It hasn't stopped

There's no doubt that private enterprise will sometimes run into trouble. It's just that the odds are not good that a government solution will make things better, more likely worse, I think, since government solutions tend to serve politics more that economics. IMO, the place of government in this area is to set rules of conduct, usually meant to enforce honesty in one way or another. For such rules to stay within reasonable bounds, they need to apply to everyone, especially to lawmakers themselves, which they don't at the moment.

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

It does not profit a man to gain his own soul, and lose the whole world.

?

It is not primarilly for our immediate benefit. The lag times are of the order of a generation or two. It is our responsibility to futute generations to treat the world that will be handed on to them with prudence. And every bit helps. There will not be a single solution. There will be a lot of partial solutions.

We can't solve sopcial security and medicare problems and those are imminent. But it's OK to kill our economy to prevent hypothetical problems a century from now? So we have responsible to our past generations AND our future generations? Our generation has to be the one that pays everyone else's bills? I don't think so. And you are assuming that prevention is preferable to adaptation. I hate the socialism that seems to be the so-called solution to AGW. And on that basis, I will fight tooth and nail against any such proposals. We need energy to survive and grow. There are not meaningful alternatives for transportation other than liquid hydrocarbons. Unless you want nuclear cars, there is no other effective power source. I will not let others decide we must be forced into an everlasting Depression over AGW.

Another factor that can have strong short term effects is volcanism. After a major eruption sulphate aerosols can cause a temperature decrease for a few years.

....

This analysis was done on publicly available data sets, by standard statistical methods and used open source software, the same software that I use for most of my analyses. I've looked at the methods used and they are sound.

Did you happen to notice that their aerosol data ended in 1993? You obviously did, because you looked at the methods and judged them sound. Adjusting data based on falsified models? That is just ludicrous.

The GCM's have been falsified and do overs don't count.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25 ... anslation/

Selective data sets mined by political hacks for political reasons should always be closely examined.

If your hypothesis meets observation data that doesn't fit your criteria, you do not toss the data out. You come up with a theory that better matches observation. So far, none of the AGW/IPCC fear-mongering predictions have come true.

Not one. Not meters worth of sea level rise, not one ice cap has melted, not one city has been flooded, no extra harsh droughts, no record setting storm seasons... It's all crap.

Once they get that figured out, then we can get in to whether or not MORE global warming increasing crop yield, fewer deaths from extreme cold, etc.. is necessarily even a bad thing.

Another factor that can have strong short term effects is volcanism. After a major eruption sulphate aerosols can cause a temperature decrease for a few years.

....

This analysis was done on publicly available data sets, by standard statistical methods and used open source software, the same software that I use for most of my analyses. I've looked at the methods used and they are sound.

Did you happen to notice that their aerosol data ended in 1993? You obviously did, because you looked at the methods and judged them sound. Adjusting data based on falsified models? That is just ludicrous.

The GCM's have been falsified and do overs don't count.

Bullshit!

It did not end in 1993. Take another look and figure out what those two blips from the volcanic aerosals are. It's not hard. If the data had ended in 1993 the fitted values would be missing.

You are looking for anything you think can find to justify a pre-determined conclusion. So you read to find fault rather than to understand. So you skim until you find something that looks like it supports what you want to continue believing.

You are looking for anything you think can find to justify a pre-determined conclusion. So you read to find fault rather than to understand. So you skim until you find something that looks like it supports what you want to continue believing.

Projection. How does it work?

You are looking for anything you think can find to justify a pre-determined conclusion. So you read to find fault rather than to understand. So you skim until you find something that looks like it supports what you want to continue believing.

Projection. How does it work?

No. I want to understand. So I look for the explanations that are simplest , that preferably use known factors rather than hypothesizing unknown factors with no other evidence for them and are comprehensive, that have multiple lines of evidence supporting them. Parsimony and consilience are things that you look for in science. Current climate science has them. Denialist speculations don't. I try not to let my political preferences effect my judgment on scientific matters. I am quite aware that the Universe does not care one bit about my politics and to anthropomorhize a bit is quite ready to crush me if I ignore when it clashes with ideology.

And Ghengis has a track record of doing what I accused him of.

No. I want to understand. So I look for the explanations that are simplest

From what I've seen on just this one thread? Horsecrap.

What is more of a factor in heating up the Earth? .08% rise in CO2 concentration over a hundred years? Or a giant ball of nuclear fire in the center of our solar system that is also heating up the other planets as well?

Is CO2 a preceding indicator of a warming trend? Or a lagging indicator?

What is more of a determinant in overall global temp? CO2 concentration? Or water vapor?

If you can't accurately answer any of the above, you have no clue what you are talking about and are just parroting bad data from questionable sources.

No. I want to understand. So I look for the explanations that are simplest

From what I've seen on just this one thread? Horsecrap.

What is more of a factor in heating up the Earth? .08% rise in CO2 concentration over a hundred years? Or a giant ball of nuclear fire in the center of our solar system that is also heating up the other planets as well?

Is CO2 a preceding indicator of a warming trend? Or a lagging indicator?

What is more of a determinant in overall global temp? CO2 concentration? Or water vapor?

If you can't accurately answer any of the above, you have no clue what you are talking about and are just parroting bad data from questionable sources.

.08% rise in CO₂ concentration?? Where did you get that from? Pre-industrial concentrations were about 280 ppm. The current atmospheric concentration is 392 ppm. About a 40% increase.

Solar observatory satellites are the most accurate way of measuring total solar output. They have been showing the eleven year solar cycle but not any underlying increasing trend over the period they have been up there. Look at all the planetary bodies where it has been claimed that they are warming. You will find albedo changes behind what is going on.

CO₂ can be either a feedback or a forcing. Coming into or out of a glacial it is feedback and lags the temperature. In what is happening now it is a forcing and leads. It could even be both at he same time if current warming triggers greenhouse gas releases from permafrost.

Since water vapour can easily get in and out of the atmosphere it reaches its equilibrium concentration quickly. It acts as a feedback that amplifies temperature changes that other factors cause, roughly doubling them. As a first approximation ,as temperatures increase, specific humidity rises to keep relative humidity roughly the same.

Current Mouna Loa data set used by NOAA is at 384ppm. Preindustrial numbers are subject to interpretation depending on tree-ring/ice core sets that are already under review due to "fudging" of the numbers revealed due to Climategate. From 1958, when they first started collecting... it was 315ppm. We'll assume these "estimates" and "projections" are more or less accurate. Even at that ppm, CO2 accounts for only .038% of the total atmosphere. Water vapor up to 4%.

CO2 forcing is a theory not supported by observational data. Going back 500 million years to CO2 concentrations 20 times what they are today do not support the theory. 7000 ppm during the Cambrian Explosion and more recently 2500 ppm during the Jurassic.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

Natural CO2 variance ranges from our current LOW level to almost 5 times as much during previous interglacial events. Starting 49 million years ago, we hit a global LOW point in CO2 that we still haven't come out of.

You'd get more carbon into the atmo from a methane hydrate release than you ever would from "permafrost" thaw.

Water vapor holds on to a lot more heat than CO2 prevents from escaping back into space. Further, solar heating of the oceans causes them to release more dissolved CO2 which could also account for the increase. Mush more so than merely "human" sources. Even taking 7 billion of us exhaling on a daily basis.

We've been warmer, we've been colder. Before humans ever figured out that whole "fire" thingie.

Also, you have still not established that higher CO2 levels and more warming are a "bad" thing. Nor have you accounted for the fact that CO2 has continued to rise, but the last decade has been temp stagnant. Nor that fact that we are talking about a degree of heating over the last 150 years, again depending on where you get your data from... Which is lost in the statistical noise when you start talking tens of thousand of year instead of just the last hundred...

You've drunk deep of the coolaid. That is for certain. We could go a hundred pages on this and get no where nearer to a consensus. I've seen it happen before...

Nor have you accounted for the fact that CO2 has continued to rise, but the last decade has been temp stagnant.

Did you actually read the paper that I linked to? Or did you actually try to understand anything that I posted? A hint! They were about what was behind the short-term variation in the rate of warming.

Current Mouna Loa data set used by NOAA is at 384ppm. Preindustrial numbers are subject to interpretation depending on tree-ring/ice core sets that are already under review due to "fudging" of the numbers revealed due to Climategate. From 1958, when they first started collecting... it was 315ppm. We'll assume these "estimates" and "projections" are more or less accurate. Even at that ppm, CO2 accounts for only .038% of the total atmosphere.

Even by your own figures, that's a 21.9% rise in 53 years.

So were you being intentionally dishonest, or just so incapable of math that you probably should steer away from trying to argue the science when you incorrectly claimed a " .08% rise in CO2 concentration over a hundred years?"

Bullshit!

It did not end in 1993. Take another look and figure out what those two blips from the volcanic aerosals are. It's not hard. If the data had ended in 1993 the fitted values would be missing.

Yeah take a look at the aerosol fitted values. Can you recognize a straight line (no effect) from 95? That is precisely what is shown, that the aerosols had no effect for half of the papers time frame. Yet they are adjusting the temps as if Pinatubo was continuing to erupt every few years. The adjustment comes from their 'model' remember Trenberths missing heat? It really is a shame that they can't find it isn't it? The GCM's have been falsified, and this lame attempt to rejigger the models to fit with reality are transparent at best.

You are looking for anything you think can find to justify a pre-determined conclusion. So you read to find fault rather than to understand. So you skim until you find something that looks like it supports what you want to continue believing.

No I don't, you are just projecting your own biases. Anymore I am just a Black Swan investor, I make money trying to guess what the future holds, knowing full well that predicting the future is impossible. I know that very few people accurately value risk which gives me a very good long term return : )

Personally CAGW, if it was real, would benefit me enormously because I know how to profit from disasters. On the other hand the threat of CAGW has a huge benefit to Socialist Green pissers, Governments and energy producers. Recognizing who the players are goes a long way to assessing the real risks.

My real interest in CAGW applies to the inefficiencies that it applies to various economies, ethanol, EPA regulations, taxes, etc. are just another straw that is going to break the US economies back (and a minor straw at that). The US economy/government will collapse in less than 15 years. When and more importantly 'how' the collapse is going to happen seems to be tied to Environmental agenda (energy control). Cheaper energy will prolong the time it takes for our system to collapse and more expensive energy will cause the system to collapse sooner.

Right now the Green Pissers, Oil Companies, and Governments are succeeding in driving energy prices higher, the 'environment' is going to be a real wake up call for the Green Pissers when they can't heat their homes and can't afford food.

Nor have you accounted for the fact that CO2 has continued to rise, but the last decade has been temp stagnant.

Did you actually read the paper that I linked to? Or did you actually try to understand anything that I posted? A hint! They were about what was behind the short-term variation in the rate of warming.

Short term variation in a long term temp trend that is damn near lost in the statistical noise of the last 100,000 years from a gas that comprises only .038% of our atmosphere the human contribution of which is miniscule compared to natural sources.

Yes, I understand a great deal. The problem is, you don't.

[JustCurious]

Yeah take a look at the aerosol fitted values. Can you recognize a straight line (no effect) from 95? That is precisely what is shown, that the aerosols had no effect for half of the papers time frame. Yet they are adjusting the temps as if Pinatubo was continuing to erupt every few years.

Yes I did. I saw El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991. That graph is the effect of the AOD. It goes down after those major eruptions and returns to its previous value after a few years as the aeosols leave the atmosphere. The only way that you could misunderstand what happened so badly is by reading for a gotcha rather than to understand.

Last edited by JustCurious on Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nor have you accounted for the fact that CO2 has continued to rise, but the last decade has been temp stagnant.

Did you actually read the paper that I linked to? Or did you actually try to understand anything that I posted? A hint! They were about what was behind the short-term variation in the rate of warming.

Short term variation in a long term temp trend that is damn near lost in the statistical noise of the last 100,000 years from a gas that comprises only .038% of our atmosphere the human contribution of which is miniscule compared to natural sources.

Yes, I understand a great deal. The problem is, you don't.

This was not about the variation over the past 100,000 years. It was about variation over the past 32 years. The 100,000 years is a red herring in this context and you would know that if you gave it any thought.

I dont think a 40% increase from human activity is miniscule. And what matters is the amount of CO₂ not how much it is diluted by monatomic and diatomic gases.

This was not about the variation over the past 100,000 years. It was about variation over the past 32 years. The 100,000 years is a red herring in this context and you would know that if you gave it any thought.

I dont think a 40% increase from human activity is miniscule. And what matters is the amount of CO₂ not how much it is diluted by monatomic and diatomic gases.

IOW... Don't bother looking at the real trends, the real data, or what is actually happening... Just see that "human activity" part and just accept it.

It could be a 140% increase from directly measured output of EVERY human activity from decomposing corpses to outgassing from the latest chili contest and the numbers STILL wouldn't match your models theoretical warming trend. At best you'd only have a gas that is still no where near even one tenth a percent of the total gases and only a fraction of those directly responsible for keeping us warm and comfy.

Nor have you said in any way, shape, or form why more warming is a bad thing. Nor how much warming may have actually occurred. Nor why it doesn't match the numbers from "CO2 forcing" models...

Never mind... Go back to sleep.

Solar observatory satellites are the most accurate way of measuring total solar output. They have been showing the eleven year solar cycle but not any underlying increasing trend over the period they have been up there. Look at all the planetary bodies where it has been claimed that they are warming. You will find albedo changes behind what is going on.

You are contradicting Tamino/Grants paper you know : ) Either there is a trend to the solar insolation or there isn't. Please make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

CO₂ can be either a feedback or a forcing. Coming into or out of a glacial it is feedback and lags the temperature. In what is happening now it is a forcing and leads. It could even be both at he same time if current warming triggers greenhouse gas releases from permafrost.

Since water vapour can easily get in and out of the atmosphere it reaches its equilibrium concentration quickly. It acts as a feedback that amplifies temperature changes that other factors cause, roughly doubling them. As a first approximation ,as temperatures increase, specific humidity rises to keep relative humidity roughly the same.

Your feedback/forcing definition is comical, especially when you try to differentiate CO2 from H20 using those terms. I know you don't even consider H20 to be a greenhouse gas, get over it.

Unless you can provide a physical description describing why H2O isn't a forcing that is physically different than how CO2 is a forcing, your definition is a falsified contradiction.

You do know that there are much better terms to use, but that wouldn't help you Global warmers frame the debate would it?

This was not about the variation over the past 100,000 years. It was about variation over the past 32 years. The 100,000 years is a red herring in this context and you would know that if you gave it any thought.

I dont think a 40% increase from human activity is miniscule. And what matters is the amount of CO₂ not how much it is diluted by monatomic and diatomic gases.

IOW... Don't bother looking at the real trends, the real data, or what is actually happening... Just see that "human activity" part and just accept it.

It could be a 140% increase from directly measured output of EVERY human activity from decomposing corpses to outgassing from the latest chili contest and the numbers STILL wouldn't match your models theoretical warming trend. At best you'd only have a gas that is still no where near even one tenth a percent of the total gases and only a fraction of those directly responsible for keeping us warm and comfy.

Nor have you said in any way, shape, or form why more warming is a bad thing. Nor how much warming may have actually occurred. Nor why it doesn't match the numbers from "CO2 forcing" models...

Never mind... Go back to sleep.

Hmm! You have not said why what happened over 100,000 years is in any way relevant to a decomposition of what happened over 32 years. A bit of an evasion there.

Some of us don't let poltics rot our brains. Not all of us stop at the first bit of evidence that seems to confirm that is safe to do what we wanted to do. And not all of us skip over and do not try to understand the evidence that points in the other direction.

Ghengis,

I have given the definitions of feedback and forcing that are used in climate science. The way that you are continuing to misrepresent them I have conclude that you have not made any good faith attempt to understand. My explanations were not that bad. So just what do you understand by the terms?

Did you happen to notice that their aerosol data ended in 1993? You obviously did, because you looked at the methods and judged them sound.

Bullshit!

It did not end in 1993. Take another look and figure out what those two blips from the volcanic aerosals are. It's not hard. If the data had ended in 1993 the fitted values would be missing.

Yeah take a look at the aerosol fitted values. Can you recognize a straight line (no effect) from 95?

I can recognize a straight line, which is how I know you're full of it. That's not a "straight line", that's a declining amount of influence (i.e. an exponential-like decline). It's low but not zero.

So again, please present your alleged evidence for your claim of "their aerosol data ended in 1993", especially given that they give a citation to their data, and I looked at it, and no, it doesn't end in 1993.

That is precisely what is shown,

Not a "straight line", no. Try again.

that the aerosols had no effect for half of the papers time frame.

Pretty much, yeah, because the actual NASA aerosol data (you know, the data source they cited in the paper?) is pretty low (in the 0.003 range) after the mid-90's until present day, compared to the two major spikes since 1980 (0.096 in 1983, and 0.149 in 1992). So? Their results match the AOD readings, why are you shocked?

Yet they are adjusting the temps as if Pinatubo was continuing to erupt every few years.

They are? Where? Unless you can point this out somewhere in the paper, I'm calling bullshit.

Also, you can't have it both ways. Do they have "no effect for half of the papers time frame", aerosol-wise, or are they "adjusting the temps as if Pinatubo was continuing to erupt every few years"? You're blatantly contradicting yourself.

The adjustment comes from their 'model' remember Trenberths missing heat? It really is a shame that they can't find it isn't it? The GCM's have been falsified, and this lame attempt to rejigger the models to fit with reality are transparent at best.

Let me know when you're done ranting and want to get back to actually presenting something that rebuts the paper.

Nor have you accounted for the fact that CO2 has continued to rise, but the last decade has been temp stagnant.

Did you actually read the paper that I linked to? Or did you actually try to understand anything that I posted? A hint! They were about what was behind the short-term variation in the rate of warming.

Short term variation in a long term temp trend that is damn near lost in the statistical noise of the last 100,000 years from a gas that comprises only .038% of our atmosphere the human contribution of which is miniscule compared to natural sources.

Since you didn't say anything to address the actual question that was asked, nor say anything that indicated you actually did read the paper or try to understand what JustCurious was posting, I'd say you answered his question in the negative.

Stringing buzzphrases together without actually making a cogent argument or a numerical analysis while flinging snotty dismissals as a substitute for real discussion is no way to go through life, son.

Yes, I understand a great deal. The problem is, you don't.

Schoolyard chest-beating and putdowns? Well gosh, *I'm* convinced!

This was not about the variation over the past 100,000 years. It was about variation over the past 32 years. The 100,000 years is a red herring in this context and you would know that if you gave it any thought.

I dont think a 40% increase from human activity is miniscule. And what matters is the amount of CO₂ not how much it is diluted by monatomic and diatomic gases.

IOW... Don't bother looking at the real trends, the real data, or what is actually happening... Just see that "human activity" part and just accept it.

That's not at all what he said.

In fact, it's 180 degrees apart from what he said, since he's talking about the paper that LOOKS FOR A REAL TREND BY ANALYZING THE REAL DATA from the past 30 years. Are you really this stupid, or just that dishonest?

Look, if you can't be bothered to discuss things here like an adult, and just resort to snotty straw-man misrepresentations like this, why bother?

More to the point, how long do you think anyone will take you seriously at a science-based site like this when you can't do any better than childish taunts (presuming anyone takes you seriously *now*)?

It could be a 140% increase from directly measured output of EVERY human activity from decomposing corpses to outgassing from the latest chili contest and the numbers STILL wouldn't match your models theoretical warming trend.

Why not? Show your numbers.

At best you'd only have a gas that is still no where near even one tenth a percent of the total gases and only a fraction of those directly responsible for keeping us warm and comfy.

And with this sort of vapid comment, you reveal your utter ignorance of the topic. Congratulations?

It's like saying, just as air-headedly, "at best you'd have only hydrogen cyanide that is still no where near even one tenth of a percent of the total gases in your bloodstream and only a fraction of those directly responsible for keeping us warm and active...", as if it was some kind of end-all-be-all of a dismissal of people who warn you not to breath the stuff.

Dude, either actually argue the science WITH SCIENCE OF YOUR OWN, or give it up. You're just going to look like an idiot at a site like this with your kind of "maybe I can BS it with attitude" shtick.

Nor have you said in any way, shape, or form why more warming is a bad thing. Nor how much warming may have actually occurred.

About 0.017 per year, actually, according to the paper.

Look, you only look like an idiot when you claim that he hasn't said "in any way, shape, or form [...] how much warming may have actually occurred", when he's talking about a paper that DOES EXACTLY THAT.

Disagree with its methods if you wish (although you really haven't even done that, you've just gotten snotty and made false claims about it), but for pete's sake, what kind of moron comes on a thread like this and claims that there hasn't been "in any way shape or form" information about "how much warming may have occurred" when IT'S RIGHT FREAKING HERE?

You're just digging yourself deeper, dude.

Nor why it doesn't match the numbers from "CO2 forcing" models...

Where doesn't it? Be specific, for a change, and actually present some analysis, not just your usual handwaving and dismissals. We'll wait.

Never mind... Go back to sleep.

Yeah, that kind of schoolyard stuff really establishes you as a serious thinker, you betcha.

Solar observatory satellites are the most accurate way of measuring total solar output. They have been showing the eleven year solar cycle but not any underlying increasing trend over the period they have been up there. Look at all the planetary bodies where it has been claimed that they are warming. You will find albedo changes behind what is going on.

You are contradicting Tamino/Grants paper you know : )

How so? A citation and a description of what, exactly, you think is being contradicted would really help.

Either there is a trend to the solar insolation or there isn't.

This is simplistic, and fallacious, thinking (if it can even be called "thinking"). There can be for example short term trends (due to cycles) while at the same time there is no long term trend (i.e. the cycles neither trend up or down, their average stays roughly the same across a sufficiently large number of cycles).

Please make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

You "forgot" to explain where exactly you think he's trying to "have it both ways". Perhaps you could point it out to us.

CO₂ can be either a feedback or a forcing. Coming into or out of a glacial it is feedback and lags the temperature. In what is happening now it is a forcing and leads. It could even be both at he same time if current warming triggers greenhouse gas releases from permafrost.

Since water vapour can easily get in and out of the atmosphere it reaches its equilibrium concentration quickly. It acts as a feedback that amplifies temperature changes that other factors cause, roughly doubling them. As a first approximation ,as temperatures increase, specific humidity rises to keep relative humidity roughly the same.

Your feedback/forcing definition is comical, especially when you try to differentiate CO2 from H20 using those terms.

Holy crap, guy, I don't usually delve into the AGW threads, but even *I've* seen him clearly explain the terms, how they work, and why CO2 and H2O are different, and the explanations both make sense and match common knowledge about the physical world (i.e. high-school science that shouldn't be hard for anyone to grasp). Do you really need me to link them for you, or would you like to tone back your ludicrous accusation?

I know you don't even consider H20 to be a greenhouse gas, get over it.

Again, I don't read these threads much, but even on the few I've read I've seen him contradict your false accusation. Would you like to retract it? Lying about him doesn't make your case look any better.

Unless you can provide a physical description describing why H2O isn't a forcing that is physically different than how CO2 is a forcing, your definition is a falsified contradiction.

He already has. Numerous times.

This reminds me of the scene from "City Slickers" -- after watching several attempts by Mitch to explain to Phil how to set up a VCR to record (while herding cattle), an exasperated Ed says, "Shut up! Just shut up! He doesn't get it! He'll never get it! It's been 4 hours! The cows can tape something by now! Forget about it please!"

Gradeschool-level explanation, maybe you can keep up this time: Warmer temperatures drive significantly more H2O into the air (and vice versa for cooling). Warmer temperatures do not drive significantly more CO2 into the air. Conversely, artificially pushing more H2O into the air doesn't stay there long, it quickly drops back out . CO2 artificially added to the air *does* however stay there a long time and doesn't quickly leave.

That's the "physical description" difference. Glad I could help.

You do know that there are much better terms to use, but that wouldn't help you Global warmers frame the debate would it?

Yeah, how dare they use accurate language.

Ghengis,

I have given the definitions of feedback and forcing that are used in climate science. The way that you are continuing to misrepresent them I have conclude that you have not made any good faith attempt to understand. My explanations were not that bad. So just what do you understand by the terms?

So you don't have a physical explanation as to why radiation hitting CO2 makes it a forcing and/or feedback and while radiation hitting H20 doesn't even qualify for greenhouse gas status, not to mention feedback or forcing?