Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[Drake Tungsten]

This is the 3rd time you've attacked my credibility on an issue because I don't know what an individual statement is referring to.

Really? I don't even remember who you are, let alone saying anything to you before.

You seem to adopt the stance "everyone who wishes to comment on an issue must know every single detail about it

God, that would be sooo nice, but I'd settle for someone who isn't ignorant of the major details.

[ricketyclik]

This is the 3rd time you've attacked my credibility on an issue because I don't know what an individual statement is referring to.

Really? I don't even remember who you are, let alone saying anything to you before.

That's because your kneejerk reaction with most people you disagree with is to attack their knowledge, or "ad hominem", a tactic usually resorted to by the people insecure of their own correctness.

You seem to adopt the stance "everyone who wishes to comment on an issue must know every single detail about it

God, that would be sooo nice, but I'd settle for someone who isn't ignorant of the major details.

Not knowing what an acronym (or even someone's particular phrase) is referring to is hardly evidence that someone isn't aware of the phenomenon or idea in question.

I repeat: grow up.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

A game of 20 questions is in order.

I will start for the uninformed.

Is MWP an animal?

[ricketyclik]

Other acronyms one should be familiar with before participating include:

MBH
MM
AGW

Wegman report

Thanks for the tip. Just to make sure of a couple:

MWP = Mediaeval Warm Period,

MBH = Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes, generators of the MBH reconstructions, and

MM = McIntyre and McKitrick, authors of criticism of MBH.

Correct?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Forgot Wegman report that completely demolishes MBH and thus allows reestablishment of MWP.

[ricketyclik]

I was just querying the ones I wasn't sure of.

By the way, sceptics really latch on to that Mediaeval Warm Period; I fail to see how evidence of previous temperature variation makes them feel safe from a business as usual 7 degrees of warming over less than 200 years.

[BlackCat]

Ogie forgot one : LIA

[BlackCat]

I was just querying the ones I wasn't sure of.

By the way, sceptics really latch on to that Mediaeval Warm Period; I fail to see how evidence of previous temperature variation makes them feel safe from a business as usual 7 degrees of warming over less than 200 years.

I'm not quite sure what these 7 degree over 200 year is. What we have experienced is 2 degrees over 400.

[ricketyclik]

It's the forecast rise in temperature (in Centigrade) if emissions continue to track along their present growth curve.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ogie forgot one : LIA

Thanks will add that to the first grade studies.

[BlackCat]

Ah, you mean the forecast that all the debate is about - you consider it as a fact despite controversies ?

Actually forgot something in the previous post. You ask why sceptics latch on to the MWP and LIA. That really confuses me. It was the AGW'ers eradication of those that made it possible to claim that the currently measured rise was unprecedented in the last 1000 years.

Try take a look at this : http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/annurev00.pdf

The inversion of this profile revealed a long mid-Holocene warm interval some 0.2–0.6 K above present day
temperatures, and another similar but shorter warm interval 500–1,000 years ago.
Temperatures then cooled to a minimum of approximately 0.5 K below present,
about 200 years ago.

The warming of the Earth over the past 2
centuries is now well established by the instrumental record and various proxies,
including subsurface temperatures. But the proportions of the warming that may
be due to variable solar radiation, or to changing concentrations of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, or to other factors, and how those proportions may be
changing with time, are questions yet unresolved (Briffa et al 1998, Crowley &
Kim 1999).

[ricketyclik]

But that's the whole thing in a nutshell to me BC - the AGW proponents didn't observe the (so far minuscule) warming and think, "Jee, what's causing this?". Over one hundred years ago it was observed that we're pumping out a lot of CO2, and scientists asked the question "What are the implications?".

They forecast temperature rise. Since then, understanding of the feedback loops at play between the regolith, oceans, biosphere and the atmosphere have increased and resulted in increased alarm, although there is still plenty more to learn I'm sure.

But all of this argument about whether the warming so far is anthropogenic or not is just a side show. Warming due to increased concentrations of CO2 is incontrovertible (and yes, I've read a lot of the sceptics' denial of this, and it is BS) and CO2 concentrations continue to rise at an ever-increasing rate. That's the bottom line.

(For anyone unaware, you should also realise that warming due to increased GG concentrations takes a long time, is cumulative and exponential - a lot of the warming experienced so far is probably mainly due to pre-1960 emissions).

[BlackCat]

Did you look at figure 5 and 7 in that I linked to ? Notice that the speed with wich temperature rises approximately doubles every 100 year since LIA. That is 400 years without antropogenic CO2 influence where temp has gone up faster and faster.

About the CO2 effect, I really hope that you know that it's not linear. That is doubling the amount of CO2 doesn't mean that you trap double heat. There is an interesting discussion about that here :

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

I too hope that you know that CO2 shares absorbtion band with H2O and that takes up a great del of that.

[ricketyclik]

Did you look at figure 5 and 7 in that I linked to ? Notice that the speed with wich temperature rises approximately doubles every 100 year since LIA. That is 400 years without antropogenic CO2 influence where temp has gone up faster and faster.

This does not change the fact that GG up = temp up.

About the CO2 effect, I really hope that you know that it's not linear. That is doubling the amount of CO2 doesn't mean that you trap double heat. There is an interesting discussion about that here :

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

I too hope that you know that CO2 shares absorbtion band with H2O and that takes up a great del of that.

No it is not linear. One molecule of GG will reflect many, many photons of energy, depending on its lifespan in the atmosphere. This means that heat recycling in the atmosphere is increased over time, resulting in continuing temperature increase from a single increase in GG concentration at any one point in time. Thus, if you continue to increase GG concentration, temperature increases exponentially. It is effectively compound interest.

[ricketyclik]

There is an interesting discussion about that here :

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

I too hope that you know that CO2 shares absorbtion band with H2O and that takes up a great del of that.

This argument considers the atmosphere as an homogeneous continuum, when in fact it is much more like a layer cake, where CO2 (and water) concentrations vary considerably from layer to layer.

Also, have you considered that a 7 degree rise represents about a 2.4% increase in heat in the atmosphere? Not much overall, but enough to throw some serious spanners in some major ecosystems (including ours).