Alarmist headlines NOT a substitute for hard work
There have been many meaningless alarmist headlines about CO2 levels . Here is a recent one :
'Time running out' as CO2 levels hit new high: UN
http://news.yahoo.com/time-running-co2-levels-hit-high-un-102107954.html
In order to expose the problems with this line of "thinking" I will need to go into the methods used in science to form an hypothesis and to test it .
This particular headline has its basis in so-called science . Here is how that particular hypothesis would have been formed . Someone had to hypothesize :
"Global warming [that's what they used to call it ] is coming about because atmospheric CO2 levels are getting higher ."
Now there is no arguing with the measurements behind increasing levels of CO2 . I'm not even going to bother posting links to that . What I am going to object to is jumping to unproven conclusions . Just because CO2 levels are getting higher does NOT prove what the effects might be .
That was merely an hypothesis to avoid hard work . Here is a much better hypothesis to consider :
"Human activity is causing changes to climate patterns ."
Notice the more general nature of that hypothesis . It does not assume that the factor is CO2 levels .
As such that 2nd hypothesis avoids jumping to conclusions unlike the 1st one above .
But in order to demonstrate the validity or utility of that second hypothesis hard work needs to be done .
It would require :
1] looking at all of the changes brought about by increases in human activity .
2] determining which of those changes are causing [or at least correlated with ] climate change effects .
3] developing statistical models to elucidate those activity outputs with the resulting climate changes .
4] testing those models for statistical confidence .
Yup , hard work . It takes a lot more work and time to do all of that than just exclaiming "We've got to reverse the CO2 levels ... or else !"
Do I hear complaints that we don't have time left to do all of that research ? Therefore just keep shrieking the same repetitive "sky is falling" conclusions . That is NOT how science is done . But science methodology is far from the only issue . The more important thing is to determine exactly what aspect of human activity is causing changes [if any] .
As an exploration of those ends I'm going to explore a couple of other possible hypotheses that might be worth examining . CO2 is far from the only thing that has been increasing with human activity . Another one is soot production . Why is that important ? Glaciers are supposedly shrinking although the evidence for that is mixed :
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13449
Himalayan Glaciers Retreating at Accelerated Rate in Some Regions but Not Others;
Consequences for Water Supply Remain Unclear, Says New Report
Glaciers in the eastern and central regions of the Himalayas appear to be retreating at accelerating rates, similar to those in other areas of the world, while glaciers in the western Himalayas are more stable and could be growing, says a new report from the National Research Council.
Here are other sources which agrees with the first one . They are all based on the recent report from the
National Academy of Sciences :
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/academy-finds-mixed-climate-impacts-on-himalayan-glaciers-water-supplies/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912125826.htm
If one is concerned about shrinking glaciers [if that is actually a fact] or shrinking Arctic sea ice [which has been in a long term decline ] then soot production and dispersion is a potentially useful thing to examine . That's because soot coatings on ice have a pronounced effect on increasing solar absorption resulting in melting .
Here is another factor worth examining in detail : Airplane contrails .
These contrails could have essentially the same effect as soot but since they are extremely well disbursed [because of their altitude] they could have a more pronounced effect because they get to the icy regions more readily . However to do a proper study one would need to examine both of them . This model could end up being fairly complicated because of all the possible variables which need to be considered , things like dispersion patterns and the strength of prevailing winds . Bottom line : hard work needs to be done , not mindless shrieking that the sky is falling . Climatologists do NOT all agree on CO2 effects and neither should you .
Tags
Who is online
206 visitors
I'm thinking , no . But then cavemen were not motivated by improving their love lives . That seems to be the main reason for the climatology monopoly position . "If I support the CO2 is bad position I may just get some nookie tonight ." What else could explain someone like James Hansen ... or Al Gore .
I don't know the original source of that theory . Since it amounts to a low effort project to propose , it was likely proposed by several ambitious but lazy climatologists at the same time .
Here is the picture which came with the article I linked above :
Does it show a picture of CO2 ? Of course not . That gas is invisible . But it does show soot being released .
Nice job here Petey. It's tougher to get to the bottom of something, if most everyone already thinks they have.
Exactly my point ... thanks for your succinct summary .
It's a numbers game . Some say that the effects from CO2 are already saturated and were long ago at much lower levels .
If the correlation is minimal then it is about time that other explanations were explored . When are those lazy climatologists gonna get off their asses and get to work ? When they stop getting alarmist headlines , I expect .
I believe you ... but doesn't it have some soot in the mix ?
OK then there is soot in the 2 tall towers . That's what I was trying to demonstrate ... even though there is no photographic evidence here .
Thanks for the FYI .
BTW I still have no idea how they "explain" the extreme winters with CO2 ...or anything else .
I think they looked at that mile high wall of ice, all the meltwater coming out from it and said, "Cool! Let's go fishing!"
Our ancestors were pretty smart, but like us, they only see a piece of something. It is almost 90o here in KY, and for this time of year, that's HOT. Ick!
My answer: Plant more trees.
Can't hurt ... as long as you aren't trying to run off solar power where they shade ...
Bruce,
It is not radical winters, it is radical weather patterns. Records being set world wide in rain, snow, heat, drought. These are the factors that must be looked at.
To those with an interest ; this article is a rebuttal to Dowser's article here :
The CO2 thing comes from partially from geology.
The earth during the Carboniferous Period lasted about from 360 to 300 millionyearsago and is thought to have been much warmer, with prolific plant growth and much more free CO2, which was captured by the plants through the process of photosynthesis and locked up in the coal that was deposited in this Period. This coal is the same that we are mining and burning today.
Then there is a thing called eustatic sealevel change, and isostatic sea level change. I am not going to bore you with the details, but lets just say that the correlation between the eustatic and the amount of CO2 is surprisingly consistent. Click here for an explanation of eustatic and isostatic sea levels and Here for an explanation of sea levels, paying particular attention to the slide on page 8 in the lower right hand corner.
So, we have 40 million years worth of carbon sequestration from one of the warmest periods on the planet being released into the atmosphere in two or three centuries right near the top of the CO2 cyclic high point... I will let you draw your own conclusions.
I think that man definitely has had an impact and we can't tell how much of an effect it will ultimately be due to the latency of the system. Which is why I feel that we must act swiftly to curtail the use of fossil fuels until we better understand the system. We don't and it may already be too late. We can't know for sure and won't for some time. Mother earth may have a way of dealing with this sudden spike in a way that the biosphere at large can adapt to, or she and it may not.
OK thanks for the links . I looked at the page 8 slide you suggested . I am not disputing it . CO2 is undoubtedly higher than it has been in quite a while . But that doesn't mean that is causing climate effects .
Many have argued that the effects of atmospheric CO2 on climate are logarithmic in terms of response . As a result the effects of the CO2 have saturated a long time ago and at much lower levels . Do you dispute that ?
My argument is that being obsessed with CO2 levels accomplishes little if the climate does not correlate well with those levels .
There is a definite correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the sea level, and sea level has risen and fallen as a result of the amount of glacial ice that sequesters the water. The Ice is present or not as a result of the climate.
I am not sure how they came to the conclusion that "...the effects of the CO2 have saturated a long time ago..." so I do not feel qualified to dispute (or not) that claim.
The whole earth is a system, and a very complicated one at that. Are the glaciers actually growing or are they just flowing more rapidly? I don't know, that is why I am asking. I doubt very much that you know the answer.
As far as your caricature of me as an amature climatologist, I take umbrage at the comparison. Neither I nor, most probably, you have completed enough directed education to lay claim to the title.
But, even on the most basic level: If the glaciers are changing, is not the climate?
In that case you should be able to supply a correlation coefficient . If not then don't be surprised if I don't accept your statement .
I don't doubt that is one factor . But as the latest study from the National Academy of Sciences shows some glaciers are shrinking while others are growing . See the link in my article for the details .
I will look up a link for the saturation of the absorption effect of CO2 . If you are interested just let me know .
I would be inclined to agree with the fish's claims about the southern hemisphere . And those observations would lend more support for the thesis expanded in my article . [Please read it .] There is far less industry [and less soot ] in the southern hemisphere . That could be a good demonstration that the melting effects on glaciers is better correlated with soot & particulates than with CO2 [in each hemisphere ] . CO2 is evenly disbursed in the 2 hemispheres but particulates are not .
Perrie is talking about the dust bowl Robert.
Climatologists keep referring to climate change instead of the global warming they used to mention . But without a precise definition of how to measure those changes it sounds more like a diversionary tactic than actual science .
Someone has been viewing this article . The number of views is up sharply from last night but Perrie has still not returned to answer the issues she brought up ...
Petey and BF:
According to the my reading of the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) the glacial ice and sea ice growth have been caused by localized weather conditions.
This just from me:
The warmer air is, the more moisture it can hold.
When an air mass is over water, it will take on moisture.
When air flows onto land, it necessarily increases in altitude.
When air raises, it becomes less dense and therefore undergoes a process known as adiabatic cooling.
Cooler air can hold less moisture, so some of the moisture which is in the air will fall out of the air in the form of precipitation.
This is a well understood and fully accepted meteorological and physical phenomenon that causes rain forests on the windward side of a mountain chain and drier, even desert like, conditions on the lee side. It also causes lake effect snows.
At a particular temperature, I would hypothesize, these processes can effect the growth of a glacier or ice pack to make it larger while at the same time not breaking any of the rules of physics. Therefore: Warmer=more precipitation=more ice=larger glaciers.
It is important to notice the trend of the total amount of water sequestered in glaciers, not just whether they are growing in some places and shrinking in others. This trend is downward and has been for some time.
No coefficient is necessary. Look at the graph that you already agreed that you had no contest with.
Huh ?
The graph on Page 8 shows atmospheric CO2 levels and eustatic sea levels for the past 450,000 years'. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
What was your link to the absorption effect regarding saturation of CO2?
A picture may be worth 1000 words but this requires the coordination of 2 pictures [graphs actually ] . The proper way to assign a correspondence between 2 graphs is with a correlation coefficient . Want the link on how to derive that [from the data ] ?
As to the logarithmic nature of CO2 absorption :
if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:[7]
F = Ln(C/C0)
....
Arrhenius' absorption values for CO 2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut ngstrm in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO 2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference
Neil deGrasse Tyson breaks down the differences between weather and climate change.
"A butterfly flaps its wings in Bali and 6 months later your outdoor wedding in Maine is ruined "
Holy shit ... what stupidity ! I thought this guy was supposed to be smart . This type of copout "explanation" is why people suspect climatologists .This stupidified butterfly explanation of chaos theory is highly misleading .
I would love to hear what Tyson thinks of my description of things .
I am not denying climate change [ even if it has not been formally defined ] . But I am saying that climatologists are lazy to the point of worthlessness . By obsessing on the one cause that spreads globally without impedance [CO2 levels ] they have insured they will never be able to accurately model the climate .
In other words they are preventing progress on the climate rather helping it . Ironic ...
What issues? Everyone has made up their minds... so why bother?
The issue of exactly how to define "climate change" for one . Has anyone ever done that ?
Sorry I missed your comment Wednesday . Clearly this glacier change process is complex . It involves the difference between growth processes and shrinkage processes .
By who's definition? Common folks... scientist.... dictionary....wiki...
And to what point?
You can't say we are having "climate change" until you can precisely define what it is ... and measure it . I am gonna go out on a limb here and say it has NOT been defined in a way that can be measured . Bottom line : the term is just a political distraction ploy . Ball is in your court ...
I am not being paid by anyone political Petey, so it's not a ploy.
Any definition will be disregarded by you, the moment you don't like what is being measured. All of the following can be measured but then you would argue that they don't mean anything because of XYZ...
ocean level, Co2, Ozone, Ice cores, global temperature changes, glacial density, number of sever weather events... shall I go on? This is a worthless discussion. You made up your mind the moment you said:
Perrie ,
I did not say its your ploy but I think it is a ploy by the climatology community . If you can't point to a climatologist who has defined how to measure those "changes" and what his definition is then it is a distraction to divert criticism .
Global warming as an argument is not as effective because temps have settled into a plateau . So climatologists changed the terminology BUT they didn't define the new terminology . And when I say "define" I mean describe as a measurable statistic [or maybe several items] .
There weren't 7 billion people living on this planet when the last glacial (Pleistocene)period started to melt down some 20,000 years ago.
I would advise not using the argument that the planet has been going through these warming/cooling cycles for millions and millions of years. Because, although they have, 20,000 years ago there were only an estimated 5 million humans living on the planet, today there are 7 billion. Another reason, although the Hopi Indians used coal as early as the 1300's to cook, heat and make pottery, I hardly think they generatedsufficientcarbonemissions to affect the climate.
The heavy use of fossil fuel only began in the 1800s with the start of the industrial evolution. We're talking of 2 - 250 years of fossil fuel use by what has grown to be 7 billion people, and huge industrial plants around the world, as opposed to 20,000 years ago and 5 million people using wood to cook and heat their caves, huts and tepees.
A lot is happening in recent years Robert, you can't use a 20,000 year timespan to justify what has happened over the last 200 years.
Robert,
Of course they were unrelated to mans' activities, man was not here. So what caused those events happen?
Anytime there's a geographic or climate related change on the planet, it was caused by something. Simple physics dictates there cannot be an effect without a cause.
Some scientist have put forth the cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, suggesting that there have been rapid geological shifts in the positions of the poles, and the Earths' axis rotation causing tectonic events and catastrophic climate vents, such as tornadoes, hurricanes and floods.
However, other scientist say;
'There is evidence of precession and changes in axial tilt , , but this change is on much longer time-scales and does not involve relative motion of the spin axis with respect to the planet. However, in what is known as true polar wander, the solid Earth can rotate with respect to a fixed spin axis. Research shows that during the last 200 million years a total true polar wander of some 30 has occurred, but that no super-rapid shifts in the Earth's pole were found during this period. A characteristic rate of true polar wander is 1 per million years or less. Between approximately 790 and 810 million years ago, when the supercontinent Rodinia existed, two geologically rapid phases of true polar wander may have occurred. In each of these, the magnetic poles of the Earth shifted by ~55".[ Wikipedia ]
Whatever hypothesis you use, since the last occurrence of the axis change we have added 7 billion people, millions of of industrial factories, emitting billions of tons of carbon particles into the atmosphere, plus millions upon millions of carbon dioxide emitting vehicles into the mix. IMO, it's reasonable to believe all that would cause a change in the natural scheme of things.
Everything from. "I f a species arrived from another planet.... " to, " We'll be back in fifty earth years.... ", is discounted as irrelevant nonsense.
Among all those in the per thousand ratio there are physicist, geologist, climatologist, and oceanographers, who studied their chosen profession in depth, most of them obtaining a doctorate in the process.
So how can justify calling those people 'idiots' as they are collaborating their findings to create models for what is happening to our climate .......
...... is it because you hold a doctorate in ........ what?
(?!)
I really don'tunderstandthat comment.
IMO, creating dialog and debate in order to help shape opinions, hopefully advancing the aruement that climate change is a serious threat and needs to be addressed, IS doing something about it.