Politics of Global Warming

"We've got to get a handle on this global warming before we freeze to death."

I wasn't sure if this should go in Science and Politics or Science and Global Warming. So, since it involves an Attorney General, I'm going with Politics:

Democrats in Virginia are trying to stop their attorney general from probing climate fraud carried out by university researchers at taxpayer expense. Are they afraid of finding the inconvenient truth?

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, as the saying goes. In the case of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann and his supporters, it may be both. Not only did Mann participate in perhaps the greatest scam of modern times, but he may have also have fraudulently used taxpayer funds to do so.

I wasn't sure if this should go in Science and Politics or Science and Global Warming. So, since it involves an Attorney General, I'm going with Politics:

Democrats in Virginia are trying to stop their attorney general from probing climate fraud carried out by university researchers at taxpayer expense. Are they afraid of finding the inconvenient truth?

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, as the saying goes. In the case of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann and his supporters, it may be both. Not only did Mann participate in perhaps the greatest scam of modern times, but he may have also have fraudulently used taxpayer funds to do so.

Bluntly this is fishing expedition on Cuccinelli's part. He is alleging fraud with his ideological pre-suppositions as the real basis for his belief. There is no probable cause and to get around that he has tried to expand the definition of fraud to a ridiculous degree. Launching an investigation on such a basis is an abuse of power.

I wasn't sure if this should go in Science and Politics or Science and Global Warming. So, since it involves an Attorney General, I'm going with Politics:

Democrats in Virginia are trying to stop their attorney general from probing climate fraud carried out by university researchers at taxpayer expense. Are they afraid of finding the inconvenient truth?

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, as the saying goes. In the case of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann and his supporters, it may be both. Not only did Mann participate in perhaps the greatest scam of modern times, but he may have also have fraudulently used taxpayer funds to do so.

Bluntly this is fishing expedition on Cuccinelli's part. He is alleging fraud with his ideological pre-suppositions as the real basis for his belief. There is no probable cause and to get around that he has tried to expand the definition of fraud to a ridiculous degree. Launching an investigation on such a basis is an abuse of power.

I do not find the degree "ridiculous" in the least, nor do I find him "expanding" the term. A greenpisser, if knowingly pursuing a fraudulent agenda, commits a fraud, no other term fits it. Thus, it is not "fishing", as there is a probable cause to look into it.

I wasn't sure if this should go in Science and Politics or Science and Global Warming. So, since it involves an Attorney General, I'm going with Politics:

Democrats in Virginia are trying to stop their attorney general from probing climate fraud carried out by university researchers at taxpayer expense. Are they afraid of finding the inconvenient truth?

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, as the saying goes. In the case of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann and his supporters, it may be both. Not only did Mann participate in perhaps the greatest scam of modern times, but he may have also have fraudulently used taxpayer funds to do so.

Bluntly this is fishing expedition on Cuccinelli's part. He is alleging fraud with his ideological pre-suppositions as the real basis for his belief. There is no probable cause and to get around that he has tried to expand the definition of fraud to a ridiculous degree. Launching an investigation on such a basis is an abuse of power.

I do not find the degree "ridiculous" in the least, nor do I find him "expanding" the term. A greenpisser, if knowingly pursuing a fraudulent agenda, commits a fraud, no other term fits it. Thus, it is not "fishing", as there is a probable cause to look into it.

Do you actually know what the issues are here or are you reflexively and unthinkingly attacking someone because you can label then as a greenpisser? Here is a link to the issue. Study it and think about it and seriously consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/cuccinelli-goes-fishing-again/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4sCxlEsSCQ

Krauthammer: If Godzilla appeared on the [Washington, DC] Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4sCxlEsSCQ

Krauthammer: If Godzilla appeared on the [Washington, DC] Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming…

The notion that all possible meteorological outcomes are consistent with AGW Hypothesis exposes the reality that AGW -- as promoted by it most virulent advocates -- is not a scientific hypothesis at all. As Popper teaches, a scientific hypothesis must be amenable to disproof, even if it is only disprovable in theory.

The proponents of AGW, by insisting that drier weather = AGW, wetter weather = AGW , cloudier weather = AGW, droughts = AGW, Monsoons = AGW, increased storm intensity = AGW, decreased storm intensity = AGW, etc., reveal the truth that their version of theory, despite all the scientific trimmings and rituals, is not scientific at all, as there is essentially no observation short of an Ice Age that could disprove it (and even then I think some AGW alarmists would try to "blame" AGW for "triggering" the Ice Age.)

That takes the AlGore™-style AGW out of the realm of science, and places it firmly in the realm of a theology. All bow to the Great Hockey Stick Graph -- the scripture of AGW! Hansen and Mann are the prophets, and AlGore™ is a modern day Apostle spreading the gospel, and if they have their way, you WILL be forced to atone for your carbon sins (or pay through the nose for a government indulgence.)

Welcome back to the Middle Ages......



Can Bernardo Gui and his merry Band of Inquisitors be far behind?

Elmo,
Yes, AGW is not a matter of hypothesis testing. It is a matter of parameter estimation. The mechanisms affecting the climate are not in dispute. The sizes of some of the effects are.

When climate scientists talk about sensitivities they are not talking about trends. They are talking about final equilibrium conditions. You put a perturbation of size x into the system and eventually end up with a change of size y. There are two sensitivities that you hear used when talking about temperature changes. The one that you hear about most often is the Charney Sensitivity, the final affect of a perturbation after all atmospheric and hydrospheric feedbacks are allowed to play out but excluding other feedbacks. The other is the Earth System Sensitivity and is the final affect after all feedbacks are allowed to play out.

The usual estimates of the Charney sensitivity are between 2.0° C and 4.5° C with a most likely value of 3.0° C Global average temperature increase for each doubling of CO₂ concentration.

Now there are three components to the Charney sensitivity. There is the effect of well mixed persistent greenhouse gases such as CO₂. There is the effect of changes in water vapour concentration brought about by temperature increases. And there are other atmospheric changes, primarily changes in circulation patterns and changes in cloud cover.

The Earth System sensitivity includes such things as changes in albedo from land, vegetation and ice changes and potentially further greenhouse gas releases from such things as permafrost melting. These are certainly positive but the depend on the Charney sensitivity. If it is low then these feedbacks will be low. Also they are mostly slower than atmospheric and oceanic changes. The exception is sea ice melting.

Now the direct effect of persistent greenhouse gases is well understood. It is a matter of radiative physics and physical chemistry. The direct effect of doubling CO₂ is to increase average temperatures by 1.2° C. Restrict emissions by a known amount and the temperature will increase by a known amount until emission and absorption are in balance.

Increase temperatures and you will have more water vapour in the atmosphere. Roughly you maintain average relative humidity. It is harder to estimate than the effect of the well mixed greenhouse gases but we do have reliable ballpark estimates. A first approximation is that it doubles the temperature increase. The total greenhouse gas effects are enough to put the sensitivity in the lower part of the range estimates. To have a low total sensitivity we would need to have large negative non greenhouse gas feedbacks.

Now circulation changes are probably a small negative feedback. Cloud cover changes include both negative and positive feedbacks. The albedo increase is a negative feedback and the infra-red trapping is a positive feedback. It is unknown which predominates but while a small net negative effect is seen as quite possible a moderate or high positive net feedback is seen as more likely. And remember these change multiply rather than add. These estimates mostly come from modeling but what direct measurements are available agree with the models. There is no evidence of a large negative feedback from clouds and this would be required for a small climate sensitivity.

Is there evidence corroborating the modeled sensitivity? Yes. There are things such as the temperatures in the most recent glacial maximum. The ice cover and albedo changes are known. The CO₂ change is known. Constraints can be put on CO₂ temperature sensitivity. There are other climatic observational constraints. They agree with the usual sensitivity estimates.

To be able to ignore the danger we would need a a large negative feeback which we have to reason to believe exists and good reason to believe does not.

That is a very good explanation. You deserve a pat on the back.

But.....

To be able to ignore the danger we would need a large negative feedback which we have to no reason to believe exists and good reason to believe does not.

Is the projected change a danger? If so, who to? Is it possible to ameliorate the change, if necessary, with a ring of reflective aluminum powder in orbit around the Earth?

Is the projected change a benefit, and not a danger at all?
If nothing is done to prohibit CO2 release, will New York City sink into the Atlantic? Is it too late, anyhow?
Will the increase in atmospheric CO2 allow a reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers?
Will there still be Polar Bears?

Suppose that it does become necessary to cut back on the use of fossil fuels in order to preserve the current state of affairs. How many people will starve, worldwide, as the result. The farmer, living off the land, has been, with rare exceptions, a myth for a long time. Not a possibility for most city dwellers.

These, and others, are all legitimate questions that need answering before we decide what should be done to prevent further atmospheric CO2 increase. They are not scientific in nature. They are political, and to some extent, philosophical.

For that matter, how much does the population increase, over the last hundred years, increase the average temperature of the planet? Each of us is a heat producing device maintaining a constant 98.6 degree temperature year round.

Fantastic post JustCurious.

Global warming is real, and humans are the primary catalyst. The hysteria over it, however, is mostly unfounded; there are much more pressing environmental concerns, and the cost/benefit analysis of "solving" global warming does not appear favorable.

That's my stance, anyway.

That is a very good explanation. You deserve a pat on the back.

But.....

To be able to ignore the danger we would need a large negative feedback which we have to no reason to believe exists and good reason to believe does not.

Is the projected change a danger? If so, who to? Is it possible to ameliorate the change, if necessary, with a ring of reflective aluminum powder in orbit around the Earth?

Is the projected change a benefit, and not a danger at all?
If nothing is done to prohibit CO2 release, will New York City sink into the Atlantic? Is it too late, anyhow?
Will the increase in atmospheric CO2 allow a reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers?
Will there still be Polar Bears?

Suppose that it does become necessary to cut back on the use of fossil fuels in order to preserve the current state of affairs. How many people will starve, worldwide, as the result. The farmer, living off the land, has been, with rare exceptions, a myth for a long time. Not a possibility for most city dwellers.

These, and others, are all legitimate questions that need answering before we decide what should be done to prevent further atmospheric CO2 increase. They are not scientific in nature. They are political, and to some extent, philosophical.

For that matter, how much does the population increase, over the last hundred years, increase the average temperature of the planet? Each of us is a heat producing device maintaining a constant 98.6 degree temperature year round.

New York will not sink, the Atlantic will rise, maybe enough to do damage. It's probably too late.
Increasing CO₂ is irrelevant to fertilizer use. Fertilizers provide nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, not carbon.
Polar bears natural habitat is sea-ice. They may go extinct. (Or move back on land an hunt northern-dwelling humans.)

Increasing CO₂ is irrelevant to fertilizer use. Fertilizers provide nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, not carbon.

Yeah, what would carbon based lifeforms need carbon for?

Increasing CO₂ is irrelevant to fertilizer use. Fertilizers provide nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, not carbon.

Yeah, what would carbon based lifeforms need carbon for?

Uh, photosynthesis?

Carbon dioxide + water + solar energy -> glucose + oxygen:
6 CO₂ + 6 H₂O + solar energy -> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6 O₂

Now there are three components to the Charney sensitivity. There is the effect of well mixed persistent greenhouse gases such as CO₂. There is the effect of changes in water vapour concentration brought about by temperature increases. And there are other atmospheric changes, primarily changes in circulation patterns and changes in cloud cover.

You are assuming that circulation patterns are a constant, and that changes in water vapor concentration are merely the result of temperature increases. The reality is that water vapor, by far the most prodigious greenhouse gas, enters and exits the atmosphere in dramatic quantities (as Australia recently observed), usually in relation to circulation patterns.

A long term shift in circulation patterns that changes the average global atmospheric water vapor is a logical candidate for the cause of long term climate changes such as little ice ages, medieval warm periods and even glacial eras.

The planet is not a ball where you can compute radiation in and out and thus it's average temperature. It is rather a large hydraulic machine with temperature accumulators, variable radiation collectors and radiators, all in a constant state of flux. Like any machine, it can get into stable states, and states of oscillation. We only have a primitive understanding of how these work in the present day, and only guesses about other states of relative stability that could exist.

My personal guess is that these circulatory oscillation patterns far exceed the ability of man to regulate global temps with CO2. But there is no way to know if I am correct until we understand those states completely.

In the mean time, computing CO2 in the greenhouse equation is an interesting footnote, but it is trivia compared to the whole enchilada of climate science.

The field of climate science has subsisted on the study of CO2 for a couple of decades now. It would be profitable for climate scientists to embrace the idea that circulation patterns that change the value of the greenhouse effect are worthy of study, as they are very much more complex, and their understanding might show the way that climate could be controlled by small changes in critical circulation flows that could act as switches for global climate regulators.

Now there are three components to the Charney sensitivity. There is the effect of well mixed persistent greenhouse gases such as CO₂. There is the effect of changes in water vapour concentration brought about by temperature increases. And there are other atmospheric changes, primarily changes in circulation patterns and changes in cloud cover.

You are assuming that circulation patterns are a constant, and that changes in water vapor concentration are merely the result of temperature increases. The reality is that water vapor, by far the most prodigious greenhouse gas, enters and exits the atmosphere in dramatic quantities (as Australia recently observed), usually in relation to circulation patterns.

A long term shift in circulation patterns that changes the average global atmospheric water vapor is a logical candidate for the cause of long term climate changes such as little ice ages, medieval warm periods and even glacial eras.

The planet is not a ball where you can compute radiation in and out and thus it's average temperature. It is rather a large hydraulic machine with temperature accumulators, variable radiation collectors and radiators, all in a constant state of flux. Like any machine, it can get into stable states, and states of oscillation. We only have a primitive understanding of how these work in the present day, and only guesses about other states of relative stability that could exist.

My personal guess is that these circulatory oscillation patterns far exceed the ability of man to regulate global temps with CO2. But there is no way to know if I am correct until we understand those states completely.

In the mean time, computing CO2 in the greenhouse equation is an interesting footnote, but it is trivia compared to the whole enchilada of climate science.

The field of climate science has subsisted on the study of CO2 for a couple of decades now. It would be profitable for climate scientists to embrace the idea that circulation patterns that change the value of the greenhouse effect are worthy of study, as they are very much more complex, and their understanding might show the way that climate could be controlled by small changes in critical circulation flows that could act as switches for global climate regulators.

Well said, Narby. The circulation and the water cycle are vastly more important than the CO₂ level. Which is why the climate modelers must do three-dimensional global circulation models (of the oceans and atmosphere), and not simplified one-dimensional models in which averages are taken over latitude and longitude and the only spatial dimension left in play is the vertical. And the present models are completely inadequate to the task. Not for not trying. It's just that the scale and complexity necessary for the task still vastly exceeds our computational ability. Present model results are provisional and certainly not anything anyone should base public policy on.

When people make simplistic claims about how an increase in CO₂ "must" result in this or that, they're either putting much more faith in the present models than is warranted, or they're failing to understand that the three-dimensional circulations of the oceans and atmosphere produce effects that dwarf those of the CO₂ contribution.

Now there are three components to the Charney sensitivity. There is the effect of well mixed persistent greenhouse gases such as CO₂. There is the effect of changes in water vapour concentration brought about by temperature increases. And there are other atmospheric changes, primarily changes in circulation patterns and changes in cloud cover.

You are assuming that circulation patterns are a constant, and that changes in water vapor concentration are merely the result of temperature increases. The reality is that water vapor, by far the most prodigious greenhouse gas, enters and exits the atmosphere in dramatic quantities (as Australia recently observed), usually in relation to circulation patterns.

A long term shift in circulation patterns that changes the average global atmospheric water vapor is a logical candidate for the cause of long term climate changes such as little ice ages, medieval warm periods and even glacial eras.

The planet is not a ball where you can compute radiation in and out and thus it's average temperature. It is rather a large hydraulic machine with temperature accumulators, variable radiation collectors and radiators, all in a constant state of flux. Like any machine, it can get into stable states, and states of oscillation. We only have a primitive understanding of how these work in the present day, and only guesses about other states of relative stability that could exist.

My personal guess is that these circulatory oscillation patterns far exceed the ability of man to regulate global temps with CO2. But there is no way to know if I am correct until we understand those states completely.

In the mean time, computing CO2 in the greenhouse equation is an interesting footnote, but it is trivia compared to the whole enchilada of climate science.

The field of climate science has subsisted on the study of CO2 for a couple of decades now. It would be profitable for climate scientists to embrace the idea that circulation patterns that change the value of the greenhouse effect are worthy of study, as they are very much more complex, and their understanding might show the way that climate could be controlled by small changes in critical circulation flows that could act as switches for global climate regulators.

Any numbers to back up this opinion?

The planet is not a ball where you can compute radiation in and out and thus it's average temperature.

The planet doesn't obey the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Now there are three components to the Charney sensitivity. There is the effect of well mixed persistent greenhouse gases such as CO₂. There is the effect of changes in water vapour concentration brought about by temperature increases. And there are other atmospheric changes, primarily changes in circulation patterns and changes in cloud cover.

You are assuming that circulation patterns are a constant, and that changes in water vapor concentration are merely the result of temperature increases. The reality is that water vapor, by far the most prodigious greenhouse gas, enters and exits the atmosphere in dramatic quantities (as Australia recently observed), usually in relation to circulation patterns.

A long term shift in circulation patterns that changes the average global atmospheric water vapor is a logical candidate for the cause of long term climate changes such as little ice ages, medieval warm periods and even glacial eras.

The planet is not a ball where you can compute radiation in and out and thus it's average temperature. It is rather a large hydraulic machine with temperature accumulators, variable radiation collectors and radiators, all in a constant state of flux. Like any machine, it can get into stable states, and states of oscillation. We only have a primitive understanding of how these work in the present day, and only guesses about other states of relative stability that could exist.

My personal guess is that these circulatory oscillation patterns far exceed the ability of man to regulate global temps with CO2. But there is no way to know if I am correct until we understand those states completely.

In the mean time, computing CO2 in the greenhouse equation is an interesting footnote, but it is trivia compared to the whole enchilada of climate science.

The field of climate science has subsisted on the study of CO2 for a couple of decades now. It would be profitable for climate scientists to embrace the idea that circulation patterns that change the value of the greenhouse effect are worthy of study, as they are very much more complex, and their understanding might show the way that climate could be controlled by small changes in critical circulation flows that could act as switches for global climate regulators.

Any numbers to back up this opinion?

Only the numbers of the relative quantities of greenhouse gasses and the fact that the H2O component enters and leaves the atmosphere depending on circulation patterns as much or more than raw temperature, providing a ready opportunity for oscillations in temperature from oscillations in circulation patterns.

The rest is pure semi-educated guess. Take it for what it's worth.

[narby]

The planet is not a ball where you can compute radiation in and out and thus it's average temperature.

The planet doesn't obey the Laws of Thermodynamics?

[redo]
The planet obeys the laws of thermodynamics. But circulation patterns change the quantities of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere continually, so there will never be a steady state equilibrium of temperature controlled by CO2. I believe water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, controls planetary temps.

This is a plausible explanation for medium and long term changes in climate (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) as the average values of water vapor in the atmosphere change the total greenhouse effect as a result of circulation changes.

Yeah, it's just a WAG. This is the "Politics" of AGW thread, not the "science" version.

Last edited by narby on Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

circulation patterns that change the quantities of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere continually.

I'd like to know how that works, or even what it means.

Does circulation change the quantity of oxygen, or just CO2?

circulation patterns that change the quantities of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere continually.

I'd like to know how that works, or even what it means.

Does circulation change the quantity of oxygen, or just CO2?

Water vapor is by far the dominate greenhouse gas. Evaporation and precipitation change it's concentration all the time.

CO2 is assumed to be well mixed, IIRC.

Water vapor is not a forcing gas. Over the course of decades it has no effect on the global energy budget.

Water vapor is not a forcing gas. Over the course of decades it has no effect on the global energy budget.

Only if the quantity of water vapor is unchanged, or averages to the same value over time. But I don't believe that it does, but rather can act in several ways to alter the climate system.

Albedo from snow is the classic example, but changes in circulation patterns could change total greenhouse effect from water vapor as well. It's just that local water vapor concentrations aren't as obvious as snow to observe.

History has recorded long term changes in rain patterns. For example north Africa was fertile 2k years ago. That large of a change is both a signal of how long term circulation patterns have changed water vapor over large areas, and it's disappearance must have itself changed water vapor and thus greenhouse effect over continental sized areas.

Science doesn't have more than hypothesis about the cause of things like the little ice age, medieval warm periods and even glacial ages. My hypothesis of changes in planetary water vapor averages due to circulation patterns is as good as any explanation for those events. It makes more sense than latching onto Anthropogenic CO2, which does not explain historical climate changes, and would be the tail wagging the greenhouse gas dog of water vapor if it did.

Here's the current western pacific water vapor map. http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/mtsat/twpac/wv-l.jpg

Deriding the above as just "weather" and making the assumption that long term greenhouse water vapor averages is controlled by CO2 rather than the other way round I just don't believe.

Water vapor changes in the atmosphere on a daily basis. CO2 changes, prior to the industrial revolution, over very long terms (many centuries). Climate has been observed to change over medium terms (decades), so it makes more sense that water vapor greenhouse changes due to circulation patterns are the driver of climate, and CO2 is not.

My source is RWP, and we all know he's a lightweight thinker. Water vapor is more of an effect than a cause when considering the energy budget.

My source is RWP, and we all know he's a lightweight thinker. Water vapor is more of an effect than a cause when considering the energy budget.

I know better than to argue with RWP. If he weighs in here, no doubt he'll have lots of backup for why water vapor is a constant over the long term, and I will pay attention. But it doesn't appear logical to me that vapor would be constant, since there are historical long term climate changes that must have either changed the averages, or have been caused by changes to water vapor averages, and the later would explain a lot of things.