Abstract: (pdf)
An online poll of scientists’ opinions shows that, while there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change and with the largest group supporting the IPCC report, there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC’s WG1.
Claims that the human input of CO2 is not an important climate forcing, or that ‘the science is more or less settled’, are found to be false in our survey. The IPCC WG1 perspective is the mean response, though there are interesting differences between mean responses in the USA and in the EU. There are, also, a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC WG1 perspective.
More here (pdf) – Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Chnge;
While there have been some statistically significant minor improvements over the years the data suggests that the scientific community do not perceive the models to be the truth machine as often portrayed in the media. On the contrary, climate scientists seem all too aware of the limitations of climate models, demonstrating a minimal amount of faith in the output when if comes to making either long term or short term predictions.
page 7:
The purpose of this report has been to point out some of the controversy surrounding the survey of climate scientists and to high light some of the findings that have added to the controversy (and some that have not). Figures 31 to 100 (Appendix B) allow for the exploration of some of these issues in greater detail, with figures 69 – 100 pertaining to questions asked only on the 2003 survey. As the data seems to suggest, the matter is far from being settled in the scientific arena.
Posted by: ET at November 21, 2007 1:24 PM
Look, I’ve said this before here: just because a “computer model” can predict something doesn’t mean that the predictions are true. In process engineering, where chemical engineers feed the input and know the variables of temperature, pressure and fluid properties it IS possible to have an approximation of the output.
To do something similar with THE PLANET’s ecosystem and claim to be able to come to a conclusion deserving action is just plain silly. To further claim that trillions of dollars must be spent (by making laws) *right now* to counteract dubious computer models is even sillier.
I see examples of this flawed system all the time. Variables are exaggerated (or just created just for fun), other variables are omitted, important uploads are not recognized by the receiving server due to malformed filenames, etc.
The only bullsh*t detectors computers have are the people that evaluate their output and know what has been fed into them.
Brian: My argument is simpler that what you seem to feel. Let me provide a simple analogy:
We have a common bank account (the CO2 level in the atmosphere) with some money in it – say $100 at the start of the year. A number of people are allowed to put in money or take out money (the various sinks and sources). You put in $6 over a year (the anthropogenic contribution). At the end of the year you note that the back account has gone from $100 to $103. Now, what would be the level if you had not contributed the $6?
Regards,
John
Now, what would be the level if you had not contributed the $6?
A level at which plants would be less robust. Next.
I am delighted by the debate. Its what Romans thought the cities were needed for human progress… from Saskatchewan?? even better!!!
Science: deduct or infer, but still need good old Euclidian approach to truth, thus opinion or emotional attachments don’t belong. There is a lot of science on stats, but no claim can be made as to predicting an inflection point on any model; that can only come from an educated, facts based point of view; we are still far from having one.
I am closer to understand the hypothesis, but a decent thesis is still amiss. If (extra) warming comes from (extra) trapping of IR energy, ALL IR reflecting components of the atmosphere must be equated and understood, prior to establishing a thesis, under penalty of missing the trees by the forest.
I remain skeptical on mankind generating and controlling global warming.
Respectfully,
Hector
Your bank account analogy is even lamer than your layers of CO2 one. (as was pointed out to you the last time you posted it)
One hundred people each deposit $10. One hundred others each withdraw $9.95. There is $5.00 left over. And you want to attribute the entire remaining balance to a single depositor. And logic dictates this? You must be one hell of an engineer John.
By the way, good rebutal on the need for empirical proof.
John Cross:
I don’t think you understand how the sinks sources work. Not all “money” is the same colour so to speak. I can’t remember the details off hand but it’s something to do with the ratio of C isotopes in the CO2 which changes the affinity that various sinks have for various sources, based on their relative ratios of the C isotopes.
Regards, BRK
17:000 scientists have signed a proclamation stating that GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE AND A FRUAD
Pd: For lame explanations you seem to have trouble actually finding flaws in them (unless you really are in the process of rewriting the laws of thermodynamics).
Your criticism of my bank account is flawed. I say nothing about who puts in what except for the one depositer who puts in $6.
Again, if that depositer puts in $6 and the account level ends up $3 higher, what would be the level if the $6 did not go in. A simple question.
Regards,
John.
Brian: My analogy has nothing to do with the quantity of C14. It is much simpler.
As I posited to Pd, if you add $6 but the account only goes up by $3 what would the balance be if you did not add $6.
Regards,
John.
John Cross:
You just don’t get it. Let me try one more time. Let us say (hypothetically) trees like “heavy” CO2, oceans give up “light” CO2 (preferentially) and humans make “heavy” CO2 (preferentially). So the trees and humans have an exchange. Maybe the trees are even happy to take all the heavy CO2 humans can crank out. But they don’t like the light CO2 the oceans out gas. So they don’t suck it up.
In this obviously exaggerated example, all the rising CO2 has the oceans “fingerprint” on it, despite the fact that it is coming from 2 different sources. If it wasn’t for the rising ocean temperatures you wouldn’t have any rise in CO2 whether humans were on the planet or not. All that would happen if humans weren’t there is that trees would grow slower.
Your money example just can’t capture the complexity of what’s (potentially) going out there.
Regards, BRK
Brian: Actually, I do understand your argument, the problem is that there are 4 arguments against it, any one of which renders it invalid.
C12 is the common isotope of carbon and comprises about 98.9% of the total. The vast majority of the rest of the carbon is C13 (there are a couple of other radioactive isotopes, but they are very minor). Consequently, even if we assume a complete preference for a particular type there is not enough of a difference to cause the increase in atmospheric CO2 we have seen.
However the fact is that there is only a minor preference for certain enzymes to take in C12 over C13 but it is on the order of parts per thousand. In general there is not much chemical difference between the two, so the assumption of preference is not valid.
Third, if there was a large preference for a particular isotope, then it would be seen in a change in the isotope balance in the atmosphere but measurements do not support this.
Finally, we have seen a small change in the isotope ratio but it is due to the fact that the ratio in fossil fuel is slightly different than the ratio in the atmosphere. So in fact the measurements actually support the opposite of your argument.
We can discuss this in more detail if you wish, but from both observation and theory it is a non-issue.
Regards,
John
John Cross:
I get the feeling you didn’t really think your “…all the increase!…” comment through, or you wouldn’t have made it. Here’s a little more to chew on.
Let say I move to a new neighborhood where there’s no garbage collection. But that’s okay everybody just puts their garbage in the back alley and scavengers collect it and keep it from clogging up the alley. But after I move there, the garbage starts piling up. The neighbors point the finger at me. Logically, I am the culprit right?
But what if I am an early riser and the garbage scavengers are too. Every week they take all my garbage, simply because it’s what’s there when they arrive. Better yet, my house is close to the end of the alley the scavengers approach from, so they’d probably take it even if I rose later, since it’s handy to their camp.
So I’m puzzled. Someone that was getting up early, must now be getting up late, after the scavengers have moved onto a another neighborhood. Or something else has changed. It’s even more puzzling since I put out wood and cardboard which the scavengers love to make their cooking fires. I know its not me that’s causing the garbage to pile up, but I can see why the neighbors think it is. After all, I’m the only visible change in the neighborhood.
Do you see where I’m going with this? Consider the temporal and spatial patterns of the sources and sinks John.
In the end, I think you are more or less right. The increase in CO2 is coming from us. But the statement “…all the increase!..” stuck in my craw. I knew the science wasn’t as simple as your bank account example, or the IPCC wouldn’t stop at only applying a 90% certainty to the “we are causing CO2 increases”.
Regards, BRK
Brian: In fact, I have thought through my comment quite carefully or I wouldn’t have made such a strong one. I have posted it here and on other blogs and to date no one has been able to poke holes in it. So I will continue to post it until it can be shown to be wrong.
However, I very much like your recent analogy (so much I will use it myself if I may). It is very much like my bank account one but the difference comes in because you posit a number of new activities or processes. While you can propose anything it must have a basis in reality or it is not relevant. I can back up my analogy with production and rise numbers. I would ask you for the equivalent climate process for the following. To me they look like a re-hash of your isotope argument but I could be wrong:
–> But what if I am an early riser and the garbage scavengers are too.
–> my house is close to the end of the alley the scavengers approach from,
–> the scavengers have moved onto a another neighborhood
–> Someone that was getting up early, must now be getting up late
Finally, can you please provide a reference to the comment from the IPCC that they are 90% certain that “we are causing CO2 increases”. I could possible see this if it applied to the entire rise since the start of the industrial revolution, but I have been careful to state recent increase. For arguments sake I would say that recent starts in 1960 since that is the earliest that I can find fairly reliable records for fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2 records. As I have said, my certainty comes from the math but I need accurate data to do the math with any confidence.
Regards,
John
As I have said, my certainty comes from the math but I need accurate data to do the math with any confidence.
Hilarious
Dear John Cross:
“–> But what if I am an early riser and the garbage scavengers are too.” I’m talking here about the variation over time of the performance of sources/sinks. Examples would seasonal changes such winter/summer for forests and oceans. Keep in mind that the land ocean split is not the same between the NH and SH.
“–> my house is close to the end of the alley the scavengers approach from,” Here I’m talking about the spatial patterns of the sources and sinks. We tend to think of CO2 as well mixed and over time that is true, but over short periods/small areas it is not necessarily true. Some of the earliest testing of CO2 in the atmosphere showed over 400 ppm. The reason these data have been rejected is that they were done in large (for then) urban areas like Paris.
“–> the scavengers have moved onto a another neighborhood” Just another comment on the seasonal and ultra seasonal patterns over time. I expect the PDO and other oscillations which effect SSTs and precipitation patterns and hence how vigorous vegetation production is, should therefore effect the performance of sinks and sources, making for winner and losers over time.
“–> Someone that was getting up early, must now be getting up late” This comment refers to the situation where if CO2 is increasing, and you want to excuse some of the anthropogenic blame, you must have a state change occurring in some other source to explain the missing part of the increase.
By the way the only comment I made which is meant to be an analogy for the isotope preference was the “cardboard and wood” sentence. By the way “heavy” CO2 doesn’t just come from isotopes of C does it?
Let me wrap it up in a somewhat far-fetched scenario. Anthropogenic CO2 is generated mostly in the northern hemisphere and mostly in summer. However, that happens to also be the time when sinks near the anthropogenic CO2 sources are the most vigorous. So a large portion of anthropogenic emissions are “sunk” shortly after they are emitted.
However, in the southern hemisphere summer (our winter) the warmer oceans at the high latitudes become sources as they warm up. However, that CO2 has no place to go since the southern hemisphere is short on vegetation compared to the NH. And if the sun increases output and warms the oceans even more, the situation is magnified.
CO2 rises for sure, but in my scenario not all of the rise is due to anthropogenic sources which are more “in-balance” with their sinks then some of their source brethren.
Perhaps this is a little to simplistic for you John. I know it is for me. However, I’m smart enough to know that there is a LOT we don’t know about the carbon cycle. Even if my simplistic model is not correct, there are complex relationships in the carbon cycle that make your “certainty” look foolish.
Regards, BRK
Brian: all of your processes can change the sources and sinks over time, but what they don’t do is change the fact that we are producing more than is showing up in the atmosphere. The strength of my argument is that it bypasses all the – as you called them – complex relationships – in the sources and sinks and instead focuses on what we can measure. As long as we produce more than shows up in the atmosphere we have to be responsible for the increase.
Again, we produce 6 units and there is only a rise of 3. Would there be a rise if we had not produced the 6? The other sources and sinks can change and are very complex, but as long as we can depend on the measurements, then we can be certain that we are the cause of the rise.
By the way, have you come across a reference for your IPCC quote?
Regards,
John
…as long as we can depend on the measurements, then we can be certain that we are the cause of the rise.
Your error is in the assumption there has been a significant rise since the pre-industrial era. Ice cores show pre-industrial CO2 to be anywhere from 160 ppmv to 2450 ppmv.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Conclusion
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
The failure to resolve
the notorious problem of why about 30 percent of man-made
CO2 is missing in the global carbon cycle, based on CO2 ice
core measurements, suggests a systematic bias in ice core
data.
Fudging the CO2 Data
Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in
pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally
even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings
disappeared from the publications! To fit such a wide range of
results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which
was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods
were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial
samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values
best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally
trapped ice”;23 (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th
century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings
from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary
atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf
Direct atmospheric measurements indicate that between
1812 and 1961, the concentrations of CO2 fluctuated by about
150 ppmv, up to values much higher than those of today.
Except for the year 1885, these direct measurements were
always higher than the ice core data, which are devoid of any
variations. During the 149 years from 1812 to 1961, there
were three periods when the average CO2 concentration was
much higher than it was in 2004, 379 ppmv (IPCC 2007):
Around the year 1820, it was about 440 ppmv; around 1855, it was 390 ppmv; and around 1940, it was 440 ppmv. Data
compiled by Beck (Beck 2007) suggest also that changes of the
CO2 atmospheric concentration followed, rather than preceded,
the temperature changes. These findings make the manmade
global warming hypothesis invalid.
John Cross:
I can see you really just don’t get the logic. I’ve painted a potential scenario, where even if we stopped producing 6, the account might still go up 3. How is that possible? Well it works this way. The relationship between my account deposits and withdrawals is balanced. But say my neighbors accounts are not balanced. So in all the other accounts in the bank there might be a net change of 3, but my account didn’t contribute to that. Your mistake is making all the sources/sinks fit one big bank account, but the carbon cycle is not that simple. There may be preferential linkages between some sources and sinks, or a lack of linkage between others, that separates the atmosphere carbon budget into quasi-separate accounts.
I my primitive example I made the northern and southern hemispheres the different accounts, the north being the balanced one, the south the one not balanced and hence the source of the rise. Not that I really believe that, but something along those lines could be happening.
Here’s one final final attempt to get you to understand the concept. What if my deposits go up to 8 from 6. But the account balance is still 3 at the end of the year. By your math, it should be 4 right? I mean since 50% of the deposit is withdrawn. How this can happen is that there is unused withdrawal capacity for my account. So the jump from 6 to 8 has no affect on my balance at the end of year. But for assorted esoteric reasons, that withdrawal capacity can’t be applied to my neighbors account, so the net for the bank at the end of the year is still plus 3.
As for the IPCC reference, I’m not going to bother digging it up. I believe the exact statement, probably from the TAR Summary for Policy makers, was to the effect: “we are virtually certain that the rise since the industrial era is the result of anthropogenic emissions…” However for the IPCC, virtually certain didn’t mean 100% like it does for you. It meant 90% or 95%. “Ol Hoss’s” comments above ought to give you pause about how certain science is on the carbon cycle.
One thing for certain, you’re not alone on the pro-AGW side of the fence in being “certain” about climate related hypotheses/conclusions that you have no right to be certain about.
Regards, BRK
ol hoss: Your error is that you didn’t understand the part where I said “For arguments sake I would say that recent starts in 1960 since that is the earliest that I can find fairly reliable records for fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2 records”
In fact, my argument has nothing to do with the pre-industrial level or measurements from ice cores.
However if you are interested in Dr. Jaworowski’s work I would be pleased to discuss it with you . Jim Easter and I began to write a series looking at his work. You can find part 1 of the analysis of his work here.
If you wish to try to defend his work, then that would be an interesting argument. But in relation to my point about CO2 increases, even if you accept it as accurate, it is not relevant.
Regards,
John
Brian: you base your argument on an assumption of “preferential linkages between some sources and sinks, or a lack of linkage between others, that separates the atmosphere carbon budget into quasi-separate accounts.” There are a couple of problems with this point of view.
First, your separate account argument doesn’t hold, since if it is a separate account then it won’t show up in atmospheric CO2. If it not a quasi-separate account then it will show up in the atmospheric CO2.
The second problem with your argument is that there is no observation that can back it up, i.e. we have not seen the mechanism you speak of and there is no theoretical basis for it either. We have good data about the CO2 levels in both the North and South hemispheres and there is no indication of anything out of the ordinary.
In regards to your example where your deposits go from 6 to 8. The main point is that the increase is less than what we produce. If you want to refute my simple model, what you must do is propose a mechanism that is currently not producing CO2, but if for some reason anthropogenic (and only anthropogenic) sources are reduced will kick in to produce CO2. Good luck with that.
In regards to your IPCC quote, I can accept it since it doesn’t negate mine (by the way, virtually certain means more than 99%). The key phrase is “since the industrial era” and I think it is actually a stronger statement than mine since I only go back to 1960.
Oh, and if you think ol hoss has a valid point, feel free to take up Dr. Jaworowski’s point of view.
There is nothing wrong with being certain as long as the certainty is based on something solid.
Regards,
John