I don’t have much time for a detailed post, a number of people want to discuss sea ice, so here is your chance. We also need to update the ARCUS forecast for August, due Monday August 6th. Poll follows:
tjfolkerts says
“Here is a BETTER graph of the melt season ( [date of minimum sea ice area] – [date of previous maximum sea ice area] showing 30+ years of data. No trends at all in the start, the end, or the length of the sea ice area melt season. https://sites.google.com/site/sciencestatsandstuff/misleading-graphs”
So what does that prove (assuming the plots are accurate) ?
The melt season in the high arctic essentially follows the height of the Sun above the horizon.
So (stating the obvious), The Sun sets for 6 months at the North Pole at the autumnal equinox and then at progressively lower latitudes until the winter solstice when the Sun is on the horizon around the arctic circle at noon.
So (again stating the obvious) without the Sun, it gets very cold and the sea freezes in the high arctic winter and will continue to do so unless or until sea and air temperatures get substantially higher than now. At lower latitudes where more marginal ice forms in the winter, rising sea and air temperatures are having an effect.
The dominant decline trend is the summer melt, which is highly likely to be largely due to human induced global warming because (a) it fits with the physics and (b) its unlikely that other mechanisms could produce the observed decline trend.
So the winter maximum trend is showing a smaller decline than we are seeing in the summer minimum trend. There are ever bigger summer melts (2012 looks set to beat 2007), but the ice returns during the winter, albeit thinner, so the volume decline is an important indicator. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
shows the annual range and the trend in maximum and minimum area.
The widely circulated “arctic sea ice recovers” story earlier this year followed the ice area anomaly briefly approaching the 1979-2008 mean at the end of the winter, but in absolute terms it was a smaller area rebound than most of the years in the satellite record. A classic piece of cherry picking by sceptics.
tjfolkerts,
As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW. Why? Because you are confused. This has all happened before, and recently. It is completely normal. But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. It won’t make any difference to the planet, and it won’t provide any scientific evidence that people are responsible. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence. There is only your bluster.
Carry on.
Entropic says:
“Changes in CO2 since 1957 are sufficient to account for the changes we are seeing.”
It is really, really scary knowing that you teach people misinformation. The comment above can be so easily deconstructed a sixth grader could do it.
What you are claiming is that all of the change since 1957 is due entirely to CO2. Preposterous. Do you even think before hitting the keyboard? Let me point out the obvious: there is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes anything [I happen to think it has a slight effect, but too small to be measurable].
I understand that the climate alarmist crowd automatically rejects out of hand every chart that deconstructs their belief system. But charts like this are unarguable. It demonstrates conclusively that CO2 is an effect of temperature, not a cause. Only in the pseudo-science world of climate alarmism does effect precede cause.
tjfolkerts
August 9, 2012 6:24 pm
@ur momisugly James Abbott August 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Sorry if I confused you. I agree with your comments. I was refuting Smokey, who was posting an unreferenced short-term decline in some unspecified melt season as if it showed the world was cooling and the ice was recovering (at least, I assume that was his point … I can never be sure. Care to explain WHY you posted that graph, Smokey, and what it means and where it comes from?).
So just to be clear,
* the melt season is not particularly changing in LENGTH (being governed rather strongly by the length of the year), no matter what Smokey’s graphs might imply.
* the melt season is getting more intense over the last few decades as the Arctic temperatures rise.
David Gould
August 9, 2012 6:52 pm
Smokey,
Regarding CO2 following temperature in the recent few decades, do you seriously suggest that the dramatic increase in the burning of fossil fuels by humans has not been putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere? We *know* how much coal, oil and gas is burnt each year. We *know* how much CO2 that burning creates – it is simple chemstry. That CO2 goes somewhere. That somewhere is the atmosphere and the oceans, plus some land sinks. To claim that the recent temperature rises are causing the CO2 rise when we can measure where the rise is coming from is odd to say the least.
tjfolkerts
August 9, 2012 6:55 pm
Smokey says: As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW.
I keep pointing out specific errors you make, yet you come back with vague replies. Where SPECIFICALLY did I confuse “normal variability” with “Chicken Little scare of CAGW”? “Because you are confused.
Where SPECIFICALLY have I misinterpreted a graph or data within this discussion? What specific claim have i made that you think is mistaken? “But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. “
Where SPECIFICALLY did I “scream and shout”? In fact, pretty much all I have done in this whole thread is clearly and specifically refute your mistakes and misunderstandings. (Oh, and I made a specific, statistically based prediction of 4.1 million km^2 for September. I’ll even add in +/- 0.2 to that estimate — ie i am quite sure there will be a new record low.) “But charts like this are unarguable.”
So tell us, what specifically is that chart showing? What is plotted on the axes? What SPECIFIC mathematical relationship is “inarguably” connecting CO2 and Temperature? “There is only your bluster.”
So show us there is more then bluster to you. Actually DISCUSS the meaning of the graphs you post rather than reverting to “bluster” and scurrying off to post yet another unexplained (and typically faulty) graph.
David Gould says:
“To claim that the recent temperature rises are causing the CO2 rise when we can measure where the rise is coming from is odd to say the least.”
I don’t disagree that we are putting harmless, beneficial CO2 into the air. That’s a good thing. The biosphere needs more CO2, not less. But that was not what I was responding to. I was pointing out the unassailable fact that rises in CO2 follow rises in CO2. There is absolute empirical evidence verifying that fact.
That evidence cannot be denied by any rational observer. Tjfolkerts dismisses all the charts I post, but that is only because they deconstruct his belief system. If you look closely at that chart, you will see the evidence: changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. Therefore, CO2 is ipso facto a function of temperature, not vice-versa. QED
The major hallmark of the alarmist crowd is their refusal to accept empirical observations and scientific evidence over their belief in models. That is not science, that is religion, no?
David Gould
August 9, 2012 10:46 pm
Smokey,
Your argument seems to be that yes, we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, but we are doing it after temperature goes up. That is not a sensible claim.
The graph that you link to does not show what you think it does. We know, with absolute certainty, that the temperature rise is not causing the CO2 rise, because humans are causing the CO2 rise, not temperature.
Therefore, if there is a correlation, it is either:
1.) Coincidence; or
2.) CO2 causing temperature rise.
The rejection of empirical evidence is by you: the empirical evidence of our measured fossil fuel usage, the simple chemistry of the amount of CO2 released when fossil fuels are burned and the measured additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Your statement that CO2 is ipso facto a function of temperature is not sensible.
That is not to say that CO2 cannot be a function of temperature; indeed, we know that it most certainly is, as when temperature rises there are releases of CO2 from various sources, which further cause the temperature rise and so on. The causal relationship runs both ways. It is unlikely, however, that such CO2 feedbacks have started operating at a significant level yet, given – as I have repeatedly stated – that we can measure how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.
dave
August 9, 2012 11:11 pm
Smokey, your charts do not in any way contradict that human activities lead to increases in atmospheric CO2 that in turn lead to amplified warming of the planet. You seem confused by what the past climate signal is telling you. I don’t think anyone on here doesn’t believe that in the past climate record, the planet warmed from changes in solar insolation that in turn caused the oceans to release more CO2 which in turn (this is the point you seem to reject), further warmed the atmosphere. While you think high levels of CO2 are beneficial to the planet, paleoclimate record shows how warm the planet can be under such elevated CO2 concentrations. Please show me how such elevated temperatures will be beneficial to the current species on this planet (including us).
btw…you might want to ask yourself why industry is so quick to believe the climate model projections, but you are not. Capitalism is on board and ready to make huge profits from a warmed world.
eyesonu
August 10, 2012 3:54 am
Pamela Gray says:
August 9, 2012 at 11:22 am http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html
A very good engineer’s chapter on solar input. Lots of formulas. And lots of caveats to consider when applying these formulas to non-clear sky conditions when developing solar-powered systems or needing to take solar joules into consideration in other application areas.
Provides one of the best descriptions of why we call solar radiation the solar constant.
============================
Thanks for the link.
eyesonu
August 10, 2012 4:11 am
Smokey says:
August 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm
tjfolkerts,
As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW. Why? Because you are confused.
This has all happened before, and recently. It is completely normal. But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. It won’t make any difference to the planet, and it won’t provide any scientific evidence that people are responsible. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence. There is only your bluster.
Carry on.
=============================
Your link to Real Science shows the current Arctic melting is just a normal natural variation. It should set any reasonable person’s mind at ease unless they just want to believe in something different. CO2 has caused more psychological destruction than physical by the mere mention of its name.
dave,
You are fixated on human emissions. Wake up! I already pointed out that human emissions add beneficial CO2 to the atmosphere. That is not the question; that is misdirection. Quit harping on it, we both agree.
My central point is that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. They do not measurably cause temperature to rise. I have provided real world, empirical evidence demonstrating that fact.
Furthermore, there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of global warming. None. There is, however, observed evidence showing that CO2 rises after temperature goes up.
I base my conclusions on real world observations, not on always-wrong models. When you fatuously write that I have ‘no way to contradict’ your belief system, you forget that your conjecture is not based on real world evidence.
As a scientific skeptic, I have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on those claiming that CO2=CAGW. But there are no observations showing conclusively that CO2 causes warming. None. Thus, it is a baseless conjecture with no supporting scientific evidence. The scientific evidence shows conclusively that CO2 follows temperature. If that fact ever sinks in, maybe the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will finally see the truth.
.
David Gould says:
“Your argument seems to be that yes, we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, but we are doing it after temperature goes up. That is not a sensible claim.”
It doesn’t seem sensible because you are misrepresenting what I wrote. CO2 does not go up after temperature rises because humans are doing it, it rises as an effect of rising global temperature. The only effect from human activity is very long term accumulation. That is a very steady process, as shown in the MLO graphs.
What you are seeing in this graph is the response of the oceans to global warming anomalies, per Henry’s Law. As water warms CO2 outgases, the same way CO2 outgases from a warming Coke. Thus, as global temperature rises and falls, CO2 lags those changes. Simple physics.
Note that the effect from the global oceans is easily measurable. But the effect from human emissions is too small to measure, thus it is only a conjecture. It may be true, but it is insignificant.
Pamela Gray
August 10, 2012 8:38 am
Entropic man, you are making the mistake models make. Which is why they so poorly model intrinsic variability. You cannot use absolute values. Else you are taking a single moment picture. There is no such thing as a single moment picture that is representative of the joule budget. Your second mistake has to do with your lack of mechanism related to how an increase in the anthropogenic portion of CO2 ppm can effect weather pattern variations towards more frequent, longer, stronger oceanic and atmospheric drivers of storm creating pressure systems, temperature extremes, and precipitation events. Solar enthusiasts make the same mistake when they confuse correlation with mechanism. Yes, you can take a snap shot of anthropogenic CO2’s potential to increase temperature, but that is not mechanism in real-time events here on Earth. Else we should already be on a runaway daily increasing temperature trend with no “noise” and that matches Hansen’s worst case scenario. The very fact that we have noise says the null hypothesis has not been refuted, and with regard to CO2, we haven’t gotten that formula right either.
Pamela Gray
August 10, 2012 9:20 am
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/AirT/RigorEtal-SAT.pdf
An older paper about temperature increase in the Arctic. Blanket statements (as in, “The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe”) often do not reflect the nuances of research findings. This article also gives caution to absolute calculations. Obviously there are natural variables at play here that make absolute calculations of what CO2 should be doing a serious mistake in climate science. Wonder what the buoys have shown since this article was published?
Rob Dekker
August 10, 2012 10:59 am
Guys, Smokey is right. CO2 always follows temperature, and (to stick to the subject of this thread) it’s all caused by ice.
The empirical evidence simply cannot be denied :
If I put ice in my beer-cooler, the temperature of my beverage is always cooler than without the ice.
So ice is the main driver of temperature, which is the main driver of CO2.
Thus CO2 is ipso facto a function of Arctic ice content, not visa-versa.
QED
The major hallmark of the scientists is their refusal to accept empirical observations over their belief in models. That is not science, that is religion, no ?
Rob Dekker,
It is typical to resort to sarcasm when you do not have the facts to refute my argument. And your own argument fails, because the ice gets warmer. Admit it, you are just a pretend scientist.☺
dave
August 10, 2012 11:19 am
Smokey you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence? The curve of CO2 and temperature from ice cores? or do you have an additional line of evidence? And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role? Are you capable of answering these questions?
Second, if we use your line of reasoning, then there is empirical evidence that humans are contributing to warming. First line of evidence, observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities. Second, satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths (evidence that CO2 is absorbing IR radiation), and thirdly, surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet. then of course there are the climate model results, which you don’t trust unless they give the result you want. You are one of the best cherry pickers out there.
dave,
May I deconstruct your unscientific nonsense? Thank you:
You say: …you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence?
Ice core evidence shows that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia. That, my friend, is solid scientific evidence [and be aware that computer models are not evidence]. One down. Next, you say: And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role?
First, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The unscientific alarmist crowd constantly tries to push skeptics into that corner, but the fact is that the alarmist crowd is the one making the claim that CO2=CAGW. I have provided verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, therefore CO2 does not cause those changes. Anyone with normal intelligence can understand that. Next, if human emitted CO2 is causing any global warming, it is too small to measure. How many times does that fact have to be explained to you? Two down. Next, you say: …observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities.
They show no such thing. That is simply an unscientific assumption on your part. Three down. Next, you say: …satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths…
Wrong. The planet has been cooling. Four down. Next, you say: …surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet. Wrong again. Five down.
dave, you are simply expressing your opinion here. It is based upon zero empirical [real world, testable] evidence; my links are based on scientific evidence. You are entitled to your opinion. But Planet Earth flatly contradicts your belief system.
Pamela Gray
August 10, 2012 12:16 pm
Actually the model scenarios are showing EXACTLY what sceptics have hypothesized they would show. And we been sayin it for YEARS!
tjfolkerts
August 10, 2012 1:01 pm
Pamela Gray says: August 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm “Actually the model scenarios are showing EXACTLY what sceptics have hypothesized they would show. And we been sayin it for YEARS!”
I am curious. Which models are you referring to, and what have they been showing. Since “the models” often don’t agree with each other especially well, I can’t see how they can show EXACTLY any hypothesized results.
dave
August 10, 2012 1:31 pm
Pamela, what climate model results are you referring to? The first computer models predicted that increased atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming.
dave
August 10, 2012 1:37 pm
Smokey, instead of keeping a closed mind, try reading some of the scientific papers out there that contradict everything you just said. You can start with Seidel et al, Climatological characteristics of the tropical tropopause as revealed by radiosondes, J. Geophys. Res., 106, which indicates that the lower atmosphere – where most CO2 accumulates – is warming, but the upper atmosphere is not. This is what we would expect if heat was being trapped by CO2. If the warming was caused by increasing solar energy we would expect all of the atmosphere to warm. (see Santer, et al. Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes, Science 301 July 2003).
Also, Matthew et al., (Nature, 2009) show that carbon emissions are linked to global warming, and Cherubini, et al. CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy, 2011; DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01102.x directly link the increases in CO2 to human activities.
Your turn to link to scientific papers that support your 5 points. I will at least read them. Will you read papers that disagree with your belief system?
tjfolkerts,
Unless models are based entirely on testable, reproducable data, they are nothing but opinion: Garbage In, Gospel Out. And very few models limit their input to raw data.
Here is a typical comparison of models versus reality. One of the many failed predictions of the alarmist crowd: the tropospheric hot spot, the “fingerprint of global warming” never appeared as endlessly predicted. Radiosonde balloons and satellite data show that those predictions were flat wrong.
In fact, the models and predictions based on them have all failed. Every one of them. Where are the 20-meter sea level rises? The sea level rise is decelerating. Manhattan is not under water, as endlessly predicted. The Arctic is going through its natural cycle, just as it has repeatedly throughout history. Two-headed frogs are not caused by “carbon”. The oceans are not acidifying. The temporary, coincidental corellation between CO2 and the natural recovery from the LIA is now decisively broken. There is no testable, measurable data showing that human CO2 emissions cause any warming at all. In fact, the Earth is currently in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too cold, not too hot, but just right. A change of only 0.8ºC over a century and a half is astonishingly flat compared to the past — before CO2 began to rise.
Face it, you and dave believe, so your confirmation bias causes you to pick out anything that confirms your belief system. But the fact is that the default climate for the Holocene is close to what we have now [actually, we are somewhat colder than the Holocene average].
When you respond, keep in mind that you are basing your opinion on your unscientific beliefs, while scientific skeptics base their opinions on hard empirical data. And the null hypothesis has never been falsified.
Smokey says:
August 10, 2012 at 11:44 am
“…you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence?”
Ice core evidence shows that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia. That, my friend, is solid scientific evidence [and be aware that computer models are not evidence]. One down.
Not on the scale of years, wrong again. “And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role?”
First, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The unscientific alarmist crowd constantly tries to push skeptics into that corner, but the fact is that the alarmist crowd is the one making the claim that CO2=CAGW. I have provided verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, therefore CO2 does not cause those changes. Anyone with normal intelligence can understand that. Next, if human emitted CO2 is causing any global warming, it is too small to measure. How many times does that fact have to be explained to you? Two down.
Wrong again you proved nothing of the sort, ocean [CO2] is increasing inline with atmospheric pCO2, which is exactly what is required by Henry’s Law. “…observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities.”
They show no such thing. That is simply an unscientific assumption on your part. Three down.
Actually it is, the increase in pCO2 corresponds to about half the fossil fuel emissions, also carbon isotopes indicate the source. “…satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths…”
Wrong. The planet has been cooling. Four down.
Not an answer, however it completely contradicts your earlier statement that the rise in temperature causes the rise in pCO2 which would be expected to be a decrease if your idea were right (it’s actually increasing). You can’t have it both ways, make up your mind! “…surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet.”
Wrong again.
Indeed you are wrong again Smokey, as usual. dave, you are simply expressing your opinion here. It is based upon zero empirical [real world, testable] evidence; my links are based on scientific evidence. You are entitled to your opinion. But Planet Earth flatly contradicts your belief system.
Hardly, especially when you cite Steve Goddard’s cherry-picking as evidence for your opinion.
Smokey says:
August 10, 2012 at 1:44 pm
And the null hypothesis has never been falsified.
Your null hypothesis is unfalsifiable which is why it it isn’t a valid scientific hypothesis.
tjfolkerts says
“Here is a BETTER graph of the melt season ( [date of minimum sea ice area] – [date of previous maximum sea ice area] showing 30+ years of data. No trends at all in the start, the end, or the length of the sea ice area melt season. https://sites.google.com/site/sciencestatsandstuff/misleading-graphs”
So what does that prove (assuming the plots are accurate) ?
The melt season in the high arctic essentially follows the height of the Sun above the horizon.
So (stating the obvious), The Sun sets for 6 months at the North Pole at the autumnal equinox and then at progressively lower latitudes until the winter solstice when the Sun is on the horizon around the arctic circle at noon.
So (again stating the obvious) without the Sun, it gets very cold and the sea freezes in the high arctic winter and will continue to do so unless or until sea and air temperatures get substantially higher than now. At lower latitudes where more marginal ice forms in the winter, rising sea and air temperatures are having an effect.
The dominant decline trend is the summer melt, which is highly likely to be largely due to human induced global warming because (a) it fits with the physics and (b) its unlikely that other mechanisms could produce the observed decline trend.
So the winter maximum trend is showing a smaller decline than we are seeing in the summer minimum trend. There are ever bigger summer melts (2012 looks set to beat 2007), but the ice returns during the winter, albeit thinner, so the volume decline is an important indicator.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
shows the annual range and the trend in maximum and minimum area.
The widely circulated “arctic sea ice recovers” story earlier this year followed the ice area anomaly briefly approaching the 1979-2008 mean at the end of the winter, but in absolute terms it was a smaller area rebound than most of the years in the satellite record. A classic piece of cherry picking by sceptics.
tjfolkerts,
As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW. Why? Because you are confused.
This has all happened before, and recently. It is completely normal. But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. It won’t make any difference to the planet, and it won’t provide any scientific evidence that people are responsible. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence. There is only your bluster.
Carry on.
Entropic says:
“Changes in CO2 since 1957 are sufficient to account for the changes we are seeing.”
It is really, really scary knowing that you teach people misinformation. The comment above can be so easily deconstructed a sixth grader could do it.
What you are claiming is that all of the change since 1957 is due entirely to CO2. Preposterous. Do you even think before hitting the keyboard? Let me point out the obvious: there is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes anything [I happen to think it has a slight effect, but too small to be measurable].
I understand that the climate alarmist crowd automatically rejects out of hand every chart that deconstructs their belief system. But charts like this are unarguable. It demonstrates conclusively that CO2 is an effect of temperature, not a cause. Only in the pseudo-science world of climate alarmism does effect precede cause.
@ur momisugly James Abbott August 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Sorry if I confused you. I agree with your comments. I was refuting Smokey, who was posting an unreferenced short-term decline in some unspecified melt season as if it showed the world was cooling and the ice was recovering (at least, I assume that was his point … I can never be sure. Care to explain WHY you posted that graph, Smokey, and what it means and where it comes from?).
So just to be clear,
* the melt season is not particularly changing in LENGTH (being governed rather strongly by the length of the year), no matter what Smokey’s graphs might imply.
* the melt season is getting more intense over the last few decades as the Arctic temperatures rise.
Smokey,
Regarding CO2 following temperature in the recent few decades, do you seriously suggest that the dramatic increase in the burning of fossil fuels by humans has not been putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere? We *know* how much coal, oil and gas is burnt each year. We *know* how much CO2 that burning creates – it is simple chemstry. That CO2 goes somewhere. That somewhere is the atmosphere and the oceans, plus some land sinks. To claim that the recent temperature rises are causing the CO2 rise when we can measure where the rise is coming from is odd to say the least.
Smokey says:
As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW.
I keep pointing out specific errors you make, yet you come back with vague replies. Where SPECIFICALLY did I confuse “normal variability” with “Chicken Little scare of CAGW”?
“Because you are confused.
Where SPECIFICALLY have I misinterpreted a graph or data within this discussion? What specific claim have i made that you think is mistaken?
“But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. “
Where SPECIFICALLY did I “scream and shout”? In fact, pretty much all I have done in this whole thread is clearly and specifically refute your mistakes and misunderstandings. (Oh, and I made a specific, statistically based prediction of 4.1 million km^2 for September. I’ll even add in +/- 0.2 to that estimate — ie i am quite sure there will be a new record low.)
“But charts like this are unarguable.”
So tell us, what specifically is that chart showing? What is plotted on the axes? What SPECIFIC mathematical relationship is “inarguably” connecting CO2 and Temperature?
“There is only your bluster.”
So show us there is more then bluster to you. Actually DISCUSS the meaning of the graphs you post rather than reverting to “bluster” and scurrying off to post yet another unexplained (and typically faulty) graph.
David Gould says:
“To claim that the recent temperature rises are causing the CO2 rise when we can measure where the rise is coming from is odd to say the least.”
I don’t disagree that we are putting harmless, beneficial CO2 into the air. That’s a good thing. The biosphere needs more CO2, not less. But that was not what I was responding to. I was pointing out the unassailable fact that rises in CO2 follow rises in CO2. There is absolute empirical evidence verifying that fact.
That evidence cannot be denied by any rational observer. Tjfolkerts dismisses all the charts I post, but that is only because they deconstruct his belief system. If you look closely at that chart, you will see the evidence: changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. Therefore, CO2 is ipso facto a function of temperature, not vice-versa. QED
The major hallmark of the alarmist crowd is their refusal to accept empirical observations and scientific evidence over their belief in models. That is not science, that is religion, no?
Smokey,
Your argument seems to be that yes, we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, but we are doing it after temperature goes up. That is not a sensible claim.
The graph that you link to does not show what you think it does. We know, with absolute certainty, that the temperature rise is not causing the CO2 rise, because humans are causing the CO2 rise, not temperature.
Therefore, if there is a correlation, it is either:
1.) Coincidence; or
2.) CO2 causing temperature rise.
The rejection of empirical evidence is by you: the empirical evidence of our measured fossil fuel usage, the simple chemistry of the amount of CO2 released when fossil fuels are burned and the measured additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Your statement that CO2 is ipso facto a function of temperature is not sensible.
That is not to say that CO2 cannot be a function of temperature; indeed, we know that it most certainly is, as when temperature rises there are releases of CO2 from various sources, which further cause the temperature rise and so on. The causal relationship runs both ways. It is unlikely, however, that such CO2 feedbacks have started operating at a significant level yet, given – as I have repeatedly stated – that we can measure how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.
Smokey, your charts do not in any way contradict that human activities lead to increases in atmospheric CO2 that in turn lead to amplified warming of the planet. You seem confused by what the past climate signal is telling you. I don’t think anyone on here doesn’t believe that in the past climate record, the planet warmed from changes in solar insolation that in turn caused the oceans to release more CO2 which in turn (this is the point you seem to reject), further warmed the atmosphere. While you think high levels of CO2 are beneficial to the planet, paleoclimate record shows how warm the planet can be under such elevated CO2 concentrations. Please show me how such elevated temperatures will be beneficial to the current species on this planet (including us).
btw…you might want to ask yourself why industry is so quick to believe the climate model projections, but you are not. Capitalism is on board and ready to make huge profits from a warmed world.
Pamela Gray says:
August 9, 2012 at 11:22 am
http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html
A very good engineer’s chapter on solar input. Lots of formulas. And lots of caveats to consider when applying these formulas to non-clear sky conditions when developing solar-powered systems or needing to take solar joules into consideration in other application areas.
Provides one of the best descriptions of why we call solar radiation the solar constant.
============================
Thanks for the link.
Smokey says:
August 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm
tjfolkerts,
As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW. Why? Because you are confused.
This has all happened before, and recently. It is completely normal. But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. It won’t make any difference to the planet, and it won’t provide any scientific evidence that people are responsible. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence. There is only your bluster.
Carry on.
=============================
Your link to Real Science shows the current Arctic melting is just a normal natural variation. It should set any reasonable person’s mind at ease unless they just want to believe in something different. CO2 has caused more psychological destruction than physical by the mere mention of its name.
dave,
You are fixated on human emissions. Wake up! I already pointed out that human emissions add beneficial CO2 to the atmosphere. That is not the question; that is misdirection. Quit harping on it, we both agree.
My central point is that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. They do not measurably cause temperature to rise. I have provided real world, empirical evidence demonstrating that fact.
Furthermore, there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of global warming. None. There is, however, observed evidence showing that CO2 rises after temperature goes up.
I base my conclusions on real world observations, not on always-wrong models. When you fatuously write that I have ‘no way to contradict’ your belief system, you forget that your conjecture is not based on real world evidence.
As a scientific skeptic, I have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on those claiming that CO2=CAGW. But there are no observations showing conclusively that CO2 causes warming. None. Thus, it is a baseless conjecture with no supporting scientific evidence. The scientific evidence shows conclusively that CO2 follows temperature. If that fact ever sinks in, maybe the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will finally see the truth.
.
David Gould says:
“Your argument seems to be that yes, we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, but we are doing it after temperature goes up. That is not a sensible claim.”
It doesn’t seem sensible because you are misrepresenting what I wrote. CO2 does not go up after temperature rises because humans are doing it, it rises as an effect of rising global temperature. The only effect from human activity is very long term accumulation. That is a very steady process, as shown in the MLO graphs.
What you are seeing in this graph is the response of the oceans to global warming anomalies, per Henry’s Law. As water warms CO2 outgases, the same way CO2 outgases from a warming Coke. Thus, as global temperature rises and falls, CO2 lags those changes. Simple physics.
Note that the effect from the global oceans is easily measurable. But the effect from human emissions is too small to measure, thus it is only a conjecture. It may be true, but it is insignificant.
Entropic man, you are making the mistake models make. Which is why they so poorly model intrinsic variability. You cannot use absolute values. Else you are taking a single moment picture. There is no such thing as a single moment picture that is representative of the joule budget. Your second mistake has to do with your lack of mechanism related to how an increase in the anthropogenic portion of CO2 ppm can effect weather pattern variations towards more frequent, longer, stronger oceanic and atmospheric drivers of storm creating pressure systems, temperature extremes, and precipitation events. Solar enthusiasts make the same mistake when they confuse correlation with mechanism. Yes, you can take a snap shot of anthropogenic CO2’s potential to increase temperature, but that is not mechanism in real-time events here on Earth. Else we should already be on a runaway daily increasing temperature trend with no “noise” and that matches Hansen’s worst case scenario. The very fact that we have noise says the null hypothesis has not been refuted, and with regard to CO2, we haven’t gotten that formula right either.
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/AirT/RigorEtal-SAT.pdf
An older paper about temperature increase in the Arctic. Blanket statements (as in, “The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe”) often do not reflect the nuances of research findings. This article also gives caution to absolute calculations. Obviously there are natural variables at play here that make absolute calculations of what CO2 should be doing a serious mistake in climate science. Wonder what the buoys have shown since this article was published?
Guys, Smokey is right. CO2 always follows temperature, and (to stick to the subject of this thread) it’s all caused by ice.
The empirical evidence simply cannot be denied :
If I put ice in my beer-cooler, the temperature of my beverage is always cooler than without the ice.
So ice is the main driver of temperature, which is the main driver of CO2.
Thus CO2 is ipso facto a function of Arctic ice content, not visa-versa.
QED
The major hallmark of the scientists is their refusal to accept empirical observations over their belief in models. That is not science, that is religion, no ?
Rob Dekker,
It is typical to resort to sarcasm when you do not have the facts to refute my argument. And your own argument fails, because the ice gets warmer. Admit it, you are just a pretend scientist.☺
Smokey you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence? The curve of CO2 and temperature from ice cores? or do you have an additional line of evidence? And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role? Are you capable of answering these questions?
Second, if we use your line of reasoning, then there is empirical evidence that humans are contributing to warming. First line of evidence, observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities. Second, satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths (evidence that CO2 is absorbing IR radiation), and thirdly, surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet. then of course there are the climate model results, which you don’t trust unless they give the result you want. You are one of the best cherry pickers out there.
dave,
May I deconstruct your unscientific nonsense? Thank you:
You say:
…you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence?
Ice core evidence shows that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia. That, my friend, is solid scientific evidence [and be aware that computer models are not evidence]. One down. Next, you say:
And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role?
First, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The unscientific alarmist crowd constantly tries to push skeptics into that corner, but the fact is that the alarmist crowd is the one making the claim that CO2=CAGW. I have provided verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, therefore CO2 does not cause those changes. Anyone with normal intelligence can understand that. Next, if human emitted CO2 is causing any global warming, it is too small to measure. How many times does that fact have to be explained to you? Two down. Next, you say:
…observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities.
They show no such thing. That is simply an unscientific assumption on your part. Three down. Next, you say:
…satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths…
Wrong. The planet has been cooling. Four down. Next, you say:
…surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet.
Wrong again. Five down.
dave, you are simply expressing your opinion here. It is based upon zero empirical [real world, testable] evidence; my links are based on scientific evidence. You are entitled to your opinion. But Planet Earth flatly contradicts your belief system.
Actually the model scenarios are showing EXACTLY what sceptics have hypothesized they would show. And we been sayin it for YEARS!
Pamela Gray says: August 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“Actually the model scenarios are showing EXACTLY what sceptics have hypothesized they would show. And we been sayin it for YEARS!”
I am curious. Which models are you referring to, and what have they been showing. Since “the models” often don’t agree with each other especially well, I can’t see how they can show EXACTLY any hypothesized results.
Pamela, what climate model results are you referring to? The first computer models predicted that increased atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming.
Smokey, instead of keeping a closed mind, try reading some of the scientific papers out there that contradict everything you just said. You can start with Seidel et al, Climatological characteristics of the tropical tropopause as revealed by radiosondes, J. Geophys. Res., 106, which indicates that the lower atmosphere – where most CO2 accumulates – is warming, but the upper atmosphere is not. This is what we would expect if heat was being trapped by CO2. If the warming was caused by increasing solar energy we would expect all of the atmosphere to warm. (see Santer, et al. Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes, Science 301 July 2003).
Also, Matthew et al., (Nature, 2009) show that carbon emissions are linked to global warming, and Cherubini, et al. CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy, 2011; DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01102.x directly link the increases in CO2 to human activities.
Your turn to link to scientific papers that support your 5 points. I will at least read them. Will you read papers that disagree with your belief system?
tjfolkerts,
Unless models are based entirely on testable, reproducable data, they are nothing but opinion: Garbage In, Gospel Out. And very few models limit their input to raw data.
Here is a typical comparison of models versus reality. One of the many failed predictions of the alarmist crowd: the tropospheric hot spot, the “fingerprint of global warming” never appeared as endlessly predicted. Radiosonde balloons and satellite data show that those predictions were flat wrong.
In fact, the models and predictions based on them have all failed. Every one of them. Where are the 20-meter sea level rises? The sea level rise is decelerating. Manhattan is not under water, as endlessly predicted. The Arctic is going through its natural cycle, just as it has repeatedly throughout history. Two-headed frogs are not caused by “carbon”. The oceans are not acidifying. The temporary, coincidental corellation between CO2 and the natural recovery from the LIA is now decisively broken. There is no testable, measurable data showing that human CO2 emissions cause any warming at all. In fact, the Earth is currently in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too cold, not too hot, but just right. A change of only 0.8ºC over a century and a half is astonishingly flat compared to the past — before CO2 began to rise.
Face it, you and dave believe, so your confirmation bias causes you to pick out anything that confirms your belief system. But the fact is that the default climate for the Holocene is close to what we have now [actually, we are somewhat colder than the Holocene average].
When you respond, keep in mind that you are basing your opinion on your unscientific beliefs, while scientific skeptics base their opinions on hard empirical data. And the null hypothesis has never been falsified.
Smokey says:
August 10, 2012 at 11:44 am
“…you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence?”
Ice core evidence shows that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia. That, my friend, is solid scientific evidence [and be aware that computer models are not evidence]. One down.
Not on the scale of years, wrong again.
“And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role?”
First, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The unscientific alarmist crowd constantly tries to push skeptics into that corner, but the fact is that the alarmist crowd is the one making the claim that CO2=CAGW. I have provided verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, therefore CO2 does not cause those changes. Anyone with normal intelligence can understand that. Next, if human emitted CO2 is causing any global warming, it is too small to measure. How many times does that fact have to be explained to you? Two down.
Wrong again you proved nothing of the sort, ocean [CO2] is increasing inline with atmospheric pCO2, which is exactly what is required by Henry’s Law.
“…observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities.”
They show no such thing. That is simply an unscientific assumption on your part. Three down.
Actually it is, the increase in pCO2 corresponds to about half the fossil fuel emissions, also carbon isotopes indicate the source.
“…satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths…”
Wrong. The planet has been cooling. Four down.
Not an answer, however it completely contradicts your earlier statement that the rise in temperature causes the rise in pCO2 which would be expected to be a decrease if your idea were right (it’s actually increasing). You can’t have it both ways, make up your mind!
“…surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet.”
Wrong again.
Indeed you are wrong again Smokey, as usual.
dave, you are simply expressing your opinion here. It is based upon zero empirical [real world, testable] evidence; my links are based on scientific evidence. You are entitled to your opinion. But Planet Earth flatly contradicts your belief system.
Hardly, especially when you cite Steve Goddard’s cherry-picking as evidence for your opinion.
Smokey says:
August 10, 2012 at 1:44 pm
And the null hypothesis has never been falsified.
Your null hypothesis is unfalsifiable which is why it it isn’t a valid scientific hypothesis.