[hotShot]

Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 13:04, said:

My limited understanding of CO2 concentration is that there is not good evidence that small changes in its concentration has causative chaotic affects on our climate.

There is good evidence that even a small increase of the CO2 concentration will enhance the greenhouse effect and by that cause a continuous small rise of the global temperature.
There is nothing chaotic about this part.

Earth ecosystem is a complicated system of inter-depending equilibria, even a very small effect can put one of these equilibria out of balance and by that cause chaotic reactions in the other equilibria.

[Cascade]

hotShot, on 2011-December-16, 14:30, said:

Earth ecosystem is a complicated system of inter-depending equilibria, even a very small effect can put one of these equilibria out of balance and by that cause chaotic reactions in the other equilibria.

Sure they can but is there evidence that they do with regard to C02?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Quote

As chaos theory shows that in dynamic systems minor changes can have dramatic affects on outcomes, why would the increase in CO2 in the dynamic system of the earth's climate not cause major outcome changes? What is there about the industrialization-caused CO2 increase that makes it immune to chaos consequences?

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing what causes something does not automatically guarantee that something else, that you are aware of, does. The factual data shows that natural variability explains the current and previous measurements. Interesting to note the use, by GISS and Hansen of the following method of ensuring the "hottest year ever" meme:

No, it is not an argument from ignorance as that would have been a conclusions that climate change is a result of CO2 increases. This is a question which you have sidestepped - what makes the skeptic believe that rising CO2 due to industrialization is benign?

[Winstonm]

Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 13:04, said:

Just because "minor changes can have dramatic affects" doesn't mean that they will have those affects.

You seem to assume that CO2 concentrations will have chaos consequences. There needs to be compelling evidence of this.

I don't think the skeptics have anything to prove. "I am not sure if minor changes in CO2 concentrations will have dramatic affects on climate" is a valid position absence compelling evidence to the contrary. The (the skeptics) do not need to provide evidence their argument can be based on the lack of convincing evidence of the proposed theory.

My limited understanding of CO2 concentration is that there is not good evidence that small changes in its concentration has causative chaotic affects on our climate.

No, I'm asking the skeptic to explain why CO2 is immune from chaos theory as it relates to the dynamic system of the global climate.

[Cascade]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-16, 21:12, said:

No, it is not an argument from ignorance as that would have been a conclusions that climate change is a result of CO2 increases. This is a question which you have sidestepped - what makes the skeptic believe that rising CO2 due to industrialization is benign?

I don't think a sceptic necessarily believes that. It might be benign it might not. My understanding is that the sceptic's position is that there is insufficient evidence to make a sensible conclusion.

[Winstonm]

Quote

CO2 has been much higher in the past and will get much higher in the future. It is not much of a factor, as far as global temperatures are concerned. As far as generating grant money and taxes and carbon credits, it is very, very necessary.

This chart is from NASA. It refutes your claim about CO2 levels - historically, we need to go back a little further than 100-200 years.



That seems to kill the argument that it is all a natural process and has occured in the past. Although it is a correlation, this chart also provides strong evidence of the causative affect of the industrial revolution on global CO2 levels.

Again,the question is this - what is there in the skeptic narrative that explains why this increase will not affect climate, given that chaos theory argues that it should?

[Winstonm]

Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 21:19, said:

I don't think a sceptic necessarily believes that. It might be benign it might not. My understanding is that the sceptic's position is that there is insufficient evidence to make a sensible conclusion.

Well, that may be a genuine skeptic's take, but the skeptics who have presented on this forum have not been so openminded.

[Cascade]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-16, 21:26, said:

Again,the question is this - what is there in the skeptic narrative that explains why this increase will not affect climate, given that chaos theory argues that is should?

You previous posts said "can" rather than "should".

Do you have evidence that CO2 concentrations "should" chaotically affect climate?

[Cascade]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-16, 21:28, said:

Well, that may be a genuine skeptic's take, but the skeptics who have presented on this forum have not been so openminded.

A sceptic might also believe that there is contrary evidence.

[Winstonm]

Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 21:42, said:

You previous posts said "can" rather than "should".

Do you have evidence that CO2 concentrations "should" chaotically affect climate?

None specifically. But chaos theory is built on the principle that small (some say minute) changes can have dramatic consequences for the final outcome in dynamic systems like weather systems. If it can be agreed that increased global industrialization has increased CO2, it would seem to me that a climate skeptic would be able to explain why this increase will not cause an affect as chaos theory would seem to indicate.

My problem is that one side offers data, while the skeptic side offers narrative explanations. I put more stock in data unless the skeptic can demonstrate his own model or opposing data.

So far, major, well-funded skeptics who have challenged the data have found it to be sound.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-16, 21:51, said:

None specifically. But chaos theory is built on the principle that small (some same minute) changes can have dramatic consequences for the final outcome in dynamic systems like weather systems. If it can be agreed that increased global industrialization has increased CO2, it would seem to me that a climate skeptic would be able to explain why this increase will not cause an affect as chaos theory would seem to indicate.

My problem is that one side offers data, while the skeptic side offers narrative explanations. I put more stock in data unless the skeptic can demonstrate his own model or opposing data.

So far, major, well-funded skeptics who have challenged the data have found it to be sound.

I have not heard of chaos theory being invoked in the climate change debate (and I have been through a lot of data and explanations from both sides of the fence). I cannot speak to the issue but that does not mean that it may or may not have an effect. Your best bet would be to post that same question at Realclimate to see how they answer. AFAIK they are still supporting the "CO2 causes all the problems" meme (that we have yet to experience nor provide real observational data that they exist). There certainly are a plethora of model projections to indicate doom but the models lack a certain....veracity.

Is CO2 increasing? We agreed that it is, as measured at Mauna Loa.

Is that increase the result of man's industrial activity? It certainly appears to be a significant factor.

Do we quantitatively know any of the effects of increasing CO2 on the planet or biosphere? Theory states that for every doubling of CO2, we should observe a diminishing increase in greenhouse effect. Approximately 1.2 deg. C for the first doubling and diminishing logarithmically thereafter. Actual measurements have yet to show a clear indication of this effect because of natural variation swamping the signal. In the past history of the planet, it has exhibited remarkable changes in climate, none of which appear to correlate to CO2. Since we daily experience global temperature swings in excess of over 20 deg. C (day to night temps) it appears that the climate system is remarkably stable in terms of maintaining equilibrium.

The current rise in CO2 is also associated with an increase in biomass which accounts for the approx. 6% improvement in the greening of the planet and improved food supply (despite diversions to biofuel).

My problem is that one side offers data, while the skeptic side offers narrative explanations. I put more stock in data unless the skeptic can demonstrate his own model or opposing data.

I am glad you clarified which side you meant. All of the data is with the skeptics. All of the model projections (and only the model projections) are with the warmists. All of the available data, to date, refutes the warmist model-generated proposals.

Well-funded skeptics? You have to get better informed about where the money goes. 1000 to 1 in favor of the warmist crowd.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-December-17, 06:53, said:

All of the data is with the skeptics. All of the model projections (and only the model projections) are with the warmists. All of the available data, to date, refutes the warmist model-generated proposals.

And we have a winner!!!!!!!!!
The most delusion Al-U-Card post of all time...

You have completely detached from reality.

Simple question for you all:

If I can show a simple fact that supports global warming, will you admit that the following statement is wrong:
"All of the available data, to date, refutes the warmist model-generated proposals"

(I want to understand just how how far off into Cloud Cuckoo Land you are...)

BTW, Wayne, isn't it embarrassing to be associated with idiots like this? You really might want to distance yourself...

[Winstonm]

Quote

Actual measurements have yet to show a clear indication of this effect because of natural variation swamping the signal. In the past history of the planet, it has exhibited remarkable changes in climate, none of which appear to correlate to CO2.

I understand that this claim is old and outdated, that climatolagists are getting better and better data as they have learned how to separate fact from the noise.

Quote

The paper, made available Thursday, amounts to the second time that Muller et al have had to back away from a key plank of climate skeptics' argument that Earth is simply on a natural temperature path and man-made greenhouse gases are not warming the atmosphere.

Several months ago, when called before a congressional panel that likewise has been skeptical of climate research, Muller acknowledged that his team was finding no smoking gun to indict climate scientists.

At the time, Muller told the House Science Committee that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent .... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

[Al_U_Card]

Al_U_Card, on 2011-November-30, 18:30, said:

Dr. Muller is not your garden variety skeptic. (google will provide his bona fides) He and his coworkers decided to try to analyze the data provided by GISS and UEA. His findings included no warming over the last decade and agreed with the 0.7 C rise over the last century. Interestingly, his paper has not yet passed peer-review (the conclusions were released into the media prior to submission). His co-author Judith Curry has cautioned that the data, analyses and conclusions must await peer-review before being used for anything else. The method of chopping data series is new and, as yet, unproven.

Once again, these numbers do not lead to any correlation with rising [CO2].

So, once the claims are refuted, all that is left is the fear-mongering, threats, innuendo and bullying tactics. This is why healthy skepticism is a necessary part of science.

[hotShot]

hotShot, on 2011-December-16, 14:30, said:

There is good evidence that even a small increase of the CO2 concentration will enhance the greenhouse effect and by that cause a continuous small rise of the global temperature.
There is nothing chaotic about this part.

Earth ecosystem is a complicated system of inter-depending equilibria, even a very small effect can put one of these equilibria out of balance and by that cause chaotic reactions in the other equilibria.

Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 15:11, said:

Sure they can but is there evidence that they do with regard to C02?

Can you specify your question a little.
Obviously more CO2 changes the the global temperature, this change in temperature is influencing every temperature depended system (and that is close to all systems that exists on earth).
Are you doubting that this influence results in chaotic behaviour or are you neglecting that there is an effect at all?

[PassedOut]

As Permafrost Thaws, Scientists Study the Risks

Quote

Experts have long known that northern lands were a storehouse of frozen carbon, locked up in the form of leaves, roots and other organic matter trapped in icy soil — a mix that, when thawed, can produce methane and carbon dioxide, gases that trap heat and warm the planet. But they have been stunned in recent years to realize just how much organic debris is there.

A recent estimate suggests that the perennially frozen ground known as permafrost, which underlies nearly a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere, contains twice as much carbon as the entire atmosphere.

Temperatures are warming across much of that region, primarily, scientists believe, because of the rapid human release of greenhouse gases. Permafrost is warming, too. Some has already thawed, and other signs are emerging that the frozen carbon may be becoming unstable.

Check out the doctored photos that the scientists are using to rip off the government for more grant money.

[Winstonm]

Quote

So, once the claims are refuted, all that is left is the fear-mongering, threats, innuendo and bullying tactics

This again is a narrative. Where is the data? (btw, I am placing climate models into the data category to separate from simple narrative explanations.)

Let's put it this way for simplicity.

It is known that CO2 is rising from manmade causes.(data)
It is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (data)
It is known that greenhouse gasses have the affect of warming the planet.(data)

The conclusion of science is that it is highly likely that this increase in CO2 will continue to cause a rise in global temperatures and thus a change in our climate.

My view is that the the skeptical side should be able to demonstrate (with data, including models) why the present amount of CO2 being produced will not affect warming and how natural mechanisms will prevent climate change. Claims that the climatologists are politically motivated are not sufficient explanations.

[Winstonm]

The Economist has an article about independent coroboration of warming data.

Quote

With this reputation, the Berkeley Earth team found it unusually easy to attract sponsors, including a donation of $150,000 from the Koch Foundation.

Yet Berkeley Earth’s results, as described in four papers currently undergoing peer review, but which were nonetheless released on October 20th, offer strong support to the existing temperature compilations. The group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C: a mere 2% less than NOAA’s estimate. That is despite its use of a novel methodology—designed, at least in part, to address the concerns of what Dr Muller terms “legitimate sceptics

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2011-December-17, 11:59, said:

This again is a narrative. Where is the data? (btw, I am placing climate models into the data category to separate from simple narrative explanations.)

Let's put it this way for simplicity.

It is known that CO2 is rising from manmade causes.(data)
It is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (data)
It is known that greenhouse gasses have the affect of warming the planet.(data)

The conclusion of science is that it is highly likely that this increase in CO2 will continue to cause a rise in global temperatures and thus a change in our climate.

My view is that the the skeptical side should be able to demonstrate (with data, including models) why the present amount of CO2 being produced will not affect warming and how natural mechanisms will prevent climate change. Claims that the climatologists are politically motivated are not sufficient explanations.

Science is especially about postulation, theorizing and prediction. Once replication has been achieved, there only remains the predictive ability of a theory to demonstrate its effectiveness in describing the issue under study.

If one of their models could predict catastrophic warming (their specialty) AND show and explain (by theory and observational measurement) why increases, pauses and decreases occur in global temperatures DESPITE an ever-increasing concentration of the dread CO2 in the atmosphere (Not to mention all of the other foibles of said models.) THEN that would merit paying attention to their ranting.

Thus far, their models do none of the above EXCEPT the catastrophic results part. I would be very interested in seeing such a development founded on CO2 being the climate driver that they make it out to be. So would they...

[Winstonm]

Scientists learning to separate anthropomorphic footprint from noise.

Quote

“Scientists with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory directly addressed the issue of data cherry picking in a recent paper, suggesting that it takes at least 17 years worth of temperature records to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations.”