This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Soaring Debt To GDP Is More Reponsible For Global Warming Than Rising CO2 Levels
Because the latest fad amongst the voodoo shamanry known as econ Ph.Ds, especially those who have a blog in uber-liberal daily publications courtesy of a nominal gift from the status quo for valiant efforts in preserving the status quo, is to always and without fail assume that correlation is and always implies causation, we make, with the help of John Lohman, the following argument: since global leverage (via Debt-to-GDP) has a greater correlation to the "Temperature Anomaly" aka Global Warming, at 0.79, than CO2 concentration, at 0.69, it is obvious that global warming is purely a function of ever increasing leverage, and not, as is widely accepted by various ecological consultancies, carbon dioxide concentration. And now you see how easy it is to make idiotic, and totally spurious statements (which however serve as fodder for even more idiotic peer-reviewed white papers and journal submissions this keeping lots of people employed while contributing absolutely nothing to society), which given enough time, will become religion to a new breed of shamans once the old ones are forcibly kicked out of their comfortable corner offices.
h/t John Lohman
»
- 14770 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Something tells me that you are the religious kook here....
For shits and giggles, where are we we currently with respect the 11 year solar cycle? Top,? Bottom? Middle?
Most Folks just getting by could really care less what a bunch of overpaid lazy academics dream up to justify their lavish renumeration. People know where the fat needs to be cut, top down.
Unless you care to debate the result of the article, STFU.
And if a post-doc making $35,000 a year is lavish then I am sorry that you are red-neck subsistence level share-cropper.
Hey hypon-bug ,this share-cropper noticed when they mentioned non-climatic issues they said squat about solar activity...35K please.
Try making that 35k in the private sector and you won't be such a fucking asshole. I'm so glad people like you are coming to an end.
Those academics/sponges will never ever rock the boat on serious issues, they have far too much to lose.
Since you are too obtuse to understand even such a simple paper, why should I give any creedence to what you type??
Can you explain why it is wrong? Do you even know what it says and concludes? If not STFU...
Not factoring Solar activity into a Global temperature study is willfully ignorant. I don't need creedence from the likes of you, unfortunately you are desperately seeking it and its quite an emberassing spectacle.
You fail... do you know what the TSI is and how it was used in the paper???
You guys are fucking hilarious...
Flakmeister, bad form..... responding to trolls like that, I was tempted to junk you myself.
As far as the denizens of the Hedge go... I am the troll, get it? Just like 2 years ago and peak oil....
Hey, academia beats working for a living. What's your beef?
Whatever. Most of us cannot be bother refuting the lies of paid scientific whores. Why do you care anyways, did you lose your opportunity to cash in on the scam?
Carbon 7 dating or carbon 14?
In layman's terms how does the analysis quantify the realtive impact of CO2 and H20 (both liquid and gas)?
In layman's tems how is the endothermic consumption of CO2 used in the prodction 02 quantified in their analysis? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/soaring-debt-gdp-more-reponsible-global-warming-rising-co2-levels#comment-2053772
So what science is Barry providing that one is more true that the other, or either are true. Provide cause thats what science is. And BTW provide what to do about it, using math based on either or both series,
Thanks
Steve
its not that spurious. debt borrows fossil fuels from future (via more affordability today)
so adding more debt adds more carbon to atmosphere FOR SURE than without debt...
Love scinence, thats why I follow its rules
Well of course I can see the cross correlations, but Barry has showen alot of cross correlated bullshit graphs in his time., The point what is the science behind it. Barry has long been making a BS same old BS green story, that as totally BS as any warming deniers. I'll accept temp data till the point where I have make policy, cause nobody knows
Carbon is up, temp is up? I'll accecpt the idea, how much and by what calculus does it go up?, and all that being true, what is a MEANINGFUL policy to CHANGE the rates, and not fatten Al Gores bank account while accomplishing nothing
Raft of bullish news:
Tiffany crashes down to reality
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45947497/
Cargill reports worst quarter since 2001
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-cargill-idUSTRE809166201201...
Six in ten hedge funds lost money in 2011
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45930738
"Our food ingredients and agriculture services businesses generated solid earnings. At the same time, our commodity-based trading and asset management businesses faced significant challenges," Page said.
Good! Here's your fucking sign Cargill.
It the difference between politics and science, Meaningful bullshit accomplishing endless nothing, and Endlless scutwork accomplishing the impossible
Another anniversary tomorrow : 10 years of ignorance of international law at Guantanamo.
I think one needs lots of Preparation H after all this.
Try plotting Temp. vs Emerging Market GDP. Not saying that the EM's are responsible for Global warming but the lie is sold to us to keep the EM's more competitive than the developed nations since all the industrial investment has been transferred over to them.
You mean "tree choppers R Us"? Of course it's a big deal. Look at Scotland...or even Europe as a whole. It's a miracle forests even exist. Don't even get me started on say Cairbou.
More bullish news:
Yale's Crash Confidence Index Shows How Fearful Investors Have Become
http://www.bespokeinvest.com/thinkbig/2012/1/10/yales-crash-confidence-i...
C'mon rating agencies down grade US debt for 2012 give us that AUG 2011 shock. You can do it...
isn't correlation a relationship between the returns, or in this case, changes, between two data sets? if two data sets have generally the same direction, their levels are going to show a fairly high correlation, as we see here.
oh no Asia is buying USDs again...
Asia about to roll over? Inflation should freak'em out
Asian traders:
The AUD/USD has traded down to 1.0291, as the USD is gaining across the board - led by a move up in the USD/CHF and a move below 1.2750 in the EUR/USD.
Temps are going up. Not much debate there any longer. I'm remain skeptical as to how those mechanisms works, however.
The real "thing" to correlate our global messes with is population. Like, duh. Every new exponentially added mouth sucks more water, fuel, and every other consumable commodity. 50+ years of fiat expansion certainly enabled population explosion. Let's see a chart of population (maybe by 1st, 2nd, 3rd worldness) against: CO2, temps, fiat expansion, (any) commodity depletion, ...
Hate to say it, but we've got too many people on this rock for the lifestyle we think we all deserve.
If the current financial debt-mess is somehow solved during the next decade and the "world" somehow returns to prosperity, it'll just foster yet more new mouths.
Of course, I see no way out of this until a plague comes or we bomb each other to death.
Suicide is painless.....
Biflation trends:
Orange juice futures at highest since 1977.... ahh and what a time it was...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idMjefSLpeTrOXeqq0_rrz...
Commodity prices were mostly higher on expectations that China's economy will continue to grow this year (guess which direction your finances are going to take?)
I love animals, they are all awesome.
I love Mother Earth. She rules.
...but, I also study Celestial Physics a bit.
AND!
The SUN is heating up our entire solar system.
If you've been watching the Nasa/Soho Lasco 1 and 2 cameras for
the last year, you too would know that the Sun has been popping off solar flares and coronal mass ejections like a kid with a new cap gun.
PS. Religion conspires against those who love nature, like somehow you can love God, but loving Mother Earth is pagan. Religion is so foolish and thin veiled in its agenda.
One large volcanic eruption on the order of Mount Tambora in 1815. That's all it will take for snow in July over the Midwest of the US. Pray for global warming.
So who the fuck is resposible for all the CHEMTRAILS that is getting sprayed,all day every day where I am..... Are those TANKERS in the sky not causing global warming...??? Fuck you Air Tankers..... Hope you bite the dust.
They've been busy over Colorado last couple of days.
Fuck It correlation, 1.00.
Is this supposed to be ironic or just a blatant display of ignorance?
No, this article is PERFECTLY SERIOUS! It is really proving that excess debt/GDP ratios actually CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.
We must immediately pay off all our debts in order to prevent the PLANET FROM BURNING UP!
Oh yes of course. Because humans affected the oceans, it's acidity, it's marine life, etc... Humans also affect the geology, to the point we're nr1 generators of hard surface beating nature. We also created a new geologic age of our making, the antropocene. We have affected most if not all of the natural systems. But of course, there's no chance we could affect climate... That's where the conspiracy is... Nevermind that those who produce the shit that allegedly is modifying atmospheric content, i.e. oil and fossil fuels in general, would have everything to lose if they suddenly had to stop pushing the externalities of their business model on the rest of the world... they have absolutely no incentive to cheat and make you believe we humans affect everything in this world except climate... right? RIGHT?
It's all the sun after all. Even though we've had a decade of the lowest solar activity which went hand in hand with the highest temperatures ever recorded. Nothing to see there. Pass me some more bullshit, please. I just need to be as stupid as the rest and believe it's all a big conspiracy by frustrated marxists with the help of Maggie Thatcher to install world communism under the guise of Al Gore, Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez... Oh, what a happy little creature I would be if I could stop worrying and love the oil.
Moe cheap rhetoric. Words are not proof. Go back to the Huffington climate circle jerk.
I didn't expect to prove anything scientific. After all, the scientific community already said that according to the knowledge of today, it's "highly probable" that humans are causing global warming. That's what the scientific "circle jerk" say. Or we could do like in other times when people believed more in the church than in science. You know, like those of the Murdoch circle jerk...
Correlation makes sense in several ways:
a) Growth accelerated and ginned up-GDP, as government spending is included in GDP
b) Spending on capital goods and equipment is therefore higher than could be normally expected ex-deficit spending
c) Energy is required to produce capital goods; correlation to energy consumption and use
d) Better economy, people have more money to spend on things like fuel. Fuel use will be curtailed by less GDP/growth.
So it is not suprising at all that there is some correlation between GDP, growth, energy use and therefore ... more consumption of carbon-based energy.
What we don't know is how accurate the carbon correlation is; due to the complexity of the global climate system, politically rationalized data interpretation, inaccurate climate models and the probabilities that climate is presently converging but will diverge at some point due to the next geologic, astronomic or biologic calamity.
Great fodder for the politicos. Reframed for the public: Obama's economic record is deliberate because the President knew that employment would save the planet...
So both W and Obama are massive "Deniers"????? If excessive debt causes the warming (through whatever mechanism), then piling on debt to cure the debt was very dangerous to the state of the planet.
Let me take a stab at Biden: "sometimes you need to create more CO2 to decrease CO2"
And to think that the debt brokers wanted to create CO2 markets....
I don't know why all the Global Warming folks are so upset. If excessive debt is the cause, they got no worries, Jules.
Credit Expansion since 1964 created Dollar Funds in Asia with US military action in Korea and Vietnam thus permitting Asia to grow rapidly. The export-orientation of Asian economies required increased shipping and container lines like Evergreen and the poor environmental aspects of Asian growth led to high levels of exhaust gases and pollution. It might well be that the environment and the global financial system have been screwed because Westerners were not willing to accept collapsing living standards as their Bankers promoted a globalist agenda which required their impoverishment as Asia expanded. In short, the Financial System sought to boost Profit Shares in Western GDP by substituting cheap labour in Asia for Western labour and parking profit in brand valuations in tax havens
As I suspected, all the "skeptics", aka faith-based deniers, could not even discuss the papers that came out in December 2011...And the first one was extremely straightforward...
Let the record show that all their comments consisted of ad hominum tinged strawmen and similar nonsense.
At least one person knew of a few well-discredited denier arguments (Zerohead at least tried, I'll give him that)....
Nobody, and I mean nobody could comment on a very simple elegant paper.....
I am done exchanging useless banter with asshats, if they want to talk *real* stuff I'll continue
"the papers that came out in December 2011..." cite papers you are referring to please.
In my post above....
So he with the most papers supporting his side wins?
Happy to hear you read and understood all those papers and were able to decide the reasoning to be without flaws or gaps and therefore the only possible correct one!
Talking about beliefs... a little humility would be in order.
Malek,
you want to have a go? Can you even explain what they did in the first one?
That's the beauty of this result, you have to be a full blown, head in sand, see, speak, hear no-evil kind of denier to not accept the result...
There is no model, just data, lots and lots of it, and a simple hypothesis tested... It's a fucking slam dunk...
You can even download the data and do it yourself in Excel, assuming you know what you doing.
Here is the data
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/data-and-code-for-foster-rahmstorf-2011/
Go ahead, find out where is it wrong... what is the flaw?
The first paper says its warming, and the second paper says at least 74% at the 95% CL is due to anthropenic sources....just data and well known physics. Unless you think we can't do IR spectroscopy on C02..
The primary flaw is the fact that the study hasn't been replicated.
But it's no slam dunk, effing or otherwise. At least the authors don't claim that. Why do you? If the the authors are judicious scientists, they are full blown, head in sand, see, speak, hear no-evil kind of deniers.
You can replicate the study! I showed you 5 different data sets!
What is the confidence level on the observed trend? In statistics, that is a slam dunk...
I've read most of your comments herein, and it seems that your entire argument hinges around a monomania over one paper. Attempts by others to reference counterarguments including other scientific papers and synopses have either been refuted, at least in your mind, or referred back to the original article. If you are a scientist of any stripe, you know that one study or a dozen studies are largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and it is common in the scientific community to banter back and forth with studies and debates ad nauseum for decades, due to competing evidence. That's just science, and how it works, and how it should work. No one scientist holds sway over all the facts, and anyone who implies that is an arrogant fool.
You also seem to imply that science is somehow godlike, final word, and is routinely mathematical and factual. Absolutely false. Science doesn't even hold the scientific method out to be the sum of all knowledge, and I've seen plenty of accepted and rejected theories that fly in the face of the king of science and math, which is logic. Theories yield to logic, not the other way around.
Many tools - both good and bad - are used to come to scientific conclusions, including subjectivism, deference to people in power over you, deference to tradition, desire to be on the winning team, and as is sadly the case in scientific history, payola. In one post you claimed - rightly - that such and such a study was done by some organization heavily subsidized by big oil, yet you repeatedly fail to catch the hint that universities and environmental organizations also serve a master, and it isn't Truth - it's money, power, notoriety and other benefits, and those come from a source as corrupt as big oil, and perhaps even another face of the same big oil you despise. Doesn't matter how much or little, it just matters that there is also a conflict of interest there, one that any scientist or layman has every right to call into effect of results - and should! Scientists levy that charge with greater care than laymen, but they level it with great frequency because it does indeed have a bearing on what the populace is fed.
So now I come to the counterchallenge, a simple question really, and attempt to provide some context and condense a chaotic, complex and controversial topic, and it's a question that carries great meaning for both scientist and layman alike. You could ask almost the same question in a variety of ways, by referencing primary greenhouse gas concentrations, etc, but referencing your initial challenge paper, let's stick with the applied definition of global warming, which is global mean temperature:
What should the global mean temperature be?
Quit with the strawmen...
The paper takes the data and tests a very simple hypothesis using a rigourous mathematical technique.. The first paper shows beyond a shawdow of a doubt a warming treand that is consistent with IPCC summaries...My challenge to the anti-GW people here was to refute it, nothing more nothing less... If you follow the thread, they were the ones to avoid the challenge and bring up all kinds of refuted and incorrect "skeptic" arguments...
Science is not god-like, mistakes are made, but after time, a reasonable understanding of what is going on emerges. Sometimes, like in QED, you can calculate and measure quantities to 1 part in a billion.... sometimes its only good to 5-10%....
If essentially all climate scientists are in agreement, and you don't like the result, does that mean it is a conspiracy? Using your logic, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics could also be conspiracies....
What is saying in so many words is that Ideology is the arbiter of scientific truth untill evidence becomes overwhelming
And correlation isn't causal - otherwise Debt to GDP WOULD BE responsible for global warming...
If you are concerned with CO2 levels rising (as opposed to chasing government handouts) then perhaps you should stop missing the forest (or its decline) for the CO2 eating and 02 producing tree right in front of you.
Yeah.... the theory of AGW is 100 years old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
We now have the data....
Otherwise, I have no idea what your point was in the above..
correlating data, not causation
Have you ever run a regression or correlation study? You seem to be a expert....
Hey, pirates are anti-correlated with C02 levels.... We have reduced the number of pirates world wide and increased C02... In fact Somalia has the largest number of pirates while having the lowest C02 emissions per capita...
\sarc
Funny you should ask- the last time I did that osrt of work ended about a decade ago in the banking sector. Now I live with a library of Panasonic Toughbooks (some of which date to that era) aren't aren't suitable for manipulaion of large datasets. However, my experience is that only the most colossal of incompetents make mathematical mistakes. The far more common errors are interpertation, either of the results, which are the easiest to identify, or what the relationship to a single data record is to the physical world and the processes that take place. For example, in the rush to automate loan decisioning FI's relied on a data element to represent the probability of a customer to repay a loan (e.g. a FICO score from Fair Isaac). When were automating the decisioning process at the place I worked, I asked Fair Isaac for their formula and got turned down, when I pushed for a proprietary calculation factoring in relative vs nominal fluctuation in interest rates (since only aggregate data sets existed for the time interest rates were anything other than historically low) - I got pushback due to both group think and competitive advantage concerns (this was before the repackaging and collaterizations explosions). So as far as climate change research goes- I am far more interested in the methodology, footnotes, and actual SQL, then in the absracts, calculations and conclusions (which I will happily leave to people who work in that field when they restore integrity to their processes- until then bankers and climate researchers are equally untrustworthy, if unchecked).
simple version (and ignoring other valid issues - like if the poles are melting (or whatever last year's solicitation for funds was based on)- then there is more h2o in water and gas form because there is less in solid form, and h20 in liquid and gas form has a well established "greenhouseness" and exists in much larger concentrations than co2 ):
co2 exists within various cycles for example
person - o2 in, co2 out
tree - co2 in, o2 out
industry - whatever in, co2 & $ for to feed lazy scien tists and greedy politicians and bankers out
photosynthesis is a cooling process so:
less photosynthesis = less cooling = more warming
if there is more co2 in the atmospere now that an some other point in history then there are two non-exclusive possibilities 1) more co2 was put in the atmosphere or 2) less co2 was taken out of the atmosphere
if the level of co2 should in some aspiring omnipotent's mind remain constant then there both sides of the cycle need to be addressed, ie cut the factories and cut down more tries and the delta should be 0
if one both puts more co2 in the atmosphere and doesn't as much out, then over time the concentration of co2 will increase
And the wife wan't to go to dinner, so I'll be back in a few hours (probably around 3am ET) -
You have constructed a strawman....
Where have I said that C02 should be constant... there are fairly well undestood cycles of C02 concentrations. We have dumped ~300 giga tonnes extra in the past 150 years, more than enough to completely overwhelm the natural cycles....
C02 levels are higher now than anytime in the past 400,000 years, (coincidently, before moden H. Sapiens emerged)
There are good figures here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
How much co2 is the correct amount?
Please look up the definition of strawman and rhetorical question...Nice try...
Along the same line:
What is the optimal amount of C02 in the atmosphere for someone living in London, Bangladesh or New York?
What is the optimum C02 level for a grain farmer in the Ukraine or the Indus valley or for a cattle rancher in Texas?
-----
Note that the answer to this question depends on how long you plan on living or farming there...
Maybe if you asked what is the optimal range of C02 for the current distribution of H. Sapiens on the planet, we could discuss that...
It's a serious question. School me.
I also believe it is variable/situational. And given the preeminence of co2 in the debate, would it also be far-fetched to say that if co2 varies by locale or use, that temperature may also covary in those locales? And if that's true, then the idea of using an ideal global temp seems as misplaced as using an ideal co2 level. At the end of the day, I can't help but wonder why any of the climate debate is important at all. Interesting, but not alarming in the least.
And again I say, the problem comes with the applied science portion of the debate, especially when the science portion is without any meaningful baselines.
You are tiptoeing with weasel words...
If you were really interested, spend an hour or so here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
While I am fairly conversant in Climate Science, the above web site is tended by a team whose combined credentials dwarf mine, check it out:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
The question of What is the optimal concentration of co2 in the atmosphere? is the question. It is not a stawman, and IF THERE WAS ANY INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IT IS THE VERY FIRST QUESTION THEY WOULD HAVE ANSWERED, BEFORE PROPOSING ANY COURSE OF ACTION.
The limited research in this field tends to focus on the benefits of increased co2 concentrations resulting in increased agricultural yields required to feed an increasing global population. The political and scientific establishment is hell bent on reducing concentrations, which, in the absence of proper scientific research, leaves one with only Berinyi's ruler, whose results show a 25% reduction in global co2 concentrations being a genocide upon the human race, in the absence of other significant population. Transpose the ethical debate for the pre-emtive assasination of Adolph Hitler in the 1930's or the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq in 2003, if one supports the notion that pre-emtive action is ethical then TSHTF, but yet the politicians and scientists refuse to answer to question, What is the optimal concentration of co2 in the atmosphere?
Hi. I don't know if this is relevant, but it looks as though it might be. It's a rebuttal by Tisdale on WUWT of the recent Foster (Tamino) / Rahmstorf paper. Excuse me if you've seen it already, or it's been covered above.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-ra...
Did you read it? Tisdale doesn't know what the fuck he is doing... The rebuttal is like Ptolemy throwing out another epicycle to convince Copernicus and Galilieo....
I read the rebuttal and all the comments...
Good idea Fmeister to keep you silence. This way we will not have to endure your insufferable arrogance.
You confuse arrogance with someone being correct about something you don't understand...
You have added nothing of value to this discussion... that is not suprising.
Why would anyone bother reading AGW religious texts? Who cares what kooks like yourself think? Your rantings are based on a desire to make our money, your money. Everything else is BS.
FlakAss - not everyone lives on US time, in fact most determine their working sleeping and other hours based on the movement of a big bright warm ball in the sky...
Is that all you got, ad hominums???
Lets debate the science, no name calling bullshit, 'kay? Are you up to it?
Nothing personal, really, just responding in kind. Besides, it's Fight Club, and if it were dry as either a properly peer reviewed paper or a Ben Stein economics lecture - the discussion wouldn't attract an audience.
Vaclav Klaus, former Czech president, put it quite well when he said that -Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. Environmentalism is a religion and a modern counterpart of communism that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems.
Liberals love to do the rope-a-dope on people by picking a spurrious point, beating them to death with it, then extrapolating from that to their need/right/obligation to control the universe and everything in it -including you.
Let me guess another, southern anti-lntellectual right-wing know nothing....
An "ism" that probably appeals to you is Creationism....
I imagine anything that you don't understand must be wrong... and don't think C02 levels give a fuck about what you believe....
No, and CO2 levels do not care about your religious beliefs either. Loser.
let's drain the swamp
I'll buy that.
Coincidence, correlation, causality. Who cares.
But what matters is , .... what did Marx say:)
Lulz - YMMD!
Wow Flakmeister that was an incredible amount of effort... The problem is humans are not interested in logic and some people have a weird emotional reaction to academia and it's probably not worth arguing with such folks.
There's a good joke useful for this sort of thing.
“Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?”
“60 years.”
“60 years! Wow, what do you pray for?”
"Peace"
"How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?"
"Like I'm talking to a fucking wall"
Truth is GW is a fact, not a debate.
AGW is more debatable, but as ActungAffen said it is indisputable that human pollution has had dire affects on oceans and atmosphere and the evidence suggests this damage extends to climate as well.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it" - Sinclair
LOL, that's the same thing ol' whatshisnuts said about TOE. You're logic is faulty. GW is only a fact when the globe is warming. When it's not, it's not a fact. Some fact. And some logic. Were you thinking of the nebulous and a priori "climate change"?
But by every measure, the globe *is* warming...
As for TOE, there is a big difference between a testable theory that makes predictions (like drought conditions in Texas under El Nina conditions, see here for example ) and string theory.
Do you defend the idea that global warming is true, even if it is cooling?
So what if the globe is warming? Or cooling?
What should the global mean temperature be?
Cmon... quit with the bullshit rhetorical questions...
Did I understand you? Are you implying that the average global temperature is declining? Over what time scale?
Please clarify your position...
It's a serious question.
An even better question is, if you could pick an ideal number, how much variance in temperature can the planet handle?
My position is simple, really. If the data tell us that the planet is warming, but there is no baseline or range that is acceptable, then the data are really moot. It's interesting, but not noteworthy.
The problem here isn't necessarily the science - it's the applied science.
What applied science??
===
We have pretty good temperature and C02 record going back to the dawn of H. Sapiens. Shown here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
We have completely overshot the C02 concentrations observed in the past 400,000 yrs. Until ~100 years ago the level of C02 varied between 200 and 280 ppmv due to a number relatively well understood processes.
====
Do you agree with the above statement? Yes or No?
If you disagree, please explain why.
"What applied science??"
Precisely. And there is no way to apply the science. But apparently nobody gave that memo to world governments and the UN, who are busy co-opting the empirical observations for their own nefarious purposes.
Answer my question..
You will be henceforth ignored if you do not directly answer the yes-no questions I posed....
BTW, you have a very interesting definition of "Applied Science", definately not mainstream...
Quoting: "but as ActungAffen said it is indisputable that human pollution has had dire affects on oceans and atmosphere and the evidence suggests this damage extends to climate as well."
I like where he says suggest this damage extends to climate... I guess proof is not required when it comes to AGW religion, ooops science.
Do you have a high school degree? Are you an evangelical? Do you get wood when Sarah P. is on TV??
Bayesian inference.
Look it up.
You might learn something about how to analyze the causative processes between:
Energy consumption -> efficiency -> Useful work -> greenhouse gases (part of which are CO2).
Then again, this would probably be too much to ask from a non-quant ZH reader.
Very convincing, but w/o a scheme to swindel the rest of us out of tax dollars (via grants or something equally clever), this "the science is settled" theory of yours will never gain traction.
Riddle me this? Have CO2 levels ever been higher, and even much higher, than they are at present prior to say, 10,000 years ago? Answer: Yes.
Then it is virtually impossible that those levels were anthropogenic in origin due to earlier humans passing gas and burning campfires. And were CO2 levels higher than they are at present a multiplicity of times prior to say, 10,000 years ago? Answer: Yes.
Facts are such stubborn things.
No, you are wrong....
C02 levels were higher many *millions* of years ago (hint, before it was sequestered into fossil fuels)
for example see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
In other words, it is tiny and can be safely ignored....
If your back of the envelope calculation is consistent with Flannery's 2009 calculation (for which the login data at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/ no longer works), then I would assume that the 2009 calculation is woefully incomplete, since there is an entire lifecycle to energy and production is only one side of it. Aditionally, since the relative 2.9 W/m2 is from the IPCC 2007 estimate, I think the numerator needs to be increased and the denominator decreased. Furthermore, although John Cook's explanation at http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-vs-greenhouse-warming.html is "written" convincingly, the results don't square with the calculation above, and would be more consistent with the incomplete definition of "waste energy" he derides- lifecycle heat results from energy usage should be entirely different since turbine efficiency is around 10kBtu/kWh on production and then 5-7kBtu/kWh if reconverted to climate control.(note to self - convert raw Flannery AHF to heat)
h2o in stratosphere & troposphere. A gross oversimplification follows, but, wherever and whenever man is putting co2 into the atmosphere they also tend to be putting h2o into the atmosphere, hence the peak cheap fresh water problem to accompany the peak cheap oil problem, which is a reality that only requires Bernanke to continue printing as usual regardless of geological arguments in support. The relative amount of water that this transferred from the troposphere to the stratosphere should vary with the differing mechanics between the h20 and co2 cycles, but a decrease doesn't make sense (note to self - if it isn't there any more then thermal effects of the condensation process need to be added in, and checked against both studies models)
Also, are you implying that you do not believe increased C02 and Greenhouse gases do not affect the global temperature?
No but co2 and h2o are both greenhouse gases and h2o is far more prevalent, so the "and" changes the meaning of your question and my response. Also there is issue of how authors are estimating gas concentrations in the stratosphere in the 19th century.
Range of uncertainty - yes, if you start in the mid 19th century and move forward the it's a wide range simply as a result of math (and since I don't care where the heat from steam engines or the oil extracted from Titusville went - it's not my ideal data set).
"The C02 measurements reflect the effects you point out." I am not sure that you actually do understand what I am saying- since it would be the temperature measurements that would be affected. If there are less trees pulling co2 out of the atmosphere, then there is less of a cooling offset, and thus a higher temperature (which with even a constant co2 production level, would result in higher co2 concentrations, and higher observed temperatures, regardless of any greenhouse characteristics of co2) Which I expressed above regarding correlation vs causation.
I just read your conclusion, so I'll stop wasting my time- Provide the source code for your "model" or your argument is BS hiding behind a BS or PhD and millions of lines of proprietary source code, open source isn't such a difficult concept. Provide the optimum concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, or openly state how many innocent human lives you are willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of State handouts otherwise unemployable charlatans. And explain how the "respected" scientific community could ever even recomend trying to change the co2 concentration in the atmosphere without first determining the optimum concentration.
Ah... so you really want to play... good... I'll be back, I have a dinner party this evening. Be patient, I will deal with each point in time....
However, a cursory read of your above post, shows that you don't believe the results for waste heat. If that is the case, the onus is on you to calculate and show that the result is wrong. Or to find a credible reference that agrees with you... That is how science works... You must show the result is wrong or incomplete.
Given the lack of reply to my coments on FR 2011, you have no outstanding issues? In other words, it is safe to say that you agree with the results of FR 2011? The global temperate is rising 0.16 K per decade (at least since 1979)? Any argument there? We can accept this and move on?
Also, could you clarify your position on the measured C02 fractions? You have not been clear.
In re FR 2011, the quantification of the impact MEI, AOD, and TSI is outside my area of expertise and beyond computational abilities of my laptops. Since the underlying dataset would appear to be entirely electronic, and thus not subject to the breaches of custodial responsibility alleged with histroical data in the UK (ala MF Global, again with a UK connection), it is ideal. The temperature either increased or decreased- and I am more concerned with the processes behind the causes then the amount itself. Since I don't have access (or cpu cycles) to reverse engineer a climate model, my limited approach could be reduced to "find the missing BTUs". In order to raise the observed temperature of the earth's surface .16K per decade over three decade a certain quantity of heat energy is required.
I'll reread Foster after lunch beacuase one of the comments at http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/ does alarm me- "Another interesting result is that el Nino and volcanic aerosols have a stronger influence on lower-atmosphere temperature (from satellite measurements) than on surface temperature"
Of course it does, since the earth's atmosphere is an insulator, it doesn't care whether radiation is coming from the sun or the surface of the planet, it behaves the same regardless, vectored-re-radiation is nonsense, except perhaps on planet Druidia. All the suspended water and water vapor at the surface acts as an insulator between the surface and the upper atmosphere the temperature outside of that insulating layer is more subject to fluctuation due to the big warming ball in the sky which apparently swings the daily observed surface temperature on the moon a whopping 250 degrees C, whereas in my little corner Earth over the last week the big warm ball swings the temperature a much more comfortable 10 degrees C thanks to the insulation.
Glancing through the thread above again- I share your distrust of Spencer's work, but probably for different reasons, since I have never read his published work, only some private exchanges between him and some spectroscopists. (reminder to self- check NOAA staellite data methodology) If everyone would simply make everything available online- it would facilitate rigourous debate and might actually resolve disputes. Back in the dark ages before some climate profiteer invented the internet, original lab books were kept and wrtitten in ink, when the local library didn't have a hard to find text, you got on an airplane and went to another university, national library, or the home/office of another researcher in the field. Today the process seems to have been reduced to online copy & paste group think.
FR are not a climate model per se.... it is a linear regression of three agreed upon drivers of variation in the temperature record... You do understand what a a regression is? The thing that FR vary is the lag and amplitude. One lag and one amplitude for the 31 year entire data set of each factor... Therefore the shape of the MEI, ADO and TSI is *fixed*. If the hypothesis that these 3 variations is *not* describing the data, you would not see the resulting trend clearly. Figure 7 shows exactly what is added or subtracted from Fig 4. for the GISS and RSS data.
Why would you assume that the aerosols have the same affect in the Troposphere as Stratosphere? You are literally clutching at straws... In fact the following paragraph, FR explain
Now, please answer some simple direct question.
1) Do you accept the measured C02 record as being correct? Yes or No.
2) Do you understand and accept ceter paribus that increasing C02 concentrations will lead to warming? Yes or No?
I am sorry, you are dancing about, I would like to nail down what you believe to be correct on a simple basis before we can move on to more complicated ideas. Otherwise we are talking past each other.
If you do not answer my simple questions on a Yes or No basis, I assume that you have resigned the debate. We need to arrive at some form of closure...
Short answers-
1) for the last 30 years, as presented in Foster and Rahmstorf , YES
2) ceteris paribus, YES
The more complicated-
"agreed upon" - by whom, it's not my area, and it's not central to what I am trying to argue, so I'll accept it, but whether or not it is correct is not my intention to discover or affirm
I certainly don't think that aerosols have the same affect in the Troposphere as Stratosphere. What I couldn't figure out and was alarmed by is why this result is "interesting" in the first place- has the author of the comment perhaps been locked in a climate controlled ivory tower for a bit too long? Seriously, this should be self evident from observation of nature, and if something in a computer model assumes otherwise, then that is a good starting point for trying to locate potential sources of stink.
Neither the PDF I download or the HTML at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/ has the paragraph you cite in Foster and Rahmstorf , I checked using keyword uncertainty, satellite, variation, estimates, influence & comparable. Is there some other (expanded) version of the document?
ceteris paribus - a key point I am trying to make is that everything else is not equal.
Ahh, I thought you were aware that Tamino is the Foster in FR:
It is from:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
and follows a paragraph you cut and pasted (separated by a figure)
----
Good, we are making progress.
Now you do understand that any radiative forcing is equivalent e.g. 0.2 W/m^2 from a change in the Sun is the same as 0.2 W/m^2 from GHG?
Now with regard to the aerosols that you seem to be hung up about. The relationship is what falls out of the data analysis of FR, it is not predicted or required. If you go to google, type in
Radiative forcing of aerosols altitude dependence
you can read to your hearts content. You would expect a different effect for a stratosphere based temperature record and a troposphere based record.
---
Yes, things in the Earth are always changing, there is short time effects (11 year solar cycle), long term, e.g. Milankovith (related to the 26,000 yr peroid for the earth's rotational precession) etc... aerosols from volcanos...
Do you think that we can deconvolute some of these effects? In other words, we can correct for the known effect of a number of forcings and if things are different from what we expect then there are forcings which we do not properly quantify? Yes or No?
You did agree that the C02 record is reliable. We can make reliable mesurements of C02 levels going back 400,000 years. Yes or No?
You do agree that the changes in C02 content from ~1850 or so are due to burning of fossil fuels? Yes or No?
Did not know Tamino = Foster. I tend to gather information by discussions & correspondence from "retired" professionals, instead of primarily relying upon a younger professional's current "mealticket", regardless of the professional fiield, since I believe they tend to be less influenced by monetary concerns.
Now you do understand that any radiative forcing is equivalent e.g. 0.2 W/m^2 from a change in the Sun is the same as 0.2 W/m^2 from GHG? Partially - I agree .2w/m2 = .2w/m2, regardless of whether the source of the forcing originates on the surface of the sun or the surface of the earth. I think qualifying entirety of the "surface of the earth" as GHG (emphasis on GAS) is problematic in regards to such factors as aerosols from volcanos and water (liquid & solid aerosol vs gaseous water) among others.
I'll look into "radiative forcing of aerosols altitude dependence" because I would probably need to quantify that aspect anyway.
Do you think that we can deconvolute some of these effects? <<YES>> In other words, we can correct for the known effect of a number of forcings and if things are different from what we expect then there are forcings which we do not properly quantify? Yes or No? NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ASK IN THE ITALICIZED TEXT
You did agree that the C02 record is reliable. <<YES, FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS>> We can make reliable mesurements of C02 levels going back 400,000 years. Yes or No? <<I DON'T KNOW>>, but since the there is more man made industry & associated gross co2 production now than in pre-industrial periods, then the effects must appear in the data for the last 30 years, regardless of any "interference" - which Foster has already graciously calculated for us.
You do agree that the changes in C02 content from ~1850 or so are due to burning of fossil fuels? Yes or No? <<PARTIALLY>>, co2 is a cycle- the delta in the concentration over o given period of time the difference bettween aggregate "production" and aggregate "consumption" over that time period adjusted for any change in the atmosphere size/volume (which is another reason I like sticking to years where there is satellite data) The burning of fossil fuels only represents the "production" side of the equation.
Edited some of my typos
I'll try to address specific things:
Fair enough, at Tamino's site you are free to ask questions. Between curious people and educated skeptics many questions are posed and addressed on Tamino's blog. It is worth reading the comments, signal to noise is very high. I also provided another laymans overview of the paper from other sources...
----
For your edification, here is the definition and data for aerosols
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
Maybe this will clarify some things for you
------
The point is that if there a number of quantifiable factors that are known to affect a system and if you include these known affects and they describe the data, then by definition, unknown or unquantifiable effects must be small. Do you agree? Yes or No
------
Before continuing with C02, have you read this? It is a basic intro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
You are now saying that you do not believe the C02 levels from before 30 years ago? Why? The measurements at Mauna go back 50 years. Are the first 20 years of their data wrong? Yes or No. Can we go back 200 years?
Here is data going back to 1832 that overlaps with Mauna Loa....
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20
Do you think it is wrong? Do you think that they would know that since they can compare directly with ML data for 20 years or so?
Here is the C02 paper going back to the Holocene
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1815.full
(see Fig 1. in the above to see the consistency between ice core sets)....
Also note the bottom of the page is a discussion between authors in disagreement about the Holocene results derived from 2 techniques
Finally, given that the seasonal variation to C02 is very clear in the ML data, this tells you the precision of the meaurement, i.e 1 part in 500 or so, in other words, quite precise.
=======
Do you think this chart is correct? Yes or No?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg
-----
If you try to slip away from this debate by saying "I do not know" to too many more question I will rightfully conclude that you have admitted that you do not know enough to have any strongly held opinion on GW or AGW and that your denial of GW/AGW is based purely on an irrational or ideological belief.
Similarly, unless you provided evidence to the contrary, I could safely ignore any views you might have on Supersymmetry, the special Lorentz group or structure in the CMB....
EDIT:
Fixed some C02 stuff....
BTW, if you are going to argue that deforestation or other Man-made activity is increasing the C02 level such that fossil fuels are not responsible for the full increase, then we are in agreement that that observed C02 increase is anthropogenic...
The point is that if there a number of quantifiable factors that are known to affect a system and if you include these known affects and they describe the data, then by definition, unknown or unquantifiable effects must be small. Do you agree? Yes or No <<NO, if there are unknown or unquantifiable factors which offset each other, their INDIVIDUAL effect or contribution can be great, while their NET effect is minor- for example: if all that is known is e=mc2,then e = m x c^2, while e + 1 = (m x c^2) + 1, but, e + (c^c) = m x c^2 + (c^c) I'll come back to this less than ideal example below.>>
Before continuing with C02, have you read this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere <<YES, and I find change log hilarious, open source is great thing>>
You are now saying that you do not believe the C02 levels from before 30 years ago? <<For purposes of this discussion- NO I don’t believe them>> Why? The measurements at Mauna go back 50 years. <<Incorporating the Mona Loa data, opens the door to the distraction of debating the validity of Spencer's arguments about the source of increasing co2 production>> Are the first 20 years of their data wrong? Yes or No. <<It could be wrong, but since there is an observable trend in the past 30 years, after accounting for and removing certain known impacting factors, the preceding 20 years of data should not be necessary>> Can we go back 200 years? <<Perhaps, but it would depend on the specifics of available data sets and whether the available data points are limited to co2 concentration, see below in regards to ice core data generally>>
Here is data going back to 1832 that overlaps with Mauna Loa.... Do you think it is wrong? Do you think that they would know that since they can compare directly with ML data for 20 years or so? Here is the C02 paper going back to the Holocene. I am not familiar with the Law Dome data, I am assuming since it's from the same Antarctic as the Taylor Dome, that the following is not an issue with the data. "Ice-core CO2 measurements are direct measurements on air that has been enclosed in bubbles. The occurrence of artefacts in earlier ice core records mainly from Greenland drill sites [enrichment of CO2 due to chemical reactions in the ice; depletion of CO2 due to fractionation during clathrate formation (5)] can be avoided by careful sample selection. In the Taylor Dome ice core we found no indications of chemical reactions producing additional CO2, and no clathrates occur (3)." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1815.full It would have been both polite and thorough to document the precise methodology of “careful sample selection” in the paper, but this isn’t my primary concern with ice cores.
Here is my general beef with ice core data- The co2 reading is a single data point of the surface concentration of co2 at a given point in time. In order to establish causation instead of just correlation, then at a minimum, surface and atmospheric h20 concentration data for the same time period would be required. Returning to e=mc2 if one establishes that Near Infra red wavelengths of energy from the sun are removed in the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and converted to heat which is largely dissipated in the atmosphere by complex heat transfer processes including convection, then adds increasing co2 concentrations to e and increasing temperatures to mc2, then everything "looks" good one can jump to the conclusion that the rising co2 is the predominate cause of rising temperatures. The sentence in bold above was originally written, “Near Infra red wavelengths of energy from the sun are removed in the atmosphere by water and carbon dioxide and converted to heat which is largely dissipated in the atmosphere by complex heat transfer processes including convection”
Do you think this chart is correct? Yes or No? <<NO>>
The title is Global Carbon Emissions, and there is line labeled TOTAL.
Methane is both a fossil fuel and a contributor to carbon emissions
In addition to burning fossil fuels, both man and nature have a long and well documented history of burning biomass. To quote the Wikepedia article whose change log I find hilarious, "In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year" - IE A SINGLE LARGE SCALE WILDFIRE OF SIMILAR SCALE IN 1900 WOULD BE ~eyeballing~ 100%-400% of average annual carbon emissions, and prior to 1850 that fire would be- a shit ton of years of average carbon emissions.
Perhaps a better title for graphic would come from CDIAC and the title of the original historical study "Production of CO2 from Fossil Fuel Burning by Fuel Type, 1860-1982 (NDP-006)" http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ndps/ndp006.html
The PDF of NDP-006 unfortunately has NA as the gas flaring values for 1950-1982, going to the raw text; they do provide the actual data for 1950-1982. However, gas flaring has been standard industry safety practice since its inception, prior to 1950. Due to lack of infrastructure, low demand and low price, the percentage of total liquid and gas extracted that would have been flared should be higher the further in time back you go (at least to about Standard Oil's inception)
Natural Gas data for years prior to 1950 has not been converted from volume units to energy units
The changes to Carbon Coefficients and Oxidation Rates that are used in the calculations since the early 1980's would be good to look at, but since the chart is crap to begin with, I'll just save my time. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.1984.tb00245.x/pdf
----
"I don't know" is my more polite way of avoiding side debates that I feel are irrelevant to outcome. I could argue them either way, but it would merely be an exercise in rhetoric. There are things we agree on. There are things I agree with Arrhenius on, like "more co2 production is a GOOD thing" even though I don't think it will forestall the next ice age, much less raise the average temperature anywhere near to the degree proposed by those who wish to reduce co2 concentration in the atmosphere.
What I am trying to avoid is: Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist. My German is not as fluent as my English but I believe something is lost when translating Planck’s von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut as grows up that is familiar with it. Perhaps changing familiarity with to conditioning to would work better, or maybe my German just sucks…
Working through your line items. In the mean time two quick questions:
Do you agree that while the absorption spectra of C02 in the atmosphere is not identical to that of water vapor, the difference is one of degree, not of kind? YES or NO
Do you agree that if the atmospheric concentration of co2 were to drop to 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000% right now, that, ceteris paribus, the earth would get much hotter and much deader in short order?
I was reveiwing my correspondence this morning and across a link that I hadn't previously read but which does provide some insight into where I am coming from in this debate http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
In the interest of full disclosure, I do have some micro scale topsoil generation experiments in Virginia right now that I hope to expand/transfer to small scale on an under-utilized property in Brazil, if they succeed. However, if the Rubbish Nazi's in the UK spent even 1% of the amount they waste trying to reduce gross co2 output/production (or simply reduced their insane dozen or separate collections to simply 3 - (organic, recoverable fractions, and all other) then they could conduct macro scale experimentation at NO NET COST, and might be able to reduce their NET co2 production by more than 1%.
I have no desire to reply to multiple comments so It is all here:
-----
Your question is rather badly worded, so I will decline a yes/no answer. It would appear that you are trying to downplay C02. Here is my reply:
C02 and H20 are both green house gases. The majority of the greenhouse effect on earth is from water vapor, however, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is basically constant, it is in equilibrium. The amount of C02 in the atmosphere is rising, it is not in equilibrium. This is a consequence from the fact that that average time water vapor remains in in atmosphere is about 10 days, CH4 is about one decade, C02 is many centuries. Now if the temperature rises, then the atmosphere can hold more vapor, this is a feedback not a driver.
Here is the change in the Earths IR spectrum, Fig 1. that shows the change in the outgoing long wave spectrum from 1970 to 1996
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
The C02 signal is very clear...
The advanced version of this page is here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
Here is a breakdown of the radiative forcings
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
The data is taken from http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=sc05400j
-----
Yes, I agree that no C02 would be a bad thing. No, the earth would cool down, not warm up.
----
Do you agree that the range of C02 observed over most of the existence of H. Sapiens, i.e. a natural variation between ~200 and ~280 ppmv over the past 400,000 years is the correct range?
----
So you do not believe that C02 samples are being measured correctly? You talk about H20, that is a red herring. We are only talking about the C02 record not the temperature record back then.
Now, you agreed with the conclusions of FR2011 that the earth is warming 0.16 K per decade. What do you ascribe the observed rise in temperature?
-----
You do not believe the carbon contribution figure. Do you think that it is an overestimate or underestimate? Is it off by 5%? 10%, 100%? Is it just made up?
Have you ever propagated the measurement uncertainties in an analysis?? Do you understand what an error bar on a data point *really* means?
------
I am sorry, this is not a valid use of E=mc2, you are simply wrong. You are trying to deny that C02 is a green house gas or that it has no effect and your science is simply wrong. Have you ever taken Special Relativity where the origin and meaning of E=mc^2 is introduced??
I will therefore ignore all other writings and rightfully conclude that you are not qualified to have any strong opinion on the nature of GW/AGW. Unless you retract your unsubstantiated denial of the effect of C02....
I am sorry you lose the debate. In the future you will refrain from any comments here at the Hedge on GW/AGW unless you state that "I do not know". That is the price.
All you are doing is using weasel words, either you agree or disagree on the basic data like the ice core C02 data going back to 1832. If you disagree, you have to explain in a scientific manner what the problem is. You do understand that it is calibrated using the 20 year overlap with Mauna Lea?
You are caught in Catch-22, UR.....
PS The Dyson essay is cute, but there is no real discussion of the science, this is called handwaving. It is not science. It also is not relevant to our discussion. I do note that Dyson admits that C02 is causing warming, but it is not "Global" in his opinion.... Here is a quote from your link:
You do understand that once a scientific concensus is established, it is up to the people that don't believe it to come up with a testable theory that explains the data. The other side in the AGW debate has failed miserably.
I've given you 24 hours to correct or amend your post- that's more than enough time, and I have an early flight to catch in the morning, so the comments are now there for posterity.
First off. You quit. I didn't lose the debate. Only a <<fill in the blank>> throws his towel in ring, runs away, and then jumps and down screaming, "I won, I won." That's neither the way it works in the real world, nor the way it works in Fight Club"
As long as I'm spotting you points, and I am willing to write "I don't know" you are perfectly content to debate. As soon as I start to push back and point out the error in what you are presenting- you called it quits and said the debate is over.
You like to act as if your are smarter than you are, while I like to act as if I am dumber than I am.
I didn't look at your skeptical science after I got to the graphic, which is an outright fraud; the issues with drawing the image in that fashion have been publicly for years. If you actually have a PhD in physics, then you know why - if you can't figure it out then see my Spaceballs reference. www.skepticalscience.com-images-evidence_greenhouse.jpg After seeing the PhD comment earlier in the thread, I figured you wouldn't react well to my manipulation of Einstein, and I was right. That quote that you thought was poorly worded was actually from a spectroscopist (PhD, more patents submitted & approved then most others have research papers, and he's written a shit ton of those too) so I'm not going to judge his wording. The other spectroscopists I've conversed with share the opinion, and in addition to mind numbing discussions of Stephan-Boltzman, they share that the easiest place for a redneck industrialist to find the answers I sought is actually the R&D arm of real greenhouse manufacturers (but any large glass manufacturer will do).
"Yes, I agree that no C02 would be a bad thing. No, the earth would cool down, not warm up." Don't quit your day job, or switch scientific disciplines, since your answer would rank right up their with "evaporation is a warming process" to a chemist or geologist. But hey, you put it out there, and it reflects on your defense of the co2 Nazis.
Perhaps when I get back from touring one of the few places left where the song still goes "Then one day ... up through the ground came a bubblin crude" we can debate peak oil... or peak Cheap oil... or the relative impact and causation vs correlation of increasingly expensive supplies and the mad monetizations of ChairSatan and his counterparts vs the maneuverings of foreign ministries in locking up alliances for future supplies... I have to warn you though- I don't care if oil is abiotic or not, or what theory someone charged with finding new oil subscribes to, or what their good luck talisman is, or even if they're smoking hopium for inspiration- as long as the crude comes up, and the return on investment ceases being theoretical...
Regardless of the outcome, it’s good to debate, as opposed to the normal brain numbing shouting- even if in the end Planck was right. And thank you for bringing my attention to the Foster & Rahmstorf and Huber & Knutti papers.
Sorry... you lost. Do you want to start again.. Simple things first....
1) Do you think the C02 concentration is properly and correctly measured?
2) Up to how far back do you think the measurements are reliable?
I asked you about the Carbon graph, you said it was wrong, how wrong 5%, 10%?, 100%?
Look, you chicken out when asked very simple yes or no questions...
Your Dyson link has him even saying that warming from anthropogenic C02 exists but not "globally"
Do you want to continue??? Or are you throwing in the towel?