I saw a good argument on your side about surface temperature. I don't remember the site, but something about Watts up? Anyway, it pointed out that the surface temperature record was suspect because so many thermometers were located in urban areas that have been shown to be heating up.
Next, if the earth were entirely dirt, (no ice or water), the average surface temperature would track the net forcing quite quickly because dirt does not easily conduct heat down into great depths. A few feet of dirt would be heated probably within a year. Given that assertion, we would only expect 0.4C increase in average surface temperature for 1.6W/m.sq. Any added temperature increase would have to come from 'amplification'. We would expect the temperature to be proportional to the forcing over these small forcings. Given the noise in the data, the current 'stabilization' of surface air temperatures at 0.8C rise doesn't bother me. Ocean temperatures have not been measured enough yet to indicate anything. Again, ice melt seems to be the best indicator of warming.
I don't have anything to say about politics, other than that it sucks.
The IPCC says with 95% confidence that warming is real, and man made. We know that means a bit more solar absorption than heat radiation output, for whatever reason. If not greenhouse gas, then what?
Of course during the ice ages, the temperature changes first, then the CO2. The driving forcing is the earth orbit change. During heating, the CO2 quickly follows. During cooling, the CO2 lags up t 10000 years. That inability of the earth to absorb the excess CO2 is scary!
Right, we will not settle the science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas easily. There are nice graphs of spectral absorption in space. But, we need nice graphs of differences of spectral absorption in space vs. changes in CO2 concentration. ... hmmm, I think thay have that. http:// www.youtube.com/watch ? v=FqDBcoTSd1M
The CO2 concentration is not uniform, and the satalites can see it. How? I suspect by sending laser beams from space into the atmosphere and measuring the reflections at the CO2 wavelengths. ...
But, that is not the same as measuring a difference in output radiation through the CO2.
Or we need theory that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Final conclusion? I still suspect excess fossil fuel CO2 causing warming, on a very slow time scale, but with an enormous inertia. Sooner or later fossil fuels extraction will require as much energy to extract as is obtained from the fuel. That will be the end of fossil fuels for energy use. Fossil fuels are used for a lot of other purposes. Moving long distance travel to renewable energy is very difficult. But most other energy uses seem simple enough to change to renewable. If we think long term, we should be trying to preserve the planet for future generations. We don't seem to be doing that.
On your side? I suspect it is don't worry. Don't let the government interfere with free enterprise.
My understanding of the ice ages, is that they are caused by the Milankovitch cycles of the earth orbit. When it is an ice age, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun at the same time the earth is closest to the sun in the ellipiical orbit. Naturally then, the southern hemisphere is pointed toward the sun at that time. The ice age is a time of a warm southern hemisphere, and a cold northern hemisphere. Likewise, between ice ages, the opposite is true. A warm northern hemisphere coincides with a cold southern hemisphere.
But, global warming, affects the whole planet. So why the increase in southern sea ice? .... The story I've read is that the antarctic ice shelf (not sea ice), has melted, and cold water has resulted, which allows the antarctic sea ice to expand. Also, that the loss of ice up north exceeds the gain of ice down south.
As for predictions, I think the plot of arctic sea ice vs. time is sufficient evidence of where it has been and where it is going. Of course hind site is always more accurate than prediction.
I finally have a bit of down time. I can't cover everything but will note some items that stand out in your response.
"First of all, I don't think global surface temperatures are a very good indicator of global warming. The atmosphere only has a density of 1.2Kg/cubic meter, and a heat capacity of 1.0KJ/Kg. Compare that to water at 1000Kg/cubic meter and a heat capacity of 4.186KJ/Kg. In other words, it is the temperature of the water that counts, and not just the surface water. "
I agree completely. The discussion has always centered around surface temps because that has been the primary evidence the AGW crowd has used and based their presentation on. The skeptics have long presented the importance of the heat cycles in the oceans and pointed out the correlation to global temps. It has been amusing this year to watch the AGW folks suddenly holding forth on ocean heat. They have suddenly adopted it as the "explanation" for the "pause" in global temps. For years they have insisted that CO2 overwhelms the natural variations from other sources-now the oceans are so powerful they mask the warming. They have yet to consider that the ocean heat may have overwhelmed other factors and been the cause of the higher surface temp. I think your understanding of this will eventually lead you to "switch teams". Just a thought. ;^D
Here are some links on how the temp records themselves have been handled.
This is a good spot to touch on "politics". This has been political since at least 1988 when Dr. Hansen made his presentation to congress (It was a hot day so the AGW crowd shutoff the AC and opened the windows, good theater, good politics). A few years back Dr. Phil Jones (Hadley CRU) said that the level trend would need to be at least 15 years to be significant. Now they are all saying 30 years. Hansen had only a handful of years of uptrend when he hit the panic button. I love the consistency.
Then there is the IPCC. Look at its original mandate (that also '88), it wasn't to find out whether AWG was happening- but why. They already had a conclusion before they started. Science?
Graphs need proper context. In the short term data that this battle has been over there is very little correlation. If any. Ocean cycles and solar cycles explain it better. IMHO.
CO2 as a blanket. I think your analogy is flawed. I'm not an expert on these items but from my reading and the explanations from my wife, the chemist, it does look like wavelengths that are not resonant just pass right through. We probably aren't going to get anywhere with this but I think a better analogy would be magnetism. The CO2 being like iron balls and only magnetic stuff sticks. Yes, CO2 is a GHG but one with limited function and that function is essentially maxed.
Ah, justice. I first noticed the AGW crowd start pushing this as "even if we are wrong (but of course we are not) it is still the right thing to do". This is a great fall back when an argument is being lost. Not pointing at you there, BTW.
As I have mentioned, I am a Christian, and treating others justly is central to my faith. But I find it is often difficult to discern the just road without knowing the truth of the matter.
Consider a few thoughts on justice challenged situations created by following the AGW creed.
I know a gentleman who works in a "feed the hungry" organization. After ethanol became the darling of the AGW crowd and was driven into use politically (that word again) the supplies of free rice they used started to dry up. Seems other grains had to be allocated to make up for the corn going into ethanol. The poor went hungry. Justice?
Modern agriculture has greatly reduced the percentage on the world's population that is starving. This is driven by inexpensive petro-fuels. Like-wise these fuels, and coal are providing industrial changes in India and China that are raising millions out of poverty. Do we insist they go back? Is that just?
Currently crop hybridization is centered around the long current growing seasons. If the concerns of some scientists who study the solar cycles prove out, and it gets colder the focus will have to shift. If the technicians doing this are constrained by a dogmatic view of AGW their response will be slower, people will suffer.
BTW, oil discoveries have consistently outpaced usage. We aren't going to run out soon.
Should we try to be cleaner? Sure. Are the answers simple? I honestly do not think so.
Well buddy, have we beat this horse to death for now? It has been fun. It has been the most respectful discussion I have ever had with an AGW guy. Good job.
Thanks for providing links to real people and their presented data. I went through it all. Frankly, only the first link cause me any any doubt. ... But, I was not sure of the presented data. I did spot numerous errors in it though. It is too long to comment on. And at version 4.3, obviously it would be take a long time for me to come up to speed on each claim.
However, I look at this a bit differently. First of all, I don't think global surface temperatures are a very good indicator of global warming. The atmosphere only has a density of 1.2Kg/cubic meter, and a heat capacity of 1.0KJ/Kg. Compare that to water at 1000Kg/cubic meter and a heat capacity of 4.186KJ/Kg. In other words, it is the temperature of the water that counts, and not just the surface water.
Second, heat flows from hot to cold. The cold areas are at the poles, and the great ice volumes: Greenland, Antarctica, polar sea ice. Ice cannot exceed 0 degrees C. It absorbs 335KJ/Kg just to change from ice to water while at 0C. Thus, as long as a surface is covered in ice, the air temperature above the ice has a hard time getting warmer than 0C. A measure of the ice volume is also an important part of telling if the earth is warming or not. Data shows that all the ice is melting faster and faster.
Third, either CO2 is a greenhouse gas or it isn't. The argument that once it blocks it's narrow bands of heat, it is done is not correct. The CO2 absorbs the heat radiation, and either transfers that heat to the more plentiful O2 and N2, or it re-radiates it in a random direction. It acts like a blanket for those narrow bands of radiation. More CO2 is like a more dense blanket. But, eventually, high in the atmosphere, the density of the CO2 and air is too low to prevent the in band radiation to escape to space. As the concentration of CO2 goes up, the elevation at which the radiation escapes goes up. And as the elevation goes up, the temperture of the air goes down. And the amount of band energy goes down with the temperature according to the blackbody theory.
Forth, I look at the 800,000 year ice age history as being instructive. They show a consistent relationship between CO2 and temperature. I understand that ice sheets covered Chicago, and Yosemite during the ice ages. Ice sheets up, sea levels down. Going way back in time, the ice sheets were completely gone, and CO2 levels up to 1000 ppm. During the ice ages, CO2 was 190ppm. Between the ice ages CO2 was 280ppm. Another report showed that methane levels tracked CO2 levels during this period. This leads me to believe that CO2, methane, ice levels, and sea levels are all related by mother nature. We know that the variation was/is caused by orbital variations, primarily by if the northern lattitudes are tilted toward the sun, or away from the sun, when the earth's eliptical orbit is at it's closest approach to the sun. With CO2 now at 400ppm, it tells me that the earth is heading toward a complete loss of ice, and much warmer temperatures. But simple calculations indicate it will take hundreds of years for Greenland and Antarctic to melt completely.
There are some arguments that more CO2 is good, because it increases plant growth. That it does. But, the growth is limited by other nutrients.
There are arguments about water vapor and clouds. I have questions about this also. It would seem to be very important. But, what about the ice age record? Apparantly whatever happened to water vapor and clouds didn't matter.
We know that warm air can hold more water vapor. Because of that, we use warm air to dry out things like fruit and clothes. We would expect the oceans to contribute more water vapor to warmer air, and warmer dry air to dry out land areas. We would expect storms that gain water over the oceans to dump more water when they rain. These weather details are way over my understanding.
Some of the authors you site seem like their prespective is political. Their arguments against warming or climate fear mongering, seems to be driven by a political fear of government regulation. But, I see a different problem. Corporations are driven by a mandate to grow and make a profit. They are not paid to be good citizens. It seems to me that the fossil fuel industry has been feeding the consumer with this wonderful cheap energy, and ignoring the slow build up of greenhouse gases. Us consumers are happy to sip the nectar of gas power, and avoid thinking about the far off consequences to future generations. But, planning is always about the future. And if we only plan for the near term future, while ignoring the long term future, then we are robbing the people of the long term future for our present good fortune.
Some will say so what? Some will wring their fingers in horror. Some will fight to preserve the status quo. Some will fight for justice. Some will think God will intervene. Some will not think about it at all.
Personally, I am on the side of justice. I think the fossil fuels should be saved for later use. I think we should move to renewable energy. I think we need to find a renewable substitute for gasoline. I think we need to find a way to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
"Well everybody knows that the energy density of batteries is nowhere near the energy density of gasoline. Wiki lists gasoline at 46MJ/Kg, and LiIon at 0.75MJ/Kg. Discount gasoline by about 3X to 15MJ/Kg "
Trees, true but not very meaningful. A gas car carries a 10 Gallon gas tank with about 60 lbs of gas. An EV carries a 600 lbs battery. Yet an EV makes a very good car, look at the
The temp chart at the bottom the switches is two different NASA charts for the temps in the same time period the original data shows the 1930's as hot as the 1990's-then NASA adjusted it and the 30's got cooler and the 90's hotter.
These are not the engineers that got us to the moon, NASA is just another Gov agency and just as trust worthy as the others. IMO
I don't expect you to just flip your views, just saying you have been drawing info from a very homogenized group that dominates the media.
Well, I think we've run this into the ground, but I had promised you a response and felt obligated to come through, sincerely hope you get this. I really have enjoyed the give and take. Sorry I can't respond to every line of thought here, it is getting to varied and I have other priorities (family starting homeschooling is a big one.)
If you look at the web, and blogs in particular, you will find lots of confusion about climate change. It is first of all because the fossil fuel industry has hired propaganda firms to muddy the water. There may be some people that repeat their message due to being confused. The fossil fuel industry will not go down easily, and is following the same FUD tactic as the tobacco industry.
Reader: I suggest you go to the NASA and NOAA web sites to get the truth. Don't be confused by the bull you find here.
The very sad fact is that we must either take the hard path to move away from fossil fuels, or mother nature will beat the crap out of us. She will not rest until the CO2 is returned to the deep places where it came from.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.