MS @ The Hockey Schtick:
From the new SPPI & CO2 Science report:
“There is little need to ascribe a unique cause to late 20th-century global warming (such as elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations), as this latest warming is merely a run-of-the-mill relative warming, sitting atop a solar-induced baseline warming that has been in progress for the past four centuries.”
“In considering Qian and Lu’s findings, it is important to note that, once again, no help from greenhouse gas emissions was needed to reconstruct the past thousand-year history of Earth’s global mean temperature; it was sufficient to merely employ known oscillations in solar radiation variability. And as for the future, the two authors predict that “global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s.” Given the cessation in warming observed in the surface and lower tropospheric temperature records over the past decade, it appears their prediction is well on its way to being validated.
Clearly, there is much to recommend the overriding concept that is suggested by the data of these several papers, i.e., that the Sun rules the Earth when it comes to orchestrating major changes in the planet’s climate. It is becoming ever more clear that the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that has reverberated throughout the Holocene is indeed the result of similar-scale oscillations in some aspect of solar activity. Consequently, as Mayewski et al. (2004) suggested a decade ago, “significantly more research into the potential role of solar variability is warranted, involving new assessments of potential transmission mechanisms to induce climate change and potential enhancement of natural feedbacks that may amplify the relatively weak forcing related to fluctuations in solar output.” We only hope that more scientists will take note and examine the intriguing relations between our nearest star and our planet’s temperature.”
@johngalt:
A common meteorology lab demonstration features what amounts to a “terrarium” containing a controlled atmosphere that is set under a light source that approximates the radiation signature of the sun. The light is turned on, and the temperature of the system is allowed to reach equilibrium. The temperature and the CO2 concentration are recorded and the concentration of CO2 is then increased. This process is continued until enough data has been obtained to characterize the relationship between CO2 concentration with great detail and confidence. The data collected by this experiment reproducibly shows that there is a directly proportional relationship between CO2 concentration and equilibrium temperature FOR THAT SYSTEM. I participated in one of these demonstrations in college, and I can personally vouch that the results are VERY sensitive to CO2 concentration and that the data obtained have very little “noise,” so that the relationship (the equation) derived has a very high degree of statistical confidence.
This experiment model (the “terrarium,”) is certainly not identical to the Earth. But to refute its results, one would have to at least suggest credible errors in the hypothesis that the two systems act in a similar manner. Both systems are for all practical purposes “closed,” the terrarium by it’s cover and the Earth by it’s gravity. Both systems are transparent to visible light but much less transparent to infrared radiation. Temperature measurements are made and recorded in each case the same way. The terrarium experiment can be used to corroborate the very proposition made at the beginning of this thread, that the intensity of the source (and its distance) is quite important to the system temperature. It’s results in both cases should be questioned only if a serious flaw in the experimental design can be found.
The burning of fossil fuels produce huge amounts of CO2 – the stoichiometry of the reactions involved are the meat and potatoes of organic chemistry. (I’m a retired chemist.) The CO2 that results from combustion doesn’t disappear. It goes into the atmosphere, from where it may eventually be sequestered (temporarily locked up) in vegetation (plants use sunlight and chlorophyll to convert CO2 into cellulose and other complex cell structures (lignin is the principle component of wood, for example)). Alternatively, it may dissolve into bodies of water, changing the chemical behavior of the water by increasing its acidity. There is very good data demonstrating a correlation between fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2 concentration since the beginning of the industrial revolution. There is somewhat less precise correlation between these variables and the acidification of lakes and ponds and also between these variables and measures of global temperature. The latter two variables have not been measured with as much precision as the first two, largely because while the atmosphere distributes CO2 so efficiently that the concentration is essentially uniform, lake processes of acidification depend upon local factors (such as the presence of limestone (which neutralizes acid) or low temperatures (which slows the dissolution of CO2.)) Similarly, global temperature measurement is more complex than atmospheric CO2 concenmtration measurements because it is virtually impossible to measure temperature at all places at all times and to reach a consensus number of what the total heat of the Earth’s surface might be.
Science is simple only at its most elementary levels. Real systems are far more complex than “ideal” ones. But the “scientific method” is a precise and accurate process of developing and testing hypotheses. Without it, one is left with wishful thinking, hope and superstition, and these produce results only by accident.
If you choose to be a “denier, ” make sure that you do so from an informed position.
@George Wells:
Your posting does nothing to dispute what I stated. I believe that you need to read what I posted again.
I don’t necessarily consider myself a “denier”. That is what an AGW proponent would call me, simply because I don’t blindly accept and follow their religious like zealotry of their beliefs. I would call myself a skeptic instead, as anyone should be relating to a scientific study and idea that is as unproven as AGW is.
@johngalt:
As requested, I read it again. As a scientist (retired), I am necessarily skeptical, and I agree with the majority of what you said. The matter is not settled, as each side of the question would have you believe. The only issue I could see was that I thought that you reached an uninformed conclusion in the last paragraph. That’s why I spent the effort I did to expalin the basics of the greenhouse effect. It was an honest effort, sorry if it didn’t help. No surprise, though, as there is so very much conflicting data and results out there that it is no wonder there’s confusion over them. But as the results ARE inconclusive, how do you then justify a “belief” that CO2 DOESN’T play a significant role in climate? Be the skeptic you claim to be!
You asked “Am I a denier?” and I was just giving you some friendly advice on how to justify being one. The minute you announce something with certainty, you expose yourself to the risk of being wrong. In other words, “don’t jump to conclusions.” But I agree with ALL of your last. I DON’T think you’re a “denier.” Skepticism is good.
Duck and cover, climate change deniers! A new environmental problem related to rising CO2 levels is emerging:
Arctic Ocean ‘acidifying rapidly’
You’d better get that brain trust over at the Heritage Foundation to work.
@Greg:
Why bother pointing out the obvious? The “right” will still be “wrong” when they are bunkered under 1/4-mile of rock, breathing through respirators and drinking their recycled urine. The nuclear winter they will have caused by attacking Iran, Syria and North Korea – and consequently starting WWIII – will have erased ALL of the effects of run-away CO2 emissions. They will still write off the entire catastrophy as the manifestation of an unanticipated solar cycle. All 138 surviving humans will unimously mandate that heterosexual reproduction is required under penalty of death, as the survival of the species will once again be in doubt.
Not really, but you SHOULD wonder, just in case ANY of that is correct, where might the tipping point be? Is it too late already?
@George Wells, #55:
My own take on the situation is that the propaganda campaign has so thoroughly confused the public that it’s unlikely any constructive action will be politically feasible.
Possibly this could all be fictionalized and made into prequel to the movie Soylent Green.
@Greg #56:
Your first point: TRUE.
Second suggestion: Why bother to fictionalize the prequel? Just run the footage as the icecaps melt, the forests die, and the over-populated Earth goes mad. There have been plenty of Sci-Fi movies about post-apocalyptic Earth, but the real thing will be SOOoooo much better! Maybe rich people will get a chance to clone themselves so they can actually see themselves die in the movies! Beat that, Dreamworks!
P.S. Funny about how the deniers of global warming science expect science to feed an ever-increasing world population, isn’t it?