Thursday, December 10, 2009
Does ClimateGate reveal a conspiracy?
Watching the talking heads bat ClimateGate back and forth, the warmists are saying (among other things) that a "conspiracy" is almost impossible to imagine because of the thousands of people involved. For what it is worth, I agree. There is no evidence of a global conspiracy to invent evidence of anthropogenic global warming. The more partisan skeptics who have argued the conspiracy theory, or at least alluded to it, are setting themselves up for the obvious response, which is that true conspiracies involving thousands of people are virtually impossible to organize, sustain, and cover up. Megan McArdle describes the much more probable case, which is that the community of climate scientists are practicing a subtle sort of collegiality bias, in which nobody wants to find large errors in the reasoning of their colleagues. Read it all.
MORE: Richard Fernandez has a great post on the same subject, looking at the differences between "confirmation bias" and bureaucratic "incentive bias" in the context of the space program.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
32 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Dec 10, 09:52:00 AM:
I doubt it's any more complicated than a bunch of mediocre minds looking for distinguishment, grant money and job security. Hiding their data is the way they protected themselves from exposure, and they may have collaberated to that extant. Gore and the politicians who tried to use this existential fear for self promotion and personal wealth should not get off so easily, though.
By the way, Wattsupwiththat had another interesting post today, well worth reading.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 09:55:00 AM:
It doesn't have to be such a large conspiracy. Most of the analysis on global warming comes for 3 or 4 data sets, if some those are compromised (which is admitted to, and a given at this point) a small group of like minded individuals could steer all the findings. 2000 scientist may observe a house is red, only takes one painter to change that.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 10:30:00 AM:
Well is this not a mincing parse of "conspiracy"? Are we confounding collusion and conspiracy, or perhaps "political movement" with "conspiracy"? Sound like another dodge to me.
I mean, were the Nazis or the Bolsheviks involved in a "conspiracy" before they came to power. Evidently not by this definitions. Does it matter, this sort casuistry? Seems a distinction with out a difference to me.
it is certainly true that cyrpto-Marxists like Al Gore and the Clinton's went out and funded "climate science" and sent the signal to their fellow travelers in Academia, "think tanks" and the NGO's to give them cover for their Communist power grabs. All those folks over in Denmark are of a particular political "philosophy", are they not? Are not the democrats trying to impose the tranzi order here in the USA?
It is certainly true that the international socialist/tranzi crowd are using this to further their own (hideous) political agenda.
Copenhagen sure looks like a conspiracy to me.
I think that this is the new meme that will be used to dodge the true intent behind all this climate nonsense, and that this is just rear guard action to cover up their perfidy.
It is foolish to give them cover. It is deadly to let them slip through the net this way. We full well know what they were up too.
You may talk about just the folks on the CRU team, but it is broader than that. If they were just careerists, why hide the data? why slander opposition? why the quasi-religious fervor?
Most importunately, why are they all Leftist of various stripes?
The "just overzealous careerists" meme just does not cut it. Are we to imagine that the scientific process can be so easily corrupted by personal ambition? If not, why would personal ambition not lead people to debunk "climate change" rather than collude with fakers? The adoption of the empirical method never assumed altruism on the part of scientists. It was always assumed that personal ambition would drive people. The empirical method is not a moral law, it is an epistemological technique meant to be used as a rational technique to overcome the "Academic Method" , if you will, common of the Middle Ages, and all the sophistic and rhetorical shenanigans than goes with it.
If it is merely a matter of personal ambition, the what is there about "Climate change" that corrupted the scientific process, and, corrupted as well academia and public research institutions in general--corrupted them so "heretics" literally would lose jobs, funding and careers?
We now have the very credibility of institutions like NASA and the EPA in question. Because of individual scientists' personal ambitions? Hardly seems likely.
These people sit on boards and panels that control other people' careers, the flow of information, curricula and even student admissions.
Are we saying the Scientific Method has now failed, that it is only applicable in certain cases?
This "ambition argument" seems rather week to me.
Why, if it is merely personal glory are the results so uniformly aligned with the ambitions of international socialist and Communists?
Nice try, but this notion lack sufficiency.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 10:35:00 AM:
Let me disagree! I believe there is a major conspiracy here. Step back. The real problem is population growth and, in 40 years, the rich, meaning you and me, will be richer but fewer and the poor will be poorer and much, much more numerous.
The internationalists could not attack population because doing so would put them opposed to the blacks and browns of the world and would do nothing to redistribute wealth.
Thus, we are dealing with a major conspiracy that changes the key issue and fakes data to support the alternative claim.
By 
Conrad Bibby, at
Thu Dec 10, 10:44:00 AM:
There may not be much evidence of a conspiracy to invent GW in the first instance. However, there's plenty of evidence of a conspiracy to shout down GW skeptics, deny them meaningful participation in the scientific debate, and dismiss them all as either kooks or shills for energy conglomerates.
GWarmists may have been acting in what they, as individuals, sincerely believed were mankind's best interests; but the net effect of their premature declarations of a "consensus" has obviously been to chill what should have been an open and thorough examination of the GWarmists' theories and conclusions. After all, the GW controversy isn't merely of academic interest. Policymakers around the world are seriously considering imposing measures that would be massively costly and destructive for people everywhere in order to respond to AGW. Given the stakes, people are entitled to know whether the scare quotes around "crisis" belong there or not.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 12:07:00 PM:
There may not be much evidence of a conspiracy to invent GW in the first instance.
Of course there is. What has been funded and promoted by the Left since its inception.
The whole environmental movement was overrun by the left in the '60.
Just look at this gaggle in Denmark this week for Heaven's sake.
AGW as a political project was custom made for the international Socialist/tranzi agenda.
You assertion is neither necessary or sufficient to have any weight at all as an argument, at least at this point.
It is most certainly not a fact.
What is a fact is that the left has use this to promote their own agenda, and were out their prompting it from the start.
This is most certainly beyond debate. All one need do here is look at research funding to establish this.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 12:56:00 PM:
Thanks for the link to Richard Fernandez's post, it was excellent. I have been following his posts for a few years now and I think he is really one of the most thoughtful guys out there. No one puts to rest the notion better than him, that some of the best journalism you will ever come across lies well outside the MSM.
M.E.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 12:59:00 PM:
Sorry, this is what I meant to say.
M.E.
Thanks for the link to Richard Fernandez's post, it was excellent. I have been following his posts for a few years now and I think he is really one of the most thoughtful guys out there. No one establishes the fact better than him, that some of the best journalism you will ever come across lies well outside the MSM.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Thu Dec 10, 01:59:00 PM:
The alleged smoking gun that McArdle relies on has been refuted by Tim Lambert at Deltoid:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
Once again, nothing there.
By Don Cox, at
Thu Dec 10, 02:46:00 PM:
If you greatly increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, how could you prevent temperatures from rising?
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 03:16:00 PM:
The only anthropogenic warming occurring on the earth seems to be the temperatures of politicians eager to defend their power-grab. The Darwin post Fernandez cited is certainly suggestive of the pressure even GW is is under, and the "hockey stick" seems entirely discredited at this point. What's left?
Let's start over on climate science. New scientists, one hopes, will step forward to try to bring some creditable study to this, the worst scientific debacle in modern history.
In the meantime, let the analysis of the debacle itself continue. Brandeis was right: sunlight is the best disinfectant. One hopes Gore will man up and admit the error of his ways.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 03:31:00 PM:
Brian Schmidt said...
The alleged smoking gun that McArdle relies on has been refuted by Tim Lambert at Deltoid:
Was the attempted refutation successful?
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 04:04:00 PM:
"If you greatly increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, how could you prevent temperatures from rising? "
Whether or not the temperature would continue to rise would depend on whether the earth's radiation is saturated in the absorption spectrum of CO2.
CO2 doesn't absorb any old heat. It only absorbs electromagnetic radiation of particular frequencies. Some frequencies are reflected. CO2 is also transparent to other frequencies which means that radiation in those frequencies does not impart energy to the CO2 molecule.
If the earth is seen as a warm body, then we can see that it radiates energy across a broad spectrum. Only a discrete parts of that spectrum will excite CO2. If the earths radiant energy in wavelengths which can be absorbed by CO2, is greater than the ability of CO2 to absorb it (because there is relatively little CO2), then additional CO2 will absorb additional radiant energy and there will be a rise in temperature due to the CO2. If on the other hand the earths radiant energy in wavelengths which can be absorbed by CO2, is less than the absorption capacity of CO2, then additional CO2 will not give rise to additional warming of the atmosphere.
So temperature is not simply related to the amount of CO2. It depends on other factors. This is why the hockey stick was such good powerpoint theater: it sits easy on the brain.
CO2 is only one piece of a puzzle which is still not clearly understood, and in my view not well enough understood to imagine we can engineer climate behavior. There are many other factors which have both heating and cooling effects. All we need here is a period of open minded science and exploration.
M.E.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 05:14:00 PM:
"If you greatly increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, how could you prevent temperatures from rising? "
Don Cox is implicitly using Al Gore's logic:
1) Temperatures have been going up,
2) CO2 traps heat from light (it's a "greenhouse gas"),
3) CO2 has been going up,
Therefore CO2 is the cause of the warming.
Therefore it's going to get catastrophic.
Response:
1) We don't really know what's going on with temperatures. Data collection practices have been flawed and compromised in many ways. Even if they weren't, there's serious question that data is being collected from enough diverse spots to capture "current global temperature." We may be misled by data that has bias to where people live, and not enough over oceans, etc, etc. But let's move on for the moment.
2) Yes, CO2 traps heat. So do a lot of things.
Calling it "greenhouse" is a metaphor. But Earth isn't a greenhouse -- there's no glass roof. Earth loses heat through ordinary convection. If the sun stopped shining, Earth would be an iceball colder than Antarctica in a couple of weeks.
CO2 is a trace gas -- that means there’s very little of it. I’ve estimated that the mass of all the CO2 in the air is less than the mass of the top inch of our oceans. To say it drives the temperature of the planet would require it to have truly magical thermodynamic properties. -- This has not been proved ! Not even close.
This has to do with scale. An ounce of a poison can kill you if put into a glass of water -- but have no affect if put into a reservoir. If CO2 had these magical properties, we should be making heat pumps with it.
Further, we’ve had much higher levels of CO2 in the air in the past, and Earth went through its Ice Age cycles just fine. Which is evidence that CO2 doesn’t in fact have magical thermodynamic properties.
3) Yes CO2 has been going up.
Firstly, here's an important point: Except for arguably warming up the planet -- is there anything bad about CO2? Absolutely not -- quite the contrary -- its' the ultimate plant food. It's not a poison!
Man accounts for some of this increase, but a lot of the CO2 increase is likely a lagged result of Earth getting warmer for other reasons. i.e., increased CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause. Ask any good high school chemistry student about the effect of increasing temperatures on the solubility of gases in water. As temperature go up, the oceans can't hold as much CO2. CO2 in the air goes up.
4) Flawed logic
I haven't seen this talked about much, but it's important. AGW theory is built on unvlidated inferences.
Because their recent data shows a lot of warming (which is in dispute), and AGW scientists can’t otherwise account for this phenomenon, they conclude that man-made CO2 has to be the cause. But to infer that CO2 is the cause doesn’t logically follow. CO2 might be the cause, but it might not. Think of it like a criminal investigation. The data tells you “there’s a dead body on the floor.” At that point CO2 is a suspect — but just because it’s the only suspect you’ve identified doesn’t mean CO2 is necessarily guilty. It’s like convicting someone because he was the only one seen going into the room with the dead body. Statistical coincidence doesn't prove causation.
There's another flawed inference: If CO2 is "guilty" then it must have magical thermodynamic properties to have caused the recent increase. Therefore it will continue to cause increasing temperatures at an accelerating rate until we have catastrophe. This doesn't logically follow. It infers that CO2 might have magical properties, but it's not proof that it does. AGW science compounds this by building this inference into its models.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 05:17:00 PM:
Another big issue is that AGW is focused on the last 1,000 years and especially the last century. But we have millions of years of climate change history that AGW science seems to ignore. A statistician would say that any short-term blips may just be noise in the bigger scheme of things.
I also don’t know how you can make conclusions about AGW without first being sure that you totally understand the effects of the Sun because it’s potentially such an overwhelming factor.
Physicists at CERN have been dabbling in climate change. One theory they’re working on is that the controlling mechanism of climate change is cloud formation driven by cosmic rays which are modulated by variations of the solar wind, which in turn is controlled by sunspot activity. The following link includes a video of a June 2009 minute presentation: http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists
An important point is that flawed AGW data has probably affected the pursuit of alternative theories like sunspot activity.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 05:37:00 PM:
"Brian Schmidt said...
The alleged smoking gun that McArdle relies on has been refuted by Tim Lambert at Deltoid:
Was the attempted refutation successful?"
The couter-argument rests on a claim that Eschenbach ignores the environmental reasons (specifically a location change for a station and a new shelter) for needing to "homgonize" the data. Eschenach does not ignore those reasons, and specifically says, "that makes sense". Point to Eschenbach.
Then, the counter-argument states that Eschenbach ignored the location change in the station. He did not, specifically focusing on five stations (he specifically states that one changed locations, calling it a "good reason" for homogenizing the data) the others stationary) in his assessment. Point to Eschenbach.
The "refutation" is really lame. It's hardly more than a screed, really, dredging up past disagreements and calling Eschenbach names.
Transperancy in the data sets would make both the argument and any potential counter-argument much easier. But the climate science establishment would rather keep the laymen away from the data, because much like ancient priests the "knowledge" is a point of differentiation between them and the common people. This is pretty gross.
By Brian, at
Thu Dec 10, 10:03:00 PM:
Anon: Eschenbach ignored the specific reason to homogenize that particular data set. When he says it "makes sense" elsewhere while refusing the legitimate reason for doing it at Darwin, then he gets no points.
You say he acknowledged a changed location was a "good reason" to homogenize, but he didn't. Also it wasn't a changed location, but a changed thermometer shelter. Again, read Deltoid to get the actual info. Esch says you could arguably homogenize the info, "but I vote against adjusting it at all."
And the adjustment he grudgingly conceded you could do (but he wouldn't) was .6C, but if you look at the actual drop in temps from the new shelter, it was much more than .6C, so his refusal to adjust actually makes the early period seem artificially warm, and depresses the overall warming rate.
Finally, an independent temp record matches the homogenized record:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=nt&station=014015&dtype=anom&period=annual&ave_yr=11
This record is also posted at Deltoid.
Eschenbach looks pretty bad, but apparently that's nothing new to him:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php
McArdle and Fernandez have in turned built their speculations on a finding that makes no sense.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 11:00:00 PM:
We must be reading the plain English differently, since I think you and I disagree on his actual sentences.
By , at
Thu Dec 10, 11:06:00 PM:
Actually Brian, that is a pretty lame counterargument.
You would know that if you knew 1/10th as much about science or logic as you think you do.
He basically attacks straw man arguments that Eschenbach did not really make, pits words in is mouth and then goes on to slander and defame him.
No doubt you think this is science, but few real scientists, and here I mean those outside of the pseudo-science of "climate science" in disciples that have demanding and real scientific and empirical standards and records of real accomplishment, would tolerate this sort of ranting and slander as having any place at all n meaningful debate.
Try this in Physics, Chemistry or applied mathematics and see how far you get. But since "climate science" is not really a science per se, its "practitioners" are blissfully unaware of what real scientist do.
The Climate Change goons have been caught out in a lie and they are circling the wagons. Pity you have to support their perfidy.
Of course you are taken in by it. That is just the sort of "person" you are.
I do hope i manage to stick around long enough to see the look on the faces of folks like you when you finally grow up and hit late middle age. By then it really will become irrefutable in glaring and copious detail just what an immense fraud this all has been. It will be obvious even to arrogant ideologues like you brain. Will you have the character to admit it? I rather doubt it.
There will be no global warming, anthropomorphic or otherwise. You should stop carry water for this fakers.
By Brian, at
Fri Dec 11, 01:13:00 AM:
Anon at 11:00 - I think I've understood Eschenbach correctly when he says "but I vote against adjusting it at all." It's the non-adjusted figure he uses to give an outcome of no warming.
Anon at 11:06 - if you think warming's not going to happen, I'd be quite happy to bet real money over it.
By Don Cox, at
Fri Dec 11, 04:01:00 AM:
"Further, we've had much higher levels of CO2 in the air in the past"
Not much higher, but higher. Those were the times when there were tropical animals like hippos in Britain.
I wish we could have those times back - I am in favor of global warming.
I am not in favor of importing vast amounts of oil and gas from the Arabs and Russians, or of solar plants in the Sahara (more imports).
By , at
Fri Dec 11, 08:39:00 AM:
I believe you misunderstood him. His comment is, in context, that he did "adjust one station" (the station that was moved), though --if he had been in charge-- he would vote against the adjustment since there are five stations at Durban and he wants to disclose all the raw data and then use the smoothed average of the five. He wants to be transparent, in other words, and he wants to stay true to the actual measurement.
His approach is distinguished in several ways, in contradistinction to the IIPC approach: (1) disclosure (2) consistent method (3) honesty. The IIPC approach is to not disclose their approach and methods, except that they "adjust" all stations, even the four that did not move and whose shelters were unchanged. The rebuttal you cited dishonestly assesses his approach, ascribing his method (which results in an analysis the writer does not like) to a desire on Eschenbach's part to deliberately misrepresent the data for political purposes. One might just as easily say the IIPC is guilty of the same thinkg, except that the IIPC does not disclose anything about their adjustment calculation method so one is merely left to speculate. What the IIPC does say is incomplete- they claim to adjust for physical moves and change in shelter, but only Eschenbach tells us what station is affected and when. Only Eschenbach discovers that the reasoning should only affect one station, not all five, while the IIPC "adjusts" all five. This is shoddy work at best, and deliberate dishonesty at worst. You pick.
The "rebuttal" fails completely, and really should not even be defended.
By , at
Fri Dec 11, 08:49:00 AM:
Neither Brian nor Don Cox address fundamental issues raised above. They keep coming up with Chicken Little factoids. It's just lawyerly argumentation, and doesn't further understanding. They're either idiot savants or trolls with an agenda. Thus, I see them as proxies for the entire AGW crowd.
AGW has big issues over the data, obviously. Most scientists who see surprising data call their own methods into question, to be careful. Remember cold fusion? But let's assume for the moment that the data is correct, as there are other fundamental issues with AGW theory that haven't gotten attention.
Because CO2 has been climbing, AGW scientists conclude that it has to be the cause of the warming data they see. As a matter of logic, this causation isn't necessarily true ... but could be true. "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" " Correlation does not imply causation"
Here's the other piece of their thinking. As Al Gore keeps saying lately, it's been proven in the lab that CO2 traps heat. As Al says "It's like the law of gravity." But lots of things trap heat, and CO2 has proven limitations. On a micro level, as Mr Ed points out well above, increasing levels of CO2 absorb less and less heat -- it gets saturated. You'd see this in the lab.
I've harped on another point -- the macro level. Al Gore says we add "90 million tons of the stuff each year!" -- which may be literally true (I haven't checked) -- which sounds scary but doesn't change the fact that there's still very little CO2 in the air on a percentage basis, let alone as a percentage of the mass of Earth -- and this isn't changing. CO2 is a trace gas, and always will be!
Because of this macro limitation, CO2 would have to have magical thermodynamic properties to make AGW theory even possible. But Mr Ed's micro point strongly suggests this isn't true.
It's at this point that activist lawyer Brian will jump in to cross examine me to get me to admit that
1) yes, CO2 is going up
2) yes, man is adding to the CO2 increase
3) yes, CO2 traps heat
therefore man is adding to global warming.
What this obscures is that there's no empirical proof that CO2 has the magical thermodynamic properties necessary to explain Michael Mann's data. It's a question of scale.
Instead, AGW theorists imply magical CO2 properties to fit Michael Mann's data. They built it into their models. Said differently, their models assume causation based on past correlation as seen in Michael Mann's data. It gets worse, they use the inferred magical properties to drive a model that shows catastrophic results.
What these AGW theorists really have is a hypothesis based on questionable magical CO2 properties. You can look at the last decade as a partial test of their hypothesis. It's failing. CO2 is going up, but temperatures aren't -- which is why Brian has to hysterically point to few contrary factoids. Nor are the oceans rising.
AGW theorists have picked on CO2 as the only potential cause to the exclusion of others -- like the CERN physicists sunspot theory.
So as science, all AGW has is a hypothesis. There's been no validating experiment! This is true even if Michael Mann's data is good.
The Truth is Out There.
By , at
Fri Dec 11, 11:20:00 AM:
The "truth is out there" indeed, but first some more serious science needs to occur.
TH asked in his original post if a "conspiracy" had occurred, and in response we all focused on the science. My own bet (not to be confused with Brian's incessant betting!) is that shoddy science was obfuscated on purpose. Call it a "conspiracy" if you wish, but I tend to think Fernandez described the events with more nuance and in a better way. But the politicians who involved themselves in this controversy are another matter, and, there, I think is richer ground for conspiracy mongering.
Certainly, I am readily willing to believe the UN conspired to use the data for nefarious purposes. Who wouldn't believe that possible? That's what they do all the time, after all. Steve McIntyre has a good piece on one example of that subject today, and Charles Krauthammer develops the theme more broadly in his well worth reading WaPo column.
Al Gore has much to answer for.
By Brian, at
Fri Dec 11, 12:16:00 PM:
Anon at 8:39 - Eschenbach went through the exercise of a .6C adjustment to first station for temps acquired prior to 1940, and then abandoned it, saying he voted against doing it. Eschenbach's chart, which is the first chart shown at Deltoid, does not adjust the figures for his result of no warming.
Furthermore, he couldn't average that first station with other stations prior to 1940, because there weren't other stations in his sample set taking temps prior to 1940. The only thing he could do was adjust it or not, and he voted against adjustment.
Other Anon - I'm not seeing much to reply to there, and you seem quite willing to predict no warming, but quite unwilling to bet.
By , at
Fri Dec 11, 01:41:00 PM:
"I'm not seeing much to reply to there,"
I'll take that as an admission / concession that there's no proof that CO2 has the magical thermodynamic properties necessary to explain Michael Mann's data.
But no, I still don't want to bet. I have no financial stake in these arguments, other than my children's future -- which are large enough stakes.
By , at
Fri Dec 11, 06:03:00 PM:
Again Brian, you misread the post. Furthermore, you are arguing about one station versus the remainder of the four remaining. The subject, by the way, of our dispute is the so-called rebuttal and that rebuttal still fails (even if you were right which, of course, you are not). This is ridiculous, and I am done.
By Don Cox, at
Sat Dec 12, 09:01:00 AM:
"Don Cox is implicitly using Al Gore's logic:
1) Temperatures have been going up,
2) CO2 traps heat from light (it's a "greenhouse gas"),
3) CO2 has been going up,
Therefore CO2 is the cause of the warming.
Therefore it's going to get catastrophic."
I have no idea what Al Gore's logic is. I never bothered to watch his film.
My argument is:
1) CO2 traps heat from light (it's a "greenhouse gas"),
3) CO2 has been going up,
Therefore we should expect some global warming. Measurements seem to confirm this, but we are looking for a very small trend in a very noisy signal. Those who do not like the maths involved in detecting such trends may like to wait a few years and see how it goes.
Global warming by, say, 4 degrees C, would be bad for some people (and animals) and good for others. I am inclined to welcome it.
By , at
Sat Dec 12, 02:52:00 PM:
1) CO2 traps heat from light (it's a "greenhouse gas"),
3) CO2 has been going up,
Therefore we should expect some global warming
Ok, it's just not an argument to die for. Scientific research also suggests:
1. CO2 does not trap heat from light (meaning visible wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation).
2. CO2 gets its energy principally from the earth, not the sun.
3. CO2 levels have been higher when the earth was cooler.
4. The earth has been warmer when CO2 levels were lower.
5. CO2 traps radiant energy emitted by the earth in specific wavelengths. It is possible that at some CO2 concentration, additional CO2 will not hold additional radiant energy and there will be no additional warming directly as a result of CO2 increases.
6. The earth's climate is a complex system. Study one element in isolation of the others will hide the behavior of the system because the interactions of the elements are significant.
7. See: syllogism, synergy.
M.E.
By Don Cox, at
Sat Dec 12, 06:18:00 PM:
"Scientific research also suggests:
1. CO2 does not trap heat from light (meaning visible wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation)."
Correct. The absorption band is in the infra-red.
"2. CO2 gets its energy principally from the earth, not the sun."
The vast majority of the IR radiation entering the atmosphere comes directly from the sun.
"3. CO2 levels have been higher when the earth was cooler."
When, exactly? Link please. I think you will find that such periods are at the beginning of warming periods.
"4. The earth has been warmer when CO2 levels were lower."
When? Evidence from what?
"5. CO2 traps radiant energy emitted by the earth in specific wavelengths."
Which wavelengths?
" It is possible that at some CO2 concentration, additional CO2 will not hold additional radiant energy and there will be no additional warming directly as a result of CO2 increases."
Possibly, at temperatures such as are found on the surface of Venus.
By , at
Sun Dec 13, 09:28:00 AM:
Man increases CO2. CO2 traps heat. Therefore, man adds to global warming ... True. But the key is saying "adds to" ... not "causes." There's a lot of variables in this.
Man increases asphalt roads. Asphalt roads trap heat. Therefore, man adds to global warming ... Also true. Seriously, asphalt roads are good at trapping heat. We have a lot of them. I wouldn't be surprised if all the asphalt roads in the world "add to" global warming more than man-made CO2.
If you accept Michael Mann's data as true for purposes of analysis, increasing levels of CO2 can't explain Michael Mann's data for the last few decades. CO2 doesn't have sufficient magical thermodynamic properties. So either 1) Mann's data is wrong, or 2) something else is the cause of Mann's data, or 3) 1 and 2 are both true. But you can't say CO2 is "THE cause." If you accept Mann's data that's the only scientifically valid conclusion you can draw from it, ironically.
To Don Cox, you keep ducking this point.
"Therefore we should expect some global warming. Measurements seem to confirm this, but we are looking for a very small trend in a very noisy signal."
Your assumption is that CO2 is the only variable. That's the exact fallacy of AGW theory I've been pointing out. CO2 is a variable in climate change, but it's hardly the only one. Variability of the Sun likely drives several variables, any of which could be more significant than CO2. Our oceans could be a more significant variable than CO2. I could go on. CO2 may actually be a very small variable, and even a rounding error.
At any point in time, some of these variables could point down -- not up. We can have high confidence that at some point in the future enough of these variables will in fact point down so that Earth will get colder as we move in to the next Ice Age. This process could have already started, for all we know.
You can get misleading results if you study multivariate phenomenon from the perspective of only a single variable. Here's one I've found in my own life: If I wake up with my shoes still on, I'll have a headache. Damn, it happens every time! Ergo, going to sleep with your shoes on causes morning headaches. ps. Butterflies don't cause hurricanes.
The Truth is Out There
By Brian, at
Thu Dec 17, 10:32:00 AM:
Anon, the sun is getting any warmer during the last 30 years, while the climate has been. Urban heat islands from pavement have localized effects but little global effect (painting them white mainly reduces air-conditioning energy needs).
In other words, this all has been studied intensively, and grasping at alternative explanations isn't going to overcome the years of study that demonstrate greenhouse gases are the problem.
