Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Rhetoric Again - Cycles

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 6:39 AM GMT on April 25, 2012

+14

Rhetoric Again - Cycles:

A few entries ago I wrote about the form of argument and the rhetoric used by those who advocate that the science of climate change is flawed in some fundamental and philosophical way (also here). In that piece I made reference to long-reaching metaphors and isolated facts that are used to create doubt about climate science. These metaphors and facts, for example that there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs, create a stop or a pause in the conversation and pose as seeming contradictions and serve as distractions to make logically flawed points. For those who want to hone up on your arguments, I find the Marshall Institute’s Cocktail Party Guide to Global Warming some of the better coaching of anti-climate-science rhetoric.

I have been thinking about one of the common statements that is made, and that is the one about their being a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs and, more generally, that there is a long record of cycles between times of high and low carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. This has been presented to me many times, and I often wonder, what exactly is the point that is being made?

At first, when I heard statements that there was very high carbon dioxide in the past, it seemed to be with the implication that this was one, a natural occurrence and two, a fact that was being hidden by climate scientists. True, it is a natural occurrence. Any comprehensive text book on climate change will discuss the past variations in carbon dioxide and that there have been times when carbon dioxide was much higher, and the Earth was much warmer. It is not hidden, rather it is used to inform our future.

Following from the introduction into the argument that the high values of carbon dioxide in the past were a natural occurrence, there seemed to be two points. First, was that very high values of carbon dioxide were possible in the absence of human-responsible emissions and second, that changes in carbon dioxide amounts were beyond our control and hence there was little sensibility in reducing our emissions. There is the further implication that since this is natural then it is OK.

Our real concern about climate change is that climate change impacts humans. If it were not for the impact on humans, climate change would be a curious problem of natural science. When there was a lot of carbon dioxide and dinosaurs, there were no humans. That does not mean that with high carbon dioxide that humans can’t survive and that dinosaurs will return. However, getting from the stable temperate climate in which our civilizations evolved to a climate where the temperatures are several degrees warmer will be a disruptive path. There will be less land as sea level rises, and since there is a huge concentration along the coasts of the world, there will be huge relocation of people, disruption to nations, and loss of infrastructure. There will be enormous changes in ecosystems and domestic plants and animals.

So yes, there are cycles and there has been a lot more carbon dioxide in the air, but that has been in the absence of billions of humans, our built environment, and our fragile balances of nations and economies. It is the disruption of the fragile balances of human enterprise where the risk lies – so how does the fact that carbon dioxide was high when there were dinosaurs bear on the current concerns about increasing carbon dioxide and global warming?

Carbon dioxide was high in the distant path – does this suggest that carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere are beyond our control? Why was carbon dioxide high? Is that simply an unknowable mystery?

The composition of our atmosphere is determined by many factors. In the long term, my geologist friends always remind me that the composition of the atmosphere is determined by geology and the cycling of gases between the atmosphere and ocean and the solid Earth. This long time frame, millions or billions of years, is not exactly relevant to our human experience. On a shorter amount of time, like the ice age cycles, or the large amounts of carbon dioxide when the dinosaurs were present, biological processes are important for determining the composition of the atmosphere. We have benefitted from many millions of years when carbon dioxide and oxygen existed in a balance that support plants and animals. Those cycles, those extended periods of high carbon dioxide, are characterized by changes in balance of plant and animal life. They are characterized by the ocean taking up and giving back large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through both chemical and biological processes.

So are we destined to simply be at the fate of these major shifts? Are these shifts beyond our control? Aren’t they natural?

Let’s get back to humans. There is little doubt that humans are the dominant life form on the planet today. We shape every ecosystem. We consume all forms of energy. Like the balances between plants and animals in the past we change the atmosphere and the ocean. Not only are we a dominant life form, we have this amazing ability to extract rocks and liquids and gas from the Earth and burn it. We have the ability to push around land, to make concrete, to remove mountains, and build islands. We are, therefore, not only biological, we are geological.

We are part of the cycle. We don’t simply exist at the mercy of the cycle.

So what is the point of a far reaching reference to the time of the dinosaurs and high amounts of carbon dioxide? Perhaps the point is to take us out of the equation, to absolve us of our responsibility to the planet, to allow us to do that which we want to do.

In the end this takes us to some very basic questions about humans and knowledge. I recently saw an idea attributed to Tim Flannery (also here), that humans are a species prone to destroying their future by destroying ecosystems. As I understand the argument, because of our intellect, we can continue to extract from the Earth resources beyond which a less creative species would be limited by brutal, natural barriers. We can rapidly cause extinctions. So far we can find and perhaps nurture new resources as we destroy the old.

We have this unique capacity of knowledge. We can place ourselves into our environment and see ourselves as shaping our environment, and have responsibility for maintaining our environment. We are not, entirely, at the fate of nature, or cycles, but we are part of nature, of cycles. And as such we might not be able to determine our future, but we are able to influence our future. We don’t have to be destined to destroy our future.

Scientifically, the statement of facts about cycles and high carbon dioxide millions of years ago has little bearing on whether or not we are burning fossil fuels, increasing carbon dioxide and warming the planet. Such presented facts are a diversionary part of a belief-based and politically based argument. Some advocates of the politically based arguments are trying to stop a societal response to carbon dioxide emissions. Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominant life form. To me, what makes humans different is we have this ability to accumulate science-based knowledge, which is actionable, which imbues responsibility, which allows us to be different, and to sustain our future.

r

Categories: Climate Change Politics Climate Impacts and Risks Climate Change

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 201 - 251

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index

201. Snowlover123 6:45 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Xandra: LOL. In other words - your 20 links you posted had no value. The paper by Link et al 2011, is based on selected stations and Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, who is one of the authors, is just one more from the denialist mumbo-jumbo machine. The papers by Scafetta & West have been debunked over and over again. You have nothing to support you. Nothing! They did have value. They represented the skeptical position, and came to different conclusions than the papers that you posted. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

202. Snowlover123 7:10 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting AlwaysThinkin: Snowlover just what do you think is causing the upper atmosphere to cool also while the surface warms (as if something is trapping more heat on earths surface)? If it were the sun wouldn't it cause the upper atmosphere to warm also? Stratospheric Cooling is very complicated as many factors can influence stratospheric cooling. The stratospheric temperatures have largely decreased right after a major volcanic eruption. They are pretty much flat between volcanic eruptions. What I think this is an indicator of (and I've revised my hypothesis about stratospheric cooling from before), is that stratospheric cooling is largely correlated with the volcanic CFCs that penetrate the stratosphere during large eruptions. These deplete ozone, creating stratospheric cooling. There may be an effect from GHGs, but it doesn't seem to be that major, because the concentration of GHGs, especially CO2 skyrocketed over the last one and a half decades. The stratospheric temperatures have remained flat. What I think this is an indicator of, is that GHGs are not driving stratospheric cooling, or else we should have seen a large cooling of the stratospheric temperatures since 1994-1995. Just what do you think is the reason between the volcanic eruptions correlating highly to the stratospheric cooling? Why haven't we cooled over the last 17-18 years in the stratosphere? Can you explain why this is? The problem with AGW Advocates (like yourself) is that all of you guys assume a simple climate system. But this is not true. There are lots of things going on in Earth's Climate System at once, and each of these observable climatic changes may be a product of one of the various things going on in the climate system. They do not all have to be attributed to one factor. The sun, however, is what I believe to be driving the Trophospheric and Surface Warming. These 9 studies above are just examples of a large group that believes that the sun is to blame for Climate Change, not man. They are, Palle Bago and Butler 2001 Georgieva et. al 2005 Cliver et. al 1998 Solheim et. al 2012 Link et. al 2011 Scafetta and West 2008 Scafetta and West 2007 Ogurtsov 2007 Blanter et. al 2008 The image above is from Balle Bago and Butler 2001. Note the good correlation between Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds, wheras the total cloud cover is not very well correlated. This indicates that only the low clouds are correlated to GCR changes, and any attempt to refute the GCR hypothesis by simply posting total cloud cover verses GCRs is simply trying to mislead the general public. The study then goes on to show that in their analysis, 0.5 Degrees C of the 0.55 Degree temperature change over the 20th Century can be attributed to the direct and indirect effects of Cosmic Rays., which means that a large portion of the late-20th Century warming would have to be attributed to the direct and indirect variations in solar activity. Georgieva et. al 2005 used the Geomagnetic AA Index to quantify the solar impact on Climate Change, rather than the sunspot number, because using the sunspot number to quantify the solar contribution to climate change, as many studies do, leads to an underestimation of the Solar impact on Climate Change. The above figure from Georgieva et. al shows the Geomagentic AA Index with the broken line, and the Global Temperature Anomalies with the solid line. They find that the correlation coefficient between the AA Index and Global Temperatures is 0.85, meaning that the sun can explain 85% of the variances in temperatures over the last ~150 years. THe AA Index also went up during the late 20th Century which is an indicator that a substantial part of this warming could be due to the sun. Cliver et. al 1998 also used the Geomagnetic AA Index to estimate the solar contribution to climate change. Above figure: From Cliver et. al 1998. The AA Index is the dotted line, and the solid line are the temperature anomalies. They found that 50-100% of the warming could be due to the sun, but it should be noted that this analysis does not include other factors like volcanic activity and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions when estimating the total contribution. Nonetheless, this study also shows that other studies which do include these factors are only at the lower end of the 50-100% range for the solar contribution over the last 100-150 years. It also supports other studies with a larger solar contribution to climate change because of the remarkable correlation with the AA Index and temperatures. Solheim et. al 2012 found that the solar signal is reinforced by the Atlantic Ocean, and this reinforcing signal in the Atlantic Ocean is calculated to be from 63-72% of the variances in temperatures over the entire timeframe. They get a lower solar contribution to land based stations, but the reinforced signal is probably what would lead to a more accurate solar contribution, since most of the world is covered by oceans, and likely, reinforcing the solar signals. The box that represents the % solar contribution from Link et. al 2011 actually represents the probability whether the entire trend over the last 100-150 years is natural. The authors calculate that the probability of the warming being caused by solar activity over this entire timeframe is 40-90%. It should be noted that these probabilities go up significantly over shorter timeframes like 1900-1950 and 1960-2005. Scafetta and West 2008 adresses the uncertainty raised in the first paper. If a TSI curve that shows an upward trend from Solar Cycle 21 to 22 is used from the ACRIM TSI composite rather than the flat PMOD TSI composite, then a higher contribution from the sun would be needed. The authors find that up to 69% of the variances in temperatures can be explained by solar activity. The image above from Scafetta and West 2008 shows the divergence between the PMOD and ACRIM TSI datasets, which makes attribution to past climate change even harder. The red curve is the ACRIM TSI composite, the blue curve is the PMOD TSI Composite, and the black curve and green line are the Global Temperature anomalies. The ACRIM verses PMOD controversy continues in the Scafetta and West 2007 paper. 50% or more of temperatures can be attributed to the solar forcing, depending if the ACRIM TSI composite is used or not. This further adds on to resolving the uncertainty between the PMOD and ACRIM datasets during the ACRIM Gap. The graph above from Scafetta and West 2007 shows the excellent correlation between solar activity and temperatures. It also shows that a large portion of the warming can be attributed to solar activity. Over the last 30 years, a significant portion of the warming can be attributed to solar activity if the ACRIM TSI composite is used. Ogurstov 2007 estimated that the solar contribution directly and indirectly caused about 0.25-0.35 degrees C of the warming that took place during the 20th Century. Using the Skeptical Science trend calculator gives an approxiate warming of 0.6 Degrees C during the 20th Century. This means that 41-59% of the trend upward can be attributed to solar activity over the past 100 years. Blanter et. al 2008 found that temperatures correlated remarkably well for all periods between the solar activity indicies and the observed temperatures for stations in Europe and the United States during the 20th Century. They used a finding from a previous study that the temperatures at weather stations correlated remarkably well if they were up to a 1000 km distance from each other. They also state in the abstract that these changes can "possibly" be extended onto a Global scale. Being that they found that solar activity can account for all temperature changes over the 20th Century, I reduced the range slightly from 100% to somwhere in the 90-100% range to account for the anthropogenic forcings. Many other papers also indicate a significant (50% or higher) influence from solar activity on the climate during the 20th Century. This indicates that the debate is not over, and anyone who tries to say that it is, are only fooling themselves. I will leave you with these quotes from Climate Scientists who are trying to explain the hiatus period in Global Temperatures over the last decade or so. Their diverse responses indicate that the climate system is not yet well understood, and that the debate is not over. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

203. greentortuloni 7:19 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Stratospheric Cooling is very complicated as many factors can influence........ not over, and anyone who tries to say that it is, are only fooling themselves.....decade or so. Their diverse responses indicate that the climate system is not yet well understood, and that the debate is not over. Sure thing buddy, you've found a few papers that MAY say something different from what all the other scientists are saying. My guess is that it is bunch of hooey like the other papers you've posted. At least you agree global warming is happening. My guess you're next step to show that the only way to prevent the sun from scorching the planet is to burn as much coal/oil as possible. Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1188

204. Birthmark 7:25 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming: Lindzen, Richard S. Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences And he's willing to tarnish all of those achievements for the sake of political ideology. Weird. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

205. cyclonebuster 7:43 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Those are the basic principles of the Greenhouse Effect, which I have not disputed whatsoever. So do they add to the warming of the planet or not? Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18758

206. vanwx 8:19 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
I don't mean to support Lindzen but the question has occured to me also. Is there an upper limit to what 'double glazing' can do. Will the methane which will kick in over the next 5 yrs really intensify the problem. Much of my pro AGW stance is built on unforeseen cascades of warming but I possibly did not foresee some homoeostatic structures too. We are in a new zone; both the NW Passage and the NE Passage were running this year. The Barents Sea had and ice free year, pushing masses of 'my littlest ocean', the Arctic's fresh water into the Bering Sea(since when is that an Arctic ocean?)Even at this temp change, the hottest ten yrs in a century, the ice will melt. I know because it's doing so, the perma-frost is rapidly disappearing and mega tons of methane(which takes 3X long to get out of the atmosphere) is going skyward. The ocean is in serious trouble, not mostly from heat, but from CO2 turning it acid. It would be stupid of me, though, to not wonder if going from dual glaze windows to trebles is a waste. I know I must get rid of heat and CO2. Don't sell me Nuke, more heat and much more poison. Lindzen may have half 1/2 an idea and he has apologised for it but can you imagine the embarrassment of being the lead act in front of Not-really-a Lord Bunkton. The $40,000 would not pay the cleaning bill. Member Since: February 6, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 124

207. Birthmark 8:24 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Stratospheric Cooling is very complicated as many factors can influence stratospheric cooling. Yep. You should probably read this before telling the experts that they're wrong, but that you have it figured out. You should probably stop posting unsourced graphics, too. There really is nothing to be said for about such graphs since no context is included. Quoting Snowlover123: The sun, however, is what I believe to be driving the Trophospheric and Surface Warming. You may believe what you like, but I have proven beyond all but a perverse doubt that the Sun hypothesis is impossible. Your appeal to refuted papers is silly. Anyone can cite papers that are wrong. The scientific literature is full of them. Your own assertions about the stratosphere further refutes your Sun hypothesis. Quoting Snowlover123: The image above is from Balle Bago and Butler 2001. Note the good correlation between Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds, wheras the total cloud cover is not very well correlated. Oh, boy! Correlation...except that there's no known mechanism in that paper for generating clouds of any kind from GCRs. IOW, correlation isn't causation. GCRs have been eliminated by serious scientists from having any large-scale effect on climate. Again, you ferret in corners in search of unnecessary explanations. Quoting Snowlover123: Georgieva et. al 2005 Do you imagine that if you keep citing the same papers that they will have some new effect? This was answered yesterday. The same answer still applies today. Quoting Snowlover123: Georgieva Scafetta and West 2007 Again, this paper was refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. The fact that you keep citing it is laughable. Face it, Scafetta is a crank. Quoting Snowlover123: Ogurstov 2007 This paper is not representative of the published scientific literature. The range in most (perhaps all) other papers is 15% or less, and that is primarily contained in the early 20th century. There is little or no solar contribution since 1980. Quoting Snowlover123: Blanter et. al 2008 That's hilarious! 100% is attributable to the Sun? Why stop there? Why not give it 100% and claim that GHGs actually cool the atmosphere? LOL I see that even you are embarrassed by that and arbitrarily reduce the percentage. I guess you know more than even the experts that you cite. LOL Btw, how can the mighty Sun be heating places it isn't even visible when at the same time the Sun is so feeble that it can't even warm the stratosphere? Tis a stumper, ain't it? Quoting Snowlover123: I will leave you with these quotes from Climate Scientists Thank you for displaying beyond all doubt that you espouse crank science. The out-of-context quote tactic is one of the favorite ploys of crank science. That tactic shows up extensively to "prove" evolution wrong, too. In neither case is it effective. It is a tactic designed to mislead the ignorant and the lazy. That you use it highlights the failures of your argument. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

208. biff4ugo 8:24 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
OK, show me the solar radiation record indicating incoming solar radiation has increased over the last 20 years. I have seen your hand drawn, crayon graph enough. You say it is from the sun, show me the radiation measurements. Not clouds and temperature anomalies, if it is the sun, show the radiation increase to me. Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 107 Comments: 1176

209. AlwaysThinkin 8:30 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Stratospheric Cooling is very complicated as many factors can influence stratospheric cooling. The stratospheric temperatures have largely decreased right after a major volcanic eruption. They are pretty much flat between volcanic eruptions. I think we are talking past each other. What I meant by upper atmosphere was the mesosphere and thermosphere rather than the stratosphere which I thought how it was divided. Those layers have cooled in the last few decades. Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 195

210. Some1Has2BtheRookie 8:32 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: They did have value. They represented the skeptical position, and came to different conclusions than the papers that you posted. I disagree that they showed a true skeptic's point of view. You do not deny the AGWT. You do not deny that the climate is changing. You do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You do not deny that CO2 is at least partially responsible for the climate change. You do not deny the anthropogenic CO2 levels of our atmosphere are continuing to rise. What you do is to provide information that has already been shown to have no real basis to the climate change we are observing now. What you do is provide opinions that have no scientific evidence to support these opinions. What you do is to try to cloud the issues with unreasoned thought and debunked Science. You pose yourself as being a skeptic, but you show yourself as one that denies the science that supports the AGWT. Just how are you suppose to be viewed when this is how you present yourself. ... By all means, be skeptical. As a skeptic, show the scientific evidence that supports your skepticism and evidence that has not already shown to be less than scientific evidence. ... As I said before, I can claim that it is our moon that forces the Sun out of the night sky. As a skeptic, you need to show me the science that shows otherwise. Should I still insist that I am correct, then all I am is a denier of the science. Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

212. Patrap 9:08 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
LoL.. 3 Days of well, "nevermind" Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 370 Comments: 111297

213. Birthmark 9:08 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting EugeneTillman: Who's political ideology? His own, obviously. Who else's ideology would he sacrifice his reputation for. (I might put that in English later.) Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

214. Birthmark 9:09 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Patrap: LoL.. 3 Days of well, "nevermind" It was snow, after a fashion, no? Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

216. Patrap 9:12 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
..the Sun is the same in a relative way but yer older, and shorter of breath, and one day closer to death.. Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 370 Comments: 111297

217. Birthmark 9:12 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting EugeneTillman: Exactly what kind of political ideology? The kind that allows one to burn as much fossil fuel as one likes, with no negative consequences. He accomplishes this through magic clouds...that for some reason never previously saved us from Ice Ages or warm periods. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

218. Birthmark 9:14 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Patrap: ..the Sun is the same in a relative way but yer older, and shorter of breath, and one day closer to death.. That's odd. I very nearly posted "You run and you run to catch up with the Sun but it's sinking" earlier to day. Now I have to post "racing around, to come up behind you again" or my pedantry will become terminal. LOL Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

219. Snowlover123 9:16 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: You're not thinking this through, Snowlover. What possible effect can albedo change have in Arctic winter...when the sea ice returns. This winter, for example, Arctic sea ice extent was very near the mean. Therefore, there was no real albedo change. Yet winter warming continues despite a lack of albedo change and complete lack of heat from the Sun. I've said it once, and I'll say it again --Buh-bye Sun hypothesis. It's over. You are without any mechanism to explain the winter warming in the Arctic. Might I be so bold as to suggest CO2? LOL There is simply no evidence that the current warming is due to natural variability. Climate change primarily induced by CO2, yep. There's plenty of evidence for that. You are one of the only people who I have met on an internet forum that do not believe that natural variability and the ice albedo feedback have a large impact on Arctic amplification and the differential trends during each season. That is where a consensus on the science exists. And you, my friend refuse to accept the scientific consensus. I never thought I'd be quoting John Cook, but he represents the science of Arctic Amplification well. Quoting Link: Using higher resolution temperature data supplemented with updated satellite measurements, Screen 2010 analyse the observe warming trend in each season. What they find is maximum Arctic warming at the surface and that warming lessens with height in all seasons except summer. This vertical structure suggests that changes at the surface, such as decreases in sea ice and snow cover, are the primary causes of recent Arctic amplification. The surface warming is modest in summer because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean. The majority of the winter warming is associated with changes in sea ice cover even though the sea ice declines at this time of the year are relatively small. During summer, the atmosphere loses heat to the ocean whereas during winter, the flux of heat is reversed. Reduced summer sea ice cover allows for greater warming of the upper ocean but atmospheric warming is modest. The excess heat stored in the upper ocean is subsequently released to the atmosphere during winter. So can we please stop with the false commentary that Arctic Amplification somehow "disproves" Global solar warming? Thanks. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

220. Patrap 9:18 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: That's odd. I very nearly posted "You run and you run to catch up with the Sun but it's sinking" earlier to day. Now I have to post "racing around, to come up behind you again" or my pedantry will become terminal. LOL ...The Lunatic is on da "Neutral Ground". Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 370 Comments: 111297

221. Snowlover123 9:19 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni: Sure thing buddy, you've found a few papers that MAY say something different from what all the other scientists are saying. My guess is that it is bunch of hooey like the other papers you've posted. At least you agree global warming is happening. My guess you're next step to show that the only way to prevent the sun from scorching the planet is to burn as much coal/oil as possible. Hi Green, I would never suggest such a thing. Some wacky environmentalists are suggesting that we pump pollution into the atmosphere so we can halt Global Warming. I'm an environmentalist myself, and the health consequences if such measures were to be taken would be extremely detremental. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

222. Snowlover123 9:21 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster: So do they add to the warming of the planet or not? Yes. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

223. Birthmark 9:24 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: You are one of the only people who I have met on an internet forum that do not believe that natural variability and the ice albedo feedback have a large impact on Arctic amplification and the differential trends during each season. I appreciate the trouble you went to, making up a position for me and all, but you needn't bother. If you are interested in my position you may ask. But we were discussing your position...which makes no sense. I have been kind enough to point this out on many occasions on this thread. I anticipate having to point it out many more times. For clarification, my stated position thus far is that your assertion that the Sun is causing global warming is impossible based on the evidence. Incidentally, if you do the math on the Cook quote you used, you'll see that in your effort to defend your view, you actually further undermined it. ;^D Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

225. Snowlover123 9:27 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting AlwaysThinkin: I think we are talking past each other. What I meant by upper atmosphere was the mesosphere and thermosphere rather than the stratosphere which I thought how it was divided. Those layers have cooled in the last few decades. Well... Quoting Link: From NASA News. New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. Where have we had an accurate measurement of the thermospheric temperatures over the last 30 or so years? I can't find any. Could you provide a link, perhaps? Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

226. Snowlover123 9:30 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: we were discussing your* position...which makes no sense. I* Why does arctic amplification, caused by natural variability from the oceans and the ice albedo feedback make zero sense? Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

227. Snowlover123 9:35 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Yep. You should probably read this before telling the experts that they're wrong, but that you have it figured out. You should probably stop posting unsourced graphics, too. There really is nothing to be said for about such graphs since no context is included. You may believe what you like, but I have proven beyond all but a perverse doubt that the Sun hypothesis is impossible. Your appeal to refuted papers is silly. Anyone can cite papers that are wrong. The scientific literature is full of them. Your own assertions about the stratosphere further refutes your Sun hypothesis. Oh, boy! Correlation...except that there's no known mechanism in that paper for generating clouds of any kind from GCRs. IOW, correlation isn't causation. GCRs have been eliminated by serious scientists from having any large-scale effect on climate. Again, you ferret in corners in search of unnecessary explanations. Do you imagine that if you keep citing the same papers that they will have some new effect? This was answered yesterday. The same answer still applies today. Again, this paper was refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. The fact that you keep citing it is laughable. Face it, Scafetta is a crank. This paper is not representative of the published scientific literature. The range in most (perhaps all) other papers is 15% or less, and that is primarily contained in the early 20th century. There is little or no solar contribution since 1980. That's hilarious! 100% is attributable to the Sun? Why stop there? Why not give it 100% and claim that GHGs actually cool the atmosphere? LOL I see that even you are embarrassed by that and arbitrarily reduce the percentage. I guess you know more than even the experts that you cite. LOL Btw, how can the mighty Sun be heating places it isn't even visible when at the same time the Sun is so feeble that it can't even warm the stratosphere? Tis a stumper, ain't it? Thank you for displaying beyond all doubt that you espouse crank science. The out-of-context quote tactic is one of the favorite ploys of crank science. That tactic shows up extensively to "prove" evolution wrong, too. In neither case is it effective. It is a tactic designed to mislead the ignorant and the lazy. That you use it highlights the failures of your argument. Basic summary of your "rebuttal:" "This paper sucks because it disagrees with me, this paper sucks because it disagrees with my favorite scientist, this paper sucks because it has cranks as authors." Are you kidding me? Are you resorting to your debunked Arctic hypothesis again? Sigh. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

228. Birthmark 9:36 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting EugeneTillman: Does the door swing both ways? Is there a point to your questions, or do you just think that "?" thingy looks cool? Snowlover has made his position clear, no need for me to make one up for him. I have dismembered it, but he clings to the pieces, frantically looking for duct tape. If you have any, please send it his way. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

230. Snowlover123 9:41 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
From your paper Birthmark: The lower stratospheric cooling was believed to be mostly driven by ozone depletion, with a possible, but very uncertain, contribution from increases in stratospheric water vapor. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

231. Snowlover123 9:42 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Is there a point to your questions, or do you just think that "?" thingy looks cool? Snowlover has made his position clear, no need for me to make one up for him. I have dismembered it, but he clings to the pieces, frantically looking for duct tape. If you have any, please send it his way. So do you accept the current science of Arctic Amplification? If not, why? Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

232. Snowlover123 9:43 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: You are one of the only people who I have met on an internet forum that do not believe that natural variability and the ice albedo feedback have a large impact on Arctic amplification and the differential trends during each season. That is where a consensus on the science exists. And you, my friend refuse to accept the scientific consensus. I never thought I'd be quoting John Cook, but he represents the science of Arctic Amplification well. Quoting Link: Using higher resolution temperature data supplemented with updated satellite measurements, Screen 2010 analyse the observe warming trend in each season. What they find is maximum Arctic warming at the surface and that warming lessens with height in all seasons except summer. This vertical structure suggests that changes at the surface, such as decreases in sea ice and snow cover, are the primary causes of recent Arctic amplification. The surface warming is modest in summer because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean. The majority of the winter warming is associated with changes in sea ice cover even though the sea ice declines at this time of the year are relatively small. During summer, the atmosphere loses heat to the ocean whereas during winter, the flux of heat is reversed. Reduced summer sea ice cover allows for greater warming of the upper ocean but atmospheric warming is modest. The excess heat stored in the upper ocean is subsequently released to the atmosphere during winter. So can we please stop with the false commentary that Arctic Amplification somehow "disproves" Global solar warming? Thanks. Bumpity Bump Bump. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

233. Snowlover123 9:46 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting biff4ugo: OK, show me the solar radiation record indicating incoming solar radiation has increased over the last 20 years. I have seen your hand drawn, crayon graph enough. You say it is from the sun, show me the radiation measurements. Not clouds and temperature anomalies, if it is the sun, show the radiation increase to me. ACRIM shows TSI increasing from 1986-1996. Others disagree with this piece of data. GCRs reaching record lows in 1992 adds onto the idea that solar activity increased over the 2nd half of the 20th Century. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

234. Birthmark 9:52 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Basic summary of your "rebuttal:" "This paper sucks because it disagrees with me, this paper sucks because it disagrees with my favorite scientist, this paper sucks because it has cranks as authors." Nope. That is what you need to hear, but that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that "this paper sucks because it has been refuted by subsequent work/makes no sense based on physics/uses partial and(or)non-representative data/reaches conclusions not supported by the work in the paper/reaches conclusions at odds with most or all other work done on the topic/etc., depending on the paper and the circumstances. All of those are valid reasons for dismissing a paper. Quoting Snowlover123: Are you kidding me? Are you resorting to your debunked Arctic hypothesis again? Sigh. Arctic hypothesis? LMAO. It is a fact that some of the most dramatic warming in the Arctic takes place when the Sun isn't in the sky. Buh-bye Sun hypothesis! Other nifty reasons on why it can't be the Sun (not an exhaustive list): 1. Solar output has been flat-to-slightly-down during the current warming, according to the vast majority of the science 2. The upper layers of the atmosphere, including the stratosphere are cooling, again negating the Sun. 3. GCRs show no trend over the past 60 years or so. So, the debunked hypothesis in these parts is that the Sun is the cause of the current warming. The Arctic argument is still killer to your hypothesis, though, since your hypothesis means that the forces you cite for the Arctic Amplification must outweigh the effects of your warming Sun. You see, the Cook passage you quote is predicated on a Sun showing no warming. That quote would look remarkably different if the Sun was actually driving the current warming. Buh-bye Sun hypothesis...again! LOL Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

235. Birthmark 9:58 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: From your paper Birthmark: The lower stratospheric cooling was believed to be mostly driven by ozone depletion, with a possible, but very uncertain, contribution from increases in stratospheric water vapor. Yep. It also says, "The results show mean cooling of 0.5–1.5 K/decade during 1979–2005, with the greatest cooling in the upper stratosphere near 40–50 km." Now how's that happen if the Sun is the cause? ;^D Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

236. Birthmark 10:00 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: ACRIM shows TSI increasing from 1986-1996. Others disagree with this piece of data. GCRs reaching record lows in 1992 adds onto the idea that solar activity increased over the 2nd half of the 20th Century. More partial data. There is no valid reason to accept ACRIM over PMOD. None. With that, I have to go make dinner before I really get cranky. LOL BBL Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

237. cyclonebuster 10:01 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: Yes. Finally you get it..... Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18758

238. Snowlover123 10:02 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Nope. That is what you need to hear, but that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that "this paper sucks because it has been refuted by subsequent work/makes no sense based on physics/uses partial and(or)non-representative data/reaches conclusions not supported by the work in the paper/reaches conclusions at odds with most or all other work done on the topic/etc., depending on the paper and the circumstances. All of those are valid reasons for dismissing a paper My summary was of course an exaggeration. If your reasoning for saying that the paper is junk because it disagrees with other papers on the subject, then that's as poor of a rebuttal as my exaggerated summary of your "rebuttals." Quoting Birthmark: The Arctic argument is still killer to your hypothesis, though, since your hypothesis means that the forces you cite for the Arctic Amplification must outweigh the effects of your warming Sun. You see, the Cook passage you quote is predicated on a Sun showing no warming. That quote would look remarkably different if the Sun was actually driving the current warming. The Arctic Amplification is what is caused by the sun! Climate change and natural variability from the AMO/PDO are causing the snow/ice albedo to decrease, creating Arctic Amplification. Quoting Birthmark: Other nifty reasons on why it can't be the Sun (not an exhaustive list): 1. Solar output has been flat-to-slightly-down during the current warming, according to the vast majority of the science 2. The upper layers of the atmosphere, including the stratosphere are cooling, again negating the Sun. 3. GCRs show no trend over the past 60 years or so. All debunked in previous posts of mine. Sigh. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

239. Xandra 10:05 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Solar Schmolar Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 758

240. Snowlover123 10:05 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Yep. It also says, "The results show mean cooling of 0.5–1.5 K/decade during 1979–2005, with the greatest cooling in the upper stratosphere near 40–50 km." Now how's that happen if the Sun is the cause? ;^D The paper also says that stratospheric cooling stopped in 1995. What's your take on that if changes in CO2 are supposedly driving stratospheric temperature changes? Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

241. Birthmark 11:14 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Combining your last two posts for ease of operation or something. Quoting Snowlover123: My summary was of course an exaggeration. If your reasoning for saying that the paper is junk because it disagrees with other papers on the subject, then that's as poor of a rebuttal as my exaggerated summary of your "rebuttals." Nonsense. It is not necessarily a one-step process, although in egregious cases it can be. However, most often it is because your paper disagrees with the overwhelming majority of other published science and some other factor which either supports the existing science or further indicates that yours is wrong. Quoting Snowlover123: The Arctic Amplification is what is caused by the sun! Climate change and natural variability from the AMO/PDO are causing the snow/ice albedo to decrease, creating Arctic Amplification. All debunked in previous posts of mine. Sigh. Gibberish. Nothing but gibberish. The Sun can't cause amplification if it isn't present. Further, it can't cause amplification if it isn't warming --which is what the data indicate. Further still, albedo is not a factor in the Arctic winter --providing you know what albedo is. (Particularly this past winter!) And you debunked nothing. Rationalizing is not debunking. Giving your opinion is not debunking. In fact, it is impossible for you to debunk those points since the scientific evidence agrees with me, or rather I agree with it. Quoting Snowlover123: The paper also says that stratospheric cooling stopped in 1995. What's your take on that if changes in CO2 are supposedly driving stratospheric temperature changes? No, no. We don't do that here in the jungle. (I love Balo, great character.) Anyway, I have a question on the table. That is, if the Sun is the cause of the current warming, then why is the upper stratosphere cooling faster than the lower stratosphere? But I'll indulge you anyway. The paper doesn't say that the stratospheric cooling stopped in 1995. It says, "Temperature anomalies throughout the stratosphere were relatively constant during the decade 1995 - 2005. Long records of lidar temperature measurements at a few locations show reasonable agreement with SSU trends, although sampling uncertainties are large in the localized lidar measurements." Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

242. Snowlover123 11:18 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Xandra: Solar Schmolar Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie: . As a skeptic, you need to show me the science that shows otherwise. Should I still insist that I am correct, then all I am is a denier of the science. See post 202. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

243. Snowlover123 11:22 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: Combining your last two posts for ease of operation or something. Nonsense. It is not necessarily a one-step process, although in egregious cases it can be. However, most often it is because your paper disagrees with the overwhelming majority of other published science and some other factor which either supports the existing science or further indicates that yours is wrong All nine of my papers. Quoting Birthmark: Gibberish. Nothing but gibberish. The Sun can't cause amplification if it isn't present. Further, it can't cause amplification if it isn't warming --which is what the data indicate. Further still, albedo is not a factor in the Arctic winter --providing you know what albedo is. (Particularly this past winter!) GCRs reached a record low, AA levels were at record highs, TSI may have increased, etc. The data points to an increasingly active sun over the last 30 years. You are still confused about Arctic Amplification. Here is the John Cook link again. Using higher resolution temperature data supplemented with updated satellite measurements, Screen 2010 analyse the observe warming trend in each season. What they find is maximum Arctic warming at the surface and that warming lessens with height in all seasons except summer. This vertical structure suggests that changes at the surface, such as decreases in sea ice and snow cover, are the primary causes of recent Arctic amplification. The surface warming is modest in summer because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean. The majority of the winter warming is associated with changes in sea ice cover even though the sea ice declines at this time of the year are relatively small. During summer, the atmosphere loses heat to the ocean whereas during winter, the flux of heat is reversed. Reduced summer sea ice cover allows for greater warming of the upper ocean but atmospheric warming is modest. The excess heat stored in the upper ocean is subsequently released to the atmosphere during winter. This is why the greatest atmospheric temperature trends are occuring in the wintertime in the Arctic. Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

244. Snowlover123 11:24 PM GMT on May 01, 2012
Quoting Birthmark: . The paper doesn't say that the stratospheric cooling stopped in 1995. It says, "Temperature anomalies throughout the stratosphere were relatively constant during the decade 1995 - 2005. Long records of lidar temperature measurements at a few locations show reasonable agreement with SSU trends, although sampling uncertainties are large in the localized lidar measurements." It says the exact same thing as I said, except it is worded differently. "staying constant" and "not changing" are the same thing. So why have stratospheric temperatures "stayed constant" while concentrations of CO2 have increased quite substantially if GHGs are the main driver of stratospheric cooling? Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2513

246. Birthmark 12:20 AM GMT on May 02, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: All nine of my papers. Yep. All nine of them have been dismissed, ignored, refuted, etc. And that nine compares to how many from the mainstream view? Quoting Snowlover123: GCRs reached a record low, AA levels were at record highs, TSI may have increased, etc. The data points to an increasingly active sun over the last 30 years. Again, nonsense based on papers that are demonstrated to be wrong, incomplete, etc. Quoting Snowlover123: You are still confused about Arctic Amplification. Yes, you are. Let me put it more simply, then. There is more warming in the winter than in the summer. That is impossible if the Sun is the cause of the current warming. The reason being that your hypothetical warming by the Sun is less than the warming caused by ice. Meaning, any extra warming from the Sun is trivial to non-existent. Buh-bye, yet again Sun hypothesis. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

247. Birthmark 12:23 AM GMT on May 02, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: It says the exact same thing as I said, except it is worded differently. "staying constant" and "not changing" are the same thing. So why have stratospheric temperatures "stayed constant" while concentrations of CO2 have increased quite substantially if GHGs are the main driver of stratospheric cooling? Staying "relatively constant" and "not changing" are not the same thing, though. Relatively constant generally has all sorts of interesting bumps and wiggles. Not changing is a flat line. You still haven't answered my question about the cooler upper stratosphere. If you can't answer it, just say so. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

248. Birthmark 12:31 AM GMT on May 02, 2012
Quoting EugeneTillman: Thought after a nice dinner you would have calmed down? Thank you for your concern Quoting EugeneTillman: Have you ever been to the sun? No, parts of it come to me everyday. I am quite happy with that arrangement. Quoting EugeneTillman: By the way, remember what I said about science in my post 229. Nothing can be definitively proven. You're a little late to the party on that one. I've discussed that very point in some depth on other discussions on this blog. Now, if you want to use that fact that nothing can be known with certainty to infer that nothing can be known...well, there's not much point in discussion, is there? After all, I have no definitive proof that you exist. I might well be talking to myself...which would really irk me since I became so outraged at something that I once wrote that I swore a blood oath never to talk to myself again. I'm sure you'll understand my position, providing that you really exist. Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1414

249. Some1Has2BtheRookie 1:24 AM GMT on May 02, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: See post 202. Your post #202 has been addressed several times by others on here and yet you persist in using these examples? And what is this???? This looks like it was put together using MS Paint. The graphic(?) is not attributed to anyone or any study. Surely you do not suggest that this is Science???? Would you care to go back and address Post #186? Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4102

250. Daisyworld 1:41 AM GMT on May 02, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123: All nine of my papers. I hate to break this to you, but they're not YOUR papers. You didn't do the work to collect the information. Nevertheless, nine papers would not constitute a concise bibliography for anything worth publishing in the primary literature, regardless of their content. Quoting Snowlover123: Here is the John Cook link again. ... This is why the greatest atmospheric temperature trends are occuring in the wintertime in the Arctic. Snowlover123, will you please just stop? This has gone beyond the ridiculous, and crossed over into the ludicrous. You've done everything but hijack the comments on this blog entry, and not ONE of your rants has any mathematical or scientific merit whatsoever. If you truly believe the distortions and inaccuracies you cite, then why don't you start your own blog using these colorful yet useless charts? I'm sure the Marshall Institute would be happy to offer you some webspace, and you'll have a much more receptive audience. After all, that's why you came here, isn't it? To find an audience because no one else in the scientific community will listen to you? Or are you here as a megaphone for the Manufactured Doubt industry to drown out substantive dialog using unproductive banter? If you are, I wish you would just fess up and get it over with. Otherwise, please stop ruining someone else's blog just because you have nothing better to do with your time. You're proving nothing more than your own willful ignorance based on obfuscation and deceit. Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 4 Comments: 315

251. Patrap 1:53 AM GMT on May 02, 2012
True dat. ..never argue with a fool, as he has the advantage.. or, "Wise men never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who" Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 370 Comments: 111297

Viewing: 201 - 251

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood