Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[Coito ergo sum]

I am plenty skeptical of man-caused global warming theory, as I am about all theories, including the theory of evolution, big bang cosmology and quantum physics.

However, at present, it appears to me based on what I know, which is by no means an expert opinion, but based on my reading of the science published on the issue, it is unlikely that the variation seen in the last 100 years or so has been the result of natural variation.

Someone might be able to falsify the IPCC's data, but: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ ... /index.htm

In particular, section E addresses precisely your question concerning attribution of the variation to human causation.

Is it beyond debate? No, but then again nothing is beyond debate.

Your question: "What I don't get is, if the case is so overpowering, as the UN claims, why don't they have a website, full of the existing evidence, so that nobody could be left in any doubt."

Well, the link I gave you is just such a website, and it is full of existing evidence.

I would submit that, logically, the burden would shift to you to indicate where you differ or take issue with the IPCC. I will stress that it is absolutely, positively fine and dandy for you to to take issue with the IPCC. I am not posting this information to say, "here you go, the IPCC says it, I believe it, that settles it." I am not arguing from authority, or suggesting that because "experts say" this or that, then you must stop arguing.

What I am saying, however, is that when the existing evidence is provided, some burden shifts to you to identify points within the evidence presented that you do not agree with, and explain why. Is the data faulty? What data are you seeing that is different? Is the methodology wrong? Are the conclusions improper? Do the conclusions not logically follow from the evidence?

[Tigger]

@CES: Why are you sceptical about "theories"?

[mistermack]

I can access most databases so if you let me know the papers titles and authors/journals, I'll check on the "references in extracts". As to ridicule - publishing original scientific data - so others can check it - is not unusual and does not open oneself up to ridicule! The scientific community lives on the review process, not merely the publication of opinions.

I think it would be ridiculous, if professional scientists included such a schoolgirl error in a major piece of work. But if you think you've spotted something that a team of highly qualified professionals missed, by all means look it up. You might become famous. Just google vostok ice cores and you'll get all the links you want. I wouldn't get your hopes of fame too high though.

The averaging out would not apply to temperature - this is modelled on oxygen isotopes in the solid ice, which are not subject to the same diffusivity of enclosed gas bubbles, so your comment seems illogical to me. And yes, an averaging of CO2 conc. out would occur but it would also lead to a lag as it would take time for higher atmospheric concentrations of co2 to be fully reflected in ice cores due to dilution.

That's a good theory, but it's clearly wrong. I was talking about the temp graph, not the CO2 graph. You clearly didn't look, so here it is again, and look what happens to the blue line, over time. If you don't believe your own eyes, you're not going to take my word for it.



To be honest, I don't think many of us are qualified to contradict their findings, I for one am happy to take them on trust, especially as the various studies all seem to arrive at similar conclusions. But if you think you can do better, go for it.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

@CES: Why are you sceptical about "theories"?

Because some of them are wrong. In fact, to some extent, most of them are wrong.

Skepticism means, "questioning, probing, testing." I'm skeptical about everything.

All knowledge is provisional, and all theories falsifiable. When we are no longer skeptical, then we have removed our ability to change our minds. I can't think of a single scientific theory that doesn't deserve skepticism today.

This article illustrates what I mean: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ ... fwrong.htm

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long....The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth. .

"...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

[Tigger]

@CES: Why are you sceptical about "theories"?

Because some of them are wrong. In fact, to some extent, most of them are wrong.

Skepticism means, "questioning, probing, testing." I'm skeptical about everything.

All knowledge is provisional, and all theories falsifiable. When we are no longer skeptical, then we have removed our ability to change our minds. I can't think of a single scientific theory that doesn't deserve skepticism today.

This article illustrates what I mean: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ ... fwrong.htm

Aha, I was trying to lure you into the "it's only a theory" territory.

Although my definition of a sceptic is "someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs", rather than someone who sees room for improvement and change when presented with further evidence.

Maybe a skeptic is different.

Gravity? It's only a theory.

[Coito ergo sum]

@CES: Why are you sceptical about "theories"?

Because some of them are wrong. In fact, to some extent, most of them are wrong.

Skepticism means, "questioning, probing, testing." I'm skeptical about everything.

All knowledge is provisional, and all theories falsifiable. When we are no longer skeptical, then we have removed our ability to change our minds. I can't think of a single scientific theory that doesn't deserve skepticism today.

This article illustrates what I mean: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ ... fwrong.htm

Aha, I was trying to lure you into the "it's only a theory" territory.

Although my definition of a sceptic is "someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs", rather than someone who sees room for improvement and change when presented with further evidence.

Maybe a skeptic is different.

Gravity? It's only a theory.

Gravity IS only a theory. But, it's also NO LESS than a theory, and a very good one.

Gravity also has differing meanings. Gravity is the term used for the mechanism that causes things to fall to the ground, and for planets to stay in orbit.

Gravitational theory, however, has changed over the centuries. Newton's theory of gravitation was awesome, and a marked improvement over the theories that existed before him. Einstein's theory was an improvement. There is no reason to think that we won't get still better theories down the line. Since Einstein's time, his ideas have been improved by others standing on his shoulders.

It's like Asimov's article suggests...it's the relativity of wrong. Einstein was wrong - quantum theory showed that. But, if one thinks that Einstein was just as wrong as Aristotle then one is "wronger" than both of them put together.

[mistermack]

Oh just stop it, will you mistermack? Everyone got bored of trying to explain it to you when you kept on completely ignoring what was being said. You're still going on about the "lack of any further significant warming, over the last 15 years", despite that being one of the issues addressed in the videos Ani posted on the first page. The Daily Mail article, that you linked to a few posts back, was the same fucking article as the one discussed in the video, so you clearly didn't watch them!

I think you're getting a little bit confused here, Psycho.
Those videos have been on youtube for more than two years, that daily mail article dates from earlier this year.
(The Daily Mail Article)
And here's the original BBC interview word for word:
(BBC interview)

And I don't think it's spinning when you quote his actual words.
.

[PsychoSerenity]

Oh just stop it, will you mistermack? Everyone got bored of trying to explain it to you when you kept on completely ignoring what was being said. You're still going on about the "lack of any further significant warming, over the last 15 years", despite that being one of the issues addressed in the videos Ani posted on the first page. The Daily Mail article, that you linked to a few posts back, was the same fucking article as the one discussed in the video, so you clearly didn't watch them!

I think you're getting a little bit confused here, Psycho.
Those videos have been on youtube for more than two years, that daily mail article dates from earlier this year.
(The Daily Mail Article)
And here's the original BBC interview word for word:
(BBC interview)

And I don't think it's spinning when you quote his actual words.
.

Oh confused am I? If you had bothered to look at the fucking videos you would see that, although the first in the series was started a few years ago, the one that featured that article was, unsurprisingly, posted shortly after the article was published.

And yes, it is spinning when you, like the Mail, claim that anything he actually says in that interview comes even close to him admitting, as you said -

gaping holes appearing

Again,

[Tigger]

@CES: I think you're maybe taking me a bit seriously.

[Pensioner]

This is a letter published in Nature by a friend if mine. He has a PH.D. in Marine Biology, he worked for a number of years in East Africa, Aden and the Gulf.

Sceptics and deniers
of climate change
not to be confused

Climate-change denial could have
disastrous consequences, if it
delays global action to cut carbon
emissions. Denialism is gaining
popularity because people have
difficulty differentiating deniers’
twisted arguments from the
legitimate concerns of genuine
sceptics. We must stop deniers
presenting themselves as the
rightful regulators of scientific
debate.
Denial of the science of
climate change is eroding public
understanding of the issue and
seems to be undermining trust
in scientists (see, for example,
Nature 463, 284–287; 2010).
This loss of public confidence —
after a cold winter in Europe and
elsewhere, and the ‘Climategate’
e-mails controversy — was
highlighted at February’s meeting
of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science
in San Diego, California (R. J.
Cicerone Science 327, 624; 2010).
Denialism is motivated by
conviction rather than evidence. It
has been applied to a wide range
of issues, including evolution and
the link between HIV and AIDS.
Deniers use strategies that invoke
conspiracies, quote fake experts,
denigrate genuine experts, deploy
evidence selectively and create
impossible expectations of what
research can deliver. They rely
on misrepresentation and flawed
logic (P. Diethelm and M. McKee
Eur. J. Public Health 19, 2–4; 2009).
By contrast, scepticism starts
with an open mind, weighs
evidence objectively and
demands convincing evidence
before accepting any claim. It
contributes to the debate and
forms the intellectual cornerstone
of scientific enquiry.
The public should understand
the difference between deniers
and sceptics, so that their trust
in scientists is not threatened
at a time when humanity needs
us most. We need to expose
the spurious nature of denialist
back to the primary evidence.
As scientists, we have a duty
to communicate our research
honestly and accessibly. We do
not need to speak with one voice
about climate change, but we
should stand together to defend
proper scientific debate.

[mistermack]

Pshycho, It's not that I'm not interested, it's that it's not worth watching. If you can't be bothered to link what you're referring to, I can't be bothered to wade through hours of egotistical bullshit. If it was good stuff I'd love to. But what I watched was just some blogger putting up endless strawmen, and then proudly knocking them down again. I' suspect that if I did find the bit you mean, it would be bollocks as well.

Anyway, I linked the BBC article that the mail was reporting. It's there, word for word. You don't have to endure hours of bullshit to find it, I've linked it for you.

Professor Jones referred to the last fifteen years, and basically said that they can only identify warming of approx 0.1 degrees per decade, too small to be significant. In other words, the measurement accuracy can't be relied on for such small changes.

That I would call a gaping hole in a model that says there has to be warming, if no cooling incidents occur, such as volcanic eruptions.
And the other link I gave confirms that warming SHOULD have shown over that period, because they are admitting that they can't find the "missing" heat. Or maybe you didn't 'bother' with that one.

That's the trouble with models. They don't do the real thing. They are someone's educated guess, and forcasting the climate is not something we can yet do. When you can't get the next fifteen years right, why should we believe you about the next hundred? Which is easier?
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mistermack,

Someone might be able to falsify the IPCC's data, but: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ ... /index.htm

In particular, section E addresses precisely your question concerning attribution of the variation to human causation.

This doesn't require wading through pompous straw men. It's a very straightforward summary of the evidence. I directed you to section E because that goes directly toward your question of whether it is man-made.

I am very open to a critical refutation of the information there, but so far it seems to me to pass muster.

Where I smell bullshit among the climate change proponents is in their reaction to the data. I get the distinct impression of an ulterior political motive wherein. However, that's a different issue altogether.

[beige]

Okay, I said i wouldn't post any more but: Do you know the concept of a sample size in science and why it's important? 10-15 years isn't a good sample size for temperature records at all because of massive seasonal/yearly variations (such as El Niño/La Niña events, among others).

You need a decent number of cycles worth of samples if those cycles are about 5 years long each (for the Southern Oscillation) then you need something in the order of 25 years minimum before can start making any reasonable judgements, 50 nice. 100 is good - that way a sample size is reasonable enough to draw good conclusions from. That is talked about in that interview.

The thing about a single 0.1 degree rise, is that indeed it might be insignificant, but when you put it together with all those other 0.1 degrees it suddenly does become very much significant, and that's what we're talking about. The measurement accuracy isn't bad with small changes it's bad with small time scales.

Also, as to your comment about me not providing any "evidence" for the impact of feedback loops, I did provide links to empirical research (such as (Link),(Link),(Link))on the subject that supported what I was saying - what exactly do you class as "evidence"?

Your objections seem to rely on taking single aspects of the theory out of context from one another. From this perspective, of course everything looks to make little sense and is illogical. However, when you start building up a more complete picture of the known processes, mechanisms and their effects both in the past and currently being observed - then the "problems" you're encountering fade away into nothingness. There may be some things that we don't fully understand, and these surely are up for debate - such as the true impact on humanity that such warming might have, but with regards to C02 being a catalyst for current global warming, and a driver of past warming I see absolutely nothing vital missing from our understanding. We may not know exactly what happened in every second of the last 400,000 years - but we don't need that. The data we have is more than sufficient to support the theories that we have - and I have not yet found anything in the complete picture that appears to me as being logically inconsistent. So accuse me of being led by big brother if you will - but I respectfully beg to differ.

Regardless - I really shouldn't post again. I'm not particularly convinced by your arguments, nor do you seem particularly convinced at all by mine - so there really isn't any point in running in circles

[mistermack]

Coito, I did follow your link. There was no section E.
And that link you just gave doesn't open anything.
I do try.

[mistermack]

Beige, the relevant "raised CO2" period is very short anyway. 30 years of cooling, 25 of warming, and 15 of very little change.
I don't think we should be forming theory based on any of it, but if people are prepared to wring so much out of the 25, then I'm justified in pointing out the 30 and 15.

Thanks for the links, but it's just too much to wade through.
It's only a chat forum, and I do have a life.
As far as feedback goes, if one is to accept the 800 yr lag, one has to accept that a purely CO2 feedback loop is going to have no noticeable effect till the year 2810. I'm prepared to chance it.

As to other feedback mechanisms, I accept that something can occur, but it has to be ready. Something forces the earth out of an ice age, and it looks to me that whatever it is, it builds up over 100,000 years of cooling, and rapidly shoots the earth out of the ice-age.
But it does stop, and dives back the other way.

If you look at the last 20,000 years, we have had the huge spike, out of the ice-age, we are right at the top of that spike now, and it's highly unlikely that there is any feedback "fuel" remaining that can push it higher. It ran out three times previously, just at the point where we are now.

I did link this before, I don't know if you read it, but he handles the feedback argument better than I do : (it's halfway down the page).

(About feedback)

As far as the models go, they seem to work perfectly, when you know what happened in the past, but are crap going forward. Odd that.
.