Slashdot Mirror

Or not...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Your support for keeping the tariff's has been noted, but still:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Your deniarwulist myth is busted.

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

• Andrew Dickson gave a technical 2009 presentation called “Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care?”
• A series of panels at the 2011 AGU discussed declining reef health and tipping points.

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Ridin

really? that's who you go to for your information?

YOu shoudl read this. Over the last 100 yeas I can cherry pich 10 year tretchs where it is even, or seem to decreas, but the overall trend is an ncrease.

Like this

Apparently admitting what I don't know is a fault in your book. Yes, I am not well read on the land ice mass issue. But thank you for providing more information. It weakens what some AGW proponents are saying, and helps balance my understanding. There appear to be conflicting reports. Someone should tell the guys at skeptical science to get their shit together.

Re: CMIP5, I suppose that's why it's called "An Initial" assessment of the models they were using? I double checked elsewhere before posting to satisfy myself that the CMIP5 models did in fact predict less sea ice, and were in fact wrong. The whole point was to dispute your statement: "Go right ahead and point me to where a decline in Antarctic ice was a forecast of AGW", which is plainly wrong if we were talking about Antarctic sea ice extent. I see now that you misinterpreted A.Michael's post.

Do you agree that Antarctic sea ice was falsely predicted to decline?

So, the claim is that atmospheric composition has no effect. Absorption spectra, what absorption spectra? It wouldn't surprise me, it would just be irrelevant. Why compare at 1 atm? It's just cherry-picking, and has nothing to do with the atmosphere of Venus, which, being much thicker and more opaque, has a number of other interesting radiative effects. E.g. only 10% of the incident solar radiation reaches the surface, whereas I believe Earth is more like 85%. A real "apples to apples" comparison is much more complicated than your sound bite suggests.

Temperature rise flat? Unless you are cherry-picking your intervals, in which case you aren't looking at the long-term trends, I don't see it: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication... http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... http://www.skepticalscience.co... ...

1. Data Adjustments. Look at your own link. Look at the graphs. If NOAA is adjusting a data point DOWNWARD by .13degrees Fahrenheit... I... This does not point to massive falsification. You often have to adjust data due to instrument drift. One point does not make a trend. Neither does two, not in that many data points. History is NOT constantly being revised....

2. I really don't care about your last 18 year thing. Lots of data sets show a flat in the last decade (within a HUGE upwards trend over the last 100ish years). You can't cherry pick a decade within a century and call it the norm.

3. I'll look at this. He seems to be published, and have some decent scientific chops. Alas, some of the first google hits on him come up with how he's ... wrong. http://www.skepticalscience.co..., http://www.skepticalscience.co..., and it even looks like the site you linked to had some questions about his predictions... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... At a cursory glance, it looks like he's working qualitatively instead of quantitatively, and it looks like he's pretty much just cutting and pasting old data into new data and calling it a prediction... ? So, basically, No, he's not more accurate. He's wrong. He's also a geologist, which is like asking my electrician to fix my plumbing.... Anyway.

You're wrong. It took me 5 minutes to look at your data and find it to be, not just holey, but flat out wrong.

1. Data Adjustments. Look at your own link. Look at the graphs. If NOAA is adjusting a data point DOWNWARD by .13degrees Fahrenheit... I... This does not point to massive falsification. You often have to adjust data due to instrument drift. One point does not make a trend. Neither does two, not in that many data points. History is NOT constantly being revised....

2. I really don't care about your last 18 year thing. Lots of data sets show a flat in the last decade (within a HUGE upwards trend over the last 100ish years). You can't cherry pick a decade within a century and call it the norm.

3. I'll look at this. He seems to be published, and have some decent scientific chops. Alas, some of the first google hits on him come up with how he's ... wrong. http://www.skepticalscience.co..., http://www.skepticalscience.co..., and it even looks like the site you linked to had some questions about his predictions... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... At a cursory glance, it looks like he's working qualitatively instead of quantitatively, and it looks like he's pretty much just cutting and pasting old data into new data and calling it a prediction... ? So, basically, No, he's not more accurate. He's wrong. He's also a geologist, which is like asking my electrician to fix my plumbing.... Anyway.

You're wrong. It took me 5 minutes to look at your data and find it to be, not just holey, but flat out wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

How can you be so dumb as to not be able to find answers for yourself on the very site you're linking? I suppose you're incredibly lucky that human breathing is involuntary.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Including yours. :D

You are aware that isn't true, right?

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

IS it?

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Truth is, all this talk of natural balance of CO2 is hogwash. Read up on the Cretaceous period. CO2 levels were much higher. Temperatures were up to 20 degrees higher.

The next canard: hey we've had climate change before, so this is no big whoop! Read up on your drivel, as periods of rapid climate change happen after big events, like the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs, or the eruption of a supermassive volcano - and are accompanied by mass extinction events. Dinosaurs didn't choose to put a big rock on the path to their planet, though.

But that's the great thing about being an anti-science troll - you'll just move on to the next Big Lie. Up next: hey, it's really the sun getting hotter!

After surfacestations came out with their list scientists decided to check it out. They compared the temperature trends for well sited weather stations to the temperature trends for poorly sited stations. They found that the poorly sited stations actually have a slightly lower temperature trend than the well sited stations.

Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

NOAA used the site ratings by surfacestations.org to construct two national time series. One was the full data set, using all weather stations. The other used only Class 1 or Class 2 weather stations, classified as good or best.

No, you are oversimplifying with misleading handwaving about absorption spectra, without providing any comprehensive explanation or reference on the subject. The fact that water quickly precipitates out of the air, for instance, is a crucial aspect of the sub-topic that your handwaving conveniently omitted. The GP was far more justified in omitting water vapor than you were in omitting its role.

In fact, even the RealClimate site has presented AGW in (count 'em...) six steps!

Water creates a positive temperature feedback in the Earth's climate, but not a forcing. You're trying to suggest it may be the latter. This subject was beaten to death last decade and its settled.

If I were the GP my list might be seven deep instead of six, to account for the fact that feedbacks exist although positive ones are stronger than negative ones. It would still only be a caveat to what is a pretty decent overview.

Here is a graph of raw data vs. adjusted data from the GHCN. The difference isn't large enough to affect the conclusions.

Why the data was adjusted and the logic for it are available in the scientific papers on the subject. Here is a document that discusses the reasons and methods of adjustments for the USHCN. I you want more detail you'll have to dig for it yourself.

*GHCN/USHCN = Global/United States Historical Climatology Network

I wonder what's making all that ice melt then.

Why? I don't have to. "Valid and well documented", my ass. The same guy is claiming in another article that there is zero evidence for AGW. Amazing that 98% or so of climate scientists disagree, isn't it?

After a grueling 5 seconds of googling...

... Sigmon found a denialist site. Good job! The parlor trick he used to get to this misleading conclusion is explained here.

According to the climate scientists, there has been no increase in global temperatures during his entire lifetime.

That's most used climate myth #50. Also, you are behind on the denialist canon, which currently pins "the end of climate change" at 2010. Not that I can blame you for that; it's been revised so many times it's easy to lost track.

Because "the huge deviations" do not actually exist?

Often the claims that the models don't match reality are based on incompetence or worse.

As a bonus here are some simpe trend comparison graphs.

Yes, the consensus has been wrong before but if you make a habit of betting against it you may win some but you'll be a loser in the long run.

As far as letting other sides make their arguments and having them disproved it's been done over and over but many of them won't give up when they don't get the answer they want. There's a whole website dedicated to scientific rebuttals of the other sides arguments.

I apologize for missing a link. #6 was supposed to link to this graph.

You must prove your case, which has not happened.

Oh yes? Has it not?

AGW makes a handful of claims. First, that the earth is getting warmer.

Second, that the oceans are getting warmer.

Third, that sea levels will rise

Fourth, that arctic ice will retreat.

Fifth, that Greenland's ice will melt..

Sixth, that antarctic ice will melt.

I could go on, but let's make #7 that man is causing it.

So do tell what's missing here. Again, please use scientific evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Most of the links I've provided above refer you to their sources and extra reading and come from such things as IPCC reports. And again, I'll wait.

You must prove your case, which has not happened.

Oh yes? Has it not?

AGW makes a handful of claims. First, that the earth is getting warmer.

Second, that the oceans are getting warmer.

Third, that sea levels will rise

Fourth, that arctic ice will retreat.

Fifth, that Greenland's ice will melt..

Sixth, that antarctic ice will melt.

I could go on, but let's make #7 that man is causing it.

So do tell what's missing here. Again, please use scientific evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Most of the links I've provided above refer you to their sources and extra reading and come from such things as IPCC reports. And again, I'll wait.

You must prove your case, which has not happened.

Oh yes? Has it not?

AGW makes a handful of claims. First, that the earth is getting warmer.

Second, that the oceans are getting warmer.

Third, that sea levels will rise

Fourth, that arctic ice will retreat.

Fifth, that Greenland's ice will melt..

Sixth, that antarctic ice will melt.

I could go on, but let's make #7 that man is causing it.

So do tell what's missing here. Again, please use scientific evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Most of the links I've provided above refer you to their sources and extra reading and come from such things as IPCC reports. And again, I'll wait.

Here is the working link for: No scientists are not ignoring increase in sea ice.

Here is an even better summary of factors that influence arctic sea ice: http://www.skepticalscience.co...:

Here are some of the leading hypotheses currently being explored through a combination of satellite remote sensing, fieldwork in Antarctica and numerical model simulations – to help explain the increasing trend in overall Antarctic sea ice coverage:

Increased westerly winds around the Southern Ocean, linked to changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation related to ozone depletion, will see greater northward movement of sea ice, and hence extent, of Antarctic sea ice.

Increased precipitation, in the form of either rain or snow, will increase the density stratification between the upper and middle layers of the Southern Ocean. This might reduce the oceanic heat transfer from relatively warm waters at below the surface layer, and therefore enhancing conditions at the surface for sea ice.

Similarly, a freshening of the surface layers from this precipitation would also increase the local freezing point of sea ice formation.

Another potential source of cooling and freshening in the upper ocean around Antarctica is increased melting of Antarctic continental ice, through ocean/ice shelf interaction and iceberg decay.

The observed changes in sea ice extent could be influenced by a combination of all these factors and still fall within the bounds of natural variability.

The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline. Given the complex interactions of winds and currents driving patterns of sea ice variability and change in the Southern Ocean climate system, this is not unexpected.

But it is still fascinating to study.

Skeptical Science has a good summary of the science. It looks like there are many contributing factors to the apparent contradiction of warming temperatures, shrinking antarctic ice volume and growing antarctic sea ice area. The new paper referenced in this article is possibly another factor: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.

To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate

Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean

Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.

Examining how this change is spread over time (Figure 1) reveals that the ice sheet as a whole was not losing or gaining ice in the early 1990s. Since then ice loss has begun, and is clearly seen to have accelerated during that time:

Shepherd et al. 2012

Figure 1: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes (bottom) and regions within it (top) and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of several different measurement techniques (Shepherd and others, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).

The satellite mission that is best suited to measuring land ice mass change is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The GRACE satellites measure changes in Earth's gravity and these can be directly related to surface mass variations such as the Antarctic ice sheet. Recent GRACE estimates of mass change show the dramatic mass loss in West Antarctica and mass gain in East Antarctica (King and others, 2012):

King and others, 2012

Figure 2: a, GRACE estimate of ice-mass change (2002-2012), with ice drainage basins numbered (boldface italics where trends are statistically different to zero with 95% confidence). b, c, Basin-specific lower and upper bounds on ice-mass change, respectively, reflecting the potential systematic error in the basin estimates (King and others, 2012).

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over satellite period (Figures 1&2) but not enough to offset the other losses. It is not yet clear

Is this Richard Lendzen MIT dude not at all respectable?

Would that be the Richard Lindzen who has been funded by Exxon and OPEC, who actually does accept the basics of anthropogenic global warming, but disagrees with exactly how high the earth's climate sensistivity is (ie the amount of temperature increase you'll see from a doubling of CO2 levels). The man who been a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute, who writes opinion pieces for the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Stree Journal, and who recently joined the Cato Institute?

Not so much, no.

It affects the albedo a bit, but mostly it's an interesting mystery because you'd expect it to shrink in a warmer climate.

Counter intuitive yes, but it ceased being a mystery decades ago (largely due to climate models that would run on a retail video card these days), if anything this paper is a refinement in the details of the accepted explanation - hint fresh water freezes at a slightly higher temp than salt water. Also the sea ice has always completely melted in the Antarctic summer and its dark in winter, so Albedo is not (currently) as important down south as it is up north.

As for the denier angle - this topic is currently ranked #10 on the climate myth list.

It's up at #10 because the physics of collapsing ice sheets is not well understood and thus difficult to model. Deniers depend on conflating sea ice, land ice, ice shelves, ice bergs, permafrost, ice volume, ice coverage, north pole, and south pole. Someone who is not deliberately trying to mis-inform the reader will also attempt the be clear about which particular "ice metric" they are talking about ( which brings us full circle to the main point of your post :).

This is just another one of the many, many balancing mechanisms in nature.

No, it's not. Ice albedo feedback is strongly positive. In fact the west Antarctic ice sheet is over the tipping point and will collapse
.

Another obvious one is that more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat.

No it doesn't.

The largest feedback from evaporation is water vapour feedback which is very strongly positive.

But observations show that cloud-feedback is small or positive.

It's seasonal, and one of the reasons for the increase is increased precipitation (caused by, you guessed it, global warming).
The sea there is actually warmer, and the land ice is shrinking.
In short, this is only interesting if you need facts with superficial interpretations that can "refute" global warming to the uninformed masses.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

p.s. - I notice in another skepticalscience link that gw deniers have joined evolution deniers in invoking the second law of thermodynamics as "proof that it couldn't happen". As if scientists are ignorant of the 2LoT.

I am a fan of both Anthony Watts' site Watts Up With That *AND* John Cook's Skeptical Science... both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources (not some blog chain) and both are considerate of the reader.

Here's a small research journey: Direct CO2 rise causes temperature rise (CO2drivesT)? YES or NO?

There has been a demonstrated correlation between CO2 and temperature shown by Antarctic ice core data (within ~800-1000y). If a rise of CO2 in this data should consistently lag behind rises in temperature then CO2drivesT is not ruled out (both may be responding to some other factor but at different rates) BUT CO2drivesT has fallen down a notch... it now requires more extraordinary proof.

Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen. The effects of this 'causation' are missing.

Which is to say the historical correlation is broken.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a thing,
Something we should be concerned about.
The rise to 400ppm is definitely humans' fault. It is 'massive'.
Temperature has not risen.
So such a causation, if any may exist, is unlikely to be significant.
We'd see it by now.

For example, head for Skeptical Science [SS] [SS] CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean which acknowledges that CO2 lags behind temperature but introduces 'CO2 amplification' which asserts a feedback where "the increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming.". This in itself is another extraordinary claim. While such a feedback might certainly exist I cannot just swallow it as a flat-fact when pursuing a simple answer to the CO2drivesT question. Where are the computer models incorporating this feedback that match observed temperature?

There is a stir these days among CO2drivesT proponents that some mechanism must exist that is hiding or delaying the warming that the models predict. Immature 'skeptics' jeer at this, implying that it is all about protecting the sacred forced-feedback hypothesis at any cost. Immature CO2drivesT proponents accuse them of attempting to derail the scientific method. There is a germ of truth in both. I think everyone should grow up a little.

Aside from the modern lack of warming, one thing seemed odd about amplification. In the Vostok ice core CO2+T graph clearly at ~75,000YA there is a massive injection of CO2 (~225-230ppm) that I think is Toba era volcanism. If such amplification exists and is significant, that would have been a fine time for CO2 feedback to jump in and 'save the day' with a slowing or a plateau of the declining temperature trend. Or even a rise? But 6,000 years after its onset -- on the Vostok graph at ~220ppm temperature and CO2 are once again in lock-step, both in steep decline. After some six millennia of 'higher' CO2 and 'lower' temperature. Plenty of time for particulates to settle and 'amplification' to occur. If it does. Did it?

But never mind, it's all changed, that [SS] Lag, what does it mean? page also said something astounding: "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." 90%... is that a fact.

Since when?

Which led me to the next step where the game-changer is supposed to be [SS] Shakun et al. Clarify th

I am a fan of both Anthony Watts' site Watts Up With That *AND* John Cook's Skeptical Science... both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources (not some blog chain) and both are considerate of the reader.

Here's a small research journey: Direct CO2 rise causes temperature rise (CO2drivesT)? YES or NO?

There has been a demonstrated correlation between CO2 and temperature shown by Antarctic ice core data (within ~800-1000y). If a rise of CO2 in this data should consistently lag behind rises in temperature then CO2drivesT is not ruled out (both may be responding to some other factor but at different rates) BUT CO2drivesT has fallen down a notch... it now requires more extraordinary proof.

Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen. The effects of this 'causation' are missing.

Which is to say the historical correlation is broken.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a thing,
Something we should be concerned about.
The rise to 400ppm is definitely humans' fault. It is 'massive'.
Temperature has not risen.
So such a causation, if any may exist, is unlikely to be significant.
We'd see it by now.

For example, head for Skeptical Science [SS] [SS] CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean which acknowledges that CO2 lags behind temperature but introduces 'CO2 amplification' which asserts a feedback where "the increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming.". This in itself is another extraordinary claim. While such a feedback might certainly exist I cannot just swallow it as a flat-fact when pursuing a simple answer to the CO2drivesT question. Where are the computer models incorporating this feedback that match observed temperature?

There is a stir these days among CO2drivesT proponents that some mechanism must exist that is hiding or delaying the warming that the models predict. Immature 'skeptics' jeer at this, implying that it is all about protecting the sacred forced-feedback hypothesis at any cost. Immature CO2drivesT proponents accuse them of attempting to derail the scientific method. There is a germ of truth in both. I think everyone should grow up a little.

Aside from the modern lack of warming, one thing seemed odd about amplification. In the Vostok ice core CO2+T graph clearly at ~75,000YA there is a massive injection of CO2 (~225-230ppm) that I think is Toba era volcanism. If such amplification exists and is significant, that would have been a fine time for CO2 feedback to jump in and 'save the day' with a slowing or a plateau of the declining temperature trend. Or even a rise? But 6,000 years after its onset -- on the Vostok graph at ~220ppm temperature and CO2 are once again in lock-step, both in steep decline. After some six millennia of 'higher' CO2 and 'lower' temperature. Plenty of time for particulates to settle and 'amplification' to occur. If it does. Did it?

But never mind, it's all changed, that [SS] Lag, what does it mean? page also said something astounding: "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." 90%... is that a fact.

Since when?

Which led me to the next step where the game-changer is supposed to be [SS] Shakun et al. Clarify th

I am a fan of both Anthony Watts' site Watts Up With That *AND* John Cook's Skeptical Science... both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources (not some blog chain) and both are considerate of the reader.

Here's a small research journey: Direct CO2 rise causes temperature rise (CO2drivesT)? YES or NO?

There has been a demonstrated correlation between CO2 and temperature shown by Antarctic ice core data (within ~800-1000y). If a rise of CO2 in this data should consistently lag behind rises in temperature then CO2drivesT is not ruled out (both may be responding to some other factor but at different rates) BUT CO2drivesT has fallen down a notch... it now requires more extraordinary proof.

Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen. The effects of this 'causation' are missing.

Which is to say the historical correlation is broken.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a thing,
Something we should be concerned about.
The rise to 400ppm is definitely humans' fault. It is 'massive'.
Temperature has not risen.
So such a causation, if any may exist, is unlikely to be significant.
We'd see it by now.

For example, head for Skeptical Science [SS] [SS] CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean which acknowledges that CO2 lags behind temperature but introduces 'CO2 amplification' which asserts a feedback where "the increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming.". This in itself is another extraordinary claim. While such a feedback might certainly exist I cannot just swallow it as a flat-fact when pursuing a simple answer to the CO2drivesT question. Where are the computer models incorporating this feedback that match observed temperature?

There is a stir these days among CO2drivesT proponents that some mechanism must exist that is hiding or delaying the warming that the models predict. Immature 'skeptics' jeer at this, implying that it is all about protecting the sacred forced-feedback hypothesis at any cost. Immature CO2drivesT proponents accuse them of attempting to derail the scientific method. There is a germ of truth in both. I think everyone should grow up a little.

Aside from the modern lack of warming, one thing seemed odd about amplification. In the Vostok ice core CO2+T graph clearly at ~75,000YA there is a massive injection of CO2 (~225-230ppm) that I think is Toba era volcanism. If such amplification exists and is significant, that would have been a fine time for CO2 feedback to jump in and 'save the day' with a slowing or a plateau of the declining temperature trend. Or even a rise? But 6,000 years after its onset -- on the Vostok graph at ~220ppm temperature and CO2 are once again in lock-step, both in steep decline. After some six millennia of 'higher' CO2 and 'lower' temperature. Plenty of time for particulates to settle and 'amplification' to occur. If it does. Did it?

But never mind, it's all changed, that [SS] Lag, what does it mean? page also said something astounding: "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." 90%... is that a fact.

Since when?

Which led me to the next step where the game-changer is supposed to be [SS] Shakun et al. Clarify th

I am a fan of both Anthony Watts' site Watts Up With That *AND* John Cook's Skeptical Science... both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources (not some blog chain) and both are considerate of the reader.

Here's a small research journey: Direct CO2 rise causes temperature rise (CO2drivesT)? YES or NO?

There has been a demonstrated correlation between CO2 and temperature shown by Antarctic ice core data (within ~800-1000y). If a rise of CO2 in this data should consistently lag behind rises in temperature then CO2drivesT is not ruled out (both may be responding to some other factor but at different rates) BUT CO2drivesT has fallen down a notch... it now requires more extraordinary proof.

Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen. The effects of this 'causation' are missing.

Which is to say the historical correlation is broken.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a thing,
Something we should be concerned about.
The rise to 400ppm is definitely humans' fault. It is 'massive'.
Temperature has not risen.
So such a causation, if any may exist, is unlikely to be significant.
We'd see it by now.

For example, head for Skeptical Science [SS] [SS] CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean which acknowledges that CO2 lags behind temperature but introduces 'CO2 amplification' which asserts a feedback where "the increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming.". This in itself is another extraordinary claim. While such a feedback might certainly exist I cannot just swallow it as a flat-fact when pursuing a simple answer to the CO2drivesT question. Where are the computer models incorporating this feedback that match observed temperature?

There is a stir these days among CO2drivesT proponents that some mechanism must exist that is hiding or delaying the warming that the models predict. Immature 'skeptics' jeer at this, implying that it is all about protecting the sacred forced-feedback hypothesis at any cost. Immature CO2drivesT proponents accuse them of attempting to derail the scientific method. There is a germ of truth in both. I think everyone should grow up a little.

Aside from the modern lack of warming, one thing seemed odd about amplification. In the Vostok ice core CO2+T graph clearly at ~75,000YA there is a massive injection of CO2 (~225-230ppm) that I think is Toba era volcanism. If such amplification exists and is significant, that would have been a fine time for CO2 feedback to jump in and 'save the day' with a slowing or a plateau of the declining temperature trend. Or even a rise? But 6,000 years after its onset -- on the Vostok graph at ~220ppm temperature and CO2 are once again in lock-step, both in steep decline. After some six millennia of 'higher' CO2 and 'lower' temperature. Plenty of time for particulates to settle and 'amplification' to occur. If it does. Did it?

But never mind, it's all changed, that [SS] Lag, what does it mean? page also said something astounding: "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." 90%... is that a fact.

Since when?

Which led me to the next step where the game-changer is supposed to be [SS] Shakun et al. Clarify th

I am a fan of both Anthony Watts' site Watts Up With That *AND* John Cook's Skeptical Science... both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources (not some blog chain) and both are considerate of the reader.

Here's a small research journey: Direct CO2 rise causes temperature rise (CO2drivesT)? YES or NO?

There has been a demonstrated correlation between CO2 and temperature shown by Antarctic ice core data (within ~800-1000y). If a rise of CO2 in this data should consistently lag behind rises in temperature then CO2drivesT is not ruled out (both may be responding to some other factor but at different rates) BUT CO2drivesT has fallen down a notch... it now requires more extraordinary proof.

Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen. The effects of this 'causation' are missing.

Which is to say the historical correlation is broken.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a thing,
Something we should be concerned about.
The rise to 400ppm is definitely humans' fault. It is 'massive'.
Temperature has not risen.
So such a causation, if any may exist, is unlikely to be significant.
We'd see it by now.

For example, head for Skeptical Science [SS] [SS] CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean which acknowledges that CO2 lags behind temperature but introduces 'CO2 amplification' which asserts a feedback where "the increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming.". This in itself is another extraordinary claim. While such a feedback might certainly exist I cannot just swallow it as a flat-fact when pursuing a simple answer to the CO2drivesT question. Where are the computer models incorporating this feedback that match observed temperature?

There is a stir these days among CO2drivesT proponents that some mechanism must exist that is hiding or delaying the warming that the models predict. Immature 'skeptics' jeer at this, implying that it is all about protecting the sacred forced-feedback hypothesis at any cost. Immature CO2drivesT proponents accuse them of attempting to derail the scientific method. There is a germ of truth in both. I think everyone should grow up a little.

Aside from the modern lack of warming, one thing seemed odd about amplification. In the Vostok ice core CO2+T graph clearly at ~75,000YA there is a massive injection of CO2 (~225-230ppm) that I think is Toba era volcanism. If such amplification exists and is significant, that would have been a fine time for CO2 feedback to jump in and 'save the day' with a slowing or a plateau of the declining temperature trend. Or even a rise? But 6,000 years after its onset -- on the Vostok graph at ~220ppm temperature and CO2 are once again in lock-step, both in steep decline. After some six millennia of 'higher' CO2 and 'lower' temperature. Plenty of time for particulates to settle and 'amplification' to occur. If it does. Did it?

But never mind, it's all changed, that [SS] Lag, what does it mean? page also said something astounding: "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." 90%... is that a fact.

Since when?

Which led me to the next step where the game-changer is supposed to be [SS] Shakun et al. Clarify th

>> CO2 is not totally destroying the environment :) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature

Wow You REALLY need to check your facts. Here are just a few of the many sources that contraidct you:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...

http://www.nature.org/ouriniti...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.ifpri.org/publicati...

>> CO2 is not totally destroying the environment :) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature

Wow You REALLY need to check your facts. Here are just a few of the many sources that contraidct you:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...

http://www.nature.org/ouriniti...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.ifpri.org/publicati...

Climate change and global warming are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. No names have been changed.

Global warming is the increase in global temperature. Increase in trapped energy, really.
Climate change is the impact of the increasing temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Yes, droughts happen. SO what? How are the changing? frequent? HInt: Worse and more often.

No one is saying the firs are a result of global warming, specifically. Just that there are more of them, the last longer, and the happen sooner. Did you know that last year fire season didn't end?

Yes, some(one) where caused by arson. so what? How hot did they get, how did the spread, home long did it take to extinguish?

How is this an over-broad statements like this from "scientists" . It's forma n actual scientist, btw. I'm not sure why you think you need quotes.
Is it an implied ad hom at the article, Or to show your a dumb ass. haha, I kid, it's both.

"The fires in California and here in Arizona are a clear example of what happens as the Earth warms, particularly as the West warms, and the warming caused by humans is making fire season longer and longer with each decade,"

So tired of you idiots.

You do know all those papers have been thoroughly shot down by actual science, right?
First read up on the man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The man thinks the sun is causing climate change. While the sun does have an impact on climate, the suns activity bears no correlation with current trends. Not in out put, not in impact of the upper most atmosphere, non at all.

Either he is another person talking outside their expertise and looking foolish, or he does it to sell his papers. Either way he is a horrible person.
As much as I normally shy away from this term, I can't think of anything other way to say this: He is a Hearltand shill.

Find me a single "external scientist" who investigated the literature, and found a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Just one.

fine

This happened once before with another corrupt scientist - Ancel Keys. His notorious "7 countries study" asserted a link between dietary fat intake and heart disease. As it turned out, his results were only caused by deleting data to "hide the decline" as it were. His ruthless pursuit of power led him to positions at the heart of government that led eventually to our dietary advice for lower-fat, and higher carbohydrate intake. He demanded that we act because the "science suggested" that there was a link between heart disease and dietary fat intake. In fact, he was wrong, and sent our country on an over 40 year path of increasing obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases.

Are you the one of the Taubes followers? It seems that crackpot science follows the same rules as conspiracy theories. (yes, fat was probably overblown, but the science self-corrected)

*EXACTLY THIS*. We've proven there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on AGW (nor is science driven by consensus). So *of course* we're going to indict them when they try to form a "consistent message" when the *FACTS* contradict that message!

So 97% of climate scientists agreeing isn't consensus, though just in case someone doesn't buy that you'll say science isn't driven by consensus, presumably because that would provide a falsifiable hypothesis you would fail.

Quote a *SINGLE* one. Find me a single AGW paper that says "if we observe this, that, or the other, AGW is false, and if we *fail* to observe this, that, or the other, we must logically conclude AGW is true".

Just for fun, you'll note that I made my hypotheses falsifiable - "there is no AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is falsified by a *single* observation of an AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Find just *one*, and I'll admit I'm wrong :) Of course, since this is a simple hypothesis, you can logically see how if you can't even find *one*, then it's very likely that my hypothesis is true - the logical case for AGW would of course have to be more complex in order to show that the lacking observations couldn't also happen with natural climate change.

Here's a bunch. In specific "Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation". CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere means that there will be less radiation emitted from the atmosphere in the related wavelength. That's a falsifiable hypothesis and it's a hypothesis they tested by looking at the thermal radiation.

Warming on other planets (if such is indeed the case) does not answer the question of whether there is AGW on Earth. It would just invalidate the argument that we have ruled out N(atural)GW.

Yes, it would; but it's not the case. At least not to the extend that denialists claim, or in any way that even hints at a common cause: What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system

If other planets are observed to be experiencing a similar warming to that being observed here...

There is no reliable evidence that this is even happening. What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system?

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC.

We [the Independent Climate Change Email Review] conclude that there is evidence that the text was a team responsibility. It is clear that Jones (though not alone) had a strongly negative view of the paper but we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were “invented” given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on the issue.

So Jones' comment, in regard to MM2004, would be troubling on its own. However, not only did he apparently lack the power to exclude the paper, he was apparently unbiased in the final comments.

The other paper referenced in Jones' quote is also discussed in the link I provided.

That's a simple example and I'm too lazy, but you could easily improve upon it if you try. Picking one city and one temperature like that is an extension of the "weather's not climate" fallacy. So don't fall for that statistical trick again.

Another important thing that few people do is distinguishing between a hypothesis, and a well-supported theory, because people promoting their hypothesis will rarely inform you. Do that and you will be much smarter.

I'm really starting to think you have memory issues. You're still acting as if that cartoon is my only source of data, ignoring all my other links. There is a rising trend in the average surface temperature on earth, and if you focus on records at individual places, a large majority has a rising trend too. Ice sheets are declining all over the world, glaciers are retreating all over the world. Nobody is contesting that (but you, apparently). Saying rising temperatures are a hypothesis, rather than a well-supported theory, is dishonest to say the least. Deniers used to try to make that point 30 years ago. When that position became untenable, they retreated to saying it's it's the sun, not greenhouse gases. That has became untenable too, and they have been diversifying into a whole bunch of arguments, every one as wrong as the next one. Try to keep up.

Also, in teaching, it is often advantageous to give an example. A few degrees rise in average surface temperature doesn't speak to the imagination much, and ill-informed people are going to cherry-pick one particular cold winter out of a long record to try to disprove it. To show how silly that is, Randall Munroe picked one particular city as an example, to illustrate the wider trend more clearly. He also chose to start in the 1970 because that's where we have the most data and the trend is most spectacular; as I said before, it's still there if you go back to the 1920s or so (when the human-induced rise in CO2 levels became big enough to have a statistically significant influence). If you go out of your way to find a data point that goes against the trend (which is not all that difficult given the large fluctuations) then it is you who are cherry-picking and committing a fallacy.