So obama believes in the myth of global warming...

[Braunwyn]

Now where is the connection that shows that the greenhouse effect is responsible or plays any significant role in the trends we see in the evidence?

How is this "greenhouse effect" being measured that allows the connection to what we are seeing with the evidence? This is the key here. This is the pillar it all rests upon.

Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but if we look back on the graph that notes CO2 and average global temp, we see that they rise and fall together. It's a long standing correlation. Why is it out in left field to be concerned about a significant recent deviation? Even if this deviation doesn't cause warming, it might do something. What, I'm not sure, but we have to note a 400-500,000 year correlation (providing the correlation is correct).

 

[chaim]

So you do agree that CO2 effects the temperature of Earth? That is a good first step, you are now upto the state of science at the turn of the 20th Century.

Now lets look at the current warming and what the possible causes could be:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png)

You can see that you cannot reproduce the current warming by Solar forcing alone, you need to include CO2.

How would you explain the current warming?

Now where is the connection that shows that the greenhouse effect is responsible or plays any significant role in the trends we see in the evidence?

How is this "greenhouse effect" being measured that allows the connection to what we are seeing with the evidence? This is the key here. This is the pillar it all rests upon.

 

[joebudda]

Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but if we look back on the graph that notes CO2 and average global temp, we see that they rise and fall together. It's a long standing correlation. Why is it out in left field to be concerned about a significant recent deviation? Even if this deviation doesn't cause warming, it might do something. What, I'm not sure, but we have to note a 400-500,000 year correlation (providing the correlation is correct).

It might, or it might not. That is the thing, we don't know.
To use temperature to drive our concerns is just disingenuous though.
If we are concerned about Co2, then we should stop killing the means of turning that back into oxygen. It is one of the key gasses that allow the earth to live.

 

[joebudda]

So you do agree that CO2 effects the temperature of Earth? That is a good first step, you are now upto the state of science at the turn of the 20th Century.

Now lets look at the current warming and what the possible causes could be:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png)

You can see that you cannot reproduce the current warming by Solar forcing alone, you need to include CO2.

How would you explain the current warming?

How does this measure the greenhouse effect? All I see is it making a connection that isn't consistent with the totality of evidence. And what are these greenhouse gasses? What plays a bigger role water or Co2? And what evidence led you to the conclusion?

You are only looking at a moment in the time frame we have of evidence. It is dishonest, it is like predicting the orbit of Pluto by looking at an amoeba through a microscope.

 

[Braunwyn]

It might, or it might not. That is the thing, we don't know.
To use temperature to drive our concerns is just disingenuous though.

Perhaps but thanks for the conversation. I've been learning quite a bit today.

If we are concerned about Co2, then we should stop killing the means of turning that back into oxygen. It is one of the key gasses that allow the earth to live.

Again, I totally agree. Frankly though, and given free trade, I highly doubt that we will globally do squat.

 

[chaim]

No one disagrees with you about deforestation. It is important to maintain our forests, both as a sink for CO2 and to stop emitting CO2 as we burn them. But planting trees alone cannot solve the problem. We are burning millions of years of accumulated carbon in a mater of decades, we are going to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It might, or it might not. That is the thing, we don't know.
To use temperature to drive our concerns is just disingenuous though.
If we are concerned about Co2, then we should stop killing the means of turning that back into oxygen. It is one of the key gasses that allow the earth to live.

 

[chaim]

Let me explain it to you. It shows the magnitude of the various factors than influence our climate. As you can see, you cannot replicate the changes in temperature unless you consider greenhouse gasses. What would you suggest is causing the warming over the past century?

How does this measure the greenhouse effect? All I see is it making a connection that isn't consistent with the totality of evidence.

You are only looking at a moment in the time frame we have of evidence. It is dishonest, it is like predicting the orbit of Pluto by looking at an amoeba through a microscope.

 

[Braunwyn]

No one disagrees with you about deforestation. It is important to maintain our forests, both as a sink for CO2 and to stop emitting CO2 as we burn them.

And here we can tie methane production with deforestation to a certain degree. The Amazon produces a couple of million tons of soy/yr in response to demand and forests are being destroyed for production. This soy is largely produced for factory farm animal feed, which is the largest contributor to methane production IIRC. This issue will never be addressed. No way.

 

[joebudda]

Let me explain it to you. It shows the magnitude of the various factors than influence our climate. As you can see, you cannot replicate the changes in temperature unless you consider greenhouse gasses. What would you suggest is causing the warming over the past century?

And if you look at your chart it was the temp that started rising before the "greenhouse gasses".

How are you making the connection the gasses are causing this and not the other way around? Being the gasses follow the global temp, how can they be the cause?

Remember the whole ocean is a type of sponge for these gasses which get released because of warming, by maybe some other method, like maybe the sun and earths orbit around the sun?

 

[Braunwyn]

And if you look at your chart it was the temp that started rising before the "greenhouse gasses".

How do you see that? It looks like they are rising together.

How are you making the connection the gasses are causing this and not the other way around? Being the gasses follow the global temp, how can they be the cause?

It certainly looks like both will play off eachother. As temps increase, so will gases and as gases increase, so will the temps. Given that there are feedback mechanisms it has been good for our habital planet. The difference now though is the production of GHG's due to pollution and I imagine that pollution and population output is something we can and do measure. So, and to be redundant, if we follow the trend, which looks like a system in eq that didn't include our contribution we see specific correlation. It's reasonable to assume that this correlation will continue.

Remember the whole ocean is a type of sponge for these gasses which get released because of warming from some other method?

Sure, but I don't see the point in ignoring one ingredient in the recipe and only giving credence to another.

 

[joebudda]

How do you see that? It looks like they are rising together.


It certainly looks like both will play off eachother. As temps increase, so will gases and as gases increase, so will the temps. Given that there are feedback mechanisms it has been good for our habital planet. The difference now though is the production of GHG's due to pollution and I imagine that pollution and population output is something we can and do measure. So, and to be redundant, if we follow the trend, which looks like a system in eq that didn't include our contribution we see specific correlation. It's reasonable to assume that this correlation will continue.


Sure, but I don't see the point in ignoring one ingredient in the recipe and only giving credence to another.

In this particular moment in time we see about 1910 the temp spikes and then levels out around 1930-40 and isn't isn't until the 1950's the "gasses" make up that ground. If the driving force of these gasses was the ocean, this would explain the delay and the smoothing of the "curve" because of the time it takes to warm or cool the oceans. This can, and I believe does, explain what we see in this chart.

 

[chaim]

No it can't. As we have seen from the plots you posted earlier, the lag between temperature and CO2 is about 800 years, not 5 years. Secondly we know exactly where the CO2 comes from, we are burning billions of tons of carbon fuels. It is fairly easy to calculate how much CO2 comes from burning these fuels, and it matches very well with the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

All that aside, you seem to be missing the overall picture, you cannot explain the observed climate change WITHOUT invoking greenhouse gases, which directly contradicts what you were claiming previously.

In this particular moment in time we see about 1910 the temp spikes and then levels out around 1930-40 and isn't isn't until the 1950's the "gasses" make up that ground. If the driving force of these gasses was the ocean, this would explain the delay and the smoothing of the "curve" because of the time it takes to warm or cool the oceans. This can, and I believe does, explain what we see in this chart.

 

[Braunwyn]

In this particular moment in time we see about 1910 the temp spikes and then levels out around 1930-40 and isn't isn't until the 1950's the "gasses" make up that ground.

Well, this is where my curiosity about feedback mechanisms come into play, which would keep the system in an eq that is ideal. But if the scale is tipped in one direction, the trend shows that temp will follow. As it stands, we might be tipping that scale.

If the driving force of these gasses was the ocean, this would explain the delay and the smoothing of the "curve" because of the time it takes to warm or cool the oceans. This can, and I believe does, explain what we see in this chart.

Yea that makes sense but it doesn't point to reasoning that GHG's aren't playing roles or will play roles of increasing global temps. I've yet to see a convincing argument that shows we can saturate this system on one end that won't result in noticeable change on the other. And the graph shows a linear trend, albeit it's not nice and neat.

 

[joebudda]

No it can't. As we have seen from the plots you posted earlier, the lag between temperature and CO2 is about 800 years, not 5 years. Secondly we know exactly where the CO2 comes from, we are burning billions of tons of carbon fuels. It is fairly easy to calculate how much CO2 comes from burning these fuels, and it matches very well with the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

All that aside, you seem to be missing the overall picture, you cannot explain the observed climate change WITHOUT invoking greenhouse gases, which directly contradicts what you were claiming previously.

It is you who is making the claim that these greenhouses gasses are the cause. You have yet to make your case with actual evidence.

And you have yet to show how the "greenhouse effect" is measured in order to even begin to attempt to understand how it plays or if it plays any significant role at all in global temperatures.

 

[chaim]

The figure we have been discussing is excellent evidence for greenhouse gasses driving the current warming. If you cannot explain the observed data without greenhouse gasses, that is very strong evidence that greenhouse gasses must be playing a role.

Secondly the greenhouse effect is very simple physics based on three principles, that CO2 abosrbs in the IR and not in the visible, solar radiation is largely in the visible, we are increasing CO2.

Here is conclusive evidence of those three phenomena

Which part do you think is flawed?

PS You still haven't answered how the Earth is so warm WITHOUT the greenhouse effect.

It is you who is making the claim that these greenhouses gasses are the cause. You have yet to make your case with actual evidence.

And you have yet to show how the "greenhouse effect" is measured in order to even begin to attempt to understand how it plays or if it plays any significant role at all in global temperatures.

 

[joebudda]

Well, this is where my curiosity about feedback mechanisms come into play, which would keep the system in an eq that is ideal. But if the scale is tipped in one direction, the trend shows that temp will follow. As it stands, we might be tipping that scale.

Then we must look at that ice core data which stretches for 10's of thousands of years. What is the "equilibrium" if we step back and look? An ice age would be closer to an "equilibrium" and the warming spikes would be sporadic fluctuations. The point is how do we determine what the "equilibrium" should be?

Yea that makes sense but it doesn't point to reasoning that GHG's aren't playing roles or will play roles of increasing global temps. I've yet to see a convincing argument that shows we can saturate this system on one end that won't result in noticeable change on the other. And the graph shows a linear trend, albeit it's not nice and neat.

The chart is just 100 years. It is just a snap shot of a fraction of a second within the totality of a day.

 

[joebudda]

The figure we have been discussing is excellent evidence for greenhouse gasses driving the current warming. If you cannot explain the observed data without greenhouse gasses, that is very strong evidence that greenhouse gasses must be playing a role.

Secondly the greenhouse effect is very simple physics based on three principles, that CO2 abosrbs in the IR and not in the visible, solar radiation is largely in the visible, we are increasing CO2.

Here is conclusive evidence of those three phenomena

Which part do you think is flawed?

PS You still haven't answered how the Earth is so warm WITHOUT the greenhouse effect.

Which part shows actual physical evidence that greenhouse gasses is the "cause" of global warming? There is zero physical evidence showing these gasses precede any observed warming at all.

 

[Braunwyn]

Then we must look at that ice core data which stretches for 10's of thousands of years. What is the "equilibrium" if we step back and look? An ice age would be closer to an "equilibrium" and the warming spikes would be sporadic fluctuations. The point is how do we determine what the "equilibrium" should be?

As little as I understand it, whatever is ideal for life of course. If I understand the graphs of global temp I've been looking at, eventually temps could (perhaps) naturally become less than ideal. But if the data we have shows trends, than at the very least we should be able to predict, all things being equal, which is the issue here.

The chart is just 100 years. It is just a snap shot of a fraction of a second within the totality of a day.

I thought the CO2 graph was over 450,000 yrs. Maybe we can find a graph that includes most GHGs for a similar span of time.

 

[Braunwyn]

650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221

I just found that ^^^ which is actually a few years old. I haven't found the data I'm looking for yet but surely someone has mentioned it on this forum before.

"25 November 2005 - A chilling tale is emerging from a long tube of ice that was extracted from an Antarctic glacier in 2004. The ice core, which is the longest continuous record of Earth's climate - from 650,000 years ago to the present day - confirms what researchers have long suspected: greenhouse gases in today's atmosphere are at an all-time high – and increasing faster than ever.

The researchers, who announced their findings in the 25 November issue of Science, found that the atmosphere today contains about 27 percent more carbon dioxide and methane than at any time in the past 650,000 years. Additionally, in the past 50 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased at a rate more than 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

"No scientist I know would argue that the current increase of both CO2 [carbon dioxide] and CH4 [methane] is not due to anthropogenic activity," wrote Thomas Stocker, a professor at the University of Bern in Switzerland and co-author of the report, in an email interview. "This is an established fact already many years ago.""

http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=628

 

[SallyNow]

double post