Yes correlations do not show cause. Past climate changes over geological time happened very slowly over thousands of years. The causes are understood. Below is a graph of CO2 concentration and temperature for the last 400 thousand years. If you cannot see the problem we are all facing then I may as well not bother to comment further.
Wasn't there mention of some skullduggery in reference to the use of core sample analyses that Al Gore presented in his ode to self, "An Inconvenient Truth"? I seem to recall someone stating that he rather conveniently omitted samples that contradicted his case. I remember hearing about it all but have been unable to find reference to it on the 'net this morning. I'm not being a very good scientist, I know... LOL! I'll keep looking later this morning.
Presenting us with a sample here as you have Bert, could you give us some background on its source and also comment on what I just stated? I notice that that even though CO2 concentration looks to be rising above previous trends it is, however, rising in unison with previous peaks. What does this indicate? The graph's resolution is 50,000 years per division, and I suspect that this is too low to properly gauge the real rise over the past 1,000 years. I'd like to see it show that there is a distinct correlation between this concentration and human activity starting with the industrial revolution. Can anyone point me to a reliable source to show this? All I can conclude from that graph is that there is currently a high concentration of CO2 where the (average) samples were taken. Antarctic ice and Mauna Loa are just two locations on a very large Earth.
I'm not being purposefully condescending or attempting to challenge your presentation Bert - just the opposite - I'd like more information. One graph is a pretty small sample space you have to admit.
Yes CO2 concentration does lag temperature rise by about 800 years. This is also well understood as the oceans and ground warm they liberate CO2 this then adds to the warming caused by solar variation. This accounts for about 60% of the then temperature rise not solar variation.
The current situation is that we for the first time in history have by burning fossil fuels have taken CO2 levels way past any historic value.
Solar variation is not the major cause of current temperature rise. The situation is even worse if you take into account that every glacier on Earth is retreating. The high levels of CO2 are also raising the pH of the oceans to the extent that any organism that forms calcium carbonate shells for protection are not doing as well as they were doing it in the past. Where do you think limestone comes from. There are also huge amounts of CO2 fixed in clathrates on the colder parts of the oceans floor. If these clathrates warm up there will be a run away effect. The CO2 and methane now held in the frozen arctic tundra will also be liberated. This will make our puny efforts by burning fossil fuels look like a little blip. Trouble is we have set off this chain reaction.
Once the tipping points have been reached there is no going back. By tipping points I mean the negative feedback systems have been overcome and positive feedback then cuts in.
We ignore it at our peril.
As a small aside if it was not for the 200ppm of CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be -17C.
Yes, it's the trapped tundra CH4 that will probably present itself as the largest contributing factor to our troubles - given that even if you burn it off all you get is more CO2 and water. Oh fun!
Quantifying all of this is the trouble - both in being able to derive sensible analyses and even more importantly - sensible reaction. If we have (and I haven't stated it in the affirmative) "tipped" it, there's quite frankly bugger-all we're going to be able to do about it now other than apply bandaids in the form of government-controlled sanctions and limits.
I do not want to scare anyone but about 40% of humanity rely on their water supply from glacier melt. This water will not be available when the glaciers are gone. This will happen in only a few decades even if we did not burn one more gram of fossil fuel.
I could go on for much longer. What I find so depressing is the scientific guns for hire that keep telling us that it is business as usual.
Even if I am wrong to believe the worlds top climate scientists can we really risk the future of our only home, Spaceship Earth.
Do you have house insurance? Will your house burn down?
I'm going to state that I don't have my own opinion on this because I, like most of the population, are simply ineligible to have one. I am not qualified to be able to analyse any data presented and be able to properly understand and qualify it all such that I could separate emotive hype from fact. Call me a CC "agnostic". I could never join either camp until I know it in my head that I'm listening to something that is intrinsically correct. Given the utter complexity of the situation, I don't think that will happen until after it's all come to pass. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Humans instinctively roam in packs - and it is deeply desirable to have similar patterns of thought to your pack in order to truly be part of the group. I do believe that most humans on this planet who have an "opinion" on this current subject are just forming it to be part of their chosen herd with an almost religous ferver. Dangerous and ill-informed I think. It's more comfortable to be part of the bigger group than stand out on the sideline and say "well... prove it to me". Peer pressure is such a powerful motive.
To form a solid opinion, I require the services of a qualified scientist who is actively participating at the CC coalface and willing to sit down and explain the undeniable mechanics of it to me based on empirical evidence - in my own terms. I refuse to take an opinion based on something I don't fully understand - irrespective of who is giving it unless I can follow their logic. Cause and effect - both are hugely complex and I'm not even confident that any one person or group of people truly have their heads around it. We can measure whatever we like - but quantifying the effect of said measurement, and then translating it into some meaningful reaction is going to occupy a pile of people for a long time to come. We can read reports until they come out our ears, but I'll never be able to trust one unless I really know that there's no secondary agenda behind it. That's going to be difficult...
.... he is also the new minister asissting the minister for climate change the Hon Penny Wong MP, boy does Greg have his work cut out for him in his new ministerial portfolio
If my better half was working for the Minister.... I be having a quiet word to her about a national oudoor lighting policy
Yes correlations do not show cause. Past climate changes over geological time happened very slowly over thousands of years. The causes are understood. Below is a graph of CO2 concentration and temperature for the last 400 thousand years. If you cannot see the problem we are all facing then I may as well not bother to comment further.
Bert
Thanks Bert,
Your graph demonstrates what we have been talking about, CO2 levels have risen exponentially in recent times, and the temperature rise reached has plateau of between +/- 2 degrees of the 0 mark.
Statistics mean what you want them to mean. Have you demonstrated the link between rising CO2 and temperature?
We are not saying that CO2 hasn't risen, we are asking for the relevance of the statement in regards to global temperature change, and is it Mans fault, or something else not being represented? The conjecture is in the research of the "something else", not enough work has been done on that portion, and that is where the sceptisism comes from.
You asked earlier for a list of people who fall into the sceptics arena - can you please discredit these people for us?
Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics
Dr. Claude Allegre, Geophysicist
Bruno Wiskel, Geologist at the University of Alberta
Dr. Nir Shaviv, Astrophysicist
Dr. Joanna Simpson, Atmospheric scientist
Dr. David Evans, Mathematician and engineer
Dr. Reid Bryson, Meteorologist
Dr. David Bellamy, Botanist
Dr. Tad Murty, Climate researcher Flinders University
Dr. Chris de Freitas, Climate scientist of The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher
James A. Peden, Atmospheric physicist
Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.
And just to put my "ulterior motives" on the table, I personally benefit from the rising CO2 argument in relation to IT power comsumption. The corporate line and my line diverge significantly as to the relevance.
The situation is even worse if you take into account that every glacier on Earth is retreating.
There are also huge amounts of CO2 fixed in clathrates on the colder parts of the oceans floor. If these clathrates warm up there will be a run away effect.
The CO2 and methane now held in the frozen arctic tundra will also be liberated.
This will make our puny efforts by burning fossil fuels look like a little blip.
Is global warming causing the the rise in CO2?
Bert has provided some interesting ammunition that can be used in both sides of the debate.
I'm a little staggered at how discussion on my original post has gone so astray.
Re-stating, the report I linked to was generated by some venerable instutuions. The Simthsonian, NSF,NOAA, NASA..etc.. As Bert stated, you'd be delusional to think these guys are fudging the data. (of I forgot, the moon landings were also faked by them )
Their concusions are striking.
Yet, we have side debates akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Of course there will be dissent in the scientific community, that's part of the process.
I would have thought critical analysis of the above report would have been interesting.....but sadly, not forthcoming.
I would have thought critical analysis of the above report would have been interesting.....but sadly, not forthcoming.
I am only up to about page 20, when I get through all 196 pages I will be better able to comment on the report. So far though, there have been a lot of statements made, but no substantiation, maybe that will come around page 60 or maybe 160? Here's hoping!
Downloaded and read the full report last night. Very instructive but a bit alarmist in some parts. Regardless of who or what caused it they all seem to agree in reducing green house gas emissions. The problem is that nobody's going to do anything about it. The lucky people "well off " living in free countries such as us won't cut down on their way of life and the rest of humanity living in oppression or misery are just too busy surviving and feeding themselves on a daily basis.
All species of animal and insect are controlled through a process that had existed for eons before man to maintain an equilibrium.
Man comes along put's himself at the top of the food chain, takes control, developes, last 200 years industrial revolution burns fuel, breeds vast herds of methane producing animals, breeds like flies, increases their life span, controls deseases.
I cannot believe that we may be so naive to believe that as a species we have not adversely affected the environment we live in.
Marc, its going to make great reading and discusion this weekend? Are you driving up to Ilford?
Not sure. I decided to ride my bike up there after reading that report to decrease my carbon footprint. C11's a b**ch to carry. I might bring some binos instead.
I notice that you are yet to provide your own analysis Peter...
Touche'
OK I see the correltation with CO2 and the onset of the industrialization as undeniable. Similarly with glacial retreat. It has been shown without doubt the cause is *not* solar flux or volcanic variation. Arctic ecosystems are already being affected.
The GCCI report is *extremely* well referenced and while I've only had time to check a couple of the original source papers, there has been no data fudging and the veracity of their conclusions looks to be valid.
Disturbingly, there is very little mention of deforrestation. The current global and massive reduction in Bio-mass is considered by many (notably James Lovelock) to be a significant buffer against CO2 concentrations.
I for one am concerned, not so much for me, but for generations to come.
)
