The life of a global warming sceptic is a dangerous one, it seems. Well-known sceptic John Daly died suddenly of a heart attack earlier this year, and now one of his frequently-published colleagues (on the Daly website at least) Theodor Landscheidt has also shuffled off a few days ago (on 19 May) to meet the Great Global Climate Controller. Mind you, Landscheidt was 76 years old according to this bio page and had been suffering a "long illness" (which usually means cancer - why don't they just say so?), so it probably wasn't all that much of a surprise to his friends and family.
Landscheidt may well have been a scientific ratbag, but he was an interesting ratbag. Like Daly, he wasn't formally qualified in any scientific discipline, but developed a prodigious practical knowledge in his chosen area of specialisation, which was long-range weather forecasting based on observation and analysis of the sunspot cycle and other solar phenomena.
Landscheidt reckoned that the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) cycle could be predicted years in advance by plotting sunspot cycles and other phenomena, and had quite a bit of demonstrable success in that regard. More controversially, he reckoned that current global warming is a result of a "phase shift" (whatever that means) in the 36 year sunspot cycle, rather than flowing from increases in atmospheric CO2. His latest paper on the Daly website (posted 22 December 2003) gives a fairly detailed and readable summary of his theories.
The general outline of Landscheidt's theory may be quite familiar to many older Australians, because it appears to be quite similar to the theories of well-known Australian long-range weather forecasters Inigo Jones and Lennox Walker. As one commentator remarked about Jones and Walker:
A weather forecaster popular with farmers in eastern Australia was Lennox Walker of Crohamhurst in southern Queensland. He reckoned to give 2-5 day forecasts each Friday night in a Sydney newspaper in the 1970's, for instance, stating the occurrence of rain and the daily maximum temperature. His success appears never to have been demonstrated in any publicly available scientific report, but his supporters were undeterred. Nor were they worried by the secrecy of his methods, reputedly based on a belief in the cyclic influences of sunspots and the planets, e.g. Jupiter. The procedures, whatever they were, were handed down to Lennox by Inigo Jones. The latter was in charge at Crohamhurst until 1954, and a disciple of the famous Clement Wragge. Wragge was head of the Brisbane Meteorological Bureau until 1900 and pioneered hail suppression, although with little success
For those interested, here's a link to an ABC radio interview a couple of years ago with Lennox Walker's son (who still carries on his work, although he doesn't seem to have inherited his dad's talent for self-promotion).
Like Jones and Walker, Landscheidt was generally regarded by the mainstream scientific community as a crackpot, perhaps partly because of snobbery and credentialism, but also partly because he couldn't postulate a clear or verifiable basis for the claimed link between sunspots and ENSO.
Actually, I went looking for material on Landscheidt earlier today, not knowing that he'd just died. The spur for my curiosity was a continuing bout of unseasonal rainfall in Darwin. The first month of this year's dry season has been extraordinarily wet (it rained at my place for a good part of last night and much of the morning). Moreover, most wet seasons over the last 7 or 8 years have yielded well above the long-term average rainfall of about 1600mm. Although it's obviously too early to be certain, it's beginning to seem that there's a marked trend towards wetter (though not hotter) weather in the Top End, at the same time as parts of South-eastern Australia seem to be getting drier and hotter. Could all this be an artefact of global warming, I ask myself? "B" has another explanation, but I won't go there.
Long-time readers of Troppo Armadillo will know that I've always been a moderate global warming sceptic myself. Maybe I'd better go and get a full medical checkup. However, unlike ratbags like the late John Daly, I haven't denied the reality of human-induced global warming, just questioned its likely magnitude. Interestingly, not long before his recent untimely death, Daly postulated a proposition that arguably allows us (or will soon allow us) to test not only the reality or otherwise of global warming, but to get a rough handle on its magnitude. I blogged about it here, as did John Quiggin here. In summary, Daly argued that the marked global warming of the last 7 or 8 years was caused by the confluence of a Solar Maximum with 2 large El Nino events in 1998 and 2002, and not by human-generated CO2. Daly went on to say that this could be expected to reverse itself over the period 2003-2006 as we moved towards a Solar Minimum and (likely) La Nina. JQ and I both agreed that this presented a real test of the reality of CO2-induced global warming.
What is the result so far? Well, any objective observer could only conclude that there hasn't been any noticeable cooling at all to date. Have a look at the data for Global Mean Temperature compiled by GISS and kept on the NASA website. They show that average temperatures for the first 4 months of 2004 remained well above the long-term (1951-1980) average of 14 °C, by amounts varying between 0.43 and 0.64 °C. If Daly had been correct (i.e. that CO2-induced warming was a myth), you would have expected average temperatures to have fallen back to well below the long-term average by now, instead of remaining well above it.
Moreover, I think I'm forced to concede that current average temperatures probably aren't even consistent with my own moderate sceptic position. That is, my own non-expert reading of the data has always tended to lead me to a conclusion that global warming, although real, was much more moderate in extent than alarmist advocates were claiming: probably slightly less than 0.1 °C per decade rather than the 0.17 °C per decade estimated by mainstream global warming advocates. That figure remains broadly consistent with satellite-generated temperature records (except the recent outlier formulation by Vinnikov and Grody). However, the extent to which current surface temperatures (as compiled and averaged by GISS) exceed the long-term average leads me to a tentative conclusion that the extent of global warming is probably significantly higher than 0.1 °C per decade.
What does all that mean? Well, I don't claim to be an expert, but commonsense precautionary logic rather suggests that warming of that magnitude demands serious (though not panicked) international policy action. I now think we should ratify and seriously implement the Kyoto Protocol without delay (even though it's only a minimalist first step); and enact carbon taxes and an international carbon credits trading scheme designed to create price signals leading to quicker adoption of non-carbon-based energy sources.
Of course, a side-benefit of my graceful somersault on this issue is that if global warming scepticism really is a health hazard, I've just removed the risk for myself in one foul swoop! Indeed, it's difficult to see how anyone could now rationally maintain a strongly sceptical position on global warming, except perhaps by pinning hopes on something like Theodor Landscheidt's sunspot "phase shift" theory.
the sun is very important to global climate, its seasons are very important, to ignore CO2 increases is like ignoring a radioactivity increase of 1 rad because background radiation is 3 rads, and 1 is less than 3 so its no big deal, forggetting in the comparison that while 1<3 unfortunately 3+1=4
most of the global warming neighsayers logic works like this
it could be geting cooler because of the sunspot cycle, but that does not mean the greenhouse effect is not true
cycles within cycles within circles within dances of stupidity and greed, and todays reasonable fashion is....
its very wet in Tasmania by the way, interferred with the grape picking, pruning next, I like pruning, I really enjoy it
my numbers have been lost!
...that while one is less than three, one plus three equals four, so an increase of one rad is a big deal...
a one-third increase
Ken - I can understand you putting aside scepticism on global warming. Even Bjorn Lomborg accepts that man made global warming is occurring.
The question is what to do about it. I have yet to be convinced that Kyoto is a sensible response. A lot of the analysis I have seen shows the up-front costs of implementing Kyoto are very high and the impact on global warming minimal. In economists jargon a very low benefit-cost ratio. Many economists that accept global warming, do not accept Kyoto as a satisfactory response. See for example, Warwick MacKibbin in this weeks AFR(http://afr.com/premium/articles/2004/05/24/1085389331856.html - subscription required).
So just because you have accepted global warming doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot continue to have a stoush with Professor Q.
Mark,
My memory tells me that McKibbin et al agree with most other recent economic assessments that the cost of implementing Kyoto is fairly modest (contrary to what Lomborg asserts). McKibbin simply argues that there are more effective strategies for grappling with the problem. He may or may not be right. Certainly Kyoto is only a miniscule start (as my post noted). However, if you accept that it's a real and significant problem (I always accepted that it was real, but until now have regarded it as unproven whether and to what extent it's significant), then we have to start somewhere.
Depending on emerging evidence and the rapidity of take-up of new technology, it may well prove necessary to impose much stronger measures than Kyoto further down the track. Most importantly, that would involve imposing Kyoto-type obligations on third world countries. The lack of effect on them is the main reason why Kyoto's CO2-reducing effect is so small - first world emission reductions are largely cancelled out by increasing emissions from the third world. Third world countries argue that the first world has already had the advantage of the huge wealth generated by being able to produce goods for a century or more with complete disregard for their CO2-generating side-effects, and believe that the first world should demonstrate its bona fides and willingness to restrain its own excesses before asking poorer countries to do likewise. I'm personally not all that impressed by that argument, and I think the first world should be demanding third world compliance with similar CO2-reduction targets and penalties. But they can't really do that until countries like Australia and the US sign on and at least beginmaking serious attempts to do the right thing.
Lomborg's argument is very different from that of McKibbin. Lomborg argues that we shouldn't bother to do anything at all to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, he says, it would be better to spend the money on other things that would benefit the third world e.g. clean water (see his article in today's media). But Lomborg makes no attempt to lobby governments to do such things. His efforts are confined to arguing what they shouldn't be made to do. He'd be marginally more convincing if he was campaigning in favour of the things he professes to believe are better ideas than Kyoto. In the circumstances, it looks very much like an empty rhetorical argument. Moreover, why shouldn't we both implement Kyoto and pursue more direct measures to alleviate third world poverty and disadvantage as well? For example, freeing up world trade in agriculture. It's not a matter of only being able to do one or the other. Arguably both are desirable and even essential.
I picture a sodden blogger sheltering with his bike under a tree, his girlfriend nowhere to be see, perhaps lost having missed a turn off. A street sign reads Damascus Kebabs 2km.
Lomborg, if he wants to be taken seriously, is under no obligation other than to back up his assertions that Kyoto is a waste of money with an arguement as to why it is.
Ken - I recall a very long blog you wrote last year that discussed some interesting charts from the IPCC Report on Emission Scenarios. I'll quote some of it back to you:
"Despite the IPCC's efforts at distorting reality, however, its emissions scenarios actually yield a quite surprising result, although you'd never know it from their propaganda emphasis. The most positive CO2 emissions outcomes are actually achieved through fostering strong economic growth,[.........]
As you can see, the B1 scenario, which assumes high economic growth, but with "a high level of environmental and social consciousness combined with a globally coherent approach to a more sustainable development", actually yields CO2 emissions by 2100 that are lower than those of today (and falling). And that is without any Kyoto-style proscriptive emissions reduction schemes. The conclusion I draw from all this is that the world should continue pursuing economic growth through globalised trade, which provides the best prospects for the developing world to achieve first world standards and thereby be able to afford CO2 emission reduction measures. We should reject greenie demands for draconian measures to curb growth, technology and industrial development. Those sorts of approaches will have negative results on CO2 emissions,[......] By contrast, both high economic growth storylines result in falling CO2 emissions after a mid-century peak."
My problem with Kyoto is that even if the impact on growth is small, so is its impact on global warming. There is also a high level of uncertainty about costs and benefits. To have a bigger impact on global warming, a Kyoto Mark II would impose quite heavy costs on economic growth and as you have stated above falling CO2 emissions can occur in a high growth scenario without a Kyoto style prescription.
I also still think that Lomborg thinks Kyoto is a bad idea regardless of alternatives. Take these statements he has made:
"Estimates indicate that the total cost of global warming will be about $5 trillion (
Ken, this is a fine post. I wish we all could approach problems in this way (yes, me too). Well done, sir.
D
Very disappointing, Ken.
When I was at high school, I remember being taught from science books that warned about new ice ages and the 'fact' we'd be out of fossil fuels by 1983.
In 1989, I first heard of the Greenhouse effect and global warming in a Bulletin article. It was a minor point noted deep in the middle of a long article.
Now, with untold billions being poured into proving this hysteria, the 'scientific' data is conclusive. Anthropogenic global warming is going to destroy the planet. Skeptics are either right wing loons, or pathetic quislings of the oil industry. Sigh.
Today, everybody has come across most of the claims and counter-claims. And the GH skeptics are losing. The GH conspiracy is just so damn good. It soaks up hits like some monster out of a bad 1950s science fiction movie...it just seems to grow stronger. Early snows in Russia - it's because of global warming. Vicious winters in the US, it's actually because of some weather event brought on by global warming. Sigh.
Tuvalu is sinking, just ask their PM. Of course, it isn't really, in fact the sea is receding around the island group.
The world needed John Daly. Some of his claims were pretty lame. But his ability to expose junk scientists was beyond question.
And did you catch John Anderson in yesterday's papers 'warning' the CSIRO not to politicise the science in the national water study program. He wasn't talking about NSW vs QLD cotton farmers, or South Australians drinking the chemical soup that reaches Mannum. He was talking about the trendy envirocatastrophy that is used to sell science.
Researchers do not win grant money by promising to show that everything is tickety-boo with the climate/water/air pollution etc. They get money with big scary stories that leave their breathless sponsors sleepless at night. That's why the press sensationalises, people. Like greenhouse BS keeps climatologists off the bread line, outrageous headlines keep lazy hacks from having to do anything productive.
Worse. There is a nasty smell of proselytizing that wafts from their ominous prognostications. Beware of Gaia worshippers...they really are quite creepy.
It's so sad to see a rational mind lost to the siren songs of the environmental doomsayers.
Oh well, the temperature's dropped to zero again here tonight in Canberra. Unfortunately, this graph indicates I won't be selling off my old gas heater any time soon.
Researchers do not win grant money by promising to show that everything is tickety-boo with the climate/water/air pollution etc. They get money with big scary stories that leave their breathless sponsors sleepless at night. To paraphrase some famous scientist type, perhaps they need to do both.
Researchers do not win grant money by promising to show that everything is tickety-boo with the climate/water/air pollution etc. They get money with big scary stories that leave their breathless sponsors sleepless at night. Like greenhouse BS keeps climatologists off the bread line...
Wow. Sounds like biomedical research. Quick, everyone! Stop taking medicine!!!
All science is badbadbad! Back to the caves.
D
Al Bundy writes: "When I was at high school, I remember being taught from science books that warned about new ice ages". Funny how you can remember something that never happened. There aren't any such science text books.
Nice post Ken.
"junk science", Al?
Ever since Steve Milloy was exposed, those people using the term have been deeply suspect: either, like Milloy, being paid to pervert the cause of science, or, like you, dupes of same.
Well, Tim, I guess I'm a liar or deluded. Either that or the high school text (printed in the 70s) that I (admittedly vaguely) recall said something along the lines of: Some scientists believe that a new ice age is just around the corner, arable land will recede - etc etc. The reason I brought it up was because I was quite the pessimist when I was young, and remember being worried that we'd be hit with the double whammy of no fossil fuels and colder winters by the turn of the century.
Proof? Nope, you've got me there.
Guess your website proves one thing...I don't need root mean square databases and a publicly funded computer model to determine which direction your political compass is pointing. I love your little quote about the 'right wing attack on science'. Funny, I look at the GH thing as being 'a left wing attack on science'.
Dano, good science is all about skepticism. Don't go replacing theories unless the new one can offer better explanations for observable phenomena.
Medicines are developed using rigorous trials to test for effectiveness and safety. New surgical techniques show the well thought out application of cutting edge technology in engineering and materials. Climate astrology just peddles worst case models based on all manner of rubbery parameters to create a product that the media loves.
Sad to say, Mark, that I'm not familiar with Mr Milloy. I could Google him, and maybe I will. I take it he's one of your anti-heroes? Some sort of corporate shill? Well, I suppose every good story needs a villain.
Here's my nightmare scenario for you Greenhouse Pundits of DOOOOOM. Greenhouse will become passe. Like AIDS, it will lose its front page gloss, and gradually return to the obscurity from whence it came. With the publicity gone, the funding will dry up, and the global glut of Gaia botherers will be reduced to competing on a level playing field with the scientists who don't like the fudging that's gone into this theory.
Sadly, the Kyoto Madness will probably be passed. I'm betting that in thirty years time it will be viewed in the same high regard in which modern Chinese hold The Great Leap Forward
Al,
Your assertion that global warming is based solely on computer models is a standard line peddled by extreme greenhouse sceptics. It's an outright lie. The surface temperature record has been showing substantial warming for almost 30 years now. That is ACTUAL temperatures, not the figment of some leftie's imagination.
Straight-line extrapolation of this current measured warming suggests global temperature rises of around 2 degrees C by the end of this century. Although that probably wouldn't be catastrophic for most people (it might even be beneficial for many), it's well and truly large enough to merit serious concern and real (but not panicked) policy reactions fro governments.
Sceptics have suggested a number of reasons for the increase in measured temperatures, most notably the so-called "urban heat island" effect. However, current averaged temperature records adjust for urban heat island effect, and just about all scientists who've examined it seem to accept that the adjustment is appropriate and adequate. I don't have the expertise to judge, so I'm prepared to accept their assessment.
Sceptics have also sometimes suggested that the fall of communism in Russia somehow caused temperature records there to be distorted in an upwards direction. Tim Lambert dealt fairly conclusively with that claim on his blog recently. It simply doesn't stack up against actual records.
The one sceptic argument that I believed until recently might have some possible validity as an explanation for the measured warming of the last 30 years, was the suggestion that mainstream global warming scientists were under-estimating the proportionate contribution of solar activity to the current warming. That's where Landscheidt and people like Sallie Baliunas come in, because it's what they claim. However, although assuming a higher proportionate influence for variations in solar activity (as compared with greenhouse gases, volcanic activity, ENSO and airborne "aerosol" particles) can achieve quite a tight fit with the actual temperature record over the last couple of centuries, those assumptions just don't fit the observed warming of the last 30 years at all well. Warming is considerably greater than those assumptions indicate it should be.
For me, as the main post explained, the clincher is the fact that the current global mean temperature remains well above the long-term average despite the absence of any major solar activity or El Nino effect. In those circumstances, I can't see any real alternative than to conclude (at least tentatively) that the current warming is caused by human-generated CO2 to a very significant extent.
The precise extent remains uncertain, but the most objective assessment of all the evidence that I'm capable of making leads me to conclude that the risk of human-generated warming that may well have very uncomfortable consequences for large numbers of people is simply too great to ignore while waiting for even more certain evidence.
Another factor is that we're going to need to make adjustments and move towards renewable non-fossil fuels eventually anyway. Even with advances in recovery technologies, oil reserves will certainly begin to run out by the end of the century (although coal will last much longer). No doubt market forces would eventually ensure that that adjustment is made as oil prices rise over time comparative to other fuel sources, but I don't see any harm in governments creating "price signals" to encourage earlier conversion to renewable/sustainable energy sources, especially given that all economic analyses of the effects of Kyoto indicate minimal negative effects on world growth and prosperity.
So the "Great Leap Forward" analogy just doesn't hold, because the effects of Kyoto will be modest and essentially beneficial in any event (unlike the Great Leap Forward), even leaving aside the effects on global warming. I certainly don't think more drastic measures than Kyoto should be implemented until the evidence of the extent of warming is even clearer than at present. However, the picture should certainly be clear within a decade, and in the meantime Kyoto is a sensible, moderate precautionary measure.
As long as I assessed that likely warming was in the vicinity of 1 degree C or less over the next century (as I did until recently), it made sense to adopt the fairly relaxed position that there was no real need for any precautionary measures until things became clearer. The depletion of oil reserves and halt of population growth before the end of the century (both of which will occur by then on current best evaluations) is likely to mean that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 will tail off in any any event over time, without the need for drastic interventionary policies at all. However, temperature rises in the vicinity of 2 degrees C over the century create quite a different scenario. Even though the problem CAN be expected to moderate gradually after that, a rise of that magnitude (from already quite warm temperatures) will have quite serious adverse consequences for significant parts of the world's population. That results quite logically in a conclusion that sensible, controlled policy action to mitigate those effects should be implemented early. We can certainly argue reasonably about exactly what sorts of measures should be taken (e.g. McKibbin), but we can't any longer sensibly argue that nothing at all needs to be done.
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
Dr Stephen Schneider (Oct 1989)
Ken,
Thank you for taking the time to prepare such an in depth response to my posts.
But I would like to clarify my position on a number of points. You say:
"
Gee, Al, it's actually possible to tell which side is telling the truth in this debate. Let's look at your quote from "Bizarre Science": "
Sigh,
Tim, here we go again. Just like in my other example.
I quote a claim from Bizarre Science
You contradict it with a counter claim that says those figures don't gel with those from some study.
I respond by saying,
"Hold your horses, buddy. Let's look at the veracity of some these ppm figures coming out of the climate scientists.
And, once again, the argument turns into little more than a tit for tat, my-sources-are-better-than-your-sources-and-the-people-you-quote-are-all-dickheads sort of thing.
And which report will the press and the climate prophets seize upon? No prizes for guessing which.
Ken, can you provide a link that shows "current averaged temperature records adjust[ed] for urban heat island effect"? I'd be interested in seeing what 'adjustments' were made.
Al,
See IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001 Chapter 2 - Observed Climate Variability and Change , especially 2.2.2.1 Land-surface air temperature. From memory, there's much more detailed stuff about urban heat island adjustments elsewhere in the report. Have a look for yourself.
Dear Al, so your position is that Bizarre Science can say anything at all, without offering any supporting evidence for it, and you have no way of figuring out whether or not it is true or false? What do you do when you get email from Nigerian scammers?
Thanks, Ken. I'm wading through it.
Tim, I let others deal with the scammers. And, no, I think any attempt to portray Bizarre Science or Still Waiting for Greenhouse as devoid of supporting information is plain disingenuous. I grant you the statement I included above re atmospheric CO2% was unsupported. But, the vast majority of the posts there link to analyses in one form or another.
Thanks, Ken. I'm wading through it.
Tim, I let others deal with the scammers. And, no, I think any attempt to portray Bizarre Science or Still Waiting for Greenhouse as devoid of supporting information is plain disingenuous. I grant you the statement I included above re atmospheric CO2% was unsupported. But, the vast majority of the posts there link to analyses in one form or another.
Dear Al, I did not say that all the claims that Daly and Bizarre Science made are unsupported. I said that you can actually determine that they are wrong. It's not my fault that one you picked was unsupported. Is it really your position that it is impossible for you to determine that the claim you posted is false? Here's another clue.
Tim,
Quoting you if I may,
Gee, Al, it's actually possible to tell which side is telling the truth in this debate. Let's look at your quote from "Bizarre Science":
"
Tim, my initial thought when examining the first graph on the page you directed me to was that Mauna Loa, an active volcano, would seem an odd place for establishing atmospheric CO2 records. Reading this, one might envision a slight contamination problem in the sampling data:
Chemical analysis of gas samples taken from volcanic vents at the summit and rift zones of Kilauea and Mauna Loa has helped to improve our models of how these volcanoes release volatiles. Carbon/sulfur concentration ratios indicate that summit gases are richer in carbon dioxide (CO2) than are rift gases, because CO2 is less soluble in basaltic magma than the other gases, so that it is given off during shallow storage beneath the summit.
Anyway, Tim, I'm not arguing with you over the issue over the increase in CO2 concentration (although I might point out that the Bizarre Science site was talking about volume, and not concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I presume there is a linear relationship between the two, so your point remains valid.) You are most certainly correct if you unquestioningly accept the concentration data provided by the IPCC. If, however, you again examine the graph in this link, you'll notice that concentrations of around 550ppm were being recorded early in the 19th century.
Then again, reading through the links Ken provided does little to ease my mind about the way the IPCC presents its data. Take for example the Working Group's Summary for Policymakers. One assumes that this is the page that politicians are supposed to read when considering their position on Kyoto. What's one of the first things you're treated to? Why, it's the infamous hockey stick graph.
And when it came to the issue of how the IPCC treats 'heat islands', what strikes me is the pains they go to ameliorate concerns about the impact these stations might have on the results. Why not eliminate these stations from the sampling altogether? Apparently it's too difficult to define a station as urban or otherwise. Funny, but others seem to manage it, and, by pure coincidence, the trends indicated display a far more moderate warming trend than that identified by the IPCC, even after they make allowances in recognition of the changes in diurnal temperatures.
For my mind, they could have simply taken a leaf out of another organisation's book, and said:
You can take my urban temperature stations out of my sampling data when you pry them from my dead, cold fingers.
Ken, what's with this bestiality shit that's taken over this site?
Dave,
please argue with science, not by throwing rotten tomatoes.
Ken Parish,
I respect your right to change your opinion on the theory of global warming, but when you write above "ratbags like John Daly", I realise your decisions are not your own.
But then what socialist ever thought.....
Dear Al, notice how Louis failed to provide any support for his claim that only 5% of the C02 is man-made. This is another clue. Even if the graph you linked to is accurate (and since it was published in LaRouche's crackpot magazine, there are grave doubts on that count), it just shows that measurements of C02 in the 19th century were inaccurate. I certainly hope you don't think that in the 19th century it really fluctuated between 280 and 550 from year to year.
As for your claims about heat islands... I have downloaded the GHCN and the rural stations are identified. If you look at Hansen's paper you will find that the warming trend is calculated from the rural stations. Why did you claim otherwise?
Tim,
well, what data do you have which contradict 19th Century measurements?
Tim,
then, as I cannot, as you state, what precisely is the man-made contribution to atmospheric CO2?
And then Tim, what graph? I just checked your url, and well, abatoirs deal with it better than I
Louis, you claimed that 5% of the C02 in the atmosphere "is attributable to man-made causes". Any time you feel like offering support for your claim, feel free to pitch in. Ice core measurements seem to give a better idea of the 19th century Co2 levels than measurements made in the 19th century.
Aw Shit,
I plumb forgot this website (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html).
I plumb forgot water vapour - ....
Aw Shit,
I plumb forgot this website (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html).
I plumb forgot water vapour - ....
Tim,
answer the question please, not divert to ice core data which you know are problematical.
Tim,
what the, in your estimtation, is the contribution to atmospheric CO2 which humans have made in the last, say, 50 years?
Louis, Dave is referring to a bunch of spam comments that:
a) appear in other posts, and
b) quite possibly appeared in this one, but were soon deleted by Ken or Scott
He is not talking about either your arguments or Al's clever-referencing-of-fraudulent-"experts".
Hope this helps,
Mark,
Spam comments? Novel phenomenon I suspect.
Louis, you claimed that 5% of the C02 in the atmosphere "is attributable to man-made causes". Any time you feel like offering support for your claim, feel free to pitch in.
Tim,
CO2 derived from Ice is a proxy measurement which varies enormously from place to place.
It suffers from
1. It is NOT a measurement of the atmosphere
2. Dating Ice is problematical
3. Jawarowski quoted a previous scientific paper, and since those figures for CO2 were "averages", the actual ones by definition must be considerably higher.
4.Like the IPCC Tim, you make wild assertions from fraudulent data - which makes you, I suspect, though I might be mistaken, one of those fraudulent experts Dave mentioned.
5. Produce published factual data contradicting me please.
Tim,
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
I erred - I overstated it if water vapour were present, understated it slilghtly if it were.
Reference as to above
Tim, now produce evidence to contradict this please.
Tim,
I think our opinions converge on the subject of Lyndon LaRouche, but you're leaving me to do a lot of guess work here. Am I to take it that the graph in question was first published in the spring 1997 issue of "21st Century Science and Technology"? And, if this is the case, that the father of modern Greenhouse science, G.S. Callendar, did not actually use that paper in his research?
Thank you for dismissing the data in the graph as inaccurate, because it helps to illustrate the willingness with which those of the faith will dismiss contrary data. I thought that trait was supposed to be limited to luddites with their heads stuck in the sand like me.
Also, I'm a bit slower than some of the other kids, so please excuse me when I admit to the fact you've managed to confuse me. Who is Hansen, and what has he/she got to do with the link I sent you? That link contained the following:
However, we have found that much of this warming occurred over the most recent three decades, and during this period, urban growth appears to have contaminated the records. In contrast to data from urban areas, we find that the 19 non-urban sites in South Africa have not warmed significantly during this recent period.
Does that, or does that not, support the contention I made? That is: when report authors are willing to delineate urban from non-urban temperature stations, the temperature trend is far less significant?
Oh, and that's an interesting site you pointed out, Louis. What is your position on water vapour, Tim?
Aaron and Louis have couple of outstanding visiting critics. The standard of the debate is civile and both Aaron and Louis are not so stubborn to refuse to say they are wrong. Tim.L's jihad against anyone sceptical of the man made part of climate change is unprofessional. How does he treat his students if they don't agree 100% with him. And if one was wherein a cross that's probably going to cost points. I understand bugger all of the science so I can only go with people that aren't as plagued with hysterics. The politics surrounding Kyoto are dubious so count me out supporting that but count me in when it comes to expecting power plants and the like having the least environmental impact as possible. But I'm probably a heretic in Tim.L's eye, Kyoto has replaced the bible for people like him with the results equally unprovable.
Gary,
I agree that the discussion of this issue has so far been remarkably civil and polite. I'm learning a lot. However, it might not remain civil for much longer if you keep throwing in ad hominem comments like "Tim.L's jihad", "unprofessional" and "hysterics". Let's keep playing the ball rather than the man. I'm sure Tim will be dropping in to TA soo, and I'm looking forward to reading his responses to some cogent points I think Louis has made. It's pretty rare in my experience for (reasonably) knowledgeable global warming sceptics and advocates to enter into reasoned debate with each other, and it's a phenomenon I would like to see continue. But it's only likely to occur if both sides behave with mutual respect and restraint.
BTW Louis. I'm not a "socialist", and no-one who reads this blog regularly would label me as such. If anything I'm probably very slightly to the right of centre on most economic issues, and moderately libertarian on social ones. Presumably you leapt to that conclusion from the fact that I labelled John Daly a "ratbag". I concede that it's probably an unfair label. "Zealot" would be more reasonable, and it's a label that equally applies to quite a few global warming proponents. It's a label that can reasonably be applied to anyone who exhibits a "tunnel-vision" approach to any issue, evidenced by an unwillingness to examine both sides of the argument in a reasonably open-minded way.
Ken,
Thank you for your comments.
I tend not to label people but I would not regard John Daly as having had tunnel vision - he might have been focussed on one issue - and made errors, which we all do, but from my own private communication with him, I would not discribe him as a zealot. He was aware of the pitfals and problems - but he made many enemies in what seems to be a rather emotional debate.
As for your reaction that I might have thought you as a socilist, no that thought did not occur to me, as right wingers are as prone to ad hominems as well, but any one who need to descend to ad hominems has lost the argument. It is playing the man, not the ball. Most found it extremely hard, if not impossible, to counter Daly's arguments from fact.
Now as I see it, my figures of ~ 5% of CO2 being due to anthropogneic causes needs to be contradicted, which means that Prof. Singer has to be contradicted since that is where I got the numbers from.
As for Ice Core data - Jawarowski's paper needs to be read, and it has been linked on Warwick Hughes Site, and Bizarre Science. I might add that ice core data are proxy data, and not accurate measurements of atmospheric composition. Hence until proven otherwise with direct measurement, the data Al quoted that I posted, stand.
Louis,
Can you please post a link for Warwick's site.
Thanks
Louis, thanks for finally providing a cite for your claim. Looking at your cite I find that it actually agrees with the IPCC numbers for pre-industrial C02, giving a number of 280 ppm. However, it then claims that the increase since then is mostly "natural additions". Specifically, 69 ppm "natural additions" and 12 ppm man-made additions. That's where your 5% figure appears to come from.
Your source claims that the figures come from this paper. Trouble is, you can check the paper for yourself and discover that while the figures for pre-industrial and current C02 come from the paper, the figures for man-made additions do not, and would appear to have been made up.
See Al, it is possible to find out who is telling the truth.
Also from the paper:
6The value given by IPCC 2001, page 185, is 280
Ken
"ad hominem" are up to the interpretation of the receiver. You missed Marks clever swipe. Louis has his critics one of which I Emailed early last month to him thank for his participation. Tim.L is unprofessional in my view, it mite be incorrect but crying "ad hominem" is not a defence. Tim.L peppers his dialog with ad hominem why does he get a pass.
Louis description of you as "socialist" is as misguided as your perception of Aaron. On almost all other things he in line with you and probably to the left on some (classical liberal). So you have been committing to same error as Louis.
Al
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Al,
the Jaworowski paper is 5Mb and a pdf document
Tim,
have you read Jawarowski's paper?
Gary,
who is a classical liberal - I or Aaron :-)
And I while I might have labelled Ken as socialist, that was only a reaction to the use of ad hominems.
However - I have more important things to do.
Al, the fact that Jaworowski's paper was published in a LaRouche journal doesn't prove that the graph is false, but does suggest some caution is warranted. I would like to see some independent confirmation of the claims, preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I'm also not going to accept the claims in that journal that the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are fradulent.
Here is Hansen's description of how the surface temperature trends are calculated. Contrary to what folks like Loius tell you, they *do* account for the urban heat island effect.
Ken
Perhaps you can reword this
"Tim.L's jihad against anyone sceptical of the man made part of climate change is unprofessional. How does he treat his students if they don't agree 100% with him. And if one was wherein a cross that's probably going to cost points."
so it doesn't contain "ad hominem" then I could understand what you mean by "ad hominem".
Also playing the man and not the ball is part of Tim.L's tactics so this rare display hear doesn't legate his attitude at Bizarre Science. A stay out of the debate at Bizarre Science so not to trigger such things unless someone like Tim.L comes in chucking "ad hominem" and "playing the man and not the ball".
"who is a classical liberal - I or Aaron :-)"--Louis
A)Aaron
I don't know you well enough yet to make any speculations. You might still turn out to be some crazed loon ;-)
Louis, tks.
Tim, again you've lost me. It seems fairly clear that the source Louis cited referred to US Department of Energy figures at TABLE 1. Scroll down to the 'bibliography', and note that the source cited for the figures in the table is:
1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Read that reference carefully, Tim. Now, go back to the page you cite. I draw your attention to the third line of text...you know, the one that says:
Updated November 2003
Maybe I can't tell who's telling the truth, Tim. But I can tell you that it's always wise to check which edition of the reference your citing.
Al, it's not in the October 2000 version either.
Dear Gary, apparently ignoring you causes you to redouble your transparently obvious attempts to derail the discussion. Despite repeated requests you have failed to provide any evidence for any of the accusations you have made against me. You just continue to make more and more personal attacks. If you want to discuss this, we can continue our previous discussion here. I will not respond to your smears in this thread.
Yeah, you got me there, Tim. I can only point out that the author did state:
...The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources...
But even I can see that's a cop out given the rather left-field nature of the claim. I, too, find it difficult to accept the unsupported premise that only 15% of additional atmospheric CO2 since the pre-industrial age is anthropogenic.
Still, I think the essential point of the article was the (gobsmacking) omission of relative impact of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, and there's a general consensus on that issue (although the estimates range from a low of 40% to a high of 95% depending on who you're asking, and what side of the political fence their sitting).
Gary, my comment about Al wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was a rather sad troll, and he did well in not taking the bait there (and it's such a civil thread, too -- dunno what I was thinking!).
re Tim Lambert "playing the man and not the ball": sometimes you've gotta get both, but when you do, it's necessary to get the ball first. Tim's done that with his exposßs of such renowned liars as Steve Milloy: if it's necessary to discredit pseudo-scientific perversions like Junk Science (and occasionally TCS) to get to a factual point ("the ball"), then so be.
Tim L, Al Bundy in detail pointed to Louis's source and all you did is point at something else instead of staying on topic. So I'm not the one attempting to "derail the discussion" . You might get away with that with some teen worried about there marks but not me. For Kens sake I will withdraw from the discussion and let you wallow in your ridicules claims of innocence.
I thought is was clever mark. It crept up quietly and un noticed. Anyway I have to stop as I promised.
Gary,
I don't want you to drop out of the discussion, for my sake or anyone else's. It isn't all that difficult to mostly avoid ad hominem abuse. As you've probably noticed (Louis certainly has), I'm not entirely innocent myself. I don't expect sainthood, just a certain amount of restraint.
Ken, Self control is something I need to practice so OK. I would like you to reword my statement to be at least less ad hominem if your feel like it. I mite learn something and I might get along with people like Tim L better.
This whole thread kinda illustrates the broader problem with the greenhouse debate. While the scientifically-inclined types discuss the data ("Is!", "Isn't!, "Did!", "Didn't!" etc.)we of a less technical bent wonder how we should be responding. I stopped burning off in the back yard a while ago, and now recycle the rubbish and ride the bike when it's not raining. I go and look at the wind farm out near Ravenshoe now and again (the whoosh-whoosh noise is restful). If I had a farm where it was windy, I'd want to build one myself. But the whole greenhouse issue is so toxically politicised that the science is all but irrelevant. Until one camp or the other scores an unambiguous win (still some way off, it seems), it comes down to who we want to believe, which makes it a matter of personal dogma rather than a response to reasoned debate.
Tim, my initial thought when examining the first graph on the page you directed me to was that Mauna Loa, an active volcano, would seem an odd place for establishing atmospheric CO2 records.
Al, if your worried about the Mauna Loa results, you could try looking at other sites. Barrow, Samoa, South Pole, or perhaps Christmas Island. If this isn't enough for you, I can post many many more examples. All of these results give very similar data to the Manua Loa readings.
A more complete listing can be found here.
I might add that ice core data are proxy data, and not accurate measurements of atmospheric composition. Hence until proven otherwise with direct measurement, the data Al quoted that I posted, stand.
Once again, Louis is wrong.
The ice-core atmospheric composition measurements are not proxy measurements. Rather, the ancient gas is collected and measured by gas chromatography.
To quote Barnola et al:
Ice cores are unique with their entrapped air inclusions enabling direct records of past changes in atmospheric trace-gas composition.
All,
Sad news, I'm afraid. I'd just written a conclusive 300 page thesis demonstrating that heat islands and the failure to take into account biomass sequestration prior to 1780 meant that the Greenhouse theory was fatally flawed. Just then, a disastrous click on the wrong web window saw the whole lot vanish to be replaced with Miss January 1958.
Aieeeee!!! I screamed. They'll never believe me now. All that work lost. Kyoto's sun will now rise, and no one will be able to stop it.
Then I thought about the more interesting issue. Yeah, sure that's a really sweet tan line, but even if she's still alive, she must be 70 in the shade. And was she going to or coming from Nassau? What a conundrum, but just the thing to put CO2 sampling data into perspective.
I've got to return to my life, but think perhaps the wisest words in this whole thread were written by Willmott.
I just hope I live long enough to see karma run over the Greenhouse dogma.
Thanks all for your responses.
Louis writes, "Just refreshing my memory but CO2 represents 0.33% by volume of the earth's atmosphere, of which about 5% is attributable to man-made causes. This works out to 0.0165% of the atmosphere is from man-made CO2 emissions."
That's not a proper way of looking at it, Louis. For approximately the last 10,000 years (i.e., the current interglacial) natural emission sources and natural sinks of CO2 have been in balance (at approximately 200 Teragrams per year as carbon).
But since the 1880's human emissions due to burning of fossil fuels have risen from essentially zero to the present approximately 6 Teragrams per year as carbon). And it's as a result of this new source of carbon dioxide emissions that the concentration has risen from approximately 280 ppm to 370+ ppm.
The proper way to look at that rise from 280 ppm to 370 ppm (or 90 ppm) is that essentially all of it was due to humans, because in the absence of humans sources and sinks would have been balanced.
Oh charming. Louis reposted one of his comments here as a post over at BS, and Aaron Oakley responded with a comment where he called me a pig. The fact that Gary and Aaron throw insults rather than argue the facts tells you something about the weakness of their position.
Al Bundy writes, "If, however, you again examine the graph in this link, you'll notice that concentrations of around 550ppm were being recorded early in the 19th century."
If that graph is right, it would probably be the single most important discovery in the history of climate research.
But that graph flies in the face of every other graph or table published about the record of CO2 atmospheric concentrations in the last million years.
So the odds that the graph is right are incredibly small.
I see Tim Lambert is posting here. I hope you saw my fantastic Free Money Offer, Tim. :-) Still good for another 80+ days:
Fabulous Free Money Offer
Oops. Don't know what went wrong with that link:
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2004/05/free_money_offe.html
Ken Parish writes, "However, temperature rises in the vicinity of 2 degrees C over the century create quite a different scenario."
Who says temperature rises are going to be "in the vicinity" (whatever that means) of 2 degrees C over the 21st century?
"Also playing the man and not the ball is part of Tim.L's tactics..."
Ho, ho, ho! Good one! That will let me return to work with a smile.
Mark, your questions are not even relevant to what I claimed. Quit playing silly games.
Tim Lambert writes, "Mark, your questions are not even relevant to what I claimed."
Tim, you are simply so ignorant on the subject--the relationship between internal energy of the atmosphere and temperature of the atmosphere--that you apparently don't even know why my questions are absolutely relevant to your claims!
Here, once again, are your claims:
"Wow. I guess we'll just have to ditch the entire field of thermodynamics then. In fact, Temperature T and internal energy U are related by the formula
ΔU=ΔT*m*c
where m is the mass and c the specific heat. It is true that it is possible for internal energy to change without affecting the temperature if there is a phase change, but the atmosphere stays way above the temperature of liquid nitrogen, so this makes almost no difference to temperature."
...and...
"The equation I gave is actually a very (good) approximation. Do you also complain that Newtonain physics is the wrong way to describe the atmosphere because it doesn't account for relativistic effects?"
As I posted in my blog, your claims show that you are you are equally confident when you don't know what the #@$% you're writing about, as when you do.
But regardless of your (ignorant) opinion of the relevance of my questions, you ought to be able to answer them. (Why can't you just use your magic formula...delta U = m C delta T? ;-))
Tim continues, "Quit playing silly games."
I do environmental analyses for a living, Tim. So it may be a "game" to you, but it isn't to me.
Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)
Ken Parish writes, "Straight-line extrapolation of this current measured warming suggests global temperature rises of around 2 degrees C by the end of this century."
Global surface temperatures have actually been cooling over the last 6 years, if one starts from 1998. And if one starts from ~1900, the rise has been about 0.7 degrees Celsius per century. And by most accounts, a straightline extrapolation of satellite data doesn't produce a 2 degree Celsius rise in the next 100 years.
You apparently seem to have chosen some time like 1975 for your starting date. And you've also apparently taken surface temperatures, not satellite temperatures, for your data set. Why do you think taking a straight-line extrapolation of surface temperatures with 1975 as a starting point is valid? (In preference to, for example, starting from 1900 with the surface measurements? Or starting from the beginning of satellite measurements, and extrapolating from them?)
Ken continues, "Although that probably wouldn't be catastrophic for most people (it might even be beneficial for many), it's well and truly large enough to merit serious concern and real (but not panicked) policy reactions from governments."
What "policy reactions" are you thinking about?
1) If the warming you project would be beneficial for a majority of the future residents of a particular country, do you support a policy reaction by that government of increasing warming?
2) What obligations do you think current governments have to citizens of that country (and other countries) 100 years into the future? Would your opinion about the obligations change if you knew that the people of 2104 would be very wealthy compared to the people of 2004?
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2003/12/economic_growth_1.html
Ken Parish writes, "Indeed, it's difficult to see how anyone could now rationally maintain a strongly sceptical position on global warming,.."
If by "strongly sceptical" you mean something like, "The projections in the IPCC TAR for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resulting temperatures are the greatest fraud in the history of environmental 'science'"...you can read how a rational person could come to that conclusion right here:
http://markbahner.50g.com/what_will_happen_to_us.htm
It's simple (though somewhat time-consuming) analysis.
Mark Bahner (Certificate of Rationality available on request ;-))
Mark,
You don't appear to deny that human-induced warming is taking place at all (unlike extreme sceptics like the late John Daly), so no rationality certificate is required. It should be obvious from my post and comments that I regard the question of the precise extent of current and likely future human-induced warming as still very much an open question.
My shift from relaxed and comfortable to pro-Kyoto flows from my own crude lay assessment that the preponderance of evidence seems now to be pointing to the human component of warming being in the vicinity of 2 degrees C per decade (rather than 1 degree or less as I had previously thought). My (tentative) conclusion to that effect flows essentially from the current averaged surface record, which (as my primary post noted) is between 0.43 and 0.64
Mark,
You may well have a point about the legitimacy of the graph I pointed to. My problem with Greenhouse research is that it relies far too heavily on scary statistics.
I have a bit of a grasp on statistical methods, and the fact is that the hypotheses supported by the processing of sampling data are usually very dull. But when you mix them with politics, you can create a product that is exciting and ominous to the layman.
For example: a flour packing machine designed to churn out 1kg is tested for its accuracy. A batch of the packed bags are sampled, and a mean weight chosen. A null hypothesis says that the mean weight is 1000gms, and a alternative hypothesis says it is not equal to 1000gms. We create a test statistic which is the (difference between the sample mean and 1000gms) divided by (10 multilied by the square root of the number of bags sampled). We than state that the null hypothesis should be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis if the test statistic is larger than a particular value chosen on the basis that the probability that the null hypothesis will be rejected if, in fact, it is true is less than 5%, or in certain cases 1% etc etc. If the hypothesis, in this case that the mean weight of the flour bags is 1000gm, is not rejected, then that does not mean that the machine is dead accurate. In fact it only allows the following result:
CONCLUSION: Given the size of the sample, it was not possible to prove with less than a 5% chance of being wrong, that the mean weight of the flour bags was not 1000gms. It may well be 1000.1gms, but that would require an enormous sample to disprove the accuracy of the machine.
Boring...
But let's add the politics. Here's the headlines from:
A Current Affair: "Aussie families ripped off as flour packer fiddles the figures"
ABC: "More trouble for Howard as flour packer investigated"
SBS: "Howard government reels as doubts raised over essential food supplies"
You see? It's not the statistical meaning of the figures that's the news. It's the issue being checked that's the news, and any idiot can come along and lavishly interpret the actual stats to suit themselves.
I'm also aware that scientists are very human, and all too willing to dismiss inconvenient data as anomalies, especially when they have a theory they are trying to prove. They're not lying per se, the art lies in justifying the rejection of the erroneous sampling data.
Throughout the IPCC reports, the graphs are too smooth, the implications too obvious. This is a royal snow job, as typified by the dreadful Hockey Stick graph, which should have anybody trained in statistics rolling their eyes in despair.
Tim, I think it's a stretch to say Aaron Oakley accused you of being a pig.
If I included one of my favourite sayings here:
"Don't try and teach a pig to sing, it only wastes your time and annoys the pig."
...it does not imply that people who refuse to accept my opinion are pigs. It merely suggests there is little merit in trying to persuade the obstinate.
All,
just back from lunch in the city - will reply to the posts pre this, as time permits.
Tim,
I rtefer to your post thanking me for my citation of Prog Singer's summary - "Louis, thanks for finally providing a cite for your claim. Looking at your cite I find that it actually agrees with the IPCC numbers for pre-industrial C02, giving a number of 280 ppm. However, it then claims that the increase since then is mostly "natural additions". Specifically, 69 ppm "natural additions" and 12 ppm man-made additions. That's where your 5% figure appears to come from."
Firstly your reference to http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html is a site that I have never been able to access. I have asked Warwick Hughes, on many occasions, to get the data for me, so at this point in time I am unable to check your citation. I have not been able to access this site for the last 3 months, and for that matter, at all.
Secondly - I note that you have not quoted any study quantifying man-made contributions of Greenouse gases, as a proportion of total greenhouse gases, (let alone CO2). You do detail CO2 measurements of present and near present concentrations.
However, you have not supplied any data detailing what proportion humanity makes to CO2 and what nature does.
As for Ice data - these are proxy measurements, not actual measurments, and cannot be compared.
Ken,
measuring gas quantities with a gas chromotograph is of course accurate - but what are you measuring? The atmosphere at that time? What has happened in the meantime, and do we know what happens to ice under high pressure, and what is there experimental evidence for that.
While Jawarowski's paper is but one view of the problem, and there are many others, we know little about what happens to gas entrapped in ice.
It is only now, with the global warming issue, that imperfections of our knowledge of natural processes are being accentuated.
Perhaps you need to fall off your skateboard a few more times, bruise your knees again, and ponder whether we, in the geological side of things, while not being totally wrong, do, on odd occasions, get close to reality.
Ken's last post mentions rather high increases of temperature - but based on what?
Temperature is defined, sensu-strictu, as the energy state of two contiguous substances in thermal equilibrium.
That energy state may be described in terms of the kinetic energy of gases (refer Number Watch).
The earth has an atomosphere which has a temperature which fluctuates, and is not in thermal equilibrium.
With that I leave it for a time, and looking at my posts above, I can see what Mark's subtleties were, :-), and for Gary's comments, Henry does not put up with loonies.
Mark,
"Al Bundy writes, "If, however, you again examine the graph in this link, you'll notice that concentrations of around 550ppm were being recorded early in the 19th century."
If that graph is right, it would probably be the single most important discovery in the history of climate research.
But that graph flies in the face of every other graph or table published about the record of CO2 atmospheric concentrations in the last million years.
So the odds that the graph is right are incredibly small."
Look at the graph and the source from what it was quoted from.
A primary source which can be checked.
Mark,
"Al Bundy writes, "If, however, you again examine the graph in this link, you'll notice that concentrations of around 550ppm were being recorded early in the 19th century."
If that graph is right, it would probably be the single most important discovery in the history of climate research.
But that graph flies in the face of every other graph or table published about the record of CO2 atmospheric concentrations in the last million years.
So the odds that the graph is right are incredibly small."
Look at the graph and the source from what it was quoted from.
A primary source which can be checked.
Ken,
sorry about the duplicate posts - please delete the duplicates
Ken the comments to this post were an entertaining read, but they just emphasised to me the bogging down of this issue in political, polemic shouting.
I don't pretend to have advanced to anything like your familiarity with the subject. But lawyers and economists really do have to be careful to understand that a little (or even a lot) of knowledge in scientific areas can be very misleading. This applies not only to you (a lawyer), John Quiggin (an economist) and to most of the other commenters who frequent the blogosphere. As a total layman I'm far from convinced either way, but I do think that in public debate, global warming has become a political issue (along left versus right lines). Perhaps we should all just keep our powder dry until real scientists advance their knowledge a whole lot more before governments take precipitate action which may or may not scuttle the economies of individual countries.
Incidentally Al Bundy, there really was a fair bit of a scare in the seventies about the "coming ice age". You may have read about it in science text books (which are really only digests and not scientific papers), but for example this article did appear in Newsweek April 21 1975 page 52. What strikes very forefully in reading the article is the similarity of the language used then compared with the language used now in respect of global warming.
Gary, your commenting would really benefit from a crash course in spelling, sentence construction or perhaps even proof-reading before posting (ie the Preview button). It's often really difficult to "get" precisely what you're saying, although your general gist is pretty clear.
Thanks, Ron,
That reads just like a parody of the things we read today in the morning fish wrapper about the Greenhouse doom encroaching. Except in reverse. What a hoot!
Of course, we probably know a lot more about the climate now. But this article proves that human nature hasn't changed, and that the chicken littles react in the same rational, balanced way.
I'd be careful Tim, that website of yours that 'proves' that there never was a scare in the '70s reminds me a lot of my communications major in the '90s. The learned experts there were all explaining away South Pacific cannibalism as nothing more than a convenient linguistic device to rationalise the abuses of white colonialism. I think that bit of crackpottery has died away now, but its interesting to watch history being rewritten to reflect the new 'truths'.
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/archives/004080.html#more
I wrote (about the graph in the above location): "If that graph is right, it would probably be the single most important discovery in the history of climate research. But that graph flies in the face of every other graph or table published about the record of CO2 atmospheric concentrations in the last million years. So the odds that the graph is right are incredibly small."
Louis responded, "Look at the graph and the source from what it was quoted from. A primary source which can be checked."
Sorry Louis, you're going to have to help me more than that! As "they" say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Your claim (from the figure) is that atmospheric concentrations in the 19th century fluctuated between 550+ ppm and 250 ppm.
Your claim is essentially equivalent to a claim that you've found Noah's Ark in the mountains of Turkey, and have found outside the footprints of two penguins, two lions, and two zebras, etc. etc. So you're going to have to supply some extaordinary backup for your claim!
The graph you cite contains the caption: "Adapted from S. Fonselius et al., 1956. Tellus, Vol. 8, p 176."
I'm aware of the Tellus Institute. And there seems to be a journal, Tellus. But I can't find the website anymore. So you'll have to point me to where I can obtain "Tellus, Vol. 8, p 176."
In the meantime, the graph contains some really bizarre data. (Maybe that's why it's on your "Bizarre Science" website? ;-))
If you look at the data points from 1800 to 1850, they range randomly from roughly from 350 to 550 ppm! That's a random 200 PPM RANGE!
How in the world do you square this with measurements conducted around the world since the 1950's, that show an absolutely steady increase in CO2 concentrations from 315 ppm to 375 ppm, with year-to-year variations of less than 3 ppm?
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo144e.pdf
And how do you square that graph with the graph of atmospheric CO2 increases on this website (from Hansen and Sato, 2001)?
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_15apf.html
Louis, if you want to have credibility with anyone, you have to be skeptical of incredible claims even if they support your view. Statements like, "Look at the graph and the source from what it was quoted from. A primary source which can be checked"...aren't adequate!
Ken Parish writes, "You don't appear to deny that human-induced warming is taking place at all..."
I think the preponderance of evidence indicates that at least some of the warming of the 20th century was caused by humans. (But maybe a very small percentage.) However, I wouldn't characterize a person who thinks none of the warming was due to humans as "irrational"...unless they say that Martians are feeding them their information. ;-)
"My shift from relaxed and comfortable to pro-Kyoto flows from my own crude lay assessment that the preponderance of evidence seems now to be pointing to the human component of warming being in the vicinity of 2 degrees C per decade..."
Or 0.2 degrees C per decade? ;-)
"Now, I accept that the above is a pretty crude, primitive analysis, and I'm quite prepared to be shown why it's wrong or misguided."
Heh, heh, heh! What an opening! :-) Let's look at the various components of your analysis:
1) You write that you're referencing the average from 1950 to 1980. The midpoint year for that period would be 1965 (unless math Down Under is different from here in the North ;-)).
2) You say that the current (year 2004?) temperatures are 0.43 to 0.64 degrees Celsius higher. The average of those two numbers is about 0.54 degrees Celsius.
3) So you have 0.54 degrees Celsius rise over 38 years. That works out to about 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade.
4) You base your extrapolation on surface temperature measurements rather than satellite measurements for the lower troposphere. I know of no convincing argument for why surface temperatures should be used in preference to satellite measurements for the lower troposphere, if the goal is to estimate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on temperature.
5) From this opinion piece by Ron Bailey, apparently Christy et al. interpret satellite data to show an increase in the lower troposphere of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. And Wentz et al. interpret the same data to get an increase of 0.15 degrees Celsius per decade. Those would correspond to increases of 0.7 to 1.5 degrees Celsius per century. (Or the average of the two would be 1.1 degrees Celsius per century.)
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111903.shtml
6) However, performing such a linear extrapolation of satellite data ignores the fact that the satellite data started in 1979, which was essentially the peak of human-induced climate forcing (at least per the analysis of Hansen et al.):
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/pictures/hansen010302/figure1m.gif
7) If one compensates for this fact by multiplying the rates determined by Christy and Wentz by a factor of 0.6, one gets values of 0.42 degrees Celsius per century (for Christy) to 0.9 degrees Celsius per century (for Wentz). The average of those two values would be about 0.7 degrees Celsius for the 21st century.
There seems to a fair bit of linear extrapolation of temperature data going on here. The stock market seems to have been on a pretty good upswing for the past year. Do you think I can now rely on a linear extrapolation of that trend to enhance my wealth?
Ron Mead
"Gary, your commenting would really benefit from a crash course in spelling, sentence construction or perhaps even proof-reading before posting (ie the Preview button). It's often really difficult to "get" precisely what you're saying, although your general gist is pretty clear."
I do that by drafting it in my Email program first. The best I can hope for is getting the 'gist' across.
Mark,
Don't forget that so much of the interpolated, regressed, adjusted, washed and tumble dried data that underpins the Greenhouse monster is derived from major northern hemisphere land masses. The Greenhouse pundits go curiously quiet on the subject of the southern hemisphere, particularly the open ocean results. From memory, these are much more in line with the troublesome satellite results for the lower troposphere. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Re your question:
How in the world do you square this with measurements conducted around the world since the 1950's, that show an absolutely steady increase in CO2 concentrations from 315 ppm to 375 ppm, with year-to-year variations of less than 3 ppm?
Mm, can you point me to a link showing the raw data, and not the regressed graphs for any of these stations?
I've got no argument that CO2 concentration has been increasing...that would seem to be a logic development of the global dependence on fossil fuels. My interest lies in watching how the books are being cooked with regard to the stats.
Thinking about ice bubble proxies made me wonder. Does anybody know of any figures for concentration of dissolved CO2 in pack ice? Does anybody know if it effervesces over time? Or perhaps the reverse, and does CO2 actually dissolve back into water ice? (I'm not going to get into the triple point considerations here)
Ron Mead writes, "There seems to a fair bit of linear extrapolation of temperature data going on here."
Let's see:
1) We've got a hundred years of surface temperature data that shows a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius temperature rise.
2) We've got surface temperature data from 1951 to 2004 that shows a temperature increase that would be extrapolated to about 1.4 degrees Celsius temperature rise over a century.
3) We have satellite temperature data for the last 25 years that extrapolate to 0.7 to 1.5 degrees Celsius over a century. (If adjusted to account for a reduction in forcing, it would be more like 0.4 to 0.9 degrees Celsius over a century.)
Ron continues, "The stock market seems to have been on a pretty good upswing for the past year. Do you think I can now rely on a linear extrapolation of that trend to enhance my wealth?"
You compare extrapolating from 100 years or 40 years of surface data, and 25 years of satellite data, to extrapolating stock market returns from a ***single year*** of returns? Don't you think that comparison is just a bit of an exageration?
Tell you what Ron...suppose you were given the job of predicting the 5-year average global surface temperature anomoly for the period of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. And the same 5-year average centered around 2020 (i.e. 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022). And the same 5-year average centered around 2030.
And you had this record of previous anomolies:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
How would you go about doing your job...and what would your answers be?
My point was that there are some situations that call for cyclical analyses rather than linear. Climate has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than stock markets, so perhaps one year's measurement of stock market performance is pretty long compared with even 150 years of climate performance (or 1500 years for that matter). Linear extrapolations have their uses but are pretty dubious for reliable fortune telling.
Al Bundy writes, "Don't forget that so much of the interpolated, regressed, adjusted, washed and tumble dried data that underpins the Greenhouse monster is derived from major northern hemisphere land masses."
First off...Al, is Christina Applegate still single? If she is, let her know there's a dirty old man in North Carolina who'd like to meet her. ;-)
Ummm...back to boring global warming. This sort of discussion really depresses me. It's basically irrelevant. The whole key to the "Greenhouse monster" is, "What will temperatures be like in the 21st century?" And the matter of whether surface temperatures over the last 50 years have increased by 0.3 degrees Celsius, or 0.5 degrees Celsius, or 0.7 degrees Celsius, and how those numbers were arrived at, is not terribly relevant to that question. What is relevant to that question is:
1) What will CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations be?
2) What will methane atmospheric concentrations be?
3) What will resulting temperatures be?
Worrying about minor details about how temperatures were measured in the recent past doesn't significantly affect the answers to those questions.
Al continues, "Mm, can you point me to a link showing the raw data, and not the regressed graphs for any of these stations?"
Al, there's no point. There is absolutely ***NO*** question about the validity of that curve. No one who knows *anything* at all about atmospheric CO2 measurements questions the validity of those measurements.
I've made measurements of atmospheric CO2 myself. You could rent an indoor air quality monitor and do the measurements yourself. I expect literally 100s of thousands of people have measured atmospheric CO2 worldwide.
http://www.ashtead-technology.com/Environmental/IAQ%20Contents.htm
The graph Louis refers to is complete BS. There is simply no doubt about that. That graph doesn't even agree with the OTHER graphs in the same paper (by Jaraworski, or whoever the @#$% it was).
The IPCC TAR's projections are the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science, in my informed and considered opinion as an environmental professional. But attacking the IPCC's bogus work with equally bogus work--well, even more bogus work--isn't going to help.
"My point was that there are some situations that call for cyclical analyses rather than linear."
I agree one shouldn't extrapolate 2000 years into the future based on 100 years of temperature measurements. But if you are trying to predict the next 100 years, what do you do?
"Climate has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than stock markets, so perhaps one year's measurement of stock market performance is pretty long compared with even 150 years of climate performance (or 1500 years for that matter)."
No, that's clearly not the case. Stock markets can lose 20% in one year, and gain 20% the next year. But the average global temperature in this interglacial has been approximately...13 degrees Celsius? And it's been very rare that the temperature has increased or decreased by even 1 degree Celsius over a 100-year period. So average global surface temperature has been much more stable than stock markets.
Again, if it was your *job* to predict temperatures in 2010, 2020, 2030 (etc.) how would you go about that, and what would your answers be?
Maybe you wouldn't extrapolate...maybe you'd say the temperature would stay the same. Or maybe you'd say the temperature would fall by an amount equal to what it had risen in the previous period. But would would you do?
"But if you are trying to predict the next 100 years, what do you do?"
Be very humble. People who successfully predict the future are very lucky but they do make lots of money if they have put their money where their predictions are. Those who are not successful aren't heard of again. They probably have anxious creditors.
"But the average global temperature in this interglacial has been approximately...13 degrees Celsius?" I can and have survived 20% fluctuations in the stockmarket. Not sure I'd be OK with the 13 degrees C. however. Depends on what you call stable I guess.
Mark
The steady increase in CO2 is a statistic - I have posted on BS various graphs showing the varability of CO2 from proxy data over geological time, which prompts one to think that perhaps CO2 concentration summaries are contrived.
I cannot check these numbers because I cannot access the URL, and I have, as a write, others spending time trying to work out why.
As for the apparent ransdomess of the data which you refer, that is not unusual in earth science - happens all the time.
As for the references to the citations, those I did not check - I just assumed that Warwick Hughes, from whom I obtained the reference to the paper in the first place, was "correct". He was, is and will be.
I do not shoot messengers, only the message, Mark.
But what precisely is my claim Mark?
It is that global warming is not caused by human effects.
Your ball.
Mark,
how about you publish a paper showing Jawarowki's data BS ?
I suppose this post will be regarded as spam, but .....
One problem I note here is that temperatures have only been measured for how long scientifically?
All the other ones are dervied from proxies which assume certain things.
As Aaron pointed out in BS earlier, you cannot mix proxy data with measurements and projections.
As Rumpold would aver, "The prosecution has a problem"
Mark,
I guess I should have been more specific. I'm interested in the standard deviation of atmospheric CO2 concentration in today's sampling.
Are all tests at all CO2 sampling stations returning a uniform 382 plus or minus, say, up to 10ppm on each test? Or is there significantly more variance? Say 382 plus or minus up to 100ppm?
I don't know, I'm just asking is all. My point being that if individual atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements are all over the shop, but average out over a large sample set to the global average (~382ppmv), then that might explain why the Jabaworski figures appear to be all over the place. Geez, Mark, if I give the impression I'm arguing the toss on CO2ppmv, forgive me, that's not what I'm about. I didn't use that as an attack on the IPCC. I merely observed that the graph in question appeared to show data from the 19th century that contradicted the party 280ppmv line.
And, another thing:
...The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 45-year monitoring program.
I know the figures from Mauna Loa, if anything, are slightly lower than other testing stations. I just query the idea that we can ignore CO2 venting from the volcano because, er, well it doesn't really say does it?
And just hold on one moment, Mark. It seems fairly clear from me that this argument is very, very much about how much the globe has allegedly warmed since the industrial revolution, particularly in the last thirty years or so. You're suggesting that the critical variables are the levels of CO2 and CH4. Er, I might have missed it, but is there actually some form of rock solid, direct evidence to back this assertion?
I haven't actually come across any equation in my surfing that says (Global Mean Temperature in Degrees Kelvin) = Some function of (concentration of CO2, concentration of CH4). Rather the whole deck of cards is built on hokey estimates of increases in global temperature (not reflected in the lower troposhere or southern oceans) observed against much more reliable measurements of the increasing concentrations of 'Greenhouse gases'. The whole scare is based around the principle of post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
And, as you appear to be a subject matter expert, I'll throw what appears to be the $64K question out to you. How do you rate the impact of CO2 and CH4 against that of H2O vapour for 'greenhouse' effect?
Oh, and another thought.
Has anybody considered the impact of aerosols in TRAPPING heat? From what I've seen, they've only been considered in regard to their albedo effect in REDUCING temperature.
Consider the following multiple choice test:
Smudge Pots
Fruit growers will sometimes use smudge pots to try to protect their crops from a possible killing frost, particularly on clear, cold nights. A smudge pot is a portable heater/burner which produces thick heavy smoke. Fruit growers place a number of these around the orchard in the evening to prevent the crop from freezing at night. Do smudge pots actually work? Why?
A. Yes. They work simply by heating the air in the orchard to keep it above freezing.
B. No. They don't work. They can not supply enough heat to keep the orchard from freezing.
C. Yes. They work by producing a heavy smoke layer over the orchard which prevents heat loss by radiation to the night sky
D. I think someone should notify the Pollution Control Agency.
The answer, of course, is:
C
The smudge pots do not put out enough heat to heat the orchard, however the thick smoke cloud acts to reflect infrared radiation (heat radiation) from the orchard, thus "trapping" heat between the cloud and the ground. By reducing the amount of heat lost by radiation to the night sky, the orchard cools more slowly, hopefully keeping it above the freezing point through the night.
Now, what do you suppose would be the effect of pollutant aerosols over the continental land masses of North America and Europe/Asia on diurnal temperatures?
Anybody care to take me on when I speculate that the nightly minimum temperature would increase with an increase in particulate pollution?
Yeah, sure, it's just a little layman's theory, but it does fit rather nicely with the fact that the 'Greenhouse effect' seems to be dramatically more noticeable in the northern hemisphere. Remind me of those satellite temps again. Oh yes, that's right, since 1979 temperature increase in the northern hemisphere has been +0.143 degrees per decade. In the south? A puny +0.007 degrees, much to the chagrin of the warming gurus.
Oh, but of course I forgot. Aerosols are supposed to keep heat out, aren't they?
Or so the priests from the Little Church of the Bleeding Thermometer of Mother Gaia would like us to think.
Al Bundy writes, "I guess I should have been more specific. I'm interested in the standard deviation of atmospheric CO2 concentration in today's sampling. Are all tests at all CO2 sampling stations returning a uniform 382 plus or minus, say, up to 10ppm on each test? Or is there significantly more variance? Say 382 plus or minus up to 100ppm? I don't know, I'm just asking is all."
Al, I apologize if was short with you. Your questions are terrific. It's clear you have no background in the issue at hand, but your questions show your mind is razor sharp.
I just get so discouraged. As I've posted here, I think the IPCC TAR's projections for methane concentrations, CO2 emissions and concentrations, and resulting temperatures are the biggest fraud in the history of environmental science. And since I'm an environmental engineer, it's a black mark on essentially my whole profession. So I take the issue very seriously.
But it does no good in exposing the fraud when people bring up totally bogus objections to the IPCC's work. And that's what Louis' graph is...totally bogus. There's no way in the world that atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the 1800-1850 time period were varying randomly between 350 and 550 ppm.
For the specific answer to your question, go to the locations Tim Lambert has already cited:
Barrow, Samoa, South Pole, or perhaps Christmas Island.
You can see from these sites that there is some variation over the course of a year at *some* sites (e.g., Barrow, Alaska) due to changes in vegetation. And there may be a couple ppm difference between the sites (I'm too lazy to check) but there is ***NO WAY*** that there is a 100 ppm deviation from site to site...let alone from test to test! (Some of these sites I presume are actually continuous CO2 monitors, which basically give updates every few seconds. Such monitors wouldn't even vary by 1 ppm from one reading to the next.)
So the graph Louis presented is simply complete garbage. In fact, I'm too lazy to look up the exact numbers, but each 1 ppm of CO2 change in atmospheric concentration represents about 2 billion tons of carbon (in carbon dioxide). Since the natural sources and sinks are balanced (or were until human emissions of CO2 became so siginificant) at about 200 billion tons released, and 200 billion tons re-absorbed, a 200 ppm increase from over 2 years would mean that photosynthesis essentially completely stopped over that period.
The graph is just ridiculous. That's why it was published in Lyndon LaRouche's magazine. No one who knows anything about atmospheric CO2 would ever publish it.
Louis writes, "The steady increase in CO2 is a statistic..."
The steady increase in CO2 is parameter that is carefully MEASURED all around the world. As I wrote, literally *hundreds of thousands* of people have probably measured atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over the last 50 years. I've measured it myself. Anyone who conducts indoor air measurements of CO2 in a well-ventilated building without significant CO2 sources (e.g., without a roomful of people) will get a measured concentration that's somewhere near 375 ppm (say, plus or minus 20 ppm).
"I have posted on BS various graphs showing the varability of CO2 from proxy data over geological time, which prompts one to think that perhaps CO2 concentration summaries are contrived."
"One" only thinks that the CO2 concentration values on the webpages I posted are "contrived" if "one" believes in UFO conspiracies. As I wrote, literally hundreds of thousands of people have probably measured the atmospheric concentration of CO2 over the last 50 years. You could do it yourself, if you want to shell out about $200 to rent an instrument for a week. The idea that there is some contrived conspiracy is simply 100% nonsense.
"As for the apparent ransdomess of the data which you refer, that is not unusual in earth science - happens all the time."
There is NO "randomness" of the sort posted on your graph in any of the careful measurements of CO2 atmospheric concentrations over the last 50 years. And there isn't even any "randomness" in the CO2 concentration measurements from ice cores for the last ~400,000 years.
"But what precisely is my claim Mark? It is that global warming is not caused by human effects."
That is not the claim on your website:
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/archives/004080.html#more
The claim on your website is,
"As can be seen from the accompanying graph (from the paper previously posted on the Warwick Hughes site), CO2 concentrations have been considerably higher in the 19th and 20th centuries, up to 550 ppm!"
That claim is nonsense. You ought to take it off your website, or at least write a correction acknowledging that the claim isn't correct.
"Your ball."
No, Louis, it's your ball. The graph you've got and the claim you make are both bogus.
They're even more obviously bogus than Tim Lambert's claim that delta U = m C delta T is a good equation for characterizing the relationship between the internal energy and temperature of the atmosphere.
You need to correct your mistake.