Is There Experimental Proof of CO2 Warming?

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Fair enough. Lets talk about AGW. I will attempt to answer your questions.

Para 1: You asked BestTimesNow (page 7 of this thread, 15 July) about Arctic and Alpine regions. Climate models suggest that polar regions should warm more quickly than temperate or tropical regions because the cold temperatures cause the air to be very dry. The low amounts of water vapor, (the most important greenhouse gas), causes the relative effects of other gases, such as CO2, to be greater. Thus climate change caused by an increase in CO2 should be most evident in the polar regions. I agree the temperature does appear to have risen slightly more in the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere mountainous regions, but not the Antarctic or, as far as I can make out, Southern Hemisphere mountainous regions. My answer to your question is that this observed temperature increase is more likely to have been caused by increased levels of soot (Black Carbon), causing a change in albedo, which has a larger effect than that of CO2. The reason that the Northern regions are more affected is - in my opinion - due to the fact that there is a larger concentration of industrial areas in that part of the planet.

I don't think you will be surprised if I say that I'm not satisfied with the answer. While it is a sensible answer, the amount of warming due to airborne soot is already shown in Windguy's graph, and as a matter of fact there has been warming in the southern hemisphere with the exception of the interior of the Antarctic continent. that is a complication but not proof that something other then CO2 is causing warming. Also if there was a change in albedo of the ice due to soot settling on it, that change would be easily detectable.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Para 2: I am really not sure what you are getting at here. A spectrograph shows the chemical constitution of a gas by 'separating out' the different radiation wavelengths. It will therefore show, for example, what gasses make up a distant star. It will show that CO2 is present in the tested unit. Of course I believe that. What point are you making?

I've done a bit of electronics and I feel qualified to answer that. A spectrograph shows more then what you are saying; It shows power against frequency, it also shows the total amount of power received. If energy is not received and we know that it has been emitted then that energy has gone somewhere. That somewhere in this case is the atmosphere. That is my point.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Para 3: No. You are wrong in your assessment of my problem with the AGW brigade. My problem has nothing to do with a lack of absorption of CO2. I have always admitted that CO2 is a GHG (see my posts of 11 July and 12 July). I will even reproduce something I wrote to Windguy, who called me a denier:
"By the way, I don't DENY that GW exists; I don't DENY that AGW exists and I don't DENY that CC exists. I just don't feel the need to panic over it and I just don't see the need to spend trillions of dollars on Kyoto policies. I firmly believe that mankind should stop wasting energy, but for reasons of efficiency, not fear."
My problem with AGW brigade is this: I do not agree that CO2 is the DRIVING factor behind GW (or CC) and, therefore, is not the ogre it is made out to be in terms of AGW. The hype surrounding CO2 has been extreme, and has been fuelled by the media and certain politicians.

Mixing science with politics is a bad decision. As the first link that I posted to this thread demonstrated. Science showed that CO2 was affecting temperatures and that an increase in CO2 would affect temperatures long before this issue became politicised. If you don't beleve it and feel it its important that other people listen to you what you have to do is show what the warming is really down to rather then bring up taxes and politicians. Nobody likes taxes or politicians and you might win some sympathy for your cause bringing them up but it doesn't help a scientific discussion that you're saying you want to have.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Now here's a few questions for you:
1) Why can't computer modellers put historical data into the models and come up with the actual data we have today?
2) Why has the global temperature not risen relatively in accordance with the measured CO2 rise?

Cheers for now.

1)I think the reason why you didn't get an answer is because you don't need computer models to show that increasing CO2 will affect climate. they are just used to refine what we know. However your flatly wrong, they can put historical data and come up with historical climate, thats how they test them.

2) Again your flatly wrong as pictures are worth a thousand words; temp-


CO2 levels I tryed to find a graph with just the last 1000 years but I as you can see from the 1000 year cut out it does show a link to temperature.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Sorry spot, I was offline for a couple of days.

OK, firstly, Windguy's graph showed a global view in which the forcing effect of the albedo factor was small. But, in the Arctic and Alpine regions it will be a much larger % and has been shown to have a effective forcing factor much higher than CO2.
Here is an example quote using basically the same graph that Windguy posted:

"...comparing forcings can be mis-leading: BC on snow warms the planet about three times more than an equal forcing of CO2. Moreover, the BC-induced warming is concentrated in the Arctic whereas CO-induced warming is dispersed globally."
Figure 3 from

http://dust.ess.uci.edu/ppr/ppr_hogrc_wrt.pdf

On the spectrograph, that energy transfer sounds logical but is inferred. The only instrument that will show warming - global or otherwise - is a thermometer! And, as you will see below, the actual thermometer readings of the PLANET (from NASA - as opposed to a graph of reconstructed temp from GlobalArt.com) don't agree with your theory:

Fig.C.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

Even if you take the worst-case graphs (like the 'Hockey stick' graph in your post), the temperature change of less than 1 deg c in the last 150 years or so does not match the 40-ish% rise in CO2 in the same period. There are obviously factors other than CO2 at play here!

[spot1234]

Thankyoumoneypenny;

The 'hockey stick' I posted is peer-reviewed and represents the best knowledge we have on the climate over that period. Rather then regurgitate the arguments I'll just post a link and let people read what actual climatologists have to say about it;

RealClimate

Thats an interesting document you posted. Did you read it? Because If I quote directly from it; "BC (Black carbon) appears to warm the Arctic more than any other agent except CO2 because of its combined heating of the Arctic atmosphere and of the surface."!

It seems to go against what you are saying.

I do agree with you about there being other factors at play, such as the El-nino southern ocean oscillation. Read up on that and find out what is significant about 1998.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by spot1234

Thankyoumoneypenny;

The 'hockey stick' I posted is peer-reviewed and represents the best knowledge we have on the climate over that period. Rather then regurgitate the arguments I'll just post a link and let people read what actual climatologists have to say about it;

RealClimate

Thats an interesting document you posted. Did you read it? Because If I quote directly from it; "BC (Black carbon) appears to warm the Arctic more than any other agent except CO2 because of its combined heating of the Arctic atmosphere and of the surface."!

It seems to go against what you are saying.

I do agree with you about there being other factors at play, such as the El-nino southern ocean oscillation. Read up on that and find out what is significant about 1998.

Whoa up Hoss!

You're getting confused with your own question. You asked why the Arctic/Alpine regions were warming 'more quickly' (in your terms) when the atmosphere is drier due to lack of evaporation. My answer about BC was to show that the BC is a major factor in those regions. It complements the CO2, not replaces it. The CO2 can be considered to be reasonably equal over the planet (not quite accurate maybe, but it goes to my point). Therefore the BC helps to show a greater warming in those regions. If you look further down the link paper, you will see:

BC on snow warms the planet about three times more than an equal forcing of CO2 (Flanner et al., 2007). Moreover, the BC-induced warming is concentrated in the Arctic whereas CO2 -induced warming is dispersed
globally. So the effect of BC is greater, but the amount of CO2-induced warming is still higher. That was my answer to your question. It still does not mean that I think CO2 is the main driving factor in CC or GW.

Oh, and 'realclimate' is a blog started by, among others, the guy who came up with the hockey stick in the first place. I'm actually not interested in the long-running debate about it because the current global temperature is not behaving in the way the hockey stick describes. I keep on asking you to explain why and you constantly evade. Whatever the theories, it appears that Gaia is just not listening to you!

As it also appears that we have bored everyone else on this thread, maybe we should just come to terms with the fact that we have different opinions on the subject. I will be more than happy to admit defeat when the global temperature and global sea-level start showing the sort of rise the AGW brigade predict. What I see at the moment is just climate.

Oh, and as for not mixing science with politics - maybe someone should have told Al Gore that?

[spot1234]

You can say whatever you want about my link but people can read it for themselves and make up their own mind. Just as they can look deeper into this issue and make up there own mind on if the world is sensitive to what we are burning or not. Or they can take Al-Gore's or Senator Inhofe's word for it if they need to get their opinions from American politicians. Or even, if they are really stupid, mine or yours.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by spot1234

You can say whatever you want about my link but people can read it for themselves and make up their own mind. Just as they can look deeper into this issue and make up there own mind on if the world is sensitive to what we are burning or not. Or they can take Al-Gore's or Senator Inhofe's word for it if they need to get their opinions from American politicians. Or even, if they are really stupid, mine or yours.

...and, finally, we agree on something!

Thanks for the discussion. All the best.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Couldn't agree more mate.

TYM

Well you're both way out of whack with the science then.

I find a good question to ask of homeopaths or global warming sceptics or ghost hunters is: Can you show me one peer reviewed scientific study that backs up what you are saying.

The gentle reality is these pseudosciences have no research basis. At all.

[flogger]

"The gentle reality is these pseudosciences have no research basis. At all."

Hmmm thats a bit rich coming from the pro AGW side whose whole premise is based on dodgy modelling and 'fiddled' data.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Well you're both way out of whack with the science then.

I find a good question to ask of homeopaths or global warming sceptics or ghost hunters is: Can you show me one peer reviewed scientific study that backs up what you are saying.

The gentle reality is these pseudosciences have no research basis. At all.

That's actually quite funny.

The gentle reality is that these peer-reviewed (or 'looked-at-by-the author's-mates') studies have no (or at least very little) factual validity in the real world.

There's science and there's hype. I'll give you an example from another field. Does this sound familiar?

"The role and remit of government science advisory committees in relation to pandemic influenza should be made explicit and the organisational decision making routes should be clarified to show how scientific advice is utilised.

We urge the UK government to provide additional financial support for their work and to encourage potential donors to do the same."

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=22825

And...

"The Government's Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson, said a bird flu pandemic would kill about 50,000 people in Britain but he was hopeful it would not strike as soon as this winter." Oct 2005

Bird flu reaches Britain - Telegraph

Real world result? Zero deaths. Money spent? Millions. Actual threat? Naff all.

This quote says it all:

"The more money you throw at [climate science], the less certainty you get. If you shut off all the money, the scientists would probably all agree." Climatologist Patrick J Michaels

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

That's actually quite funny.

The gentle reality is that these peer-reviewed (or 'looked-at-by-the author's-mates') studies have no (or at least very little) factual validity in the real world.

There's science and there's hype. I'll give you an example from another field. Does this sound familiar?

"The role and remit of government science advisory committees in relation to pandemic influenza should be made explicit and the organisational decision making routes should be clarified to show how scientific advice is utilised.

We urge the UK government to provide additional financial support for their work and to encourage potential donors to do the same."

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=22825

And...

"The Government's Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson, said a bird flu pandemic would kill about 50,000 people in Britain but he was hopeful it would not strike as soon as this winter." Oct 2005

Bird flu reaches Britain - Telegraph

Real world result? Zero deaths. Money spent? Millions. Actual threat? Naff all.

This quote says it all:

"The more money you throw at [climate science], the less certainty you get. If you shut off all the money, the scientists would probably all agree." Climatologist Patrick J Michaels

Allowing this thread to drift further off topic; Bird Flu killed no people in Brittan and a handful of people worldwide. Sars killed hundreds, perhaps thousands. The influenza epidemic of the early twentieth century killed more people then WWI. The black death killed off an estimated 2/3rds of European population. You think that if a threat doesn't materialise then money spent on understanding the threat or contingency's if it does is wasted?

Pardon me but this seems a stupid argument.