Is Global Warming Man Made?

When SCUBA diving I've passed through different thermoclines and wondered what strange laws of physics allows for alternating warm, cold, warm, cold layers of water. And when I was sailing in the Gulf of Mexico I was very aware of the powerful river of hot water forced up between the Yucatan and the Western point of Cuba. It heads north at a fast pace, usually pointing at New Orleans, but around 100 miles south, maybe because of the great force of the Mississippi river entering the Gulf, the hot river makes a U-turn and starts heading south towards Cuba and then, just before reaching the island, it takes a nearly 90 degree turn to the left, rushing between Florida and Cuba before joining the rest of the Gulf Stream to flow north. In the Gulf you will run into circles of hot water, miles across, that have spun off of that river. They have a circular current - water actually flowing in a circle - and moving off at an angle from the river, gradually slowing and cooling. I don't know what holds the boundaries between the hot stream and the cold water it flows through. Fred is right - measuring the surface temperature is not conceptually straight forward, and even if it was, it would not be the whole story.

Post 101

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 12:35pm

Ted:

It could.

Now, what do you do with the point station data from the 1800s? What do you integrate w.r.t. time, diurnal variations?

How do you compare time series of such data?

regards,
Fred

Post 102

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 1:00pm

Steve:

Exactly -- and if you watch days worth of IR imagery of the Gulf Stream, it squiggles and meanders over time. Eddies appear and dissapear, spin off. It's dynamic.

And, that's an example of an ocean current we can see from the surface.

It would seem that, with modern satellite data, we could deal with that. (There are new instruments which make an approximate measurement of temperature at some death.) But, there is a not so obvious problem with satellite based measurements: they measure scene values, not surface values. They don't sample 'through' the clouds to measure the underlying surface temperature.

Folks looking for good IR imagery of the Gulf stream need to 'fish' for it. The right weather conditions must exist to get a good solid image of much of the Gulf Stream.

And then, there are ships and bouys. Sparse point measurements. Even with GOES continuously slow scanning IR 24/7, it can't measure surface temps through clouds, not over land or water. Sun heats the surface, a cloud goes by, it cools off, the cloud goes by, it starts warming up again. What 'the' temperature is recorded?

Alot of hand waving must go on to come up with integrated values. And then they are reported to 0.1C precision, and seldom with stated uncertainites.

How many of us have ever attempted to measure anything room sized or smaller to a precision of 0.1C, much less, 'the earth?'

The changes being debated are far below the uncertainties of the parameter being measured.

As a SCUBA diver you know, there is approx as much thermal mass in the first 33 feet of water as in the entire column of atmosphere above it, all the way to space; so, at the ocean-atmosphere boundary layer, who is driving who, when it comes to our fully buffered ocean-atmosphere system?

Some would have us believe, it is our whispy atmosphere driving our massive oceans.

The Sun drives our oceans, our oceans drive our atmosphere. CO2 is an effect, not a cause.

Water vapor, CO2, temperature: our atmosphere is overwhelmingly buffered by our massive oceans, not the other way around.

Post 103

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 2:18pm

John,

I don't know what your point is. Do we need to include humans in the equation to accurately explain and predict climate change? Of course we didn't need to a bajillion years ago, but I'm obviously talking about recent trends.

Fred,

Again, is there nothing that would convince you of anthropenic climate change? Ed ponied up. How about you? (Since you've already disregarded corrected data of temperature 10km up, which maps to surface temperature, then you may disregard this link as well, even though it says nothing of "wind shear.")

Ed,

Hasn't that been done, like with ice cores, since we can tell what atmosphere was like back in the day by looking at ice cores that formed at that time?

Jordan

Post 104

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 3:02pm

Jordan,

Hasn't that been done, like with ice cores, since we can tell what atmosphere was like back in the day by looking at ice cores that formed at that time?

No. Again, that's retrospective (observational), not experimental. Ice core data can't tell you if GHG is a cause of global warming, or merely an effect of global warming.

By controlling everything -- and changing only one thing at a time (GHG concentration) -- my elaborate climate experiment can tell you what ice cores can't. It could tell you not only what the climate forcing factors are, but directly weigh their effects.

Ed

Post 105

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 3:55pm

Jordan:

I don't know what your point is. Do we need to include humans in the equation to accurately explain and predict climate change? Of course we didn't need to a bajillion years ago, but I'm obviously talking about recent trends.

Well Jordan we know for a fact the climate has changed due to natural causes. Now you're asking about recent trends and asking if we can explain current climate change irrespective of man's actions, but the way the debate is framed this way it presumes man must meet the burden of proof he's not responsible for the climate changing, rather than demanding proof man is responsible for climate change. If we show you proof that the sun or other natural causes are responsible for climate change (which we know is obviously true considering man's short stint on this planet so far) then why is the burden elevated to ruling out man as a contributor? Considering occam's razor, what's more likely the cause of climate change? It's impossible to prove a negative, you can't show proof man is not changing the climate, you can only show proof man is changing the climate. It would be akin to asking that we prove a unicorn doesn't exist.

You ask Fred:

Again, is there nothing that would convince you of anthropenic climate change?

Is there nothing that would convince you there's no credible proof of anthropogenic climate change?

Post 106

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 6:40pm

John,

Just because natural cause are causes for climate change doesn't mean that climate change can necessarily be explained and predicted with reference only to those causes, right? And I don't see the issue framed such that one need prove a negative.

Is there nothing that would convince you there's no credible proof of anthropogenic climate change?

Just sufficient explanations of the data.

Ed,

I didn't think there was a question that greenhouse gases are a cause for global warming. Venus shows that splendidly, and we understand the underlying mechanism for it. Your proposed experiment has to be for something else, yes?

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/15, 6:46pm)

Post 107

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 7:02pm

Jordan there is nothing unusual about the change in climate we've experienced. It would be unusual if the climate didn't change, since climate change is something that has happened for 4 billion years. Climate change as a result of natural causes is as much a reality as evolution is. The atmosphere is a very complex system, I doubt we know everything there is to know about the natural causes of climate change the same as we don't know each and every thing there is to know about evolution. To demand that we need to rule out man as a contributor to climate change is in fact asking that we prove a negative. It's as absurd as asking if we can rule out man for any number of natural processes.

And I don't see the issue framed such that one need prove a negative.

But it is. Just because you can't explain every detail about the sources of climate change doesn't mean we then ought to attribute it to man. You don't establish a theory man is a contributor to climate change before you've collected evidence to suggest such a thing.

Post 108

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 7:04pm

Jordan:

"Is there nothing that would convince you there's no credible proof of anthropogenic climate change?"

Just sufficient explanations of the data.

I see. So since we can't explain all the data on the behavior of quantum particles, we can sit around and blame man for it.

Post 109

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 7:23pm

Jordan,

I didn't think there was a question that greenhouse gases are a cause for global warming. Venus shows that splendidly, and we understand the underlying mechanism for it. Your proposed experiment has to be for something else, yes?

To reiterate, there are 2 parts to a proof for a causal role of greenhouse gas in global warming:

(1) The 0-km/8-km temperature change differential (a fancy way to talk about temp. changes on the surface concurrently with, or at the same time as, temp. changes at 8-km up)

(2) The proportional effect of the different amount of greenhouse gas that we have now -- versus, say, 150 years ago

Number 1 proves that greenhouse gas is a potential cause for global warming (because it would prove the "greenhouse" mechanism is in action on planet Earth). Alternatively, if temperature change at 8-km up doesn't increase like it does at the surface below, then that proves that the greenhouse mechanism is not behind the temperature changes.

Said another way, in order for there to be a greenhouse effect occurring, there would be a heat-wave at 8-km up. Having no high-altitude heat wave would be falsifying evidence of the greenhouse gas hypothesis (in total).

Just flip a coin
In a similar manner, if you had a fair coin and a glass table, and you flipped the coin and looked up through the glass from underneath, it would be impossible for the coin flip to be heads if the heads side is facing down. Seeing heads face down like that would falsify the hypothesis that there's any possibility of the coin flip being heads. In the same vein, seeing cooler temperature change at 8-km up disproves greenhouse gas -- via disproving its mechanism -- as a 'global warmer.'

Number 2 proves whether -- assuming we've gotten proof (from the 0-8km temp. differential) that the greenhouse mechanism is in effect -- it then proves whether the noted greenhouse gas difference is a big enough cause to matter (i.e., not dwarfed by some other cause, etc.)

# 1 is needed to validate the greenhouse gas conjecture in the first place (because without it, the argument can't even get off of the ground). #2 is needed to quantify the now-validated mechanism in terms of proportion (so that any relevant human action taken -- action based on the aforementioned knowledge -- isn't, counter-intuitively, detrimental).

Notice how we never got to the point about whether man is increasing greenhouse gas (or whether nature is). That's because, before we have that debate, we have to settle the issue with regard to the 'greenhouse effect' in the first place. Hence, my 2 stipulations. Many professionals in this debate know about the greenhouse effect (they understand the mechanism), but for it to matter, we'd have to prove not only that it's happening on Earth, but that it's happening enough to matter.

If those 2 issues get settled, then I'd be open to considering man's role in greenhouse gas-caused warming. Considering man's role before that is putting the cart before the horse (guilty of the fallacy of 'begging the question'). It'd be irrational to haggle about man's potential role without first settling these 2 issues.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/15, 7:27pm)

Post 110

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 8:48am

Not following this thread in detail, so this may be redundant. Tracinski passes along a press release and a paper to the effect that we have data against global warming going back 55 million years.

Post 111

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 9:57am

Thanks Peter.

The press release -- which claims that CO2 might explain half the warming millions of years ago -- is a little too "kind" to the data. From the abstract alone, it appears that naturally-emitted CO2 explains between about one-tenth (~11%) and about half (~55%) of the warming.

That leaves about 45-89% of the warming unexplained. This is an interesting number, considering the sun study (Scafetta & West, 2007) which I linked to in post 47, and which I highlighted in post 53, puts the sun as high as 69% -- plus or minus 20% -- of the causes of global warming.

Your linked study (Zeebe et al.) says that 45-89% of global warming is not due to CO2 (or greenhouse gas).
My linked study (Scafetta & West) says 49-89% of global warming is due to the sun.

Hmmm.

:-)

Ed

Post 112

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 10:25am

Jordan:

Re: I must be misunderstanding you. The NASA chart I linked shows the temperature in degrees Celsius.

...in response to:

"I suppose we should be glad that they even included units."

Yes, we are in utter agreement; they included units. My point was, was it even necessary? Because what they did not include was a definitions of 'the temperature' they were reporting.

Re; The last measurement recorded, which was in 2007, averages global temperature at 14.7 degrees Celsius. Are you questioning how they gather that measurement? NASA discusses that, though I'm not sure it's on the exact page I linked to.

"14.7 degrees Celsius." And nobody laughed at that?

Why not "14.7453 degrees Celsius?" Would that be ridiculous, while "14.7" is a reasonable claim for something yet undefined called 'the' global temperature?

Even taking these folks word for it -- that it is seriosuly something based on 'average surface temperature, area weighted' -- such a precise claim is nonsense, and totally misleading. The once fundamental scientific practice of disclosing reasonable declarations of uncertainty has been totally ignored in these so called long over debates.

And,until a defintion of 'the' global temperature, even assertions of 'about ten or twenty degrees Celsius' are pretty meaningless as well, much less, '14.7 degrees Celsius.'

Then, you reference a 'real climate' website, where four guys sucking at the public teat for research dollars 'self-publish' a website that is critical of all the 'self-published' websites out there...huh?

And, you hold in great awe all that total handwaving nonsense about 'NOAA 11' and gamey equator crossing times to explain away both satellite data and radiosonde measurments. I especially loved the way that the independent radiosinde measurements were handwaved as away as 'must have been fortuitous..." The combination of those two 'scientific arguments' is when my 'total bullshit' alarm went off.

That 'debunking' is gamey on so many different levels, I don't seriously know where to begin. It looks exactly, to me, like what you should expect when someone takes a scientific journal, throws it into a blendor, and then extracts a couple of tech sounding words, to bamboozle the Hollywood jewelry designers, florists, and the balance of the 'green' tribe. And, I don't care how many self serving government lab researchers put out papers that all end with 'much more research is needed', begging at the public teat, this 'debate' is significantly tainted by self-serving crap. Nothing special about this latest expample of Cargo CUlt science, it was classic.

Blame it all on NOAA11, and gamey 'equator crossing' nonsense? This is bogus on so many levels it boggles the mind.

You don't have to believe my opinion on this topic, but I can guarantee you, I won't be swayed by yours. Between 1987 and 2002, I authored and sold hundreds of military systems in three different programs (USN/MOSS, USAF/AFMIT, USN/I-MOSS), predecessors to Harris Corp's 1800 lb 'Small' Tactical Terminal, that provided direct reception and analaysis capabilities from the TIROS satellites(such as 'NOAA11'. I am intimately familiar with all that HRPT goodness streaming down from those solar synchronous LEO satellites, and others as well, such as GOES and DMSP.

First of all, NOAA 11 wasn't a single point of failure satellite; it was one of many. The '11' should be a dead give away. At the same time that NOAA 11 was operational, there was NOAA 9, NOAA 10, NOAA 12, and so on. NOAA 13, as I remember, was a real stinker, alot of operational problems, but was immediately known. There was NOAA 14, and NOAA 15, and so on. Their lifetimes, plural, well overlapped. There was no time when 'NOAA11' was the only game in town.

Second of all, all of these satellites 'drift' all of the time, and some of them, like the sun synchronous satelites, deliberately so. The satellites were placed into 'sun syncrhronous orbits for a reason. The inertial planes of their orbit sweep the earth and cross the equator at about the same local solar time(their orbits are designed to be 'fixed' relative to the terminator.) But, in order to make that happen, those orbits must precess by exactly one orbit per year. That is what determines their approx 98 degree inclination angle. That determines their target 'drift', anyway. The instruments on TIROS are constantly slow scanning across the satellite subpoint, and they make about 14 or so complete orbits per day. They cross the equator at a different longitude on every pass, but at a nearly constant solar time(position relative to the terminator.) The earth 'rotates' under their inclined orbits. So, not even 'NOAA11' takes a complete earth snapshot of the atmospher, it scans along its subpoint. Multiple satellites scan over the same subpoints, but at different solar times and local times. The instruments on GOES are fixed and more timely, but don't cover the poles nearly as well as the 'polar orbiters' do, where in fact, all the polar orbiters converge, and cover quite well. Their actual drift may vary, but NORAD tracks them constantly, and there is a constantly updated set of 'two line elements' -- the Keplerian constants which describe their orbits precisely. Thousands of users access and use these constants.

The 'sounder' data is a minority subset of the total bandwidth streaming from the TIROS satellites via HRPT. By far, most of the bandwidth is higher resolution AVHRR visible and IR data. That data is inevitably 'earth located', sometimes called 'gridded'. If the 'equator crossing' parameters of those two line elements were significantly biased or dinged, then the earth located AVHRR data would not overlap 'ground truth', and thousands of direct reception users would know immediately-- the borders of 'Florida' would not line up with Florida, and so on. The murky scenario painted on the 'real climate' website in vague, hand waving manner muddies the water with some random factoid, then claims, it's OK, we fixed it, trust us, the trends are really there.

But, and this is the most damning; not only was NOAA 11 not the only active satellite for any period, but all of that was totally independent of the radiosonde/weather balloon data, which provides much more detailed and accurate direct measurements of temperature profile. (Sounders do not actually directly measure temperature, they measure radiance at many wavelengths, and temperature is inferred based in part on the, drum roll, 'standard atmosphere.')

Your 'real climate' folks hand wave away the independent radiosonde measurements, plural, by claiming that their agreement with the multiplitious(not just 'NOAA11')sounder data was 'fortuitous.'

My bullshit meter went off so hard, it is officially broken when it comes to that website. I'd say, they are busted.

You should feel free to worship at their altar, no thanks. Their religious fervor is showing.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/16, 10:33am)

Post 113

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 11:13am

John,

Jordan there is nothing unusual about the change in climate we've experienced.

If this is true, then sure, there's no need to introduce humans into the equation. This is indeed what is held in controversy.

Just because you can't explain every detail about the sources of climate change doesn't mean we then ought to attribute it to man.

Agreed. And no one is doing this. They have reason to attribute those otherwise inexplicable details to humans, even though those reasons (especially according to you guys) might be flawed. They've built a case. Don't see much more to talk about to this point.

Fred,

Your comments are noted. Let's end it there.

Ed,

I appreciate you plowing forth with empirics that would persuade you. It sure looks like #1 has been shown,, and as for #2, I'd be very surprised if this hasn't been addressed. But lack of interest keeps me from researching either more thoroughly.

Jordan

Post 114

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 11:56am

Jordan:

re; I didn't think there was a question that greenhouse gases are a cause for global warming. Venus shows that splendidly, and we understand the underlying mechanism for it.

There it is.

Well, some of us do.

PV=nRT in a gravity field is also 'greenhouse gas effect.'

The Triple Point of Water is an objective fact of the universe.

The CO2 on Venus is an effect, not a cause. It is a result of the conditions that led to the formation of Venus' thick atmosphere, it was not the cause of the formation of Venus thick atmosphere.

The radiative balance 'skin' temperature of Venus is currently colder than Earth's, even though it is closer to the sun. And yet, it's surface temperature is much higher than the surface temperature of earth. But, this was always the case; Venus was always closer to the Sun than earth, so it's surface temperature was always hotter. As it's nascent atmosphere formed, the Triple Point of Water being the same on Venus as it is on earth, there was never a time in Venus history when water could exist in all three phases, it was always superheated steam for as long as it existed.

On earth, the situation was always different. Earth was able to pool most of its water as liquid water, creating a buffering atmosphere where water existed in all three phases, becuase it'w surface temperature (and pressure) was lower than Venus. We would have to believe in an incredibly selective means of delivering water to a nearby evolving planet to believe that water never existed on Venus. Mercury was always far too hot and far too close to the sun.

As Venus atmosphere evolved, it remained thick and had a high surface pressure and temperature, but superheated/energetic water vapor escaped the planet over billions of years, leaving a hot high pressure atmosphere that leached CO2 out of the base rock, leaving an atmosphere high in CO2. The Venus CO2 did not 'create' the hot atmosphere on Venus; Venus' high albedo reduces its solar loading to a level far below the earth's solar loading. The blanketing 'greenhouse' effect on Venus is due to its thick atmosphere and PV=nRT in a gravity field. The surface pressure is high, the surface temperature is high, even as the radiative equilibrium skin temperature is much lower than the earth's radiative skin temperatues.

Venus atmosphere could just as well be N2, the surface pressure and temperature would still be high. The CO2 on Venus is likely a result of weathering of solid rock by a thick, soupy superheated hot atmosphere that was always that way at the surface, even as the atmosphere developed.

In order for Earth to be like Venus, we would need to boil off all of our oceans.

To raise the temperature of the oceans by about 1 deg C, it would take of order ten thousand years of devoting 100% of mankinds energy usage to that task.

But, some claim that there is a shortcut possible to effect a similar 'global' effect that requires an infinitesimal fraction of that much energy. There is , if we are talking about 'cooling' -- dumping particulates into the air to net reduce solar loading, and refelct more solar loading off into space.

Has the case been made that CO2 can do the opposite? Act like a 'lens' that, purely by absorbibg more reflected IR energy in the atmosphere, magnifies the solar loading of the earth?

Yes, it has that effect, just like water vapor. But the case hasn't been made that is a controlling effect. It is one of many effects, and if it was a controlling effect, then there would be climate history record that showed past fluctuations to be controlling. What climate records exist indicate just the opposite, that CO2 concentration is a lagging effect, not a leading cause. The special nature of mankinds emissions can't be based on 'step loading' arguments, because there have been many examples of natural step loading events in the past that far outweigh anything mankind is capable of.

So, where is the CO2 beef? It's not on Venus, and it's not here either. The only place it exists is, in the cooked output of tweakable climate models that do not match the observed record.

As far as the G8, they are indeed rigging the debate; the 'temperature' they are talking about is exactly the output of some cooked model, based on cooked model inputs of CO2 concentrations. They are basing policy on 'regulating' a totally virtual world, with no regard for calibrations of the real world.

The reasons for supporting such voodoo nonsense are clear and transparent and obvious, ever since the 1992 Rio Earth summit was labeled 'Rich vs. Poor' on the cover of Time Magazine.

This is all True Believer religious nonsense, a total abuse of science for religious fervor.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/16, 12:00pm)

Post 115

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 12:04pm

Jordan:

"Just because you can't explain every detail about the sources of climate change doesn't mean we then ought to attribute it to man."

Agreed. And no one is doing this. They have reason to attribute those otherwise inexplicable details to humans, even though those reasons (especially according to you guys) might be flawed. They've built a case. Don't see much more to talk about to this point.

Then why are you looking for evidence that rules out man as a contributor to climate change?

What you said is also very familiar to the "intelligent design" argument. That since there are so many phenomena in nature that we have yet to fully explain, we must therefore conclude there is an "intelligent designer" i.e. god responsible for those things. It's the exact same kind of argumentation. And I don't see any value in that.

Post 116

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 12:48pm

John,

Unlike intelligent design, human-caused global warming (HCGW) has made scientific, empirical claims. HCGW advocates offer answers that attempt to explain and predict data. We need evidence if we are going to refute any claims, right? That's why one should look for evidence that "rules out" HCGW. HCGW is nothing like the non-scientific, unempirical false alternative of intelligent design, which explains and predicts nothing.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/16, 12:56pm)

Post 117

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 2:13pm

Jordan:

Unlike intelligent design, human-caused global warming (HCGW) has made scientific, empirical claims.

Actually Jordan proponents of intelligent design also claim they have made scientific, empirical claims to their theory. All pseudo-scientists make the claim their theories are truly scientific.

HCGW advocates offer answers that attempt to explain and predict data. We need evidence if we are going to refute any claims, right? That's why one should look for evidence that "rules out" HCGW.

But THEY haven't met the burden of proof that their evidence concludes that anthropogenic global warming exists. Again, you are asking that one proves a negative, you can't do that.

HCGW is nothing like the non-scientific, unempirical false alternative of intelligent design, which explains and predicts nothing.

HCGW doesn't predict anything either. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming have been wildly wrong about their predictions. They have predicted high volume hurricane seasons to occur year after year when no such thing had occurred. Their predictions of dangerously high sea-levels were wildly exaggerated. I don't see how you can think they are even remotely close to making any kind of accurate predictions in their climate models.

Post 118

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 3:37pm

John,

This line of discussion is going nowhere and has hit marginal returns. I'd like to end it. I haven't seen ID advocates render scientific, empirical claims, even though they might claim to; they neither explain nor predict.

HCGW advocates have made a great number of claims with much evidence for their position. You, as a hold-out juror of sorts, find their claims and evidence unconvincing, that they haven't met their burden. To convince your other jurors, you'd want to explain what makes the HCGW evidence unconvincing. You could just poke holes in the evidence presented -- bash their data, method, design, interpretation, credibility, etc. That's not proving a negative. That's refuting a positive.

And to be sure, there're plenty of HCGW advocate predictions that have come true: ice caps melting fast and much, tundra warming, more intense and longer storms, tropical diseases increasing, acidification of the ocean. Please understand, I'm not putting these forth as evidence of HCGW!!! That would be futile, as I'm certain you and your fellow deniers would just shrug off these events. Instead, I'm putting these forth merely as evidence that HCGW have made predictions (even if they don't convince you of HCGW), and they have come true.

Jordan

Post 119

Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 3:42pm