Man Based Global Warming....

Alric - we've already covered this...

Once again, please explain how CO2 caused a sudden temperature step post-1998 but temperatures prior and after remain flat (i.e., unresponsive to CO2). While you're at it, explain how temps rose sharply until 1940 without any significant increase in CO2, then dropped from 1940 to about 1980 with massive increases in CO2.

Until you can satisfactorily answer those questions, your AGW argument and supposed CO2 / temperature correlations look highly suspect.

 

Yes we've covered this. It is an upward trend that is subject to natural variability.

 

My post from yesterday made this clear
http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...2-man-based-global-warming-35.html#post780832

The antarctic, as a whole, has warmed over the past 50 years. Even East Antarctica has warmed over that time, although it has cooled during the period 1969-2000, it has warmed for the period 1957-2006. There is nothing "contradictory" in this.

Figure three is attached, as is Figure 2, which shows the trends separated for East and West Antarctica. In both cases, the trend is upward.

 

An upward trend of 0.6 - 0.7 C / century, much of which is likely from natural factors.

The temperature rise in the 50 years from 1890 - 1940 was 0.5 C (or 1.0 C per Century), without massive contributions of anthropogenic CO2.

So how much room does that leave for catastrophic warming from CO2? Not much.

 

As I suspected and as Fig. 2a shows, it has COOLED from 1969-2000. Thank you for clarifying.

On a related note, here is what other climatologist had to say about the study:

"This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical," Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an e-mail. "It is hard to make data where none exist."

"It overstates what they have obtained from their analysis," said Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado."

Even the author acknowledges:

And east Antarctica from the late 1970s through the 1990s, cooled slightly, Steig said.

 

Tim,

There was nothing to clarify. I pretty much said all this yesterday:

 

The real question is, where is the heat going? It's a fair question; the fair answer is, someplace not well-instrumented, so we don't know where it's going. But unless CO2 gas magically loses its greenhouse properties when no one is looking at it, it is a physical certainty that the Earth is retaining more heat. It is going somewhere.

 

Not necessarily true.

There arguably may be many other countervailing factors (natural or anthropogenic) offsetting much of the GHG warming you might expect.

Or, it may be that CO2 is not netting out to much of a warming influence due to negative feedbacks. For instance, former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA-MSFC, Roy Spencer suggests "Net feedbacks in the real climate system — on both short and long time scales — are probably negative. A misinterpretation of cloud behavior has led climate modelers to build models in which cloud feedbacks are instead positive, which has led the models to predict too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions."

 

On the contrary it is certainly true. Increased CO2 will result in warming. Hoping for increased cloud cover is a bit of fantasy (see Venus for how wrong that can be.) As it is, you can prove that the assumption of the negative feedback is refuted by comparing temp vs. ice core results.

And what is even more humorous is that you and Spencer are pointing at FEEDBACKS. Feedbacks require that the basic assumption is correct...or they wouldn't occur. :fish:

If denialists would quit relying on the Tooth Fairy, Tinkerbell, and Santa Claus in divergent scenarios they would have some credibility. Instead their own theories are almost entirely mutually exclusive and often as not accept the human influence of CO2 to make their basis work. :brick:

The only common thread I've found for the denialist theories is that they start with an answer, then try to find any and all theories that support that answer no matter how self-contradictory. That's not science, it is faith. ray2:

 

Hey. I have a novel idea. Let's forget Climate Change. Instead, how about if we stop throwing crap into the air for one (or more) of the hundreds of uncontested logical/practical/health/security reasons?

Oh wait. Not novel... just ignored.

(I like to toss this in every few pages just for grins).

 

What was that quote again? About that conspiracy?

 

Huh? Please explain to what you are referring and provide links if necessary. Gracias.

 

If the feedback to CO2 will produce cooling, then the CO2 in the ice cores should have the opposite trend relative to temperature. It does not.

 

Ah, I thought you'd never ask!

"So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!" - Starbucks Coffee Cup, 2008.

 

CO2 lags temperature increase by about 800 years based on the ice core data, so CO2 is not causal in temperature rise in that record.

 

Nothing per se, but there is a economic cost and trade-offs to be considered. If reductions in CO2 are achieved through efficiency gains that pay for themselves, that is fine. But in order to achieve reductions necessary to have a real impact on climate outcomes (if you believe the models), you are likely talking about a pretty drastic change in power production, distribution, and use... not just being "efficient" and "socially responsible." For instance, as it stands now, Britain's pursuit of CO2 reductions is putting them in a pretty precarious situation with respect to electricity production. I'm afraid misguided CO2 policies based on questionable global warming models / assumptions may lead to the same outcomes in the U.S.

 

Great, let's reduce particulates, NOX, and other noxious gases and substances (of which our country and others - with the exception of China, Russia, and India - are achieving). But when you try to reduce pollution in the name of Climate Change, then the public and an ever increasing number of politicians, are quickly turned off by the silly notion of Climate Change when it has been documented for the last eight years the world has steadily been getting colder despite natural fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

But the crux of this thread, which you seem unable to grasp with your ridiculous utopian proposals, is regarding CO2 emitted by man. You say CO2 emitted by man is harmful. I say it's harmless.

Rick
#4 2006

 

That was a bad move by Starbucks to print that on their cups. Taking sides in any political debate (and especially with silly mischaracterizations of a serious debate) by a major corporation can only lead to one sure result: loss of customers...

Rick
#4 2006