bobbo, science is not for the simple minded says:

Pedro–by one definition, yes, I am being obstinate. By another definition, I am not. I’ll leave it to your subtly layered appreciation of all things linguistic to enjoy that conflict.

Mike–there is no “solution” to GW. Only an accumulation of smaller steps until we get off sequestered carbon as our main energy source. Will it happen? Doubtful. So whats your point?

Dexton==the man I will enjoy arguing with when he tunes his armamentarium to be responsive to what is actual said and wanted to be talked about. However, your shotgun approach is hitting all around the target, so I will relent as there are no new articles to kibitz:

I have a question. If AGW theory is true… what would you propose to stop it without civilization as we know it grinding to a halt? /// Full on program for alternative green energy – something we should do anyway for 5-6 main reasons.

And I am pretty damn sure that the models that the IPCC came up with are deeply flawed and that much of their theory is BS. /// Your individual beliefs are irrelevant.

There are Several problems with the Anamorphic Global Warming theory. Among them are: /// Anamorphic? Why, there’s your problem right there. Ha, ha.

– The ice core records that goes back 400000 years showed with better resolution that it is temperature which drives changes in atmospheric CO2 level, rather than the other way around. /// I doubt it. Still all such evidence goes to correlations and not proof. Silly to pose “one” factoid alone proves anything. I’ll say again: AGW, Anamorphic or otherwise, cannot be proven. Sadly, the issue requires “judgment” not proof.

-Despite several attempts to confirm heating in the tropical troposphere. No warming trend has been found, which should be there according the global warming theory. /// Another factoid. When we are chest deep in water on 53rd Street, the anomalies will be explained.

-The physical characteristics of the greenhouse effect from added amounts of CO2 is logarithmic and now almost fully saturated. The result is that the added increased greenhouse effect from CO2 becomes less and less effective. /// First I have heard of this, don’t wish to look it up. Seems to me there are other planet models that have molten surfaces because of Green House Gases in high proportion? May or may not be co2. Anyway, if this were true, I would be SHOCKED AND AMAZED the heat rentention characteristics of co2 are not fully part of the model. Your link for this fantabulous claim is?

This means that while the levels of CO2 has increased by about 30% from pre-industrial levels, already it has caused about 70% of the warming forcing from the expected increase in the greenhouse effect if the CO2 content from pre-industrial levels were to double. /// Interesting physics if true. link? fyi–actually doesn’t matter given other arguments/positions/recognitions set forth herein.

-No strong positive feedback from CO2 on water vapor has been measured. This is a prerequisite for dangerous global warming. /// You have much “new information” not previously revealed on this blog and my own casual reading. This makes you either a qualified expert or a conspiracy nut. Links?

-In order for dangerous global warming, heating must be accumulating in the world’s oceans. Despite using an extensive network of special Argos sea bouys which measures sea temperature at different depths. No accumulation of heating has been found, instead they have registered cooling. /// Again, and I’d have to check but your list of flat contradictions to what I take to be established givens is growing. Evidence growing you are a nut bar. Last I remembered, ocean warming is a very great concern as it may alter the Atlantic Ocean warm water conveyer system that keeps Europe warm in winter. If that falters, temps will drop all over Europe: yes, a predicted effect of AGW. Link?

-There has been no warming for the last 10 years in the global temperature. /// Just heard on tv that 2010 is the warmest year on record for umpty umpt years. I do recall some short trend down which was not forecasted other than the variability of weather which is what the complexity of the model/reality is all about.

Here’s some pretty graphs and university studies and science!: /// I will look at later as time permits as the interest in such opposing charts has been sated. In the meantime, ocean levels continue to slowly and steadily rise: the net/net measure of all the conflicting local weather and inconsistent data points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Pedro doesn’t know what the subject of a discussion is and Mike likes to be obstinate. Given you have not responded to the actual point I have raised twice now, I assume you agree.

MikeN says:

>The physical characteristics of the greenhouse effect from added amounts of CO2 is logarithmic and now almost fully saturated.

Wrong.

It is two different points you are making. The fully saturated part is not accepted by even most skeptics.
Doubling CO2 will yield a rise of 1-1.2C.

Your 70% number does not flow from your argument.
ln 2=.69, ln 1.3=.26, so about 40% of the warming is in the first 30% of gain.
The 70% number I suspect comes from the idea that we have seen .7C warming, which is 70% of the expected gain from CO2. However, those numbers would lead me to believe that total warming is 100%/40%*.7C=1.75C of warming. I have been told that the models show accelerating warming, but I don’t trust the source(Tamino), and have not been able to independently verify it, as the primary IPCC library of model runs do not show much variation.

MikeN says:

Bobbo, I have heard all of the claims he has made, and if this is the first you have heard of them, then your casual reading is not very broad. Roger Pielke Sr, not a regular skeptic, as he believes the IPCC is understating the problems of global warming, but he doesn’t think CO2 is the main culprit, has written about the ocean heat issues.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/misinformation-on-the-website-skeptical-science-getting-skeptical-about-global-warming-skepticism/

True skeptic Dr Roy Spencer writes extensively about water vapor feedback, and probably has covered all of the other topics mentioned. I no longer consider CO2 rise caused by temperature rise to be significant factor, but I am not sold by the responses given by climate scientists either. It is a fact that the temperature record shows temperature rising BEFORE CO2 goes up, by hundreds of years difference. The response from climate scientists is primarily, ‘You say CO2 rise is caused by an increase in temperature, and not the other way around. Well we took our models, and they show that this effect only accounts for maybe 30% of the total warming. Higher CO2 levels caused the rest. Go away you silly skeptics.’ The problem with that is that they are starting with a model built on the assumption that CO2 causes warming, to prove that CO2 causes warming. I don’t find their explanations of the temperature rise and CO2 rise to be convincing to the point that I would overlook that logical fallacy.

bobbo, appears to be some confusion here says:

Mike–thanks for your responses. BEFORE we talk about possible reasonable responses to AGW, we must agree that AGW is present. BEFORE we talk about AGW being present, we must agree on what AGW is.

I’m still working on what AGW is. Until my post, the idiots posting against AGW were being completely illiterate ((and my reason for posting:)) and proud of it.

Probably BEFORE bigger more effective steps can be taken against AGW, smaller steps will have to be done to get people in agreement?

Psychology vs Physics. Another totally different discussion. I will read your links with interest. Who doesn’t want to be broadly informed?

bobbo, appears to be some confusion here says:

Well Mike, here and on earlier threads you “appear” to have some expertise with GW issues. That expertise does not engage my own casually gained knowledge base, but I do admire the tone you took.

Lets Review.

To more reflect on on Dexton than myself, you say my reading is too narrow because you have heard of Dexton’s claims whereas I have not. THEN you say his statements regarding the logrhythmic saturation of co2 is wrong, which is what I intimated without being dogmatic. So, you are right==I don’t plumb the literature for fantabulist web sites of misinformation==I am indeed more narrowly read than you or Dexton.

My post states that sea level RISE has been steady and is a good measure of GW. This assumes negligible input by oceanic volcanoes or vent activity and that the per cent of expansion due to temp rise is taken into account by the models. That stated, a link to the article on global ocean temps is irrelevant and not helpful or responsive.

Likewise, the link to the minimum benefit of certain carbon reduction schemes as having negligible effect are also not helpful. All the author has done is identify reactions that won’t help. How about the ones that will? I agree with you: I have not gone completely off incandescent bulbs yet, or given up hot showers, in order to save the earth. But I do support tax support of investigations into alternative energy to get us off oil/coal/carbon/nuke for those very reasons. What does your skeptic say about the effect on AGW if we got off carbon?

Mickey==you have been remarkably consistent over the months: you use your intellect to remain irrelevant. Why do you do that? Pedro is even better at this than you are while also demonstrating no expertise at all in anything. Maybe he has marked your way?

Skeptic: really?

clancys_daddy says:

Your response only goes to show that you have no sense of humor. Here is my one and only comment forever on this topic. Or as Chief Joseph put it I will fight no more forever. Global warming is real, human caused accentuated global warming is questionable it either is or isn’t, cite whomever you choose to support your argument. Nothing will be solved with this thread. You will not change my mind I will not change yours. Your a troll, I am a troll, we are all trolls. In five years it will be a new topic, in 25 years it will be the opposite topic, in 50 years it will be the same topic and in four billion years or so the question will be moot.

There my last post to this thread, and as a matter of fact to this site. It has lost its luster, damn shame. Peace.

bobbo, how do you know what you know and how do you change your mind says:

So, Clancy goes down in flames as Dexton heats up and Mike calls the play from the sidelines. Gee, I hope Clancy is wrong and that a billion years from now this very thread will stand as the sine qua non of our age.

With every blog entry, an angel gets her wings.

Ha, ha. The pressure now Dexton is on YOU to perform. The angels are waiting.

MikeN says:

>I have not gone completely off incandescent bulbs yet, or given up hot showers, in order to save the earth.

It doesn’t matter what you do. The point is that various governments have banned incandescent light bulbs. This is a totally pointless exercise.

MikeN says:

>would point to not going off incandescent bulbs as “proof” that AGW is not an issue.

No, that is reserved for people like Gore who push such solutions while running three big screens in his office.

>narrow because you have heard of Dexton’s claims whereas I have not. THEN you say his statements regarding the logrhythmic saturation of co2 is wrong,

That was one point out of many. If you haven’t looked into skeptic viewpoints, then compared to the responses to said viewpoints, then you are using the logic that led to Iraqi WMD being a big danger.

dexton7 says:

I dug up a few items for discussion about AGW. In order to address and understand theories or climate change, one has to be a historian and reference the ‘long view’ of Earth changes, more on that later. There are also a lot of variables regarding the complexities of planetary dynamics.

We are on a huge rock that weighs in at around 1000 trillion metric tons speeding around a slightly inconsistent nuclear fireball (we have solar spots and storms from time to time and solar output varies some). We are speeding around this star at 67,062 miles per hour while the Earth tilts on it’s axis. There is also a slight wobble in the Earth’s rotation. Also, the Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptic and does not form a perfect circle. As you can see, just the cosmological variables are enough to cause our already dynamic weather patterns to do strange things.

Are humans a variable in climate change? Of course we are. Are humans a significant variable in climate change? According to my reading on the subject… not as much as the IPCC and Media would have you believe. In analyzing the numbers – it’s akin to a human throwing grains of sand at a snow bank and getting a deadly avalanche to occur.. Can this happen? Sure it can… It’s possible, but if that’s the case – then it will happen sooner than later on it’s own from other variables?

The Holocene Maximum (approximately 7500 to 4000 years ago) is a good example of how these warming cycles work. This was the hottest period in human history and there were no SUVs or factories to blame it on.

“If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!” link below.

While I believe protecting the Earth’s ecosystem to the best of our abilities within reason (aka not doing away with all CO2 emitting technology and causing masses of the population to suffer or starve as we are reliant on these systems)… We are a relatively small variable in the grand scheme of planetary dynamics. I think that the toxic dumping of chemicals into the ecosystem (and CO2 is not toxic) is infinitely worse than AGW. It is entirely possible that AGW may just nudge us away from another cyclical ice age – which would be more destructive than what the IPCC folks predict from AGW.

Let it be known however I’m all in for new technology that actually works well and limits pollution and CO2 production… I just don’t think that trading schemes and Carbon Taxes to take advantage of the population will do any good.

All it would take to ruin our ecosystem for thousands to millions of years is a super massive volcano to erupt (and we know these events have occurred in the past). A 1000 yard wide asteroid would cause massive problems on Earth and a 20 mile wide asteroid impact would destroy all life on Earth… and I don’t see anyone worrying about those.

dexton7 says:

As promised, here are the links:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
scientific article with sources

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Scientists that Oppose mainstream assessment of global warming

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-cosub2sub-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

To be fair I included this counter argument – although it ultimately admits that the earth will naturally go through C02 rich cycles well above what we have now.

bobbo, how do you know what you know and how do you change your mind says:

I have just now looked at your links: the ones that work. Actually the only one that works is the one that says human activity is significant and I could not find where it says co2 will cycle well above where we are now. What I have read implies just the opposite which is what the concern is all about.

Your arguing “technique” is faulty. It is not appropriate to make a statement and support it to a general link. Better and minimally required is to make a point and reference the exact language that supports that point by copy and paste with a link to the entire authority. Do that and your own understanding of your position will be sharpened.

You have some work to do. You may have an arguable point somewhere but it is lost in the mishmash of irrelevant and silly flotsome you also have afloat.

I’ll check back regularly if you choose to post any improvements. Mike actually does have expertise in this area. I might even suggest you “search” this very blog on climate change. There have been some long and quite excellent exchanges and always, its the links that make the case.

bobbo, how do you know what you know and how do you change your mind says:

Dexton–I used the links in 57 for my review before you asked if I had read them. In short:

A very good scientific article with sources /// You gave NO REASON to read that article. While sourced and linked which is good, there was no home page for the site itself to explain who they were. As stated, I have read casually in this field to the point I have come to accept the IPCC report and the consensus of QUALIFIED scientists behind it. What turned me finally was the piss poor quality of the arguments against it made by people like you: “CO2 is not toxic” is so inane as to warrant stopping any discussion at all with you, but you have high spirits and take insults/analysis well, so I did wonder what you had to back your play. When you post an entire article with just the notion that “it is good” you transfer the burden of argument to your opponent. Can “I” find any argument that supports YOUR position. That is a fail. You must do better.

Scientists that Oppose mainstream assessment of global warming /// So what? WHY do they oppose? Too often they are so old they have even adopted a formal religion, are actually not qualified in climate science, or actually are just pissed off they couldn’t get their own grant proposal funded. Its called arguing from authority as is a fallacy. You must do better.

To be fair I included this counter argument – although it ultimately admits that the earth will naturally go through C02 rich cycles well above what we have now. /// That is admirable. You must know and dispatch the very best of the opposing argument. I did not find the statement that co2 will cycle above the 380ppm we have now and was only going to comment that such a fact is irrelevant and totally based on the very model that says AGW is a fact. And to be fair, that article supports AGW as a fact. When you to be fair include an argument that destroys your own position, you have to reveal its flaw or accept its conclusions. You must do better–as in accept the conclusions of your own research.

bobbo, how do you know what you know and how do you change your mind says:

Well OK.. here’s my final analysis…/// Final? Only if this were the Voyage of the Damned.

Does AGW exist at some level?
>Yes. /// Well that isn’t the issue. The issue phrased in your context would be: “Does AGW exist at a level that we should takes steps to avoid its consequences?” There too, btw, the answer is yes. If it were not the case, the issue would have never come up.

Will AGW be catastrophic in years to come?
>Not even the best science can predict this with absolute certainty nor within what I consider to be a reasonable margin of error. //// Absolute Certainty is for idiots, children, charlatans, the uninformed, and the religious. Note that “science” is not in that list. No, reasonble people make up their real world view based on levels of probability.

Are there other natural phenomena that can cause catastrophic CO2 levels and climate change with a reasonable amount of probability? /// No. None that are worth the discussion. What are you thinking of?

Events that can happen and will happen that will astronomically dwarf AGW?
>Definitely. As you stated before… if Yellowstone ever blows, we’ll be praying for some sort of Global Warming because it will get very very cold from the mass ejection blocking much of the sunlight to Earth and billions will starve. /// No, I never said that. I said that is was proper to worry only that over which we have some control. A small degree of overlap not the excuse to do nothing you have fabricated.

You claim that the argument that ‘CO2 is not Tocic’ is faulty logic.
>Well EVERYTHING in the universe can be considered toxic in the universe in large quantities. This renders your statement useless as it eliminates the concept of scale and relativity. It is the ‘relative toxicity per volume’ that is the issue and maybe I should have clarified. Sorry. /// No. Yes, it is scale and relative toxicity per volume, or rather the scale on which anything can be measured or have effect that YOU, me, and the IPCC is talking about. On that scale, as Mike addressed, a doubling of the c02 level will raise the atmospheric temp 2.0 C in the next 150-200 years. Thats not “toxic” but it will put us way past the tipping point for human caused climate devastation. Sloppy, but “toxic” of a form. When you use language as sloppily as you do, its hard to tell what the point is you want to make. Toxic to kill people directly like a balloon over your face?==No. Toxic as in to melt all the worlds ice, disrupt ocean currents, collapse our food chain resulting in billions dead?=Yes. Indirect but still toxic if you will.

“You gave NO REASON to read that article. While sourced and linked which is good, there was no home page for the site itself to explain who they were.”
>It is a compilation of real sources by a graduate student. The ‘reason’ is to look at the DATA and LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS in relation to IPCC AGW theory. /// Why not just say “google it.” You shifted the burden to make sense to your reader. That is bad form.

IN reference to AGW skeptics “So what? WHY do they oppose? Too often they are so old they have even adopted a formal religion, are actually not qualified in climate science…”
>I can say the exact same thing about the IPCC scientists. /// Yes, you can say those words, but they won’t be true. The IPCC scientists are doing current work directly or closely related to the model that is the product of their work. Very different from any list of scientists not doing climate work who offer no competing theory/model/analysis. I think there have been “defections” from the IPCC panel amounting to maybe up to a dozen? Leaving 100’s still on board.

I can also say that there is a financial incentive for the IPCC scientists to lie, fake data, and play along with AGW… let’s not forget their leaked emails showing their UN-professional behavior. The Skeptics have a lot to lose and not much to gain from their statements. /// Silly.

“And to be fair, that article supports AGW as a fact. When you to be fair include an argument that destroys your own position, you have to reveal its flaw or accept its conclusions.”
>I was only showing this article to demonstrate that it would only take one large natural event to make AGW assertions moot even if they are true. The end of the article even suggests this. IT does state, “Ultimately, this carbon will be returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes.” They don’t emphasis this, but the earth has massive quantities of co2 that can and will be released without human intervention. /// Off point and irrelevant.

And lastly… Are many of the AGW proponents trying to cash in and defraud the population based on this concern:
>Definitely. The leaked IPCC emails and the faulty logic of carbon trading schemes are the nail in the coffin of this argument. /// The same is true of Cancer research. Is it your position that Cancer is a figment of the imagination?

I guess at the very least we can just wait around for a few decades to see what really happens… and when we are 80+ years old we can beat each other with canes and resume this debate then… After we are done hitting each other with canes, I’ll make you a nice cup of tea. /// I’ll take a beer. If at 80 years old we are up to our armpits in sea water, THAT still will not be proof of AGW. AGW might be the cause, or maybe Superman will have pushed the earth closer to the Sun. There will be nay sayers confusing the issues just as you are doing now.

It was fun, but I have to drink some spiked eggnog now and take a nap under the Christmas Tree now. /// Home on a work day? Nice.

bobbo, how do you know what you know and how do you change your mind says:

Dexton–pro’s and con’s to all these situations. Hope you make the best of it. I also consume eggnog during Christmas Season. I like making my own with more raw eggs than most would use, half and half, and Brandy. I like to make extra and freeze it into ice cubes to go with the regular drink. A little ceremony/tradition for the Yuletide.

Yes, I do find too much of what you post to be off point, irrelevant, and silly. That is not insulting by singular rather it is my unvarnish analysis==and in reflection, still quite valid.

Take any issue you like that you think is not so and we can rehash it. There are arguments on the playing field, and those that are off the grounds, and even out of the parking lot. You haven’t made it out of the parking lot.

Your positions may be new and interesting to you, but they are worn out and discarded if you spend any time in the subject.

Just saying.