Re: OT: How to profit from AGW?

On Dec 31, 1:22 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:02:00 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

<bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

SNIP

Here is your homework. Get some knowledge and form your own, non
Consensus, opinions.

And I should Chopin for myself, rather than listening to other
painists who are good enough to do Chopin justice?

Funnily enough I do expect you to think for yourself. But either your
age or temperament stop you.

Rubbish.

You'd be a horrible example of how badly you can go wrong when you try
and re-invent climate science for yourself.

Sure I get things wrong. We all do. Then I go back and try again.
Unlike you I never rely on someone elses judgement when it is going to
cost me money.

Joke. You designed your own house, and closely supevised the sub-
contractors that built it? You designed your own car, you own fridge,
your own computer?

If you did, and showed the same level of judgement in the process as
you do when you talk about climate science, your house would have
fallen down and your car wouldn't start.

soot deposits,

Where? coming from what?

http://www.physorg.com/news180035832.html

/quote

A new modeling study from NASA confirms that when tiny air pollution
particles we commonly call soot - also known as black carbon - travel
along wind currents from densely populated south Asian cities and
accumulate over a climate hotspot called the Tibetan Plateau, the
result may be anything but inconsequential.

/end quote

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/26593/2009/acpd-9-26593-2009....

Localised and anthropogenic

But not CO2

http://dust.ess.uci.edu/ppr/ppr_TRZ10_csz.pdf

Part of the El Nino effect; presumably not anthropogenic and thus not
useful in explaining the current warming

Worse during the El Nino. But still anthropogenic. And caused by
forest burn off so another reason. But not CO2.

Forest fires aren't necessarily anthropogenic - lighting does a
perfectly adequate job in teh absence of careless smokers.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=impure-as-the-driven....

Localised and anthropogenic

But not CO2

So we have 3 localized and anthropogenic all affecting the glaciers
that supply water to a third of the worlds population in the Indian
sub continent and China.

Not soot:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html

Con-trails, no contrails after 9/11 meant increased variablility,
rather than increased temperature.

/quote

The first analysis of emissions from commercial airline flights shows
that they are responsible for 4–8% of surface global warming since
surface air temperature records began in 1850 — equivalent to a
temperature increase of 0.03–0.06 °C overall.

/end quote

Which is to say, very little.

change in land use,

That Ruddiman's hypothesis, and it comes down to more methane, but not
enough to explain the recent warming.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/3216n312850r4j5m/?p=a595d5e1068a4....

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/q-a-what-is-the-area....

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-349.pdf

Interesting, but scarcely persuasive.

Another anthropogenic but not CO2.

change in ocean currents.

which is pure speculation. If changes in ocean currents were going to
explain the current warming, we'd expect to see obvious changes in the
oceans, like the El Nino/la Nina alternation, and we don't. There
probably is low level stuff going on - the North Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation is a case in point - but while it does shift the warm and
cold weather around a bit, it doesn't seem to make all that much
difference to the temperature averaged over the whole planet.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/currents.html

/quote

Climate changes on the scale of several decades to millenia are
strongly controlled by surface and deep ocean currents. For instance,
in Europe the Ice Age cooling was larger than the global mean, due to
a southward shift of the westward flow in the south Atlantic ocean
gyre.

/end quote

In other words, if we screw up the climate enough to change ocean
current paths, we may well see even more positive feedback. We don't
seem to be seeing any of that at the moment.

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

Another source of multidecadal oscillation, of the sort that we can -
just - see in the current temperature record. Using it to explain the
current bout of warming (over the last century) is pure hand-waving.

Explains some arctic ice melt. Ice melt leads to warming by reducing
albedo. But not CO2 induced.

SNIP

Where the alarmists get it wrong is by ignoring all other climate
forcings and inventing excessive positive feedback to make it look
like CO2 is the only cause of warming.

It's difficult to to make the Milankovitch mechanism explain the ice-
age/integlacial alternation without that "excessive"  positive
feedback. I can't really see why you claim that "alarmists" ignore all
other climate forcings - they certainly take methane and the other
minor greenhouse gases into account, and they are doing their best to
get the ocean currents measured and fitted into their models. They do
ignore the more bizarre explanations that have surfaced from time to
time, like solar variation and charged particles from the sun
controlling the cloud cover, but not without good reason.

I admit I haven't got to the bottom of Milankovitch, yet.  So if
Milankovitch is causality not correlation you have a point.

However there are problems with the theory, particularly causality for
our debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Problems

For example:

/quote

The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate
interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun
10 thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have
been causing it. This is also referred to as the causality problem.

/end quote

Sure. But we are looking back quite a long way, and Milankovitch
orbital changes aren't the only thing that can mess up the climate.
Consider the Younger Dryas - the timing of the collapse of the ice dam
that had been retaining Lake Lake Agassiz was clearly influenced by
the state of the earth's orbit, but lots of other factors got into the
act.

I think I showed a reasonable person that there are other causes for
warming other than CO2. You of course will not agree.

You have. You didn't need to. Every decent exposition of the subject
talks about minor greehouse gases and aerosols. You haven't put
numbers on any of the various minor causes, and none of them is all
that important compared with CO2 (water excepted, but water works
purely as a positive feedback mechanism, so you tackle it by working
on the longer-lived greenhouse gases).

My point for the last year is to show that the science is not settled,

Wrong. Granting your pathetic expertise in the area, this has a David
and Goliath element, except that your sling would be loaded with
grapes rather than pebbles.

CO2 is not that important,

Wrong. CO2 is the most important of the permanent greenhouse gases,
and the one we have to get under control.

and climate scientists don't have much of a
clue about measuring things.

Wrong - you don't know enough about how they measure stuff and what
they measure to have any useful opinion on the subject. Your rantings
about the Greenland and Antarctic ice core temperatures showed you
comparing apples and pears, and you not only failed to work this out
for yourself, but also failed to follow up the clue I gave you that
told me that we were talking about two different kinds of temperature
measurements, telling us about temperatures at two rather different
locations.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: {OT} Global warming glitch.....
    ... during which the sea ice extent increased as it does every winter. ... It shows warming on the blue line, and CO2 levels on the red line. ... The blue line leads the red line, so temperature leads CO2. ... average for recent interglacials, and the last glacial ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
    ... Show where CO2 has anything to do with it! ... Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science. ... the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. ... greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Yeah Wheaton is back, pixie let the games begin
    ... news that the best-measured glacier in North America, ... Hemisphere chilling of the sort that can bring on an Ice Age. ... period of slight warming. ... are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Vqpros kqm Dorotea
    ... Vzemi i smetni njakolko vulkana kolko CO2 ... "Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, ... of the "theory of global warming". ... the result of rising temperature. ...
    (soc.culture.bulgaria)
  • Re: The Independent this morning...
    ... studying ice core data relating to CO2 & temperature for my PhD. ... His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already ... > warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late. ...
    (uk.sci.weather)