Now... anybody who is really interested in the real geological history knows that even the continents "weren't there" where they are now, when we look long enough in the past. Not to mention that, for the old enough times, not even plants existed on the land!
"However, until recently, CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm. Given that solar output was around 4% lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit glacial conditions."
"(Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation."
"So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008)."
You have to understand geology to be able to compare. If you don't, people with agenda will easily sell you worthless graphs. Worthless as in "CO2 was higher when there were no plants and animals on the land at all, just the naked rocks." Nice target you have.
Thanks for the info. I'm sorry, you were right, that was a bad source.
However, the rebuttal surprisingly leaves out a graph that directly shows temperature against glaciation, solar output and co2, but rather just talks about the comparison, without showing it. I don't find that particularly convincing of anything. Just because
> "Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high."
it doesn't follow that
> "This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation.",
especially given that this simple graph of all 3 influences mentioned (sun output, glaciation, and co2 levels) against temperature isn't included. Do you know of a source that shows this?
> "So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008)."
Again, it's hard for me to take this seriously without seeing the comparison between the different forces that are identified against each other and temperature. It's like someone was peering at something through binoculars and said they saw an elephant. They offer as proof by stating, "I see a trunk, and a tail, and its tusks..", but they won't let you look through the binoculars yourself. (Also the Csank 2011 link gives a 404)
The best I could find was https://www.co2levels.org/, which if you click the buttons in the top left, can be massaged in displaying co2 vs temperature for the last 800k years. And even in this period there are a few the temperature decouples from the co2 levels and mostly the temperature rise precedes the rise in co2, which makes one think that co2 entering the atmosphere is a effect of climate rather than a cause.
> You have to understand geology to be able to compare. If you don't, people with agenda will easily sell you worthless graphs. Worthless as in "CO2 was higher when there were no plants and animals on the land at all, just the naked rocks." Nice target you have.
I'm not saying the earth was the same as before. Just that the idea is that co2 is causing irreversible warming and that's that, isn't supported very well by the evidence I've seen. At best what you have given me shows that the co2 causing warming isn't entirely disprovable.
I guess what I'm worried about is that the news often simplifies complex topics to, "it's a disaster!", or alternatively, "it's a hoax!" I don't think things are that simple, yet I haven't heard from anyone, scientist or no, that things are not either a "disaster" or a "hoax".
> Just that the idea is that co2 is causing irreversible warming and that's that, isn't supported very well by the evidence
But it is, it’s the topic of physics, not history. The historical remains are by nature very incomplete and geology is extremely relevant when you try to interpret the historical proxies, but all that doesn’t matter if you want to understand how warming works: physics is undeniable, and all effects are known and are part of the models:
Once again: it doesn’t help to say “it was warmer n millions years ago” if the continents weren’t the same and there were no humans. Our civilisation depends on many very fine tuned balances.
> But it is, it’s the topic of physics, not history. The historical remains are by nature very incomplete and geology is extremely relevant when you try to interpret the historical proxies, but all that doesn’t matter if you want to understand how warming works: physics is undeniable, and all effects are known and are part of the models:
There are no sources in this link. There is nothing about physics in this link. It simply describes a bunch of other forces and declares they are not applicable, therefore co2 is the only thing left and it must be the culprit. Forgive me, but science isn't a game of "Clue". Putting up a bunch of straw men and tearing them down doesn't mean that "the butler must have done it with the wrench", or in this case, co2 must have increased the temperature.
And wasn't your link from the your last post primarily referring to the history of the earth as evidence of co2 production? So which is it? The case for undeniable physics, which you have not provided a link for, or from the evidence from geologic history, which you have abandoned.
> Once again: it doesn’t help to say “it was warmer n millions years ago” if the continents weren’t the same and there were no humans. Our civilisation depends on many very fine tuned balances.
Where did I say that "it was warmer n millions years ago" proves that increased co2 is not going to increase the temperature? I'm just saying you haven't shown it will. You are vehemently asserting, times were different then, so all I can conjecture is that you mean that we can throw that data out. I don't necessarily think so, but I also don't think that doing so proves your point. I can't prove co2 hasn't increased the temperature, but it's difficult to prove a negative. To wit, maybe an extreme example, but I can't prove the earth wasn't created 4000 years ago as per the Christian Bible, yet that doesn't mean it's true.
I'm am saying that what you've shown doesn't prove that increased co2 is going to warm the earth to a significant degree, and the current situation isn't caused by other factors.
To that point, it shares all the hallmarks of mass hysteria. A single central idea is put into the public consciousness, and each and every event is then linked to that event.
I also ask you to respond point to point to what I've written rather than simply try and attack a single statement. I wish you'd have responded to what I wrote concerning the lack of transparency of your link from skepticalscience.com or the graph from co2levels.org. Why won't you address this?
“Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric chemistry.
The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland.”
“GISS produced the results shown here in 2012, as part of its contribution to an international climate-science research initiative called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase Five. Let's just call it "Phase-5."
Phase-5 is designed both to see how well models replicate known climate history and to make projections about where the world’s temperature is headed. Initial results from Phase-5 were used in the 2013 scientific tome published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
> The case for undeniable physics, which you have not provided a link for, or from the evidence from geologic history, which you have abandoned.
The link is the summary of what calculating which physical formulas gives, as I've quoted. It's you who "doubt" in the "tree rings" and I've given you the context: tree rings are just a small piece of he whole picture, and what we know, including the levels of confidence from that part of science is still good enough to have a good picture of what is happening and what has happened before. But once again: not any single historical proxy is directly used when the physical formulas are applied.
> In the same spirit as your link, here is Leonard Nimoy talking about Global Cooling
That's a joke, right? I'm presenting you the results of the NASA's best computer models, and you are giving me a link to... what actually? Since when are TV shows a proof for anything?
> I'm am saying that what you've shown doesn't prove that increased co2 is going to warm the earth to a significant degree, and the current situation isn't caused by other factors.
And what you are saying is simply untrue. What I've given you is the result of a lot of precise calculations using the physical formulas and the values obtained by all the scientific work we have. And nobody ever has found any meaningful error in the physics we use.
If you don't understand physics, I can imagine that it's hard to you to believe in something you simply don't understand, and I don't know your background to help you. What I can give you is a personal page maintained by one English PhD in Chemistry, Dr Jack Barrett, which was known as the "global warming skeptic" in the 90ties (you can Google his name, at the time the other person mentioned on his page was also active in "denying", this other guy was a reasonably famous face in Britain, but also uninformed at then). But then Barrett tried to learn the physical processes, relevant for climate, which he missed while pursuing his career in chemistry. And if you read his newer material, he is now completely convinced that the physics is absolutely valid and confirming the warming:
Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his site. It's the most honest outcome of a former "doubter" I know of. There are still some "old" page from the time when he "was not convinced" but if you are really interested in the formulas and science behind all this, you will find enough there, I believe he updated most of his site to that what he knows and understands now (edit: I've checked, he still just updates the "news" pages, i.e: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page4.htm and http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page5.htm )
It's about the formulas and measurements. Note: I'm not saying "take that guy as a reference." I'm saying: he's the guy who didn't know enough but was willing to learn and made enough notes, so if you are actually interested in some formulas "for beginners" you can find them there. If you'd want something even "more serious"... you'd need at last university level material, which of course exists too...
>“Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric chemistry.
This isn't a source. You need to provide the actual studies, and point out where it proves that global warming is caused by co2, and have a coherent argument. Right now seem to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at me in an attempt to win the argument.
> The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland.”
500,000 lines of code? Oh wow, then, must be accurate! NASA did it, must be correct, right? That's how you prove things, you get NASA to sign off on them.
> The link is the summary of what calculating which physical formulas gives, as I've quoted. It's you who "doubt" in the "tree rings" and I've given you the context: tree rings are just a small piece of he whole picture, and what we know, including the levels of confidence from that part of science is still good enough to have a good picture of what is happening and what has happened before. But once again: not any single historical proxy is directly used when the physical formulas are applied.
When did I ever say I doubted tree rings? All I'm saying is that I'm not sure that co2 is a significant cause of global warming.
> > In the same spirit as your link, here is Leonard Nimoy talking about Global Cooling
> That's a joke, right? I'm presenting you the results of the NASA's best computer models, and you are giving me a link to... what actually? Since when are TV shows a proof for anything?
Actually, you're right, it was a joke, but you missed the punchline. You give me a link of a news reporter trying to interpret and regurgitate what scientists say now, and I give you an actor doing the same for what scientists said in the 1970's. You don't see the similarities?
> If you don't understand physics, I can imagine that it's hard to you to believe in something you simply don't understand, and I don't know your background to help you.
I do understand some physics. And what I don't I'm willing to learn. Do you? Why is it that all you do is regurgitate quotes from websites, or give arguments of authority?
> It's about the formulas and measurements. Note: I'm not saying "take that guy as a reference." I'm saying: he's the guy who didn't know enough but was willing to learn and made enough notes, so if you are actually interested in some formulas "for beginners" you can find them there. If you'd want something even "more serious"... you'd need at last university level material, which of course exists too...
You still haven't addressed my concerns the lack of transparency of your link from skepticalscience.com. You also didn't address the graph from co2levels.org. I was hoping you knew or would be able to say why temperature increase precedes co2 rising in the graph from co2levels.org. I was hoping you'd be able to show the sun output, the glaciation, the co2 levels against temperature, so I can see the relationship between them. At this point, though, it seems you're not interested.
I thought I was talking to someone who knew what they were saying. You're telling me to read this guys entire website, but I know all I'll be left with a bunch of conflicting data and further questions, and probably still not have my questions answered.
The reason I was talking to you in the first place was that I thought you had some understanding. But by now, I'm pretty convinced, you don't.
Believe it or not, I'm on the fence about whether co2 is the primary cause of global warming or not. I simply was refuting the original poster's assertion that co2 being the primary cause of warming was basic physics and the relationship is undeniable. Talking to you, it seems that you don't know much about the topic, but instead believe that arguments from authority are good enough. You can't find information that directly answers my questions, but instead point to just reams and reams of data that has nothing to do with what I asked, along with snide comments (ex. me "doubting tree rings", although I never brought this up).
I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of code were used.
> I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of code were used.
I never said that. What I've said was:
> Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his site.
So no, it's not easy. If you are able to check the formulas, you can see they are right. If you aren't, you can claim that "it's not enough" and it will of course never be enough because it demands certain capabilities of the reader. You have to go slowly, formula after formula, and do simplified calculations, for which you don't need a supercomputer.
Once you understand formulas, and you understand that they are right, you could say "OK but I'd like to know what the more precise calculations would bring, if I'd apply these formulas separately on every small point of the earth, and then see how the parameters dynamically change through the time." Note: You don't need that to verify the validity of the warming physics, you need that "only" to know how your part of the Earth would typically behave through the time, including all the oscillations, ups and downs.
Then you would have either to write one another model, just like 63 models written by the scientists worldwide. Or you'd simply understand "from the inside" how the existing models work, and be able to accept that what is presented on the Bloomberg page I've linked is real (because once you have enough knowledge of what is in the program you don't have to repeat every step to see that the results do follow from the calculations).
The scientific paper about the computing model used on the Bloomberg page was also linked on that same page:
Like I've said, the physics is real and there are no errors. If you can't understand the physics, then you are unable to be able to "check" anybody. And the physics is not simple as pre-school math:
just don't ask me anymore for the proofs, because you are either incapable or unwilling to work it through. You have to do a lot of work, if you haven't before, and based on what you answered up to now, it's effectively sure you haven't, otherwise you'd ask about some detail in some formula, if you missed only that.
That is if you want to work through the formulas. If you don't but you want to see everything worked through, the shortest version is the Bloomberg article I've given you, and the longest the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report:
In the IPCC is effectively the summary of everything all the world scientists know about the topics, together, the result of the consensus of all the world scientists qualified enough to be able to work on the topics. It's long and complex, and long exactly because it addresses many different details.
And all that is full of references (which aren't lacking on the pages of the former skeptic too). So you can work through it as much as you want. Don't trust, check the formulas, really go through them yourself. The former skeptic did it too (he had the background in spectroscopy, luckily for him) . I've done it, I've did go through the points for which I didn't accept "it is said it's so" (and I, luckily for me, have enough background in physics). Every student of these sciences does it, every year the new ones. It is doable.
>> I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of code were used.
> I never said that.
You did quote bloomberg "ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland." that line. If you don't think it was important, why quote it to me? Maybe I was misinterpreting you, but..
> What I've said was:
>> Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his site.
Everybody with enough knowledge has to come to the same conclusion, huh? That's a lot of hubris.
Basically "http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm" is modeling a outside radiation source penetrating an outer atmosphere layer which allows 100% of it go through it. Then the earth radiates back to the layer which absorbs and reemits it, half back to earth, and half into space. The forces have to be in balance for the temperature average to stay in equilibrium. The conclusion is that the absorption/emission of the atmosphere at 0% would mean the earth would be a lot cooler 253K, and at 100% would be a lot hotter, 302K, so it must be somewhere inbetween. Therefore there is a greenhouse effect.
I never argued against the fact that there is a greenhouse effect, so although interesting, I don't see how it affects anything at all.
I looked at the other two links from that site, and see that co2 blocks a certain wavenumber band. Fine.
"The intention is to show the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 and surface temperature, i.e., the temperature rises non-linearly with every successive addition of CO2 causing smaller effects. "
So here is the answer to something I suspected. The amount of co2 in the air becomes saturated at greater amounts. If you look at the graph, from 400ppm today, it will take up to 1000 ppm of co2 to increase the temperature effect as from 200ppm to 400ppm. So for we're only talking about a degree or two.
I think that scientists have made a lot of progress modeling the atmosphere because its so simple but the rest of the earth is much more complex and their models are, to put it bluntly, crap. The author agrees with me:
"There is an absence of nits to pick in the physics of the greenhouse effect, but there are many incorporated in the various models. The fact that the twenty or so models all claiming to incorporate the same physics produce different results for temperature changes, cloud cover and rainfall indicates that something is wrong. These are early days in the development of climate models and it is expected that they will become more believable in the future. "
So what seems to be happening is that because they have this small effect from co2 modeled pretty well, and since it's not enough to explain the larger fluctuations of temperature through earths history, they try and find a way to make it seem as a lever to affect a larger change. I think they are subconsciously doing this... since it is the path of least resistance to finding an interesting, measurable formula by incorporating another rock solid one into it.
I also found an answer to my same question on that page about why temperature seems to precede co2 increases, not the other way around for the last 800k years at least, from co2levels.org . You've been ignoring me on this point for 3 replies now, so I doubt you'll respond, but just to let you know:
"Our comment: There is considerable misunderstanding of the ice-core records that do show that ~800 years after a temperature rise following an ice-age the concentration of CO2 increases. Not even the possibly exaggerated general circulation models can explain the ending of an ice-age by the appearance of large amounts of CO2. They end by various possible mechanisms. A change in the Earth’s orbital characteristics might increase the value of solar input to the Earth. Volcanic activity could deposit material on the snow/ice coverage that alters the planet’s albedo; the fraction of solar radiation reflected by the system. If this is the case the planet would warm up and this would have the consequence of releasing CO2 from the oceans and increasing the amount of water vapour in the lower atmosphere. This would, in consequence warm the system by the greenhouse effect and release more CO2 and water vapour… "
So the author explains it away with volcanos, sun spots and earths distance from the sun. Hmm... sounds a little vague for such large fluctuations, don't you think? Could it possibly be, that even with their complex and conflicting models, scientists don't actually know what caused these fluctuations back then? And further, that a small change in temperature due to co2 does not have a lever effect causing the larger change needed for these disastrous predictions? I suppose it so.
Now, couple that with all the "adjustments" to historical temperature data. Yes, they have excuses, measurements being taken at different times of day from before, older inaccurate equipment, change of environment, etc. I'd accept that if they changed it a couple of times, but they seem to have done it a lot. And there are a lot of other suspicious stuff going on. Why is there a temperature station now between the runways of a heavy trafficked airport (see the first link)?
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but the temptation is there. Along with the general attitude of trying to suppress skeptics by the liberal media, liberal college bias and liberal institutions.
Anyway, barretbellamyclimate.com is a lot better than I first thought. So thank you for that.
I don't know why you think I need to understand the models that are not predictive in order to form an opinion. I will go through the rest of that site, but I don't think I need to delve deeper into theory that creates models that conflict with each other in order to form opinion on the predictions of the scientists who use those models as their basis.
It's less than 200 pages, much less than IPCC report, and also concluded without the use of the supercomputers. Human released CO2 is what is warming the Earth right now, at least at the speed as calculated by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Exactly what I've told you that anybody who honestly approaches the topic should do.
Prove yourself that you don't listen to authority, especially not Watts authority who is effectively a liar and the authority only to those who want to delude themselves or the others and who you obviously read.
You saw yourself what was Barrett's starting point on the pages that you like. You delightfully quote what he wrote before he checked everything himself. Then see how he was able to come to the conclusion that IPCC is actually right. There's no error: he was just able to repeat what the whole world can repeat and repeats everywhere every day... except the people who read Watts and such, which blocks them to see for themselves that IPCC is indeed right.
I already understood it is against your political sympathies to say that IPCC calculations is right. Well... it's time to prove that you don't listen to "authorities." You can confirm yourself and still have the political sympathies that you have. I definitely do not consider any of the two big parties or their voters even behaving consistently sane, but believe that in some topics one are right, in some topic another, and in some topics even neither. You are allowed to do that too. That can be a better chance for a real change, different than the pre-election slogan pseudo-change.
Don't support scientific illiteracy.
And most important: don't run searching for the false instant excuses by watts et al, search for the real sources yourself, check yourself what is real. Then once you are yourself sure compare what you've learned with what watts writes... and it will finally click how he distorts the truth. I don't care what his motivation is, his goals don't justify his means.
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/nasif-s-nahle-...
Not a scientist.
Now... anybody who is really interested in the real geological history knows that even the continents "weren't there" where they are now, when we look long enough in the past. Not to mention that, for the old enough times, not even plants existed on the land!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_Earth
In that context:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermed...
"However, until recently, CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm. Given that solar output was around 4% lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit glacial conditions."
"(Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation."
"So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008)."
You have to understand geology to be able to compare. If you don't, people with agenda will easily sell you worthless graphs. Worthless as in "CO2 was higher when there were no plants and animals on the land at all, just the naked rocks." Nice target you have.