Vikingstar, what is the "right" diet for a human being? What is the "right" weight and body composition for a human being of a specific height--say, 6 feet tall?
If you had a brain you could answer that yourself!
Al, are you 11 years old? Or just really, really stupid?
That Vostok Ice Core chart shows CO2 tracking TEMP, both UP and DOWN.
Looking at that, I don't think you can tell if CO2 caused TEMP change, TEMP caused CO2 change (!), but it's probably NOT coincidence. They track too closely. Either way, something other than HUMANS is behind it... there simply weren't enough of us that long ago to cause such massive effects. Maybe volcanic activity or precession?
Just checking , I assume you know where Matts' head is ?
CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)
Apparently the detailed review of ice core samples show CO2 rising after temp rising. I read some where that since there is an inverse relationship between water temp and solubility of gases…the temp increase in the ocean means a decrease in solubility of gases and …..soluble gases including CO2 are liberated into the atmosphere. Unconfirmed by me. Sounds possible.
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.---------------https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/latest-from-the-greenland-meltdown/
July 4, 2017 : Coldest July Temperature Ever Recorded In The Northern Hemisphere
Posted on July 5, 2017 by tonyheller
Greenland just set the record for coldest July temperature ever reported in the Northern Hemisphere at -33C.------------------------http://earthsky.org/space/solar-minimum-is-coming-video
The sun is heading towards a solar minimum, say NASA scientists, expected in 2019-2020.
During solar minimum, intense activity – such as sunspots and solar flares – subsides, and the suns’s activity changes form. For example, during solar minimum, the sun can develop long-lived coronal holes. And during solar minimum, the effects of Earth’s upper atmosphere on satellites in low Earth orbit changes too. There are unique space weather effects that get stronger during solar minimum. Find out these things and more, in this new NASA ScienceCast video.
But during solar minimum, this natural heating mechanism subsides.
Looks like it's time to ask AC, "What evidence would convince you that the religion of global warming is populated, at least in part, by self interested fake researchers with no regard for the quality of scientific data and more interested in the desired result driving the data than the data driving the result"?
No Matt I am neither 11 years old nor stupid. Unlike you I have a functioning brain.
Yeah Bruce. His head is in a nether region.
You would think that a "scientist" with the facts on his side would want the world to see those facts, especially if he was involved in a lawsuit. Apparently you'd be wrong if you thought that.
For several years, Mann had refused to produce his data for the court (in support of his own case), claiming that it was “proprietary.” After missing a February 20th deadline, he now finds himself in contempt. Under Canadian law, the court is now required to dismiss the suit.
Michael Mann refuses to release his "hockey stick" data despite the court directing him to do so
Hey AC, what evidence would convince you that the religion of global warming is populated, at least in part, by "scientists" who have no regard for real science? And this guy was one of the climate alarmism all stars.
That's a nice segway back to the original post, Mainelion. Maine, like many others, is a coastal state. There may be interior states with lower average rise above sea level but, when it's all said and done, the coastal states would be first to suffer the brunt of rising sea levels. There's a lot at stake here, right?
Why, in it's wisdom, does the BDN sense a need to deceive in order to advocate a position? There must be a sea level gauge somewhere they can go and take pictures of.
Why don't they go to Orono, give them a couple hundred grand and say 'Here. You've got one semester to find a place to set a gauge, find a place to monitor ocean temperatures and find a place to monitor atmospheric CO2. Angus tells us he'll endow a chair if he can find someone else to pay for it. Then, we'll send our own reporters to monitor and report results, rather than rely on a single reporter who's work we have twice (at least) regurgitated. There's a lot at stake here, right?
When will the town of Falmouth run everyone off the Foreside, condemn all waterfront property and waive off the taxes? Until then, shouldn't it be easier to get fasttrack permits to build new seawalls and deep water piers? There's a lot at stake here, right?
And, of course, here's Spider with another example of a tainted data set. There's a lot at stake here, right? Who's grilling the stakes?
"Vikingstar, what is the "right" diet for a human being? What is the "right" weight and body composition for a human being of a specific height--say, 6 feet tall?"
Wouldn't you say that this is an "apples and oranges" kind of question? Although, oddly enough, the government has answered this question and set guidelines more than once, and had to change them more than once as well...but riddle me this: human-caused destructive climate change alarmists have stated repeatedly that the Earth is warming catastrophically and we need to "Do something right now!" about it; you know, "The Earth has a fever", and so forth. Isn't it logical to ask the question, "If you 'know' the Earth has a 'fever', what temperature does the Earth need to be to not have a 'fever'"? To use your own example, we have a baseline temperature for the human body, and beyond that temperature we know that someone has a fever--well, what mean temperature should the Earth have to not have a "fever"?
The Fascinating Math Behind Why You Won't Win Powerball
Your odds of winning this week’s . . Powerball jackpot . . are pretty bad.
How bad? Like one in more than 292 million bad. Or put another way, barely better odds than having your name randomly pulled from a hat filled with the names of everyone in the US.
Is the Yellowstone supervolcano about to blow? Global food supply would collapse for two years, causing a mass die-off of humans
As of right now, the chances that Yellowstone’s supervolcano will erupt within the next year is one in 730,000.
Every accepted scientific certainty can be expressed as an equation. Should I buy a lottery ticket or move far away?
I know someone who won a big jackpot and I have observed the destruction caused by Mount Saint Helens. Therefore, they both happen. Sure, there has to be deviation because it wasn't Yellowstone. But it was close.
It is 400 times more likely that a Yellowstone volcano will blow than anyone will win a jackpot yet, over the lifetime of the lottery (allowing for the switch to bi-weekly) the jackpot is won about every 5 weeks. Isn't it then true that, on the basis of observable science, that it's actually 4000 times more likely that the volcano will blow than anyone will win a jackpot?
@toolsmith:"#1 How many times do we have to prove that what happens in a lab experiment may NOT be what happens out in the real world? There are so many other things going on that could impact the results. You cannot ASSUME that the result of an experiment in a lab will be duplicated when you add hundreds or even thousands of other MICRO influences, plus a few major MACRO influences. The glacial cycle that has dominated Earth's climate for millions of years didn't vanish because we showed up in the last hundred thousand..."
It depends on what you're studying. Every high school physics student does an experiment to measure the force of gravity. We establish that gravity exists in the lab, and by extension, we *believe* that it also works in the real world.
There *are* a lot of things that impact the effect of gravity, like wind resistance, the gravitational pull of the moon, but I don't think anyone here would dispute that gravity exists and is real.
Nonetheless, we only have theories of gravity, and our understanding of it can get thrown out the window tomorrow if new experiments were to be performed. (As it happened when General Relativity became an accepted theory.)
"#2/#3 Assuming science can prove CO2 is increasing... has it reached the levels of the earlier epochs when trillions of tons of it were in the atmosphere to be incorporated into coal/oil/gas? Was the Earth destroyed by those much higher levels then?"
The question you're asking is unrelated (and a further step, which I did not take).
I am simply asking, "do you agree that CO2/CH4 are increasing"?
You are asking, "are they increasing beyond their historical levels, and is that ok/bad/good?" - I am not even going that far. All I'm trying to establish is if we can agree that the levels are increasing. Yes? no? Do you agree or disagree? Please don't take my question for more than what it is.
Question 3 is, do you believe that CO2/CH4 is increasing due to our activity (as opposed to natural variation).
"#4 Once again, coincidence does not prove causation. The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. Do we know that any warming that occurs isn't part of that warming? Because you found something else happening, it HAS TO BE the cause?""
I'm not trying to "prove global warming" to you guys. If you think that, then you need to read what I'm saying a little more closely, instead of reading what you think I'm saying.
What I'm trying to find out is, what do you think is scientifically find and what do you think is not?
For example, there are a lot of conservatives that believe that CO2 is increasing due to man made activities, but that the greenhouse effect is negligible compared to other factors. Others, might not even believe that CO2 is increasing, or that CO2 is increasing but it's because of volcanic activity (I think pmconusa was in this group, but could be wrong).
@VS:"But...since you are bound and determined to get an answer from me about "what evidence will I accept that man-caused global warming is occurring"...I have been following this issue for a goodly number of years now. I have seen any number of dire predictions that imminent doom was upon us. I've seen arguments that massive global warming is taking place, rebuttals that there is no global warming, predictions that we're on the bring of a new little Ice Age, and every variation in between. I've seen NASA and NOAA post data that we're having the "warmest summers and winters since we've been keeping statistics", and I've seen data refuting those claims.What evidence will I accept at this time? NONE OF IT. The reason? It's all been polluted by political agendas and money and by people seeking power over other people for their own purposes. You call me a "partisan hack"? I'm the one stating firmly that I don't know what's going on, and that I strongly suspect no one else does, either. You, on the other hand, have made it clear that you have an agenda, and that you are the one who is a partisan for a point of view.
See? That wasn't so hard, was it?
I don't have a partisan point of view.
If the Earth cooled over the next 5 years, I would absolutely call into question our understanding of global warming and if it cooled or remained constant over 10 years, I would probably declare it dead, unless there were an obvious explanation (like a large volcano erupted or nuclear detonations threw up a ton of crap into the stratosphere.
If I were a partisan hack, I would declare that global warming was happening regardless of what evidence were presented. (Which is where you are, if I understand you correctly.)
"As for "believing in science"-no, I don't "believe in science". I do believe in the scientific method, which is another reason why I hold all discussion of "climate change" in low regard--precisely because it has been reduced to competing belief systems, and especially in the case of the "man-caused global climate change" belief system, not well thought out ones.
Ok so this is good. You believe in the scientific method.
Let's say tomorrow, all the climate scientists in the world spontaneously decided they were tired of being poor and switched professions into finance. President Trump decides to put *you*, Viking Star in charge of all climate science.
All politics are gone, you get to operate in a vacuum, with an unlimited budget. What do you do to figure out if global warming is real? What experiments do you run?
Remember, you have a chance to prove or disprove it once and for all, and nobody will be able to argue with you.
"I haven't been dodging your question. Stop dodging mine, if you're not a "partisan hack"."
Well to be fair, you totally dodged it until this post. Which I will admit, is more than a lot of people on AMG.
And, I didn't dodge your question, I answered it - though it might not be the answer you were looking for.
I think most liberals would say the "correct" temperature is, "whatever it was before the scourge of man arrived", and the answer you're looking for is, "there isn't one". But I'm really neither one - the "best" temperature is the one that benefits us the most economically.
Again, I will reiterate, our best temperature may not be the same as Russia's best temperature, or Bangladesh's best temperature.
@toolsmith:"That Vostok Ice Core chart shows CO2 tracking TEMP, both UP and DOWN.Looking at that, I don't think you can tell if CO2 caused TEMP change, TEMP caused CO2 change (!), but it's probably NOT coincidence. They track too closely. Either way, something other than HUMANS is behind it... there simply weren't enough of us that long ago to cause such massive effects. Maybe volcanic activity or precession?"
It's well accepted that, in the historical record, the temperature drives the CO2 level, because as the oceans warm, they can hold less dissolved CO2. (This of a carbonated soft drink - as it warms up, the CO2 leaves the drink, making it flat.)
(BTW I take great issue with Al Gore's use of this in his book and movie to imply that it's evidence that CO2 will cause warming. It's a completely false use of data and undermines the argument.)
@taxfoe:"I know someone who won a big jackpot and I have observed the destruction caused by Mount Saint Helens. Therefore, they both happen. Sure, there has to be deviation because it wasn't Yellowstone. But it was close.It is 400 times more likely that a Yellowstone volcano will blow than anyone will win a jackpot yet, over the lifetime of the lottery (allowing for the switch to bi-weekly) the jackpot is won about every 5 weeks. Isn't it then true that, on the basis of observable science, that it's actually 4000 times more likely that the volcano will blow than anyone will win a jackpot?"
No, it's 400 times more likely that Yellowstone will blow this year than *you* will win the powerball if you buy one ticket (not anyone).
As a side note, when Yellowstone blows it will (not "if", because it's a certainty - just a matter of when) it will make Mount St. Helens look like a tiny firecracker.
Hey AC, what evidence would convince you that the religion of global warming is populated, at least in part (and I would argue a large part), by "scientists" who have no regard for real science?
Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann
Why are you dodging the question?
AC says:“It's well accepted that, in the historical record, the temperature drives the CO2 level, because as the oceans warm, they can hold less dissolved CO2.”
It’s well accepted……?.....by whom is it ‘well accepted’. Provide the hard evidence that supports your conclusion.
Historical record? To which “historical record” are you referring?
Please provide the historical record that concludes…..”the temperature drives the CO2 level”.
Repeat after me:
‘the temperature drives the CO2 level”
“the temperature drives the CO2 level”
“the temperature drives the CO2 level”
‘The CO2 level does NOT drive the temperature’
‘The CO2 level does NOT drive the temperature’
The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause global warming, now called climate change, which is not occurring. Global warming is a hoax.
@Mainelion: "Hey AC, what evidence would convince you that the religion of global warming is populated, at least in part (and I would argue a large part), by "scientists" who have no regard for real science?"
I apologize, it's summer time so I try to not spend as much time behind a screen as during Spring and Winter. Not being behind a screen is the way life should be!
I agree there are a small number of unfortunately vocal zealots (Al Gore being the primary one). To me, they are compromising the integrity of the real scientists, who make up the large majority of the scientific community.
Part of the problem is the media, both left & right, as they like to sensationalize research. Most scientific research papers are really, truly, boring and not very newsworthy.
Let me ask you a question, how many actual climate scientists do you know personally? Is your opinion formed from them or from the news media you read?
(The same can be said of Trump supporters to the average liberal voter. The typical big city liberal can probably only name one or two Trump supporters that they know personally, and they only see/talk with them on Thanksgiving.)
"It’s well accepted……?.....by whom is it ‘well accepted’. Provide the hard evidence that supports your conclusion."
I think it's funny that you're asking me to provide evidence for your point of view, but in any case, the solubility of CO2 in water as a function of temperature has been measured in the laboratory:http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01861a033
You raise a good point, and one whose subtlety is lost on a lot of people on both sides of the argument. I'll try to explain to the best of my abilities.
In the pre-industrial age, it is accepted that the primary driver of short term changes in CO2 levels is ocean temperature, because, well, no one can think of any other process that would affect it. The volume of vegetation is pretty constant, and volcanic processes are too slow.
(In the very long term, CO2 levels are controlled by the balance between volcanic processes and organic sedimentation (a fancy term for stuff in the ocean dying and sinking to the bottom and getting subducted into the mantle.)
So, since ocean temperature can be forced up and down by small perturbations in the Earth's orbit, and there is no other large driver of CO2, it follows that CO2 is driven by temperature.
(Please note that that statement doesn't preclude the additional increase of temperature that the bump in CO2 provides. In fact, the temperature system has a lot of feedback effects, that amplify changes in temperature:
1) Warmer temperatures lead to melting of sea ice, which reduces the albedo (the reflectivity) of the surface of the Earth, meaning more sunlight is absorbed, further increasing temperature.
2) Warmer temperatures lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere (which is the strongest greenhouse gas).
3) Warmer temperatures lead to more CO2.
(I would be remiss if I left out the potential negative feedback which is the basis of 95% of all global warming skepticism (particularly from your buddy Dick Lindzen), which is that an increase in water vapor might lead to an increase in cloud cover, which would increase albedo. )
(Sorry for the excessive parentheses, that's just how I tend to write)
However, that is all pre-industrial. Now, there *is* a driver of CO2 that is stronger than oceanic outgassing, namely the burning of fossil fuels.
So, for the first time in the history of the Earth, CO2 is being driven independently of temperature.
To summarize, in the past, temperature drove CO2 because there was no other source/sink that was as large. Now that we have oil, CO2 has the potential to drive temperature.
Just a few outliers cook the data. Like Al Gore, the face of global warming and Mike Mann, published by the IPCC and peer reviewed. Nothing to see here. Move along.
They should change the term to Pal reviewed. Didn't you see the climategate emails?
If global warming is beyond question then why would "adjustments" need to be made to historical data to hide the pause?
Why would the author of a cornerstone of the global "proof" refuse to release his data.
Aren't you the least bit curious? Or do you just take these things on faith?
AC says: “It's well accepted that, in the historical record, the temperature drives the CO2 level, because as the oceans warm, they can hold less dissolved CO2.”
“the temperature drives the CO2 level”.... got it.
“To summarize, in the past, temperature drove CO2 because there was no other source/sink that was as large. Now that we have oil, CO2 has the potential to drive temperature.”
..’in the past, temperature drove CO2’....got it.
Sooooooo........ what ‘drove’ the temperature..... ’in the past’?
(Not CO2, temperature drives the CO2 level, not the other way around.)
....and what ‘drives’ the temperature in the present? (Not CO2)
If you add energy to the earth the temperature increases; and the converse is true. (See previous post with ice core temperatures plotted.) Where would the energy come from…what is the source of increase in the Btu/pounds mass….. the enthalpy?
Would you consider fluctuations in solar activity?
Proven by thousands of temperature datasets, the earth’s climate fluctuated cyclically in the past, and there’s an overwhelming body of evidence showing a close correlation with solar activity and other powerful natural factors.
'123 peer-reviewed papers – ignored!'
#1. Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records, Ka-Kit Tung1 and Jiansong Zhou, 12/2012; “…anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.”
#123. Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600 (PDF), Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J. West, 11/2007, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24
I agree with and believe in the position of Dr. Neil Frank, see below.https://redneckusa.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/dr-neil-frank-on-climate-and..."What is the global warming controversy? It is not about the earth warming. Earth has been warming for over 150 years as we emerge from the Little Ice Age. The controversy is over the causes, magnitude, and possible harms or benefits of the warming. Is the cause CO2, as the authors claim, or other factors related to natural cycles, or a combination—and if so, in what balance? Is the warming rapid, large, and dangerous, or gradual, small, and benign? The intent of this review is to show that, contrary to Hescox and Douglas’s assertions, meteorological data support natural cycles, the case for CO2 as primary driver is very weak, and the magnitude of our contribution is small and not dangerous."
When you are looking at global warming info….remember the name Michael Mann….he is still contributing to the global warmists cult.
How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised
'I Think I'll Delete the File'
In 2003, mineralogist Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick published a paper that highlighted systematic errors in the statistics underlying the hockey stick graph. However Michael Mann rejected the paper, which he saw as part of a "highly orchestrated, heavily funded corporate attack campaign," as he wrote in September 2009.More and more, Mann and his colleagues refused to hand out their data to "the contrarians," as skeptical researchers were referred to in a number of e-mails. On Feb. 2, 2005, Jones went so far as to write, "I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone."
Today, Mann defends himself by saying his university has looked into the e-mails and decided that he had not suppressed data at any time. However, an inquiry conducted by the British parliament came to a very different conclusion. "The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure," the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee announced in its findings on March 31.
Sociologist Peter Weingart believes that the damage could be irreparable. "A loss of credibility is the biggest risk inherent in scientific communication," he said, adding that trust can only be regained through complete transparency.
@mainelion:"If global warming is beyond question then why would "adjustments" need to be made to historical data to hide the pause?"
If you're referring to the link (I think taxfoe or watcher posted?) about diurnal adjustments, I think that was mostly fake news, the adjustments appeared to be valid.
Why would the author of a cornerstone of the global "proof" refuse to release his data."
To whom are you referring to?
@Spider:"..’in the past, temperature drove CO2’....got it.Sooooooo........ what ‘drove’ the temperature..... ’in the past’?"
Lol did you read what I wrote? I thought I explained it pretty carefully.
It is accepted (I know that phrase drives you crazy but it's accepted that it's the correct phrase to use) that orbital perturbations provided the largest forcing.
There are positive feedbacks that amplify this forcing, mainly the greenhouse effect and albedo (reflectivity) changes.
So, changes in solar insolation start the forcing, but increased CO2 make it bigger.
However, changes in solar insolation happen over a long period of time (tens of thousands of years), and pushing up CO2 independently means that the greenhouse effect will dominate in the short term.
From your link:"As an evangelical Christian, I believe we should be good stewards of God’s planet. We should strive to reduce pollution to protect human health and the natural environment. We should explore new alternative energy sources, always seeking to maximize benefits and minimize harms. We should prioritize providing electricity for the 1.2 billion people who don’t have it—and consequently suffer high rates of disease and premature death."
Honestly, one of the more puzzling things I've wondered is why the conservative religious south isn't more pro-environment. Not shitting on God's creations seems like something religious people (who also tend to be populists) should support.
Sorry for breaking this into so many separate posts.
More on the second link you pasted:
"The warming trend that had alarmed Hansen and others stopped, even while CO2 levels accelerated upward. What happened? Could CO2’s role have been overstated?"
Unfortunately, the "18 year stoppage" is just data mining - if you cherry-pick a portion of the record, you can get whatever you want from it.
Here's the complete time series:https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
He also makes the mistake (as many have, including both you and Al Gore) of thinking that you can compare pre-industrial CO2 & temperature linking to post-industrial.
Again, to reiterate, pre-industrial CO2 levels were determined primarily by ocean temperature on the short term. Post-industrial CO2 levels are determined by how much concrete we pour, how much oil we burn, and how many trees we cut down.
Pre-industrial CO2 was driven by temperature; post-industrial CO2 is pushed by fossil fuels, and thus becomes an importing forcing on temperature (especially since it is going to historically high levels in a historically high rate of speed).