Global Warming is fake.

[Cthulhu]

****, I just closed the window with a lengthy post I was typing by accident... DAMMIT!

Anyway, I was going through the whole thread and analyzing the claims:

Solar cycles (fast summary of what I said) - we should observe trends on other planets, we see some that are warming, others that are cooling. They follow their own "Millankovitch Cycles", meaning that their tilt, wobble, up and down orbital oscilations, spyrograph-like movements around the sun, and the ovalness of their orbits are the major drivers behind their temperatures. There aren't any significant widespread temperature anomalies.

Sun spots and solar cycles - same thing. By the 1960s we had decent observatories. Sun spot cycles are consistent. Variations in intensity follow sunspot cycles on a period of roughly 10 years. There are sinusoidal variations over this period, but if you assigned an RMS line through them, there would not be a positive slope. Big things like starts are slow and don't change much on a human timescale. They either don't do much, or bombard everything with ionizing death rays for billions of years.

Next up was this paper from the Heartland institute. It starts out political, attacking the IPCC, don't care. It then talks about CO2 helping plants and people. Interesting that the paper mentions this... Anyway, here we go! It cites Fischer, et al! It states that warming precedes CO2. I am laughing at the citation!

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

It is difficult to end a stage of glaciation, while Milankovitch cycles play a part in periods of glaciation, so do feedbacks. In the case of a snowball earth scenario, ice albedo reflects most of the sunlight. Things want to stay frozen. We have to wait for things like volcanoes. There isn't much chemical weathering when everything is cold and icy, so we need volcanoes to outgas the CO2. We can expect CO2 to climb a lot, enough to overcome the ice albedo. Once the ice starts melting and the planet gets darker, you better believe we're going to see a pronounced climb in CO2 levels. Warm and wet periods, carbonate weathering big time. And another big contributor is methane outgassing, especially following a melt.

So based on what I said, we should expect that during a glaciation, there are long periods of constant CO2 if chemical processes aren't able to occur. Deglaciation in a severe snowball earth scenario is very dependent on volcanism increasing CO2, when it does, there is no chemical weathering to lower the CO2, so eventually, we see a high level of CO2 followed by a melt. After the melt, we see higher levels of CO2 as a period of RAPID weathering, methane outgassing, etc occurs.

We see this in the last ice age, the Wisconsian. The Pleistocene had a bunch of galciation cycles.

I agree, there are times when this pattern occurs, and it supports that the CO2 cycle isn't a one way street, but no one really ever made that claim. The CO2 cycle involves feedbacks and lag times. We aren't currently covered by a massive sheet of ice.






I've gotta pick and choose some points, this is pretty expansive and there are many things wrong with it.

Evidence of warming is not evidence that it's anthropogenic:
I agree, that isn't where you get the evidence from. The support comes from estimating how much CO2 we actually emit, have emitted in the past, and CO2 levels. We have evidence that higher levels of CO2 are due to anthropogenic carbon contributions.

A good way of knowing this is isotopic analysis, also. The fossil fuels we burn are older than 50K years, that means the radiocarbon is long gone. Look at isotope fractionation between 12C and 14C and you can backtrack anthropogenic CO2 confirmations and confirm that scientific estimates are accurate by this mean and consistent enough with other statistical estimates.








Screw hockey stick diagram, screw glaciations, talked about that, ok, here's one:

CO2 and temp correlation is weak:

No it isn't. You can't keep looking at ice age feedbacks. Look at time periods where we have accumulation of ice. CO2 is a paleothermometer. Leaf margin determined temperatures and stomatal indecies match ice core data perfectly. So do isotopic records. This is such horse**** it pisses me off.







Computer models don't provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming:

you can't attack GMST data vs satalite data without understanding the relationship between heatflow and temperature, and emissivity. Energy models are what count. Temperature, while commonly used, is a tricky beast. You would freeze your ass off in the thermosphere. It's 4500 degrees F, but low pressure. Energy distribution and heatflow are the things to keep track of. This is going to sound incorrect, but temperature alone plays a very small role in modeling. Energy and heatflow are the things we care about.

I think a longer time scale is necessary to establish STRONG trends. Exact temperature data is prone to a lot of variation while heatflow really isnt. Ocean temperatures and ice melt is less prone to falsehood. Borehole temperatures are great too. Get what I'm saying? We need natural buffers and natural averaging. There is always error, but we have really clever ways of getting rid of it. Yeah... go borehole thermometry. Geophysics, holla.





I'm getting tired and scrolling now... there's other things to comment on still


Oh, and I read what the paper had to say about ocean temperatures. Ocean stratification exists, I don't want to get into a long lecture on ocean currents, ocean strata, the photic zone, or anything else right now.

1. Computer models do not consider solar dimming and brightening.
2. Computer models do not accurately model the role of clouds.
3. Computer models do not simulate a possible negative feedback from water vapor.
4. Computer models do not explain many features of the Earth's observed climate.
5. Computer models cannot produce reliable predictions of regional climate change.

1 - Some older models don't for a good reason. There isn't a net change. Some newer analytical models certainly vary insolation in a cyclic manner, but these changes are short timescale. They don't generally model day/night fluctuations either. We aren't interested in such a high resolution and short timescale. Maybe if we wanted to model a week of surface temp or something...

2 - I beg to differ. This is a tough arguement, because it depends on our purposes. I think part of the counterpoint is that we do not need to model individual streams of smoke from a match head in a tin can if it's all going to be a fog if we close the can and leave it there for an hour. Imagine taking a time lapse photo of the world over the course or a year or two. Get what I'm saying?

3 - They absolutely, positively, 100% do. The water cycle matters tremendously. Cloud cover does have a dependence on average temperature, and it is modeled. It has to be, it's a significant, albedo changing feedback. At the current time, this is just misinformation.

4 - This is a little fuzzy. I'll agree. They either don't need to, or lack the spacial resolution and computing power to do so. It's easy to form a model with larger resolution steps. I think it's important to realize that we can model things like the gulf stream and the timing of ENSO/LNSO cycles (~7 yrs).

5 - This is too vague, if you can elaborate, I can answer. At worst, we predict the poles, tropics, equator... I'd say we're good for every 15 degrees. Just think about how you can go too far with spatial resolution. I don't need to model grains of sand in hydrogeology. If I could, results would be amazing, but if I'm off by a 2E-24, it might screw up.






Ok, skeptics guide, 4 points:

1 - hot spots? Atmospheric mixing is quick, it's not like we're talking about the ozone layer. We're talking loooow, high pressure, lots of circulation. I woulnd't expect a hot spot. Oceans circulate on an order of 1000 years, we certainly see hot spots there.

2 - Ice cores have not been turned inside out, and it doesn't take 800 years to stratify gasses. Pointing out CO2 increasing after ice melts doesn't count either.

3 - temperatures arent rising? Since the industrial revolution? Really? What about ocean temperatures, how do you explain that type of mass heatflow?

4 - CO2 isn't doing all the warming it can do. Saying that the skin of a layer of CO2 does all the warming is idiotic. That isn't how atoms and photons work. Think about probability. This point is especially frustrating to me. It makes no sense logically.

Funny point about the air conditioners. If you think there's too much noise in the data, I AGREE. Borehole thermometers RULE!






Next, a short political article. Don't care... I've been typing for too long already.

Next, more politics. Politics suck when it comes to science. Individuals speaking out against GCC shouldn't be crying to the media. I could point out all the errors in Milankovitch vs. observed temperature. It doesn't make physics wrong.

Attacks against GISS. Inflating temperature? I already told you how I feel about this attack. Cite me something REAL. Manipulating scientific data is a very, very serious aligation.

Is the surface temperature record reliable? I wouldn't be comfortable holding it under a microscope. I like the huge record of our past, that I've studied intimately, a lot better. People are oblivious to the scope of available data about our past. Knowing what we know about physics, though, I think that theoretical calculations also hold a lot of weight. I also think that something like CO2 levels and albedo are not as complicated to model as everyone thinks. We can use natural scientific observations in modeling, because we have to. While it doesn't always provide a 100% pristine record, it does span a very long period of time, often not in the time resolution we'd like it to. Ice cores really are an excellent record. It's sometimes tough to reconcile anomalies in ice, or in rocks. For example, we often have to figure out when we eroded 300,000 years of rock! How long did it take? At what time did it start to happen? Where did it get dumped? Why did it happen? Structural geology is the same type of thing.

We are constantly learning more and more through explaining away anomalies. I think that some individuals are preaching a political agenda by pointing out and exaggerating anomalies to make a whole theory seem incorrect. And that's all I have to say about that...


O_O

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by MikeRoberts44

I don't know if you have noticed, but Cthulhu said he likes Wikipedia, and it was quick and easy. If you have a peer reviewed journal definition of a scientific theory, I will be happy to use it.

Incidentally, you seem to be a bit out of date. Wikipedia has improved dramatically in the last couple of years. If you are not usinig it, you are missing out! I would not use it on something controversial without backup, but you might want to check it out.

And thanks, Mike. I don't just like Wikipedia, I love it. I did notice a phenomenon during research at PSU, though:

as you delve deeper and deeper into science, the red underlines in your microsoft word documents increase in a hockey stick like curve , the ability to find accurate information on wikipedia also decreases exponentially.

There are times when a signle individual make a wikipedia page and it is really bad. My dad has come across this in telecom and now wants to start a few wiki pages up, and contribute to the community. I really love how well maintained mainstream information has become. Wikipedia is so awesome sometimes. I've spent many a day following links and reading about stuff. It tends to be confusing for mathematical concepts, but tells me what book I want to buy.

For most of these general concepts in geoscience (yes, they are very, very general), wikipedia is a fast dirty way of summarizing accurate information. If you want to check it, just read the sources. Always check numbers to make sure they're reflected in the primary source document. I read something that said millions and millions died in a chinese river flood. LOL. I always thoroughly read an article before I post it, or else I'm partially responsible for distributing information that I don't agree with or that I haven't checked.

[MikeRoberts44]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

And thanks, Mike. I don't just like Wikipedia, I love it. I did notice a phenomenon during research at PSU, though:

as you delve deeper and deeper into science, the red underlines in your microsoft word documents increase in a hockey stick like curve , the ability to find accurate information on wikipedia also decreases exponentially.

There are times when a signle individual make a wikipedia page and it is really bad. My dad has come across this in telecom and now wants to start a few wiki pages up, and contribute to the community. I really love how well maintained mainstream information has become. Wikipedia is so awesome sometimes. I've spent many a day following links and reading about stuff. It tends to be confusing for mathematical concepts, but tells me what book I want to buy.

For most of these general concepts in geoscience (yes, they are very, very general), wikipedia is a fast dirty way of summarizing accurate information. If you want to check it, just read the sources. Always check numbers to make sure they're reflected in the primary source document. I read something that said millions and millions died in a chinese river flood. LOL. I always thoroughly read an article before I post it, or else I'm partially responsible for distributing information that I don't agree with or that I haven't checked.

We ARE pretty much in agreement on this one!

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

****, I just closed the window with a lengthy post I was typing by accident... DAMMIT!

I have done that some many times I have lost count! The last time, I actually deleted an hour or so of typing. My new rule is "If it's more lines than you care to lose, copy it into Word, do the typing there, then copy and paste back." That also helps with spelling and typos. I am a terrible speller and make a lot of typos, but I hate making my arguement look stupid because of them. It also helps with the scrolling around by providing a second window, though there are other ways to do that.

I think you have mixed a few references (of mine) in your posts. For example, Willie Soon did not write the paper with his son, but with the Robinson father/son team. There are some others, but it will take some time to sort through them. I doubt that they have any serious impact on your points and I will chalk them up to an extended session.

I look forward to you finding your prior email response to the paper.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by MikeRoberts44

I have done that some many times I have lost count! The last time, I actually deleted an hour or so of typing. My new rule is "If it's more lines than you care to lose, copy it into Word, do the typing there, then copy and paste back." That also helps with spelling and typos. I am a terrible speller and make a lot of typos, but I hate making my arguement look stupid because of them. It also helps with the scrolling around by providing a second window, though there are other ways to do that.

+1 That's also my SOP. I compose my posts in Word then I spell check, grammar check, proof read and then post.

I've read your posts and Cthulhu's posts. The debate about global warming will continue to be waged for some time to come. What I'm more concerned about is the bogus fix that our government is proposing, i.e. Cap and Trade. This amounts to another power/money grab by the government. Even if GW is real the proposed fix by the government will only impoverish the USA and will have little or no effect on the climate.

[MikeRoberts44]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

+1 That's also my SOP. I compose my posts in Word then I spell check, grammar check, proof read and then post.

I've read your posts and Cthulhu's posts. The debate about global warming will continue to be waged for some time to come. What I'm more concerned about is the bogus fix that our government is proposing, i.e. Cap and Trade. This amounts to another power/money grab by the government. Even if GW is real the proposed fix by the government will only impoverish the USA and will have little or no effect on the climate.

Of course, I agree with you on Cap and Trade. We had a similar situation with Kyoto. Lot's of dollars flowing out of our economy toward the third world. That's not all bad, but it would not have helped GW much even it the theory was correct.

I said before that I think we are coming to the end of the debate, though I obviously have not convinced Cthulhu yet. My son sent me Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist today. Looks to me like reasons 5 and 6 that GW theory is wrong. It is a pretty recent article, so it is probably premature to expect decent rebuttals. Of course, there will always be the Lindzen is the paid operative of Exxon type of thing.

[MikeRoberts44]

I finally got a few minutes to address some of your last couple of posts. I will try to leave most of my comments on your comments on Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide until you have a chance to post your email.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Let's just say that the Soon and his son are not very credible coauthors, …

I have already mentioned Arthur Robinson and Noah Robinson are father and son. They co-authored the paper with Willie Soon. Willie Soon has a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California. He is a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory. Arthur and Noah Robinson are also Ph.D.s, I believe both from Cal Tech. They are in medical research. I will admit that when Arthur Robinson took over “Access to Energy” (see below) at the request of dying founder Dr. Petr Beckmann’s request I questioned whether a medical researcher could do the job. I have since been very impressed with his competence in energy.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

You wanna talk politics?

That paper is an advertizement for nuclear energy if you haven't noticed.

Nuclear energy isn't a feasible alternative, the numbers don't work if you figure out how much nuclear material we can obtain, the energy it takes to process, and the efficiency of energy conversion. It can't power the world. I'll dig up the longer response later.

Lol. 59% Nuclear. This paper has me pissed off again, I wish I didn't have to run back to PSU this weekend so I could go asearching through my old Outlook PST.

Are talking about THIS paper being an advertisement for nuclear energy? They mention it starting on page 10 of 12 as being a cost effective alternative to other forms of energy and a way to become less dependent on foreign energy, but it was anything but the dominant theme of the paper . The newsletter that Arthur Robinson publishes Access to Energy is certainly pro nuclear. I would certainly argue that we need a lot more nuclear power. If GW theory is correct, nuclear is the only way to significantly reduce carbon dioxide. But that discussion probably belongs in another thread.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

The IPCC is NOT an oranization with a political agenda, they are a panel of atmospheric scientists with the purpose of analyzing and quantifying the impact of human CO2 emissions. They could have said: while CO2 emissions are high, don't worry about it, we'll experience a little something when we're really cranking out CO2, but it will fix itself over about 10 years! We'd all be happy, and they'd look good. Instead, they made a prediction that has very severe economic ramifications, and they KNEW that they had to be completely sure of the science behind it.

Let's stop talking about political agendas. I'll repost a response the all of the science related things you mentioned.

IPCC is a political organization! You can argue that they do not have a political agenda, and you may be right. But I have to ask again … if they had said “don’t worry about it” would they still be in existence? Name me a single government agency anywhere that has ceased to exist because there was no longer a need for their agency. I don’t know how to avoid political agendas when there are so many of them on both sides. The facts and data are most important, but political agendas are there and we need to be aware of that.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Next up was this paper from the Heartland institute. It starts out political, attacking the IPCC, don't care. It then talks about CO2 helping plants and people. Interesting that the paper mentions this... Anyway, here we go! It cites Fischer, et al! It states that warming precedes CO2. I am laughing at the citation!

and the quote

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

You’ve lost me on this one. I don’t think it was from the Heartland Institute, but I can’t find the quote.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

A good way of knowing this is isotopic analysis, also. The fossil fuels we burn are older than 50K years, that means the radiocarbon is long gone. Look at isotope fractionation between 12C and 14C and you can backtrack anthropogenic CO2 confirmations and confirm that scientific estimates are accurate by this mean and consistent enough with other statistical estimates.

I haven’t seen this in any of the GW arguments. Can you tell me where to look?

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Attacks against GISS. Inflating temperature? I already told you how I feel about this attack. Cite me something REAL. Manipulating scientific data is a very, very serious aligation.

Yes, it is! The 2007 case was supposedly a Y2K error. The problem was GISS would not share their algorithm. It required a statistical analysis to find it. After it was pointed out GISS fixed their data with no comment. The 2008 case turned out that there was a lot of missing data from Russia. GISS filed in with data from the previous (warmer) month. When it was again pointed out, GISS again fixed the Russia data, but increased the temperatures slightly for much of the rest of the world. I still have not seen the reasoning behind that. The WSJ article is not about data, but still about trying to suppress an internal NASA report suggesting that the agency’s position might be wrong. Hansen may have a good explanation for all this but it has not been forthcoming.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Is the surface temperature record reliable?

The surface temperature record problem is not evidence for or against GW. It does suggest we may have even less of a problem with warming than we thought.

[ezmoney]

Cap and Trade: The Permanent Recession
"If you want to know what cap and trade will to do our economy, we’re living it. According to new data released from the Energy Information Administrations, United States carbon dioxide emissions are down 9% since 2007. The calculation compares the emissions of coal, petroleum and natural gas in the first five months to the emissions of the first five months in 2009.

The current recession means people are driving less, people are flying less, and companies are pumping out less carbon dioxide because people are simply buying less. The trade off for reduced carbon dioxide emissions is reduced economic activity – or an economy operating well under its potential. In fact, The Heritage Foundation analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill reduce economic activity by $9.4 trillion inflation adjusted dollars for the years 2012-2035, the years for which Heritage modeled the bill. What’s worse, the trade off for all this economic pain is very little environmental gain, as climatologists predict the bill will have negligible effects on global temperature.


Waxman-Markey will deepen and prolong future recessions and weaken future recoveries. The goal of cap and trade is to drive up energy prices so high people will use less energy, but even after reduced consumption, people still need to drive their cars and turn on their lights at home. All cap and trade does is force people to spend more on their energy bills. These higher energy prices result in a slower economy, which means less production, higher unemployment, and reduced income."

Cap and Trade: The Permanent Recession The Foundry

[Cthulhu]

Here's the email response I dug up. Less than I thought, but covers some more things I noted:

I question the lack of citations concerning global hydrocarbon usage, namely the validity and correlation of this data. The industrial revolution began at the end of the 18th century, and if I recall, the peppered moths around London had all turned black by around 1850 (everything was covered in black carbon residue from coal burning). Also, this publication comes from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, and Arthur B. Robinson (first listed author), a geographer, was born in 1915 and died 3 years prior to the publication of this article. Noah E. Robinson, his son, has a medical doctorate, it would seem. The other guy, Willie Soon, is a renowned astrophycisist who has long held the belief that variations in insolation are responsible for climate variations.

I would tend to side with the mainstream view of the nobel winning International Panel on Climate Control, and the research of countless meteorologists and geoscientists. According to most models, which include sun spot cycles, milankovitch cycles, and a huge web of interconnected fluxes and stores, the only plausible thing that could cause a 3 degree climate shift on a human timescale is a massive sea floor slump (or a giant meteor, if you'd consider that plausible). If such a slump were to occur, it would release a large amount of sequestered methane gas (CH4) that would rapidly convert to CO2 in our atmosphere. It would also have a pretty big lag time (CO2 affects climate on a 1000 year timescale and can be restored to carbonate equilibrium on a 10,000 year timescale).

I think it's kind of interesting how these oddball scientific research articles from questionable sources turn up every so often. Too bad I haven't seen any of Hiroshi Akashi's research circulating the internet. He's an isotopes researcher at Penn State who has an oddball theory on the rise of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere.

It's become pretty mainstream curriculum in the geosciences to create climate models with programs such as STELLA:

Energy Balance Climate Model: Stella Mac and PC

At Penn State, we messed around plenty with the feedbacks, varying coefficients to the extremes of their error bars, accounting for radiogenic heating within the earth, and altering the variation in insolation to extremes. The conclusion was that nothing mattered much compared to the existing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the continuing CO2 flux into the system. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 right now, we would heat up pretty fast in the next 1000 years. Everything in climate modeling has huge lag times, and also a bit of uncertainty, but I don't think we've come close to seeing the real effects of the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I think all of the questions of "what about this variable" are best answered by comprehensive models. It's tough to weigh the affects of a single input unless you know its place in a larger system. It goes without saying that you must adjust for all uncertainty, but when you multiply a coefficient by 10, or 100, or 1000, and it really doesn't affect the system much, you can stop caring about it. Insolation from the sun remains very constant and doesn't matter. The whole thing about sun spots is bunk. It's already been played with in climate models. If you can't demonstrate your data in the context of a peer reviewed model, it doesn't count for much in my books.

As a final note, Schlumberger has a neat little applet and GUI to play with, but I haven't gotten the chance to:

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/wa.../challenge.htm

One of Schlumberger's primary interests is in finding hydrocarbons, and they're a pretty big company.

[Cthulhu]

"The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false."

You've got to be fing kidding me.




I'll read this when I feel like ripping my hair out again. Just got back from PSU a while ago.

Richard Lindzen is a very reputable guy, but I would advise you read his source documentation rather than blatantly bias documents that quote him. He has some interesting insights about atmospheric effects.

Again, though, READ what he says: http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf

but the primary characteristic
of such climate change would be the change in
equator-to-pole temperature difference.

He's pretty much stating that we should see a loss in temperature differential between the poles and the equator rather than a large increase in mean global temperature. THAT'S REALLY BAD! Also, a lot of what he is saying applies to the tropics and hadley cells.

See if you can get through the source document, it's pretty technical. You'll certainly see that he acknowledges a lot of the things that you don't. There are a lot of finicky things in GSM models. I like the simpler models at lower temporal resolutions (larger time steps). He is not saying that global climate change does not exist, far, far from it.

At this point, if you hold no weight to my opinion on the matter, I feel like there is no point in posting anything else on the matter. I think that the counterpoints to global climate change are greatly exaggerated by a few people here. I also think that I have a pretty good grasp on this issue. Are you all completely ignoring all the melting ice? The increased severity of storms? The fact that when a good scientist gets represented as "anti climate change" it's taken out of context? The documents being referenced here spout trash!

"absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false."

How can you read anything after that statement? Mike, I find it hard to believe that you would agree 100% with that statement. Read the source document from the MIT professor and tell me if it supports that quote...

[Cthulhu]

Oh, and that quote you couldn't find was from Fischer, the source document. It's another example of someone misusing a citation. That was my point.

It really pisses me off when hardworking researchers get cited by someone like this. It seems academically dishonest to me. There were times that I wanted to grab a citation to support my argument, and it really didn't work well. After I read it over a few times, it got scrapped from my paper.

Not only is it dishonest to misrepresent a citation, it destroys the author's credibility. When I look at some of these links and actually read what the scientists are saying, it doesn't support what the author is saying. This happens in interviews on the news too and it's ****ty.

Mike, I don't think you're a dishonest guy or I wouldn't be carrying on the conversation. I think you're just trying to evaluate the evidence on the other side of the issue, after all, skepticism is good. I really advise you to be skeptical of the skeptics. Read the source documents they cite, and don't be so keen to trust anyone that says they absolutely disproved something.

It is nearly impossible to disprove something.


P.S.
I briefly searched for a paper on quantifying anthropogenic CO2 through isotopic carbon fractionation. It is difficult to find non-technical articles about isotopic fractionation, so let me know if you don't understand any of it and I'll try to help. FYI - a percent symbol with an extra circle means "per mil". A percent is per hundred, a per mil is per thousand. I wish I could find some of the ones that are more thorough. Search for "12C 14C isotopic fractionation anthropogenic" and things like that.

ScienceDirect - Physics and Chemistry of The Earth : Isotopic characterisation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions using isotopic and radiocarbon analysis

Abstract:
At the station Kollumerwaard (Netherlands), for monitoring tracers in the troposphere, air is sampled in sixteen containers for off-line 13C, 18O and 14C isotopic analysis of CO2. The timing of the sampling is chosen such that CO2 variations correlating with pollutants like CO and CH4 are optimally covered. The 14C measurements enable us to discriminate between biospheric and fossil fuel contributions to background atmosphere CO2. Results during the first year of operation show that the δ13C values for the anthropogenic CO2 are significantly more negative than generally assumed (values ranging from -30 to -58 ‰ VPDB), which clearly indicates the importance of natural gas consumption in the Netherlands. We compare these experimental values with results from a detailed study of CO2 emission estimates from combustion of fossil fuels and the corresponding δ13C values. As an important side result, the method produces reliable values for the regionally averaged ratio CO : fossil CO2 (results ranging from 0.5 to 1%), a direct measure for combustion quality.

As you can see, the above article abstract only touches on the topic I mentioned. I'll keep my eyes open for something better. Isotopic fractionation is pretty cool though, right?

[Cthulhu]

Title:
The Stable Isotopic Composition of Atmospheric CO2
Authors:
Yakir, D.
Publication:
Treatise on Geochemistry, Volume 4. Editor: Ralph F. Keeling. Executive Editors: Heinrich D. Holland and Karl K. Turekian. pp. 347. ISBN 0-08-043751-6. Elsevier, 2003., p.175-212
Publication Date:
12/2003
Origin:
ELSEVIER
DOI:
10.1016/B0-08-043751-6/04038-X
Bibliographic Code:
2003TrGeo...4..175Y

Abstract
When a bean leaf was sealed in a closed chamber under a lamp (Rooney, 1988), in two hours the atmospheric CO2 in the microcosm reached an isotopic steady state with a 13C abundance astonishingly similar to the global mean value of atmospheric CO2 at that time (-7.5‰ in the δ13C notation introduced below). Almost concurrently, another research group sealed a suspension of asparagus cells in a different type of microcosm in which within about two hours the atmospheric O2 reached an isotopic steady state with 18O enrichment relative to water in the microcosm that was, too, remarkably similar to the global-scale offset between atmospheric O2 and mean ocean water (21‰ versus 23.5‰ in the δ18O notation introduced below; Guy et al., 1987). These classic experiments capture some of the foundations underlying the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 and O2. First, in both cases the biological system rapidly imposed a unique isotopic value on the microcosms' atmosphere via their massive photosynthetic and respiratory exchange of CO2 and O2. Second, in both cases the biological system acted on materials with isotopic signals previously formed by the global carbon and hydrological cycles. That is, the bean leaf introduced its previously formed organic matter (the source of the CO2 respired into microcosm's atmosphere), and the asparagus cells were introduced complete with local tap water (from which photosynthesis released molecular oxygen). Therefore, while the isotopic composition of the biological system used was slave to long-term processes, intense metabolic processes centered on few specific enzymes (Yakir, 2002) dictated the short-term atmospheric composition.In a similar vein, on geological timescales of millions of years, the atmosphere and its isotopic composition are integral parts of essentially a single dynamic ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system. This dynamic system exchanges material, such as carbon and oxygen, with the sediments and the lithosphere via slow processes that roughly follow the cycle of: weathering of rock and carbon uptake from the atmosphere, transport to the ocean, sedimentation, plate tectonics, metamorphism, and volcanism - leading to carbon release back to the atmosphere. But on a shorter timescale of years to millennia, the very slow geological processes retreat to the background, against which other massive fluxes control the rapid exchange of carbon and oxygen within the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system. It is this timescale that is relevant to the well-being of our human society, and is a major focus in much of the research on the carbon cycle.Isotopes were discovered in 1911 (Urey, 1948) and the implications of isotopic substitution in chemical reactions were realized sometime later ( Bigeleisen, 1965). In practice, the use of stable isotopes in geochemistry and biogeochemistry (e.g., Craig, 1953, 1954) awaited the development of the isotope ratio mass spectrometer ( McKinney et al., 1950; Nier, 1947) that provided the necessary precision. Over the 50 years following this breakthrough, the application of stable isotopes has made tremendous progress in the scope of applications, as well as in the resolution and precision of the measurements. The carbon isotopic composition of rocks and sediments was measured intensively since the early 1950s ( Hoefs, 1987). Isotope hydrology caught up quickly ( Clark and Fritz, 1997), followed by the application of stable isotopes in biology and ecology ( Rundel et al., 1988; Griffiths, 1998; Ehleringer et al., 1992). Today, stable isotope measurements have become an indispensable and integral part of atmospheric measurement programs (e.g., Francey et al., 2001; Masarie et al., 2001; Trolier et al., 1996). Efforts to develop analytical and numerical models that incorporate the cycling of stable isotopes in CO2 expanded in parallel (e.g., Bolin, 1981; Ciais et al., 1997a, b; Enting et al., 1995). Recently, the consideration of mass-independent isotope phenomena in nature ( Thiemens, 1999; see Chapter 4.06, and of triple stable isotopes in geochemistry (e.g., Blunier et al., 2002; Luz et al., 1999; Luz and Barkan, 2000) greatly extended the potential of stable isotope applications.The chemical and isotopic composition of the atmosphere has drawn particular attention in climate-related research both because it is the most accessible component in the tightly coupled land-ocean-atmosphere system, and because the chemical composition of the atmosphere influences climate, particularly via the concentrations of the radiatively active greenhouse gases, such as CO2, O3, CH4, N2O, and water vapor. Information obtained by measurements of the atmospheric concentration of these gases alone is limited; the additional measurements of the stable isotopic composition provide information that cannot be obtained otherwise. Isotopic fractionations during chemical, physical, and biological process in the ocean, land, and the atmosphere result in unique natural labels. Tracing these labels in time and space allows us both to identify specific fluxes of these gases, and to gain insights into the processes influencing the observed fluxes. Quantitative use of 18O and 13C in CO2 must rely on precise observations, on experimentation addressing the isotope effects underlying these observations, and on modeling that tests basic assumptions and extends applications beyond our measuring capabilities. Progress is still needed on all of these fronts. But the importance of this still developing science of stable isotopes in environmental research is indisputable.

The Stable Isotopic Composition of Atmospheric CO2

That abstract cites a few other works on isotopes -

Today, stable isotope measurements have become an indispensable and integral part of atmospheric measurement programs (e.g., Francey et al., 2001; Masarie et al., 2001; Trolier et al., 1996). Efforts to develop analytical and numerical models that incorporate the cycling of stable isotopes in CO2 expanded in parallel (e.g., Bolin, 1981; Ciais et al., 1997a, b; Enting et al., 1995).

See if you can't dig those papers up. If you find abstracts but can't access the article, let me know. I can probably get you PDFs for your personal use.

[MikeRoberts44]

I'm doing this one first because it looks to be quicker to address than the others. You are prolific!

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

"The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false."

You've got to be fing kidding me.




I'll read this when I feel like ripping my hair out again. Just got back from PSU a while ago.

Richard Lindzen is a very reputable guy, but I would advise you read his source documentation rather than blatantly bias documents that quote him. He has some interesting insights about atmospheric effects.

I agree that the SPPI link was more than a little extreme. Real science is not that positive about anything. I was not happy with the tone when I linked it, but, at the time, it was all I had on the new study. I will try not to do that again. I apologize! With a little more effort, I was able to come up with Climate Sensitivity Estimates: Heading Down, Way Down? (Richard Lindzen’s New Paper) — MasterResource . I think you will agree that the tone is much more civilized. The extra effort was productive in more ways than one. MasterResource looks like a very good source that I intend to spend more time with.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Again, though, READ what he says: http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf

This link is to a paper written in 2000 and published in 2001. While it is certainly related, the new study is “soon to be published (Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union).

[JoshS]

Guys, it just doesn't matter. Within one millionth of a heatbeat in the earth's existance, oil will be gone, perhaps replaced by vegatable oil, or maybe other forms of energy, and if the doomsayers are right, the Ocean will rise (slowly) and shrink the land a bit. And, the cultavatable land will move north. And, some cities will shrink, and some will grow. And, maybe many people will starve, and maybe we'll figure how to desalinate the ocean and feed people cheaply. And, people will eat at the New Starbucks, and China will be the next superpower, and little baby fishies and birdies will become extinct and life goes on.
The only definates are death, taxes, and Arabs fighting themselves and Israel.

Just do the best for yourself and your family, what man does bad or good might seem controllable and planned but it is just a natural part of evolution.

[MikeRoberts44]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Here's the email response I dug up. Less than I thought, but covers some more things I noted:

I question the lack of citations concerning global hydrocarbon usage, namely the validity and correlation of this data. The industrial revolution began at the end of the 18th century, and if I recall, the peppered moths around London had all turned black by around 1850 (everything was covered in black carbon residue from coal burning). Also, this publication comes from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, and Arthur B. Robinson (first listed author), a geographer, was born in 1915 and died 3 years prior to the publication of this article. Noah E. Robinson, his son, has a medical doctorate, it would seem. The other guy, Willie Soon, is a renowned astrophycisist who has long held the belief that variations in insolation are responsible for climate variations.

First, the Geographer Arthur Robinson that died in 2004 was Arthur H. Robinson. Arthur B. Robinson, the lead author of this paper, is alive and well. His doctorate is in Chemistry from Cal Tech.

You are correct about coal use in the 19th century and the peppered moth around London. Two figures on the first page of the article show growing coal use through the 19th Century. I’m not sure what you would expect?

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I would tend to side with the mainstream view of the nobel winning International Panel on Climate Control, and the research of countless meteorologists and geoscientists. According to most models, which include sun spot cycles, milankovitch cycles, and a huge web of interconnected fluxes and stores, the only plausible thing that could cause a 3 degree climate shift on a human timescale is a massive sea floor slump (or a giant meteor, if you'd consider that plausible). If such a slump were to occur, it would release a large amount of sequestered methane gas (CH4) that would rapidly convert to CO2 in our atmosphere. It would also have a pretty big lag time (CO2 affects climate on a 1000 year timescale and can be restored to carbonate equilibrium on a 10,000 year timescale).

I think one of the key things in the paper is the correlation between solar activity and global temperature. Certainly Milankovitch cycles are known and reasonably predictable. Sun spot activity occurs on an 11 year cycle, but solar output change seems to be much less predictable. During the Maunder Minimum, almost no sun spots occurred over a 30 year period. Is this cyclical? Can we predict it? I don’t think we know, but it seems to correspond to a cool period on the earth. Temperatures have been rising since.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu;1348071It's become pretty mainstream curriculum in the geosciences to create climate models with programs such as STELLA:

[url=http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/mathstatmodels/examples/GEBM1.html

Energy Balance Climate Model: Stella Mac and PC[/url]

At Penn State, we messed around plenty with the feedbacks, varying coefficients to the extremes of their error bars, accounting for radiogenic heating within the earth, and altering the variation in insolation to extremes. The conclusion was that nothing mattered much compared to the existing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the continuing CO2 flux into the system. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 right now, we would heat up pretty fast in the next 1000 years. Everything in climate modeling has huge lag times, and also a bit of uncertainty, but I don't think we've come close to seeing the real effects of the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I think all of the questions of "what about this variable" are best answered by comprehensive models. It's tough to weigh the affects of a single input unless you know its place in a larger system. It goes without saying that you must adjust for all uncertainty, but when you multiply a coefficient by 10, or 100, or 1000, and it really doesn't affect the system much, you can stop caring about it. Insolation from the sun remains very constant and doesn't matter. The whole thing about sun spots is bunk. It's already been played with in climate models. If you can't demonstrate your data in the context of a peer reviewed model, it doesn't count for much in my books.

Do the models (STELLA) include a variable for a Maunder Minimum?

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by JoshS

Guys, it just doesn't matter. Within one millionth of a heatbeat in the earth's existance, oil will be gone, perhaps replaced by vegatable oil, or maybe other forms of energy, and if the doomsayers are right, the Ocean will rise (slowly) and shrink the land a bit. And, the cultavatable land will move north. And, some cities will shrink, and some will grow. And, maybe many people will starve, and maybe we'll figure how to desalinate the ocean and feed people cheaply. And, people will eat at the New Starbucks, and China will be the next superpower, and little baby fishies and birdies will become extinct and life goes on.
The only definates are death, taxes, and Arabs fighting themselves and Israel.

Just do the best for yourself and your family, what man does bad or good might seem controllable and planned but it is just a natural part of evolution.

Doesn't that freak you out a little? Burning all of the carbon that other organisms have sequestered throughout geologic time and waiting for the world to change? It's funny that you also mention vegetable oil. Combustion of hydrocarbons creates CO2, and you don't seem to realize that vegetable oil would contribute to the problem as well. It seems rather short sighted to consider other species becoming extinct, but not humans. I think that in actuality, we do have the capability to fix the problem through the undertaking of massive geoengineering projects. If our predictions are correct, we may be doing some big time global engineering. I think that a solid understanding of global climate is integral to our long term survival as a species. There are always wild cards, but such understanding and global engineering isn't in vain when we get smashed by a giant asteroid, nuke the world, die from viruses, get blasted by space radiation, or frozen/burned out by the sun.

I agree with your underlying message: enjoy life and do the best you can. I think it is the job of scientists to act for the greater good of man and ensure that our planet can continue to sustain life for as long as possible. It is only in using all of our cognitive abilities to sustain a livable environment that we are doing the best we can.

I don't think this is that big a deal. I think people with Teslas enjoy life more than people with SUVs anyway. If I get to drive a Formula 1 car some day, I think I'll be able to rationalize living with alternate energy. I'd also rather spend tax money sequestering CO2 than paying for other people's health care... Maybe it's because I don't really like most people. I wouldn't mind paying for replacement voice box speakers for Stephen Hawking though... That would be ok.

I'm not sure how I feel about preserving the world we have vs. doing whatever we can to ensure the survival of the human race. I don't think we have to choose one or the other, I think they kind of go hand in hand. This is a "pick up your trash" issue. You can say "I didn't throw that", or "The world is a big place", but it's ****ty once you realize that it was YOU who got wasted and emptied your garbage can on the front lawn.

And no. That isn't an analogy.

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by MikeRoberts44

First, the Geographer Arthur Robinson that died in 2004 was Arthur H. Robinson. Arthur B. Robinson, the lead author of this paper, is alive and well. His doctorate is in Chemistry from Cal Tech.

You are correct about coal use in the 19th century and the peppered moth around London. Two figures on the first page of the article show growing coal use through the 19th Century. I’m not sure what you would expect?


I think one of the key things in the paper is the correlation between solar activity and global temperature. Certainly Milankovitch cycles are known and reasonably predictable. Sun spot activity occurs on an 11 year cycle, but solar output change seems to be much less predictable. During the Maunder Minimum, almost no sun spots occurred over a 30 year period. Is this cyclical? Can we predict it? I don’t think we know, but it seems to correspond to a cool period on the earth. Temperatures have been rising since.


Do the models (STELLA) include a variable for a Maunder Minimum?

There have been a bunch of longer minimums, not just the Maunder. I can't say the STELLA model I used accounted for the Maunder, or that I thought there was a need to. We are talking about present time and onward, there is no reason to introduce a periodic anomally that may no be so predictable and periodic. It is also best not to include nuclear wars in your climate model. There is no point in introducing speculation into a model because unpredicted things happened in the past. I think it's better to adjust to the things that come our way, one at a time. Worry about the hit after the pitcher throws the ball, not before. We have the capacity to adjust to problems as they come our way. I think we should and I think we are.


http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

There's your primary source. Definitely an interesting read, Mike, finally something I like. It's no smoking gun against global climate change, but it has some important implications for the way GSM models work. The paper doesn't draw many conclusions at all.

In the tropics:
He does say that doubling CO2 will cause initial warming (caused by blocking outgoing longwave radiation, OLR) followed by an elimination of the energy imbalance. He also says that a positive feedback is on the order of decades (warming) and negative feedbacks are on the order of years. He then discusses that Earth Radiative Budget Experiment (ERBE) data used in another paper needed to be corrected and viewed at alternate timescales for the purpose of his analysis. He talks about a lot of other corrections for seasonal variability and things as well. After some number crunching, he discusses the implications for a number of different conditions.





I think that these data lack temporal range and have been filtered a good deal, introducing what can be crudely described as uncertainty. So we are left with a paper that shows how finicky GSM models can be. It applies to the tropics and affects radiative equilibrium in some pretty expansive models. I don't think this paper is ready to be cited as evidence against global climate change, rather corrections to a particularly sensitive climate model. I think that a lot of insight can be gained by many other models.

Welcome to the realm of meteorology. It's a weird science because we KNOW that we can't accurately predict next week's weather. But meteorology receives boat loads of money to come up with the best conclusions they can, because it is so necessary. I hope you're starting to see why I think that this is a long term problem with long term implications. From my perspective as a geologist, I think that increased CO2 has important long term effects on the order of 1,000-10,000 years. You burn your sequestered carbon; it gets warmer by a whole lot.

How it gets warmer in the near future, whether it is from a decrease in equatorial/polar temperature differential or through a mean increase in temperature doesn't concern me so much. I think that Lindzen's research is not a big picture view of the situation, and I don't think he would contest that.

Reading scientific papers is a lot like trying to read a sentence under a microscope. I think that I've been around geosciences enough that I have a pretty zoomed out view of the situation. Nobody looking at the data is saying that anthropogenic CO2 isn't real and that it isn't changing things. Instead, they are all working on determining what it means.

I think geologists are unique in several ways: we have the ability to consume liquor instead of water as a source of hydration in the field, we have a wide temporal (earth history) view on the situation, wear gaudy sweaters that not even rocks would like, carry rock hammers and bottles of hydrochloric acid around, and generally know what's going on in the scientific community.

Burning so much fossil fuel is a big deal. Check out the 7 wedge approach to global CO2 reduction. I think that's the direction we're headed, regardless of the naysayers:

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resour...dges_Movie.swf

If we can stabilize in the next 50 years, it would be nice if we could begin sequestering CO2 after that point. I think it will be pretty amazing if we demonstrate such an ability to control our environment.

[MikeRoberts44]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

There's your primary source. Definitely an interesting read, Mike, finally something I like. It's no smoking gun against global climate change, but it has some important implications for the way GSM models work. The paper doesn't draw many conclusions at all.

In the tropics:
He does say that doubling CO2 will cause initial warming (caused by blocking outgoing longwave radiation, OLR) followed by an elimination of the energy imbalance. He also says that a positive feedback is on the order of decades (warming) and negative feedbacks are on the order of years. He then discusses that Earth Radiative Budget Experiment (ERBE) data used in another paper needed to be corrected and viewed at alternate timescales for the purpose of his analysis. He talks about a lot of other corrections for seasonal variability and things as well. After some number crunching, he discusses the implications for a number of different conditions.

OK, I’m impressed again! I searched (Google) quite a while for the actual paper and came up with zip. How did you actually find it?

I also agree that it is not completely decisive on global climate change, but the implications are very significant. According to Chip Knappenberger in my most recent link on the paper, Lindzen and Choi report climate sensitivity to be about 0.5 degrees C, six times less than the IPCC’s “best estimate” of 3.0 degrees C. I realize that is not a direct quote from the paper, but it is not inconsistent. The positive vs. negative feedback is also quite significant. This study is one of a growing list of studies providing momentum for the skeptic position.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

There have been a bunch of longer minimums, not just the Maunder. I can't say the STELLA model I used accounted for the Maunder, or that I thought there was a need to. We are talking about present time and onward, there is no reason to introduce a periodic anomally that may no be so predictable and periodic. It is also best not to include nuclear wars in your climate model. There is no point in introducing speculation into a model because unpredicted things happened in the past. I think it's better to adjust to the things that come our way, one at a time. Worry about the hit after the pitcher throws the ball, not before. We have the capacity to adjust to problems as they come our way. I think we should and I think we are.

I’m not sure how you can consider the sun spot count variation an anomaly that does not need to be included in the models. I don’t think there is any question that solar radiation increases with sunspot activity. The Robinson paper showed better correlation between Earth’s temperature and sunspot activity than the correlation with carbon dioxide. How can we NOT include it in the model and expect the model to predict future climate?



I have not given up on looking at your links on isotopic composition. I just have not had time yet.

[MikeRoberts44]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

The Stable Isotopic Composition of Atmospheric CO2

That abstract cites a few other works on isotopes -

Today, stable isotope measurements have become an indispensable and integral part of atmospheric measurement programs (e.g., Francey et al., 2001; Masarie et al., 2001; Trolier et al., 1996). Efforts to develop analytical and numerical models that incorporate the cycling of stable isotopes in CO2 expanded in parallel (e.g., Bolin, 1981; Ciais et al., 1997a, b; Enting et al., 1995).

See if you can't dig those papers up. If you find abstracts but can't access the article, let me know. I can probably get you PDFs for your personal use.

Well, I’ve been taking a stab at figuring out the significance of isotope ratios. It looks like the stable isotopes of carbon 12 & 13 are normally about 99% and 1% respectively of the atmosphere. I did find Isotopic Fractionation . This article indicates that photosynthesis tends to favor C13 over C12, making it the ratio useful in determining certain things. I have to admit that some of it is still throwing me, but it looks like it might be useful in analyzing ice cores and possibly determining the ratio of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The most understandable (to me) related paper (actually a Powerpoint presentation) that I was able to find was this presented by Norwegian geologist Tom Segalstad. I can’t claim to understand it thoroughly, but he does seem to be at odds with the IPCC interpretation.

[Cthulhu]

Sunspot cycles ARE considered, but a 30 year long minimum is anomalous. They're also pretty rare compared to regular 9-13 year cycles that we can model. I'm saying that we don't need to say that 30 year minimums are periodic, because we don't have sufficient evidence to back that claim. Instead we can consider a sinusoidal oscilation in insolation (fun to say) with a certain period. It doesn't make a difference for simple geologic models (which I like), but it might make a difference in very complicated cluster supercomputer GCM models that rely on extremely high temporal resolution.

I think you may be giving too much credit to this potential issue in the way some GCM models account for water vapor in the tropics. Lindzen's theory is not all that developed. We know that temperature in the tropics and around the equator changes the least. I think that the way we display data is hillarious.

I don't know why we tell people about global average anything, we should tell them that we're gonna get 12 degrees hotter at the poles in the next 100 years instead of 3 degrees hotter on average. Hell, if Lindzen is somehow right, while all the other scientists think their model is right, we still have a huge pole to equator temperature differential.

It's really silly to think that all the numbers lie. Ball park estimates, back of the envelope calculations, current glacial melting, current ocean temperatures, and historical data all agree pretty well.

Mike, try figuring out how many liters of CO2 gas you release by burning a kilogram of coal. It's gonna be mind blowingly huge because of the nature of solid to gas conversions. I may do this later, but if you wanted to, you could assume coal is 90% carbon and use the molar mass of graphite and CO2 to figure things out. I'll probably do it later. I might even tell you how many schoolbusses/football stadiums you could fill with the CO2 gas

My point is that we release soooo much CO2. It's gonna do something bad according to geologists. Nevermind meteorologists. It's obvious to rock people that we're going to see a temperature change after a lag time on a geologic time scale.

[Cthulhu]

Oh, and as far as isotopes go, I took a high level course in isotopes and isotopic geochronology. I'd be writing pages on the subject if I tried to hit every point. Plants, UV radiation, phase changes (ice and rain) and diffusion all screw with isotopes in a way you can figure out. Heavier isotopes don't like to move around as much as light isotopes.

So ultimately, you need to compare a model of natural conditions to actual conditions. Then you take the difference between the model and actual conditions. Then you need to model natural conditions against a relatively anomally free time before the industrial revolution and determine an error function. Then you need to go back to the period of time from the industrial revolution on and account for any anomalies that would affect isotopic distribution (like volcanoes and ****) and remove them.

The final step would be to display the results of that natural anomally calculation and the left overs from which you've already substracted anomalies. You can say that the leftovers are due to anthropogenic CO2, and demonstrate how it's consistent with estimates of hydrocarbon consumption within the error function. At that point, you can say that we had X impact on CO2 +/- some amount, and natural emissions had Y impact since the industrial revolution.

It's been done, and we spew as much CO2 as we'd expect to. We burn a lot of hydrocarbons and it's a big, big edition to natural processes. I hate when I see people argue without checking the numbers out. Science isn't easy, and it doesn't always work the way you want it, but blind speculation is just bull headed ignorance. Skepticism is good, Mike, and I know you're checking out the science behind it, so good for you.

I wish more skeptics looked at the objective data for themselves and then came to an educated decission. I think saying "there's a good chance it's happening, we should change policies at a rate that doesn't destroy the global economy" is a pretty safe attitude.

I personally think the problem is almost certainly there (85-95% certain) and that we should attempt to go carbon neutral in the next 50-100 years and reduce CO2 to + ~100ppm of the pre-industrial revolution levels within the next 250 years. We shouldn't destroy our economies in doing so, we need to be smart about it and have a plan.