Hi Guys,

I'm new to the forum, and love a good debate. Basically I'm here because I want to test an article I wrote, on why i believe AGW is a reality. I've started a discussion on it here:

discussion: http://www.warmdebate.com/forum/facts-ab...discussion
article: http://www.warmdebate.com/blog/facts-abo...al-warming

Looking forward to your feedback

Hello Jason,

I am amused that you still think AGW hypothesis is alive and well,when it has failed a famous prediction utterly,and that as of yet no evidence of real positive feed backs empirically observed.

I have skimmed through your article and failed to see anything new that would support your belief that AGW hypothesis is robust and verifiable.So far it is still a modeling construct with NO empirical data to support it with.

It appears that you are unaware of a number of published science papers showing that CO2 lags temperature changes on the scale of centuries.There never has been a single published science paper showing that CO2 LEADS temperature changes.

Sure I agree that there has been GLOBAL warming since the 1850's,but not since the 1960's.That is because the SOUTHERN Hemisphere has not been warming up,it is flat statistically and verified by satellite data.

Thus the warming trend has not been global for the last 40 + years or so.

Can you see why this fact alone is seriously damaging to the AGW hypothesis?

Keep in mind that phrase of CO2 being a "well mixed greenhouse gas" is continually stated by AGW believing scientists.

Sure I agree there have been some human caused warming with all that Urban Heating of the large cities,and land use changes over the decades.

Think about it Jason,why did the IPCC use so many unverified unpublished articles in their META ANALYSIS reports since 1990,when there supposedly thousands of AGW supporting "peer reviewed" published papers available to use?

Recall that Naomi Oreskes several years made the claim that the published science research is overwhelmingly on the side of the AGW believers.So what happened?

Jason,

I will post a counterpoint response to your article soon.

I addressed the CO2 lag in my article. I'm interested in the southern hemisphere cooling, can you give some more info and articles?

(02-22-2010 02:24 AM)jason_85 Wrote:  I addressed the CO2 lag in my article.

Do you mean when you say this:

Quote:Although the graph seems to indicate that CO2 concentration changes are preceded by temperature changes, there is no proof that this is actually the case (the exact times are difficult to estimate). Even if it was, it would only suggest that CO2 concentrations have not been the driving force for temperature variations in the past, and does not indicate that they cannot be a driver in the future. This is an important logical distinction, and many people will try to trick people in missing this link in order to use graphs like this to suggest that CO2 concentrations cannot be a driver for temperature changes.

regarding one specific graphic?

Quote:Although the graph seems to indicate that CO2 concentration changes are preceded by temperature changes, there is no proof that this is actually the case (the exact times are difficult to estimate).

This shows poor research on your part - did you even look for further information, or did you decide this graph is the only "data". The reason the "exact times are difficult to estimate" for you is because you didn't look at the actual data that created that graph, which will show clearly that temps rising and falling preceded the similar rise and fall of CO2 atmospheric levels.

Quote:Even if it was, it would only suggest that CO2 concentrations have not been the driving force for temperature variations in the past, and does not indicate that they cannot be a driver in the future. This is an important logical distinction, and many people will try to trick people in missing this link in order to use graphs like this to suggest that CO2 concentrations cannot be a driver for temperature changes.

Not exactly - since it has never happened a certain way in the past, over tremendously long times, means that to show that this time it is different you must show conclusively how this different process works.

Not conjecture - factual data.

Even the world's greatest scientists have not been able to show that this is happening. They have a concept - CO2 as part of the "green house gas" theory - that the additional CO2 from man's emissions is causing additional atmospheric warming, but no amount of observation shows this to be happening.

Recent admissions by Dr. Jones (CRU) even discuss that none of the warming of recent times is out of the ordinary at all, and the AGW concept is based on the additional CO2 in the atmosphere causing unusual, out of the ordinary, warming.

It is not.

jason Wrote:Although the graph seems to indicate that CO2 concentration changes are preceded by temperature changes, there is no proof that this is actually the case (the exact times are difficult to estimate). Even if it was, it would only suggest that CO2 concentrations have not been the driving force for temperature variations in the past, and does not indicate that they cannot be a driver in the future. This is an important logical distinction, and many people will try to trick people in missing this link in order to use graphs like this to suggest that CO2 concentrations cannot be a driver for temperature changes.

Welcome Jason!

Point taken that past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior.

But

1: It's important to remember what the claims are here and what is being proposed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We are being asked to believe that humans have suddenly taken control of the earth's climate with only circumstantial evidence to back that up. (and compelling evidence against it) And we are being asked to make major lifestyle changes with very weak arguments to back that up.

2: While past behavior is no guarantee, it is certainly a large strike against AGW theory. No one can argue that isn't a very noteworthy point. There is a reason why your side never mentions it. And let's also note that much of this is based on predictions which assume a continued path (i.e. humans won't adapt in any way to potential climate changes). So this exact argument can be used against many of the claims of AGW supporters.

Again welcome.

Quote:regarding one specific graphic?

most graphs show that Co2 concentrations lag temperature, this isn't heavily disputed. Whether or not it's a fact is uncertain, but it seems like it would be true. The reason I didn't dwell on it is because it's not central to my argument. The mechanisms by which CO2 has been released into the atmosphere are unprecedented, and i've indicated this with the following changes to my document:

Quote:the actual time lag is subject to dispute since the air trapped inside the vostock ice records is younger than the ice itself (New Scientist (2007)). Even if temperature did in fact lag behind CO2 variations in the past, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that CO2 concentrations are not the driving force for temperature variations today, since the mechanisms are distinctly different to those that have occurred during the past 400,000 years (one needs only to look at the above graph to notice the sharp and unprecedented climb in CO2 concentrations during the last century to verify this).

In regards to the warming, it seems to me that this (the past 40 years) is the first time that warming has deviated significantly from solar cycles in the past 2 centuries. What has changed? The fact is that solar cycles simply no longer explain the temperature shifts, so we need another answer. I would say CO2 is the most logical.

(02-21-2010 07:36 PM)jason_85 Wrote:  Hi Guys,

I'm new to the forum, and love a good debate. Basically I'm here because I want to test an article I wrote, on why i believe AGW is a reality. I've started a discussion on it here:

discussion: http://www.warmdebate.com/forum/facts-ab...discussion
article: http://www.warmdebate.com/blog/facts-abo...al-warming

Looking forward to your feedback

I also like to mention how cool of you it is to invite skeptics in on the discussion. That's a rare thing that you deserve praise for. If you were the figurehead of this movement (replacing Al Gore), this would be a very different debate methinks.

More points:

1-Did you note the lack of correlation between CO2 and temps in the 600 million year chart? That's not a problem for the theory? You appear to require correlation with other forcings (i.e. sunspots).

2-As mentioned, you seem very willing to dismiss sunspots as a driver due to the divergence after the 1970s. That's fair (though there is more to the sun than that). But the very next graph contains similar divergences between temps and CO2 (i.e. 1945-1975) Isn't it also fair to dismiss CO2 as the driver? You'll note a similar temperature climb to 1975-2000 prior to 1950...predating our CO2 emission jump. Temperatures again rose prior to CO2 rises....just as we have mentioned from earlier climate periods.

---

(02-22-2010 08:34 AM)jason_85 Wrote:  In regards to the warming, it seems to me that this (the past 40 years) is the first time that warming has deviated significantly from solar cycles in the past 2 centuries. What has changed? The fact is that solar cycles simply no longer explain the temperature shifts, so we need another answer. I would say CO2 is the most logical.

Given the claims and demands for lifestyle changes, we need more than that. The theory appears to be based on what you said there. "We can't explain it, so CO2 must be the answer". That's not compelling proof.

Phil Jones summed it up the same way in his recent interview:

Quote:BBC: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

Jones: The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

What we have here is fodder for an interesting theory...not a major lifestyle change for the human race.

(02-22-2010 08:48 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote:  

Quote:BBC: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

Jones: The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

What we have here is fodder for an interesting theory...not a major lifestyle change for the human race.

Agreed.

Also, Jones is making an assumption - that solar and volcanic forcing are the only other things that could possible cause warming (or cooling). What about: it's not these two, so it must be methane, or the PDO, or cosmic rays, or the Thermohaline Circulation, or ...?

jason_85 -

When I look at this graphic:



I see that it is an extremely general depiction of atmospheric temps and atmospheric CO2 levels extending back 600 million years. Since it shows such a long term, it should only be used to make very general statements.

One, is that it shows that historically we are at a very low temperature level now. One that has only been seen twice before in the 600 million years.

The current level of atmospheric CO2 has only happened one time over that period, too.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that it is very possible that both levels could rise to a level closer to what might be termed the "average" or "normal" level for the planet, although that might not be true. In any case, if either or both rise significantly, it will not be anything out of the historical norm.

I agree that this graphic should not be used in an attempt to disprove the AGW by CO2 concept, however it certainly should be used to show exactly what it shows - that we are currently in a time of very low levels of both atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

You might find the information at this site helpful:

brief introduction to the history of climate

There you will see more recent levels of global atmospheric temperatures. You'll also get an idea of how important the start time of a graphic is when attempting to show a trend. Only going back to 1880 makes it look like we are having an unusual warming, but go back further to 400 BC, and what is happening now is not only not unusual, it appears to fall into a very acceptable range. Keep going back further and you'll see that we should be thankful we are living in the warm age we are because most of the time the planet has been much colder.

The "warmist" scientists (Mann/Briffa) have worked hard to create "hockey stick" looking graphics to convince people that neither the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) nor the Little Ice Age (LIA) ever happened, or if warming and cooling during those periods happened at all, it was very minor.

Your use of the graphic from Wikipedia is an attempt to support that conclusion. First, though, the graphic is only covering the Northern Hemisphere. This is misleading, especially when folks are screaming "Global Warming!" You are allowing this trickery to fool you. Exactly what the Warmists want. Do some research and you'll discover two very important things that will serve you well if you are really searching for the truth: first, do not trust the information in Wikipedia regarding the AGW debate. It is biased toward support of AGW. Second, do not trust AGW sources that have "flattened out" either or both of the MWP or LIAs. All of them have been discredited, but AGW supporting sites, articles, documents, etc. refuse to purge them. If you really search for a reasonable consensus, you'll find that the majority of honest Climate Scientists say that both happened and the MWP was warmer than we are today.

An over riding question that has bothered me from when I first began trying to understand what is really happening in the AGW by CO2 debate is: "Why do the AGW supporters continuously use misleading arguments, false information, sometimes direct lies, and other poor science concepts to support their concept?" Heck, if it is real and based on solid "settled" science, why do they need to do any of this? Why, for example, isn't Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" straightforward and truthful? If it is really happening, the science should be unassailable, and it is not. Worse, in some cases, it would be laughable if the main stream media (especially here in the US) wasn't so complacent.

It's admirable that you have become involved and wish to write about what you believe in, in an effort to share it. Here's hoping we can help you write something that reflects the honesty regarding what is really happening.

Jason,

Quote:most graphs show that Co2 concentrations lag temperature, this isn't heavily disputed. Whether or not it's a fact is uncertain, but it seems like it would be true. The reason I didn't dwell on it is because it's not central to my argument. The mechanisms by which CO2 has been released into the atmosphere are unprecedented, and i've indicated this with the following changes to my document:

The fact that ALL published science papers state that CO2 lags temperature changes by centuries is significant,because it clearly shows that it is NOT driving the temperatures up.

How would you know that a 115 ppmv increase in 125 years is "unprecedented"?

After all we have over 600 million years to base it on.

The real reason why they push the idea that it is "unprecedented" is because their AGW hypothesis is in big trouble,otherwise it would never be brought up.

The chart YOU showed has levels over 1500 ppmv for most of the last 250 million years.Life goes on in all that CO2.

We can live with such levels and more easily because the food crops grows better and on less water and fertilizers.

Quote:In regards to the warming, it seems to me that this (the past 40 years) is the first time that warming has deviated significantly from solar cycles in the past 2 centuries. What has changed? The fact is that solar cycles simply no longer explain the temperature shifts, so we need another answer. I would say CO2 is the most logical.

This is about as scientific as eating a pancake since it is based on pure guesswork.

Why chose a trace gas with 3 minimal IR absorption bands anyway?

You will have to do better than that.



Here you referred to a "document" that you stated was changed:

Quote:the actual time lag is subject to dispute since the air trapped inside the vostock ice records is younger than the ice itself (New Scientist (2007)). Even if temperature did in fact lag behind CO2 variations in the past, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that CO2 concentrations are not the driving force for temperature variations today, since the mechanisms are distinctly different to those that have occurred during the past 400,000 years (one needs only to look at the above graph to notice the sharp and unprecedented climb in CO2 concentrations during the last century to verify this).

The point being?

Again New Scientist was stating something that has NEVER happened, according to ALL of the science papers that have been published on the undisputed fact,that CO2 are always lagging temperature changes.

They make a big deal about the sharp rise,but never provided any evidence that it should be of any concern.It is a game such shabby publications play and does not even make sense anyway because there NEVER has been any demonstrated evidence that CO2 drives temperatures up.

Notice that New Scientist does NOT say that? They instead try to convince you be worried about a rapid rise of a trace gas that is still a trace gas and will still be a trace gas 100 years from now.

This is scaremongering and YOU fell for it!

The following is taken from HERE.

let's have a real close look at the last spike in the Antarctic ice cores some 20,000 years ago.



Now we see two problems. The first problem has been beaten to death as it seems. CO2 reacts several hunderd years later than the temperature (red arrows following the blue arrows). Yes ...yawn...what else is new, we explained that a hunderd times. First the Milankovitch cycles trigger a bit of warming, that warms the oceans which causes CO2 to release from the oceans, which takes over the warming function to create more warming which releases more CO2 from the ocean. Strong positive feedback. Go and have somebody else bored...yawn.. (sorry imitating the real climate team).

But something is very wrong with that explanation for this given sequence, if you know what positive feedback really does.

system feedback is a complicated matter on which 100s of engineers earn their living. Every system had embedded feedbacks, also natural systems with predictable to weird reactions.

Let's go to wikipedia:

Quote:The end result of a positive feedback is often amplifying and "explosive." That is, a small perturbation will result in big changes. This feedback, in turn, will drive the system even further away from its own original setpoint, thus amplifying the original perturbation signal, and eventually become explosive because the amplification often grows exponentially (with the first order positive feedback), or even hyperbolically (with the second order positive feedback)

So we see the temps go up first, followed a few hundred years later by the CO2 due to system lag, giving another heating input as positive feedback. That lag is crucial because lag works two ways, it delays going up and going down like inertia. A car needs time to accelerate and time to stop. However this ice core "car" stops instantenously halfway without any delay, while the CO2 is still continuing upwards, pulling the temps up, or not?

Instead the CO2 just follows the temperature with the same delay, a follower is not a feedbacker. On the contrary, the enhanced steering away form the stable centre position makes strong positive feedback systems having a strong affiliation with the system extreem values, either low or high with very low sensitivity for natural disturbances halfway.

That's the ugly fact, which slays a beautiful hypothesis, the great tragedy of science (Thomas Huxley)

No strong enough positive feedback here


====================================================
See why CO2 that always lags temperature changes can not promote positive feedbacks (never observed),when it is always lagging the changes?

The charts are based on actual EPICA DOME data and the links to all the data is in the link.

CO2 does NOT drive temperature changes.

Oh, and the Medieval Warming Period that Jason's third graphic attempts to minimize -

Here is is: Midieval Warm Period.

and here if you have Java: Midieval Warm Period Project

Hi guys, sorry I haven't been posting lately. In the middle of exams. Will definitely get back to you and read up on all your comments soon. cheers

(02-22-2010 08:38 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  Here is is: Midieval Warm Period.

That's pretty awesome there.