Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[mistermack]

That link you gave, beige, only mentions covariation. That is established, and nobody is disputing that.
What they don't say, because it didn't happen, is CO2 levels LEADING temperatures.
That's the whole point. They say covariation, I say 800 year lag. They mean the same thing, but they are clearly trying to give a false impression, and why on earth would they do that?.
.

[owtth]

Mistermack, do you realise that the Industrial Revolution has only happened once? With such a poor sample nothing can be crystal clear especially in relation to such a complex sysytem, all we can rely on is probability, nobody is claiming infallibility in terms of gauging effect just that there is an effect and it is clearly detrimental. No one will say "well it's 40% man's fault but the Sun has to take a share of the blame" it is happening and we are adding to it.

[mistermack]

Mistermack, do you realise that the Industrial Revolution has only happened once? With such a poor sample nothing can be crystal clear especially in relation to such a complex sysytem, all we can rely on is probability, nobody is claiming infallibility in terms of gauging effect just that there is an effect and it is clearly detrimental. No one will say "well it's 40% man's fault but the Sun has to take a share of the blame" it is happening and we are adding to it.

You're a lot younger than me. I was born in 1950, and the climate was getting colder. We had some very cold winters, and the climateologists were speculating that we were heading for the next ice-age, and it was very convincing at the time.
The industrial revolution had a tiny effect, until the car became widespread.
Carbon emissions were negligible till very recently, yet we warmed half a degree.
It's just not established by the evidence.
Going back to my original post, why ISN'T THERE a UN global warming website, with this so-called overwhelming evidence stacked up? If it's so important, why must people search for it, hidden away in papers that you have to pay for to read?
I'm saying the evidence just isn't there. That's why they have never put it all in one place, without the bullshit.
If I worked for the UN, and believed in the evidence, the first thing I would do would be to get it out there, on it's own website, for all the world to see.
.

[beige]

We had some very cold winters, and the climateologists were speculating that we were heading for the next ice-age, and it was very convincing at the time.

The videos by greenman on youtube cover that and have been posted in this thread already, basically it was simply media fearmongering again (which I agree is terrible). The second thing to note, is that at this point in the 1950s, the link between human C02 output and changes in climate were starting to be looked at in more detail, and it wasn't until later in the 70s that enough evidence had built up that the idea began to gain some serious momentum, the thing is that although certain areas may experience colder or warmer periods that are unusual, this is usually due to other local factors. In order to determine the global climate change, readings from all over the world are taken and statistically analysed to give an accurate global average temperature, and it's that which is being discussed. It's also important that the vast majority of papers even this early on were suggesting a general warming trend, not a cooling one.

The industrial revolution had a tiny effect, until the car became widespread.
Carbon emissions were negligible till very recently, yet we warmed half a degree.
It's just not established by the evidence.

The amount of C02 in the atmosphere was a pretty steady value around 280 parts per million over the last 1000 years. From around 1800 onwards, we've seen a pretty steady but sharp rise in the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere which is now approaching 400 parts per million. I'd hardly say the industrial revolution had a negligible effect, but it's true that the rate of emission has increased over time.

Going back to my original post, why ISN'T THERE a UN global warming website, with this so-called overwhelming evidence stacked up? If it's so important, why must people search for it, hidden away in papers that you have to pay for to read?
I'm saying the evidence just isn't there. That's why they have never put it all in one place, without the bullshit.
If I worked for the UN, and believed in the evidence, the first thing I would do would be to get it out there, on it's own website, for all the world to see.
.

This is why the IPCC was set up, to collect and collate available data from scientific experiments and observation in such a format that government bodies could make use of it and have a definitive basis on which to determine appropriate legislation. They do produce regular reports which for the most part do a good job of summing up the most recent evidence on the climate change issue straight from the scientific literature.

There are also plenty of websites and resources available which put the evidence in terms that the general public can get their heads around, most provide a nice chunk of references to support what they're saying, and if all else fails - you can always ask other people too and see if they can perhaps explain it better.

As for covariance, it's just a statistical term, I don't think it's anything particularly dishonest, it's a word that fits the relationship between C02 and temperature. It was used there because it describes what the data is telling us, no more, no less. That paper wasn't concerning itself with how carbon dioxide affects temperature, it was dealing with what the historical record was showing us. As such, there was no need to indicate what followed what. How and why the lag time is there is covered in other papers, and there's no need to rehash what's already been said when you've got something new to add. It's the kind of language I'd expect when reading scientific literature.

[PsychoSerenity]

Going back to my original post, why ISN'T THERE a UN global warming website, with this so-called overwhelming evidence stacked up? If it's so important, why must people search for it, hidden away in papers that you have to pay for to read?
I'm saying the evidence just isn't there. That's why they have never put it all in one place, without the bullshit.
If I worked for the UN, and believed in the evidence, the first thing I would do would be to get it out there, on it's own website, for all the world to see.
.

Mistermack, what exactly do you think this evidence would look like, that it could simply be put on a website so everyone could understand it?

As I understand it, the majority of the evidence comes from thousands of studies, millions of data points, all put together into many different and highly technical climate models, which are then interpreted by climate scientists. They than get papers published in journals which are then interpreted again by other scientific bodies, science popularisers, the media, etc.

At what point do you think anyone can jump in and see exactly what's going on, without having studied it for years?

[Tero]

Like I said earlier, in my previous last post, there are enough variables that the greater public will never get it, especially the teapartyers.

The worst denialists I have come across deny any warming, natural or man made.

[Feck]

Seems to me Mistermack is looking for a crocoduck ,or it's climate change equivalent .

[owtth]

Mistermack, do you realise that the Industrial Revolution has only happened once? With such a poor sample nothing can be crystal clear especially in relation to such a complex sysytem, all we can rely on is probability, nobody is claiming infallibility in terms of gauging effect just that there is an effect and it is clearly detrimental. No one will say "well it's 40% man's fault but the Sun has to take a share of the blame" it is happening and we are adding to it.

You're a lot younger than me. I was born in 1950, and the climate was getting colder. We had some very cold winters, and the climateologists were speculating that we were heading for the next ice-age, and it was very convincing at the time.
The industrial revolution had a tiny effect, until the car became widespread.
Carbon emissions were negligible till very recently, yet we warmed half a degree.
It's just not established by the evidence.
Going back to my original post, why ISN'T THERE a UN global warming website, with this so-called overwhelming evidence stacked up? If it's so important, why must people search for it, hidden away in papers that you have to pay for to read?
I'm saying the evidence just isn't there. That's why they have never put it all in one place, without the bullshit.
If I worked for the UN, and believed in the evidence, the first thing I would do would be to get it out there, on it's own website, for all the world to see.
.

Ahhhh wut?? OK you may be a bit older than I am but you don't appear to have been paying much attention. The majority of science stubbornly refuses to take place outside a given person's window, so thankfully your recollections as to what constitutes evidence is not, in fact, evidence. I too remember some lovely warm years and enjoyable snowy winters but have not allowed them to cloud my opinion on what may effect the Tuvulus. I have never been to their neck of the woods and would prefer to rely on what is actually happening than my own impression of this based on what occurs in my neck of the woods. I grew up in Ireland, they tell me it rains a lot in Ireland and yet I seem to recall almost endless Summers of sunshine and sunburn as a wee nipper, yet when I consult the records it appears to have been pissing rain for most of the time. Perhaps my memory is mistaken, perhaps the records are wrong, reason would suggest my memory is at fault. I have searched for a UN site describing such memory loss but it does not exist. Why isn't it there? (sorry THERE?) I'm sorry that no one has taken every piece of information regarding the effect of CO2 on climate change and put in one place for your handy perusal but that doesn't mean that climate change isn't happening. The overwhelming evidence is only overwhelming when you poll those scientists involved in this field and find that they overwhelmingly support the notion that climate change is occurring based on the overwhelming evidence that they themselves have produced in an overwhelming amount that is constantly overlooked by those who have no concept of how overwhelming the evidence is. Other than that you may be on to something.

[mistermack]

As for covariance, it's just a statistical term, I don't think it's anything particularly dishonest, it's a word that fits the relationship between C02 and temperature. It was used there because it describes what the data is telling us, no more, no less. That paper wasn't concerning itself with how carbon dioxide affects temperature, it was dealing with what the historical record was showing us. As such, there was no need to indicate what followed what. How and why the lag time is there is covered in other papers, and there's no need to rehash what's already been said when you've got something new to add. It's the kind of language I'd expect when reading scientific literature.

I would have to disagree with you there. They use the word covariance when they could easily in three or four words have indicated which was leading and which was following. It's absolutely crucial, as they veryt well know. And it's deliberately misleading because they go on to claim that it shows CO2 is driving temperature rises, when if they had said which was actually leading, would have made that claim look ridiculous.
It's a deliberately false impression being left, and a false claim being made.
And you see that all the time in climate science. Maybe they just want people to log in and pay to read the full article, but I think it's sneakier than that.
.

[mistermack]

Like I said earlier, in my previous last post, there are enough variables that the greater public will never get it, especially the teapartyers.

The worst denialists I have come across deny any warming, natural or man made.

Tero, I really don't know where you get this denialist stuff from. You only have to look at the latest published claims by the IPCC themselves to see doubts.
Their own wording is :
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." ... Nobody's disputing that.
Then :
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Most is not all, and they define "very likely" as a calculated 90% chance.
So even the IPCC themselves, with their huge bias, admit to uncertainty, and don't claim that all the rise is man-made. So it's perfectly valid to say that I favour the 10% chance that they admit to. That's not being a "denier", that's having an opinion.
What would that figure be, if it was produced by truly unbiased scientists? It certainly wouldn't be anywhere near 90%. The bias in the IPCC is huge.

So this denier accusation is silly. Even the IPCC don't go that far.
.

[mistermack]

Ahhhh wut?? OK you may be a bit older than I am but you don't appear to have been paying much attention. The majority of science stubbornly refuses to take place outside a given person's window, so thankfully your recollections as to what constitutes evidence is not, in fact, evidence.

No it's not evidence, but it MATCHES the evidence. If you were to look up the accepted graphs of global temperatures since about 1880, you would see a steady rise till about 1945 ish, then twenty five colder years, followed by the rising trend since 1970. Have a look here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nomaly.png
So we had sixty five years of rising temps for no known reason, followed by twenty five colder years for no known reason, followed by the current warm spell, for which they claim to know the reason. How arrogant is that?
It's fair to propose a reason, but the certainty they try to attach to it is ludicrous.
.

[owtth]

No it's not evidence, but it MATCHES the evidence.

[mistermack]

Mistermack, what exactly do you think this evidence would look like, that it could simply be put on a website so everyone could understand it?

Well, I would look for what I would call the bleedin obvious.
If the current temperature rise, from about 1972 till today, is due to greenhouse gases, it must be due to the huge rise in activity that began about 1950. So the claim is that a significant rise in CO2 will produce higher temperatures within about thirty years.
I would like to see evidence for that in the ice cores. We have good evidence in the ice-cores going back 450,000 years.
Read up on the Vostok ice core data. Does it show temperatures following CO2 rates in the past? Not at all.
The temperature and CO2 graphs are incredibly similar, but not in that way. They actually show global temperatures varying, and CO2 levels following closely, with a time lag of 800 years. (Latest best estimate).
How can that be? The CO2 graph ought to be LEADING the temp graph by 30 years, not FOLLOWING it by 800 years.
That's what I mean when I say that this response to CO2 levels has
never been seen in the past. Click below to see the official vostok graphs.

vostok graphs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Now if those graphs DID show temperatures responding to CO2 levels, I would be the first to say that we need to act quickly. But they don't.
So what we have is MODELS saying it will happen, and EVIDENCE saying it never did before. I personally prefer evidence to models, because you can make a model do anything you want.
.

[beige]

I would have to disagree with you there. They use the word covariance when they could easily in three or four words have indicated which was leading and which was following. It's absolutely crucial, as they veryt well know. And it's deliberately misleading because they go on to claim that it shows CO2 is driving temperature rises, when if they had said which was actually leading, would have made that claim look ridiculous.
It's a deliberately false impression being left, and a false claim being made.
And you see that all the time in climate science. Maybe they just want people to log in and pay to read the full article, but I think it's sneakier than that.
.

*sigh*

Okay, I'd like to make this clear. It's NOT crucial at all.

A) That's just an abstract from a paper, thus a summary. Lag times might be mentioned in the paper itself, but they aren't in the abstract because:
B) The abstract indicates what's important about this particular study, not details from it.
C) That in the past C02 lagged temperature is already accepted, and it's NOT A PROBLEM and it's nothing new, so there is no point in putting it in the abstract.
D) It's not a problem, because past warming wasn't driven by C02. C02 was INVOLVED, and compounded warming, but it wasn't driving it. Hence - it doesn't MATTER that it lags, in fact that is exactly what you'd EXPECT.

Now, if they were claiming that C02 was the driving force that caused past warming then YES it would look ridiculous that C02 lagged, but no one is suggesting that.

Why current warming is different is because it IS being forced by a sudden increase in C02 levels, thus making increased C02 the initial catalyst, not something else such as increased solar irradiance. If you're pumping hundreds of millions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere then you don't get the lag times. Why not? Because you're providing the extra C02 yourself, you don't need to wait for the positive feedback loops from differing ocean solubility to add more C02 over long periods of time after temperature changes. because we humans are cutting that corner out. We're effectively speeding up the positive feedback artificially.

I don't know, I feel like I'm banging my head into a brick wall. Would you like further explanation of the feedback mechanisms, what exactly aren't you accepting/agreeing with here? I've tried to explain things as best I can, but I have no formal educative training, nor any formal climatology training - I'm just trying to repackage the information that I've come across in such a fashion that might help you understand.

[PsychoSerenity]

Seems to me Mistermack is looking for a crocoduck ,or it's climate change equivalent .

I can't be bothered here, he's ignoring everything anyway.