's climate. For the 20 or so years leading up to 1998, all of them were positive. CO2 was one of those drivers and has remained positive, but other drivers have switched to negative. Imagine a set of sine waves with different periods but similar amplitude, and the observed climate as the sum of those plus the effect of CO2. If we had less CO2, it would be even colder. Personally, I believe the amplitude of the CO2 function to be fairly small compared to that of the solar curve, but I certainly can't prove it... yet. :-)
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Apr 10, 2009 14:47:22 GMT
I think that this is one of the most important points that the AGW proponents on this board routinely dodge with arguments such as: While we're onto logical subtleties, if I throw 20 dice and get zero sixes, does this falsify the model that says I should get about 3 sixes? Does it prove an alternative theory that the dices must be unbalanced? In a word, no. That would be like running the climate model to project the temperature for the next day and basing future projections on that limited data. On the other hand, if you were to throw those dice several thousand times you should be able to come to a conclusion with a high level of confidence. The models we are discussing all predict an increase in temperature as a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The earth should be warmer now than it was 10 years ago. It is not. That has not occurred, therefore the hypothesis that the models are based on is false.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 10, 2009 14:56:14 GMT
While we're onto logical subtleties, if I throw 20 dice and get zero sixes, does this falsify the model that says I should get about 3 sixes? Does it prove an alternative theory that the dices must be unbalanced?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 11, 2009 1:52:30 GMT
I think that this is one of the most important points that the AGW proponents on this board routinely dodge with arguments such as: While we're onto logical subtleties, if I throw 20 dice and get zero sixes, does this falsify the model that says I should get about 3 sixes? Does it prove an alternative theory that the dices must be unbalanced? I'm not saying that the forecast you refer to was correct, but why is that dodging the argument? If 4 or 5 out of 20 IPCC climate projections can show 8 years of temperatures that are cooler than what is observed, then why can't we say that the lesser warming of the last 8 years may be in the reasonable bounds of "weather" or "climate variability". Certainly, I hope that the models are wrong, unfortunately I am also accounting for the previous 20 years of warming, and am being less optimistic than you in my choice of end points - going for averages rather than picking out 1998. "If 4 or 5 out of 20 IPCC climate projections can show 8 years of temperatures that are cooler than what is observed, then why can't we say that the lesser warming of the last 8 years may be in the reasonable bounds "The problem is that none of the models show this '8 years of temperatures that are cooler than what is observed.' None of the models show more than a brief inflection and none of those inflections match the temperature behaviors since 2003. The AR4 report builds the models into an ensemble that becomes a steady linear increase in temperatures in lockstep with the expected linear increase in CO 2. Well we have had an increase in CO 2 that has been higher than forecast and the temperatures have plateaued at best and most would agree that they have dropped in the last couple of years. NONE of the models or the ensemble show this.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 11, 2009 3:23:26 GMT
"If 4 or 5 out of 20 IPCC climate projections can show 8 years of temperatures that are cooler than what is observed, then why can't we say that the lesser warming of the last 8 years may be in the reasonable bounds "The problem is that none of the models show this '8 years of temperatures that are cooler than what is observed.' None of the models show more than a brief inflection and none of those inflections match the temperature behaviors since 2003. The AR4 report builds the models into an ensemble that becomes a steady linear increase in temperatures in lockstep with the expected linear increase in CO 2. Well we have had an increase in CO 2 that has been higher than forecast and the temperatures have plateaued at best and most would agree that they have dropped in the last couple of years. NONE of the models or the ensemble show this. Even if the models DO show a cooling trend up front, all the models I've ever seen that have survived the fight between reality and their error bars...STILL kick back into exponential warming after the level or cooling period. That HARDLY seems like a real projection, especially with the PDO/AMO going off like clockwork. CO2 DOES NOT lead to exponential increases and in any projected linear (or lower) increase we should still see the ocean current's effects.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 11, 2009 23:36:44 GMT
Finowino, You were talking about hypothetical models (from what I could see).
When I said "your", it wan't meant as "yours personally. just an extension of the hypothetical model that I thought you were talking about. ie model in general.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 11, 2009 23:38:06 GMT
Steve. When you refer to "4 or 5 out of 20 models show a cooling trend... Do you mean a cooling trend sometime in the future? Or do you mean the current cooling trend?
|
|