Conclusions from suppressed EPA report on CO2 Endangerment

Covering the Michael Jackson crap.


BTW, he is still dead.

 

No Snooking! As it sits now, I have replaced nearly 50% of the lamps that I have already replaced. The ceiling fixture behind me has 3 CFL's all less than a year old, not a lot of hours, but 2 of them are already dead. The one overhead I replaced just recently, again it lasted less than a year, not many hours on it. Add in the 3 in the cans that popped, literally popped, I heard them when I turned the lights on. In my basement, I have 23 CFL fixtures, they have been in about a year, maybe 18 months, and so far had to replace 1/4 of them because they stopped working, at least 4 of them were cracked at the base, which made removing them a real PITA. The worst part is the 3 that popped were in the play room with all the kids toys, took hours to wash the room and toys down each time. Cant use halogens on the cans, the produce too much heat for the little bit of light they give off, so I have been replacing them with regular light bulbs instead.

 

I already pointed out that the literature clearly states there was warming. Here is a more exhaustive article on the topic:

Here's more from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

And more here:

Which was written in 2003, which gives you an idea how old this BS skeptic argument is.

So, again... your poorly researched armchair analysis is still wrong. But keep repeating it. I know you can't help yourself:

And .003 seconds of googling found a woman who married bigfoot. A single google hit doesn't mean anything. What I was looking for was support from the peer reviewed literature. If you're going to define "warmist" as "any guy with a webpage" then of course you're going to find all kinds of BS. But then the problem isn't with the science itself (since you aren't reading it), but your inability to judge the validity of different sources.

Like it or not, we are seeing some of the upper range of IPCC projections, and yes, they are scary. The projections of the 4-6 degrees C remain the unmitigated warming scenarios and are not very likely.

What Gore said was that IF the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheet disintegrates, THEN we'll have 20 feet of sea level rise, exactly how the IPCC states it. No time frame is mentioned, just a comparison of volume. It's controversial only to ignorant skeptics.

The media, historically, never gets anything right on AGW.

:yawn: I see this skeptic claim is regurgitated often enough, but never with much (if any) proof. Here's why it's BS:

First, I'll start with the FAQ for the latest IPCC report, specifically Section 8.1 - How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?

Then there's Chapter 8, Model Evaluation, of Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis, which covers the ways in which physical processes are simulated in climate models and the evaluation of models against observed climate, including its average state and variability.

Then there's Chapter 10, Global Climate Projections, which covers the use of climate models for projections of global climate including their uncertainties. It shows results for different levels of future greenhouse gases, providing a probabilistic assessment of a range of physical climate system responses and the time scales and inertia associated with such responses.

Next there's Chapter 11, Regional Climate Projections, which covers regional climate change projections consistent with the global projections. It includes an assessment of model reliability at regional levels and the factors that can significantly influence regional scale climate change.

Which brings us to the things we actually did predict with models:

Climate change caused by human emissions of CO2 were predicted using climate models 100 years ago, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius"]100 years ago[/ame], using climate models far less advanced than what we have now.

Back in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS used climate models to predict that the temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with brief cooling after a volcanic eruption. The only thing he had to change in his data was the timing of the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Climate Modeling has predicted the surface warming and stratosphere cooling, the warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, the warming ocean surface temps, along with the increased warming in the Artic.

Here's what NewScientist has to say regarding this recycled nonsense:

Climate myths: We can't trust computer models

Here's the same myth on the BBC's Top 10 Skeptic Arguments:

You can compare computer predictions to the actual recorded data yourself:


Looks like they're fine to me. And the rest of the scientific community seems to agree. Isn't that weird? :shock: It's like... like they're all involved in a massive conspiracy or something...

So what evidence do you have? Certainly it must be staggering to disprove several decades worth of predicted and proven warming. A link to Pielke's blog? Oohh... scathing. :lol:

Absolutely. Let me know when Carlin finally submits it for peer review so it can be reviewed by scientists in the related fields. Can't wait to read the responses!!

Ah... Michael Crichton. Sans any sort of actual science to back up their position, skeptics are forced to turn to a doctor known for writing fiction. Take that, NCAR!

I will just as soon as you tell us a) why we still have physical sciences of warming if its all hooey, b) how the above will somehow negate said observed effects of warming non-existent, c) why far, far greater minds at the Pentagon, NOAA, NASA, National Academies, etc. haven't been swayed by such a bullet proof refutation of AGW. Have the requisite citations to the peer reviewed literature in your answers, too. Thx!

 

The only one that can change the climate? Not hardly. We already know that bacteria did in the Oxygen Holocaust. The idea that humans, who exist at a much higher trophic level, are somehow incapable of having such an impact is magical thinking or leftover religious dogma.

Remember than the next time you're in a hospital. Don't cave your ideals and take the evolution based medicine to fight the evolving bacteria infecting your body like all the creationists do. Stick to your guns.

And oddly enough, the rest of the scientific community disagrees with you. You've offered no reason to doubt the analyses NASA, NOAA, the Pentagon, the National Academies, the British Royal Society, etc. other than this vacuous, wannabe existential nonsense.

"Evolution is a religion!" whined the creationist. Aren't you a little embarrassed you're resorting to the age old creationist canards already? Weak.

You've certainly demonstrated you don't need evidence, either.

...says the man who believes AGW is nothing more than a massive international conspiracy. Please tell me you're kidding.

I feel silly mentioning this... but that's why you don't eat them.

What? Venus anyone? This is particle physics, the interaction of the carbon molecule at the atomic level. The radiative properties of CO2 are a proven characteristic of the molecule. There's absolutely no reason to believe that dumping vast amounts of this molecule into the atmosphere would not have an effect on global temperatures. Honestly, saying "CO2 causes warming" is no more controversial than saying "putting a sweater on will keep you warm." But beyond your "common sense" analysis, there actually is peer review:

Access : An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics : Nature
Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate
Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades
Revelle, R., and H. Suess, Tellus 9: 18-27

I'd be interested to see if you can find any "warmists" that would deny that. What they have found is that the natural forcings responsible for such past fluctuations are not responsible for the ones today.

Yes, but it's speculation based on evidence. That's the nature of our universe; if you're unhappy with that, find a new one to exist in. There was a documentary on the LHC a few months ago that explained this. They said, and I'm paraphrasing, "This model may not be perfect, but it's the one that fits the evidence. And it will be so until a better one comes along..." It had to do with the complicated nature of particle physics (the entire basis for our view of the universe), but it lends itself to science as a whole. Proof is a function of mathematics, not science. Science deals with the balance of the evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Each theory holds until a better one comes along. This is why we've abondoned so many models over the years - miasma theory, the Aristotelian theory of gravity, geocentric universe, the flat earth.

"I disbelieve!! I disbelieve!!" If you close your eyes and wish hard enough, it might come true.

Wrong again. As Shawn pointed out, the 4% is small, but it's 4% in addition to what would normally be countered by sinks, which is why the levels are increasing.



This FAQ from chapter 7 of the IPCC AR4 report might help clear up your confusion.

 

The usual - money. Protecting interests. Most of the "skeptic" research is closely tied to the fossil fuel industry or various pro-industry think tanks. The rejected-cause-it's-absurd-not-suppressed EPA article was lovingly stolen from known industry hack Pat Michaels. The tactics used in this campaign are identical to the tactics used by the tobacco industry decades ago when they were trying to convince us smoking wasn't bad for us, primarily because a lot of the same players are involved. Denialists ignore publishing their theories in any journals where real science debate occurs and instead focus on a mass media campaign - publishing books and opeds, blog posts, showing up on talk shows, making television commercials, and challenging politicians to a throwdown on the science instead of anyone actually involved in the appropriate field. All done in order to sway an otherwise uneducated and ignorant public.

There's a wonderful video detailing the history of AGW skepticism here:

Probably not. There's a lot of ideology tied up in this... the idea we're to small to mess with "God's Creation", etc. A lot of these guys are creationists, too, so they are used to rejecting reality.

Sadly, yes. It's the false objectivity of "balance". So little journalism actually reports anymore but instead frames topics as a side A vs. side B since debates have more drama and therefore get more ratings.

 

We all know that there are going to be a few climate scientists out there that think CO2 isn't anything to worry about, (although most of the so-called denier group experts aren't really experts in climatology at all)

Piekle is not a climate warming skeptic but he does think the IPCC overplayed the CO2/warming connection. So let's see.... is this view shared by the majority of climate scientists? No. Moving on.

 

After some early failures years ago, I have been averaging only 1 CFL failing per year for the past 3 years. They aren't popping. If I had ones that popped they would go back to the store and probably result in some correspondence with consumer safety entities. I have about 80 installed at present.

Most recent failure was an ~4 year old GE 100W equivalent. (I recommend against GE's.)

Once you find a brand that works well for you, stick with it.

 

And? I've already cited the relevant information explaining why that cherry pick is completely irrelevant. Repetition doesn't change that.

Which would be relevant, but as I've already pointed out, atmospheric temperatures are not the only manifestation of warming. Temperatures are just a small part of the larger PDO mechanism, where heat is tossed back and forth between the ocean and atmosphere. We're still absorbing more radiation than we're emitting (which explains why the ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. Cooling... my nice person...), which is being absorbed by the ocean instead of manifesting as warmer temps. The La Nina phase is ending, which means the oceans are going to start spilling out all that excess energy. This is why NASA is predicting that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years.

I've already cited this information. Try harder. Try again.

Then identify the mechanism at work if not CO2.

And then explain how and why the rest of the scientific community is lying to us.

 

Heretic, you've done more than enough. Thank you. I appreciate it but Tim never will. Others that read this will be informed by it though. Well done.

 

Driving the PDO cycle? You're all sorts of confused.

Yes, because you're completely ignoring a tiny little factor called feedbacks, which will increase the rate of warming. A more indepth analysis from the National Academies can be found here.

So we agree that we're absorbing more energy than we're emitting...?

:yawn: A wonderful attempt to dismiss the excess energy we are absorbing along with decades worth of observed warming with statistics, though it doesn't hold water either.

And still the rest of the scientific community disagrees with your armchair analysis. And I still see no peer review support for it. :yawn: Come back when you have more to offer other than wishful handwaving.

Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change (Tett 2002): "During 1907–57 we found that there was negligible net anthropogenic warming with the effect of greenhouse gases largely being balanced by other anthropogenic forcings. Therefore, in this period, the warming was largely naturally caused. The late century warming was largely explained by greenhouse gases offset by the effect of volcanic aerosol and the indirect effect of anthropogenic aerosols. Over the entire century natural forcings make no net contribution as they warm early in the century and cool from the 1960s on."
Solar Forcing of Global Climate Change Since The Mid-17th Century (Reid 1997) finds a link between solar variability and climate change, concluding that "solar forcing and anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing made roughly equal contributions to the rise in global temperature that took place between 1900 and 1955".

You really should try looking at the peer reviewed literature done by the various scientific organizations worldwide before attempting to debunk them from your computer.

Yes, we can.

You incorrectly assumed he lied, to which I pointed out he was merely quoting the IPCC. Ergo, they lied.

And there are many scientists who don't believe in evolution, either. Don't care. Much like all the scientists who don't believe in evolution, HIV causes AIDS, who believe in a autism/vaccine link, I'll care to actually listen to them once their ideas have significant support in peer review. So far they've got bubkes.

"It's a religion!" whined the creationist. :yawn: Really...? Really...?

Not so concerned about ad hominem after all, are we?

 

POSITIVE feedbacks will, but there are also potential NEGATIVE feedbacks, cloud cover albedo being the greatest.

The latest IPCC report acknowledges that cloud albedo is the greatest source of uncertainty (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf). Granted, the error bar of cloud albedo is very large, but if you take the extreme negative uncertainty value of the cloud albedo effect, it virtually wipes out the positive radiative forcing of CO2 even at the extreme positive uncertainty value (Figure SPM.2).

Again, I'm not so much a AGW skeptic as I am a climate model skeptic because of my experience of how bad NWP models (e.g., GFS) are with increasing time projections. In my opinion, climate models don't have a clue of what will happen to cloud cover in a significantly warmed environment.

 

I am unaware of such mechanisms preventing greenhouse gas warming in the past which suggests to me that they have a very low probability of manifesting now, especially on the magnitude necessary to have the negative impact that "skeptics" are wishing for. Clouds also provide both positive and negative feedback so the idea that the negative feedback will be large enough to counter or reverse the warming signal is at this point based on nothing more than magical thinking, IMHO.

 

The cloud albedo effect is no doubt a major forcing, but warmer air also means a higher concentration of water is possible without forming a cloud. I point this out whenever someone goes into the bit about how water is the largest greenhouse gas so as to ridicule the puny concentration of CO2. (I also point out that burning hydrocarbons increases the amount of water in the atmosphere in addition to CO2 and decreases the amount of oxygen...they never seem to have considered that in advance.)

The cloud albedo effect is one that we hope will protect us from ourselves. (I certainly hope it does, but I'm not banking on it.) This is not unlike the hope earlier that vegetation/plankton growth would absorb our ever increasing CO2 emissions on a short time scale. This latter hope was dashed as was the hope that the CO2 rise was not due to man (although folks like acdii never got the message.)

And of course we don't know what the impact will be of the increasing ocean acidification and ocean temperatures. I can tell you from my diving experience that the coral has really suffered.

 

Actually, I agree with you. You're correct - increased levels of atmospheric wv don't necessarily mean more cloud cover (although it generally does). There are many other factors involved.

I was specifically referring to cloud albedo which is implicitly a negative feedback phenomenon. I certainly don't dispute that clouds also have a positive feedback. The IPCC graphic specifies cloud albedo effects, which are very uncertain in total forcing (according to that graphic). I assume the positive feedback aspect of clouds is reflected in the increased wv parameter of the IPCC analysis.

I was envisioning a scenario where increase in air mass diurnal convective cloud fields - CU, TCU, CB - form over land masses during daylight hours and dissipate with loss of daytime heating (insolation). This would have a significant negative feedback effect (CB can reflect as much as 95% of insolation). However, as Shawn mentioned, there's no guarantee that this scenario will manifest itself.

I know again from personal experience that guidance output of cloud cover from NWP models is *abysmal* even just several hours out. These guidance data are specific to individual forecast points, but I personally have no confidence in model projections decades in the future, even on the climate time scale and global spacial scale.

I also agree that acidification of large bodies of water is an aspect that's not normally considered.

The main issue I have is that the reliability of climate models is being oversold, IMHO. That being said, since I don't think we really know what will happen to climate with increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2, I support efforts to cut GHG emissions to the greatest degree practicable.

 

wxman,

I agree about the reliability of models being oversold in some cases, but they are still good for examining various drivers and predicting the direction of the drivers. The models provide many reasons for serious concern and action.

I'm accustomed to much simpler models, but ones that can be more completely measured in the plant. Models are tweaked and improved over time. It has been one of my maxims that while I might not be able to explain a certain trend today with the models I have, the answer will eventually reveal itself if I keep working on the problem for better undertanding of the process. There is a great deal of pleasure in solving decades old mysteries this way.

The concern with CO2 as with acidification is that we do know the general direction, but we can only roughly estimate where it will take us. Things have generally gone faster than the consensus estimate. We have no choice but to extrapolate because we are in uncharted territory. The concerns about a cascade of unexpected negative consequences should be motivating us toward extreme caution rather than ignoring it all as our conservative brethren would have us do.

If someone was trying to propose openly conducting such a massive CO2 increasing experiment in the face of this uncertainty, the whole world would be screaming that they were insane. Yet here we are, conducting a global experiment with the majority of the world's population unwilling or unwitting participants.

The same sort of reversed safety logic (prove why we shouldn't continue as we have) cost us two space shuttles. The booming explosion of one over my home has made a lasting impresssion on me, as did a lecture back in the late 1980's by one of the Morton Thiokol engineers who tried to prevent the other one's launch. One of the Thiokol engineers told other folks in his carpool to watch the launch, because he expected it to explode on the pad. He was wrong, of course, it exploded two minutes later. His "model" of the o-ring neglected to account for the ability of the solid rocket propellant to seal the gap in the joint at ignition--some ground video caught the tell-tale whisp. The shuttle might have made it, had NASA not also thrown out their wind shear protocol for the launch. The high wind shear (visible in images of the smoke trail) might have flexed the joint enough to re-open the gap.

I suspect the solar cycle forcing effects are underpredicted...which would be some consolation if we are plunging into a long term minimum (better to be lucky than smart.) However, if we aren't going into a minimum AND the solar forcing is underpredicted, we could be in for some very nasty new upper record temps shortly when the cycle resumes.