| send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl |
One Hundred Years is not Enough
(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)
This article has moved to ScienceBlogs
It has also been updated and this page is still here only to preserve the original comment thread. Please visit A Few Things Ill Considered there. You may also like to view Painting With Water, Coby Beck's original fine art photography.Labels: Sceptic Guide
posted by coby @ 1/06/2006 07:19:00 PM
Subscribe to this blog here
36 Comments:
At March 15, 2006 6:31 AM,
Jenn said…
Looking at that last graph - the one that shows the Antarctic ice core data (from Lake Vostok I presume), how does one show a skeptic that graph and tell them to not draw the conclusion that now is just another one of those upward spikes? Knowing the people that I've tried to convince, that is the first thing they would point out as an argument that this warming is just a natural part of the earth's climate fluxuations, not anything anthropogenic
At March 15, 2006 8:00 AM,
coby said…
Hi Jenn,
There are two points you can make in response to that. One is that the orbital forcings that governed those glacial cycle are well understood and predictable and if those cycles were still dominating the climate changes today we should in fact be in a very long slow cooling. According to those cycles we would have about another 30 or 40 thousand years. The other important point is that during the sharp (looking) rises in that record the global temperature rose ~10oC over ~7000 years which is some .014oC/decade. Today the temperature is rising about .2oC/decade
These two articles also touch on that: The Null Hypothesis and It's Natural
At March 15, 2006 8:02 AM,
coby said…
That is "30 or 40 thousand years" until the next glaciation
At March 27, 2006 4:36 PM,
Anonymous said…
To start with 'ice cores', where the ice is produced from the compression of SNOW, there is little to nil VALID reasoning to assume that after 650000 years the gas 'bubbles' found can actually represent the original composition of the 'atmosphere' at any particular time, or at all.
This is as the SAMPLE volume firstly is so small as to NOT offer a sample size that can render a statistically SIGNIFICANT 'experiment' with significant correlation to the overall 'population' (see concepts under Experimental Design).
Also there is nothing to suggest that any particlar 'bubble' contains ONLY gas from a particular 'time' and that has NOT experienced cross mixing 'prior' to ice formation.
Then there is that all the H20 is removed.
Then the 650,000 years of unknowns is added.
For 20 MILLION Years ago the climate would have been in a DIFFERENT 'mode', no longer in a 'PRIMARY TROUGH' (as now). The SAME would be true for 70 MILLION years ago.
These periods (20 to 70 MILLION years ago) would be in a PRIMARY CREST mode of the overall Climate oscillation. The SECONDARY oscillations would still occur however, but would NOT dip into 'glaciations'.
You would see in geological record (more likely) division of Secondary PEAK and DIP by SEA LEVEL alterations, as TURBULENCE leaves few traces otherwise that would survive till NOW.
The PRESENT Primary Trough is only 2 to 3 MILLION years 'old' (near the same age as 'modern Humanity', and its precedants). The BEHAVIOR we are observing is particular to THIS 'oscillatory mode'.
See the links:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
In regard to 'ice core data', there is little in valid methodology that can outline the atmosphere of 650,000 years ago, as has already been shown, due to poor methodology and applications of predetermination (so often seen behind attempts to factualise similar 'data inferences').
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At March 27, 2006 6:46 PM,
coby said…
Hi Peter,
Ok, this is the kind of statement your comments are full of that I was talking about in our email exchange:
"To start with 'ice cores', where the ice is produced from the compression of SNOW, there is little to nil VALID reasoning to assume that after 650000 years the gas 'bubbles' found can actually represent the original composition of the 'atmosphere' at any particular time, or at all."
You are dismissing an entire subfield of research with a handwave, devoid of reason or citation.
This is as the SAMPLE volume firstly is so small as to NOT offer a sample size that can render a statistically SIGNIFICANT 'experiment'"
Here is an oppurtunity for you to add something called "substance". Do you know what the sample size is? How big does it need to be and why?
"Also there is nothing to suggest that any particlar 'bubble' contains ONLY gas from a particular 'time' and that has NOT experienced cross mixing 'prior' to ice formation."
There is indeed mixing that occurs. This effects what is called "resulution". The mixing that occurs reduces the resolution of the ice core records to several centuries, sometimes the CO2 samples are an average of 1000yrs. You can see the data here.
"Then there is that all the H20 is removed"
Why do you think that is relevant? The concentration of H2O is a function of air temperature and while I'm sure it would be nice to have a relative humidity proxy, because water vapor is a response not a forcing of climate change, we are not losing evidence of cause of change.
"For 20 MILLION Years ago the climate would have been in a DIFFERENT 'mode', no longer in a 'PRIMARY TROUGH' (as now). The SAME would be true for 70 MILLION years ago.
These periods (20 to 70 MILLION years ago) would be in a PRIMARY CREST mode of the overall Climate oscillation. The SECONDARY oscillations would still occur however, but would NOT dip into 'glaciations'. "
This is an example of what I consider incoherent. At best it is not clearly connected to anything. It is unreferenced as well. Where does the tern "primary trough" come from? I googled =="primary trough" climate million== and you are top of the very short list. You go on with it but there is no relevance to GW today and you are not making any particular point. What happened 20 million years ago may be informative (though no information is coming from you) but it is not explanatory of today nor predictive of the next few centuries.
You then repeat your baseless claim that the methodology used in analyzing the ice cores is poor. It is worth noting that there are other proxy records such as sea sediments and these do provide support for the ice core conclusions.
I hope this helps you understand why I am not interested in material like this, in such volume as you provide, remaining on the site.
At March 28, 2006 5:23 AM,
Anonymous said…
It is simply not possible to make the inferences presented, with any correlation or validity, with the methodology used, in regard to the 'gas bubbles'. This was an issue from the very outset of the attempts to factualise these inferences, and it has never been validly addressed.
The problem NOW is that the use of these factualised inferences has 'contaminated' other research.
The atmosphere is contained in a volume of ~51,472,901,235 cubic km's.
The mass of the atmosphere is regarded as ~0.0000051 x10^24 kilograms.
The mass is NOT distributed uniformly within the volume represented (with an assumed depth of the atmosphere being 100 km's
Now where is the statistical significance of the volume and/or mass of those 'gas bubbles' being found?
There is not even an ability to limit mix effects to centuries; again the incorporation of previously factualised inferences is producing error that is NOT being considered, again due to predetermination by the researchers regardless of any nomenclature 'invented' as a descriptive.
This is called an 'assumption chain', each link introducing not only error, but reducing validity within any later postulations produced incorporating 'previous works'.
If you consider the chart of atmospheric absorbance, seen in article at
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
, it will be realised that the absorbance of energy by atmospheric water, and the dipole behavior of water molecules, results in that energy absorbed by atmospheric water being 'converted' into intrinsic kinetic energy OF the h2O molecular unit.
That is these water molecules become 'hotter' and increase their kinetic velocity. This kinetic velocity is transferred by collision, the processes of Conduction and Convection. It is that the primary source of atmospheric 'heating' is by H2O molecules.
The dipole behavior of CO2 is, on the other hand, resulting in the remittance of the energy absorbed (again see chart in links above) as secondary photons. This limits the ability of CO2 to gain intrinsic kinetic energy to being ~1/100th that of the H2O molecule.
So it is that by NOT knowing the H2O content of these 'bubbles' there is no manner of knowing WHAT the 'temperature' being produced within the atmosphere BY the atmosphere is, in any valid manner.
The other problem is that the overall conformation of the materialing of the planetary land surface is not well known either, so kinetic energy induction rates, and distribution of such induction, is still not well defined.
You will note in the charts in the links above a recent chart of land, ocean, and total temperature. You will note that the ocean temperature lags behind the land but shows a similar, but delayed and muted, trend.
The induction of kinetic energy from the land surface materialing interacting with available incident photons is a primary source of kinetic energy, via conduction and convection, to the oceans and atmosphere influencing both.
As to H2O, it is not a response, or a 'forcing', it is in a feedback loop. The more H2O in the atmosphere, the more energy is caught prior to the surface materialing. The solid surface can induce greater kinetic gains as it is NOT free to spontaneously move, as can the molecules of a gas and in a lesser manner those of a liquid.
So with more H2O the surface will cool and the atmosphere will 'buffer' this loss of kinetic energy input by a slight increase of its intrinsic temperature, but become more turbulent as well. Eventually the surface will cool sufficiently to produce an observed reversion of the warming trend that increased the level of 'humidity'. This is a process 'oscillator'.
It is easy to observe if you consider the block time line in the link
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
, where you will see that the present period of recurring glaciations is only just 2 millions years 'old'.
Next, to aid in realising the information I relate, these 'terms' (as nominated) are not 'mine'. It is simple to realise that there is a longer term carrier and evidenced shorter term behavior that appear to be independent. This is realised even decades ago, when I was in study at University.
The longer term (Primary) oscillation is thought to be an irregular 'step' or 'square' wave-form in it's predominate behavior, with a variable 'ramp' as leading and trailing 'edges' (as in signal timing schemes for computing systems). This lifts the irregularly periodic shorter term form into periods where the secondary 'peak' leads into a 'dip' containing glaciation events.
What is still not well understood is what happens at the 'top', within the 'Primary Crest' wave within the secondary peak and dip there placed, or even at the 'peak' when in a 'primary trough' (as we are now).
The sea levels of the last 130,000 years give some hint, and the sea levels of 20 to 70 million years ago show a primary repositioning of the peak and dip with altering levels seen, but at much higher relative positions of sea level.
The transitions of the primary wave, if it is a 'severe square' form, would be very violent. These 'transitions' could be as irregular as the observed periodicity OF the total Climate Oscillation (again see chart in link above).
It is thought that this rapid 'primary' transition was a key factor in a small apelike pre-descendant of Modern Humanity gaining use of the advantage it's 'intelligence' provided. The time line involving the last 2 to 3 Million years of the appearance of "Human forms" and the return into a Period of recurring glaciation are near simultaneous (in terms of the 'times' involved).
Discussion is all I ever seek, and I am unaware of any 'volume of material' to this 'site' or any other, as I have not produced such (as outlined already).
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At March 28, 2006 9:18 AM,
coby said…
"It is simply not possible to make the inferences presented, with any correlation or validity, with the methodology used, in regard to the 'gas bubbles'.
You said this before, I asked you for substantiation or some chain of reasoning. You obviousy don't have any. What follows from this is the "assumption chain", they are your assumptions and they are completely wrong.
...Now where is the statistical significance of the volume and/or mass of those 'gas bubbles' being found?
This is a completely inappropriate question. It seems you think that the CO2 concentration at any given point is some random or chaotic value and we determine the average concentration by weighted arithmetic mean. This again is wrong and you would not be this wrong if you had even the most basic background information. CO2 is a well mixed gas, its concentration is roughly uniform throughout the lower atmosphere. If you are close to a source of concentrated CO2, such as a volcanic vent, a coal fired electrical plant or a busy highway then the concentration is significantly higher. But in the antarctic wilderness before industrialization this is not a problem.
"That is these water molecules become 'hotter' and increase their kinetic velocity. This kinetic velocity is transferred by collision, the processes of Conduction and Convection. It is that the primary source of atmospheric 'heating' is by H2O molecules.
Do you have a reference for this claim? My understanding is that GHG's, like H2O, absorb energy as IR and then very quickly reemit it as IR and half goes back to the earth's surface. The air is warmed promarily via conduction and convection of heat originating from warmed land and water. The atmosphere is 99% non-GHG's, the warming mechanism you describe is a very minor effect.
The other problem is that the overall conformation of the materialing of the planetary land surface is not well known either, so kinetic energy induction rates, and distribution of such induction, is still not well defined.
What does this mean? Are you talking about albedo? If so, why would you think it is not well known? Albedo depends of flora, geology and ice sheet extent, these things can be worked out.
"So with more H2O the surface will cool and the atmosphere will 'buffer' this loss of kinetic energy input by a slight increase of its intrinsic temperature, but become more turbulent as well. Eventually the surface will cool sufficiently to produce an observed reversion of the warming trend that increased the level of 'humidity'. This is a process 'oscillator'."
This is barely coherent, but if I follow you: no. The lifetime of H20 in the atmosphere is a matter of days, you follow this (again) unsupported notion above with the ludicrous claim that this imaginary "oscillation" is controlling climate on a scale of tens of millions of years.
"The longer term (Primary) oscillation is thought to be an irregular 'step' or 'square' wave-form in it's predominate behavior, with a variable 'ramp' as leading and trailing 'edges' (as in signal timing schemes for computing systems). This lifts the irregularly periodic shorter term form into periods where the secondary 'peak' leads into a 'dip' containing glaciation events."
Claiming something and then saying it is common knowledge or you learned it a long time ago in University is not good enough. I don't believe you. If you are correct, I want to know. Show me some substantiation. I make no claim of knowing everything or even most things about climate science, but I have never come across your theories before. The only way to reconsider my initial "crackpot" impression is to show me where you got this from.
"Discussion is all I ever seek, and I am unaware of any 'volume of material' to this 'site' or any other, as I have not produced such (as outlined already)."
Thousand word comments full of repetition and with no focus or specifics are not conducive to discussion. Please focus, respond to questions, provide reasons or reasoning, or as per our discussion via email, I will not keep your comments as they won't contribute anything useful.
At March 28, 2006 5:05 PM,
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At March 28, 2006 5:39 PM,
coby said…
Peter, if you wish to discuss, as you claim, then discuss. You posted 500 more words and not one of them directly acknowledged or addressed any of my direct and specific responses to your initial post.
Please answer my questions or point out erros in fact or reason I have made in my criticisms.
At March 30, 2006 2:08 AM,
Anonymous said…
Your 'facts' Cody, as you would present, are being scrutinised and I have responded to your comments. If you would perhaps attempt to make discussion, rather than delete posts to defend your positions Cody, they would be seen as more substantial.
To reprise:-
-----
The atmosphere is contained in a volume of ~51,472,901,235 cubic km's.
The mass of the atmosphere is regarded as ~0.0000051 x10^24 kilograms.
(With an assumed depth of the atmosphere being 100 km's)
Gas within the snow will be squeezed laterally and vertically out of the snow as it settles upon a base that is already hard, having undergone the same processes previously. It is the loss of gases that allows the 'snow to settle' in a manner of thinking. The answer to my questions is this:-
"Those few millilitres (or even grams) of 'gas' regarded from within the 'bubbles' is an insignificant and as such uncorrelated population sample. As such there is nothing that can be claimed regarding the atmosphere from regard to the contents of these bubbles."
As for the 'greenhouse effect, you only need look at the material properties as they are known in SCIENCE of the 20th century, rather than attempt to substitute the hypothetical structures of the 19th century, again for an outline see the link:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 (*)
, with the realisation that dipole behaviors are well known now in SCIENCE as are the related behaviors of materials. These behaviors are also used in the construction of materials for use in the computing industry.
Numerous sources exist, you can look at
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2ovibr.html
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node12.html
The persistence of atmospheric water molecules as a particular and individual molecule is far less relevant than as a population, there is little relevance in the 'atmospheric life' of a particular H2O molecule. These concepts of population behavior bring us again to the concept of Albedo, this being infact the observed (and measured) exit behavior of photons from the atmospheric cascade. (Refer *)
The most relevant point is that the gravity gradient of the Earth's atmosphere, seen in density variation, produces a behavior for photons within the atmosphere to move with an overall OUTWARD trend of motion. So this planet has an Albedo of ~36%, the Moon ~12% and Venus ~100%, realise that the Moon is showing only remittance from the materials of its surface.
Also, as the molecules are in random motion, so to will be the molecular axis and the REEMITTENCE of secondary photons is made with reference to the molecular axis. There is thus NO valid manner to make that 'half' of the remittance will be 'back to the ground', the vector for remittance has '360 degrees of freedom'.
It is not possible with even further reason that such remittance will even reach the surface as the increasing atmospheric density also increases interception rates. There is also that The TRENDED motion is infact outwards, away from the surface, and every interception will trend to photons moving towards lower density regions with few interceptions to stop their motions.
Then for another reason, the proportion of H2O within the atmospehre is greatest below the ice and condensation point altitudes within the atmopsehre, so once within that regions, cascade photons will tend to encounter H2O molecules more often and the propagated energy will be converted into intrinsic kinetic energy of that H2O molecule (ie the H2O molecule will gain a higher kinetic velocity).
So of those photons that can reach 'back down' towards the surface, the energy they posses upon incidence to the surface is minimised to that trended to be reemitted by H2O, at ~1/100 that of CO2.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At April 08, 2006 5:55 PM,
Anonymous said…
The situation of 'error' with the inferences seen within the 'temperature links' is however in the attempt to infer some 'unnatural cause' linked to a supposed 'greenhouse concept' FROM these 'temperature measures'.
200 years is insufficient to validly trend processes (there are MULTIPLE oscillators), with IRREGULAR periodicity of thousands or millions of years. "Regression" mathematics is NOT even a suitable method IN such situations.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At April 08, 2006 7:36 PM,
coby said…
The unnatural cause of the warming is not an inference, it is an expectation based on physical theories. See this paper for the original suggestion that CO2 emissions would warm the earth.
If the current temperature trend of approx. 1 degree in 100 years is part of a million year oscillation then we should expect the oceans to boil away before it finishes.
At May 22, 2006 5:18 AM,
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At May 22, 2006 5:28 AM,
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At May 22, 2006 8:14 AM,
coby said…
Peter,
I have deleted you first new comment (your fifth undeleted comment on this thread) because it is too long, off topic and repeats material you have posted many places elsewhere on my blog. The next one was deleted because it is mostly a copy-paste of two other comments you posted last night on other threads.
Please try to be focused on topic and concise, thanks.
At May 23, 2006 3:21 PM,
cavalaxis said…
Wow, Coby. Kudos to you for your patience and level-headedness in dealing with certain "denialists."
Please keep up the good work. Knowledge will out the truth.
At May 23, 2006 3:57 PM,
coby said…
Thanks cavalaxis. Sometimes patience is a potent weapon! ;-)
At May 23, 2006 5:49 PM,
Anonymous said…
'cavalaxis', what is a 'denialist' in your own words?
It is NOT that 'measuring temperature' is at all the issue, nor is the issue 'accuracy' either. HOWEVER, the need was to make REPRODUCABLE measures, and existing DEVICES could not be suitably CALIBRATED. This is what 'drove' the development of these measuring devices, the need for the ABILITY to consistently MEASURE in a reproducible manner LIMITED ALL SCIENCE, and still does.
Short (partial) history (notice words in CAPS or tween {***} please):-
-----
The earliest devices used to measure the temperature were called thermoscopes, consisted of a glass bulb having a long tube extending downward into a container of colored water.
SOME of the air in the bulb was expelled before placing it in the liquid, causing the liquid to rise into the tube.
As the REMAINING air in the bulb was heated or cooled, the level of the liquid in the tube would vary reflecting the change in the air temperature.
An engraved scale on the tube allowed for a QUANTITATIVE measure of the fluctuations.
1641, the first sealed thermometer that used liquid rather than air as the thermometric medium was developed, using a sealed alcohol-in-glass device with 50 "degree" MARKS on its stem but no "fixed point" was used to zero the scale.
1664, Robert Hook used a red dye in the alcohol. Every 'degree' represented an EQUAL increment of volume equivalent to about 1/500 part of the volume of the thermometer liquid, needed only one fixed point. Hook's original thermometer became known as the standard of Gresham College and was used by the Royal Society until 1709. {***}The FIRST intelligible meteorological records used this scale{***}.
1702 Ole Roemer based his scale upon two fixed points: snow (or crushed ice) and the boiling point of water, and he recorded the daily temperatures at Copenhagen in 1708- 1709 with THIS thermometer.
1724, Gabriel Fahrenheit (an instrument maker) used mercury as the thermometric liquid.
{***} (All in caps) Mercury's thermal expansion is large and fairly uniform, it does not adhere to the glass, and it remains a liquid over a wide range of temperatures. Its silvery appearance makes it easy to read. {***}
Fahrenheit described how he calibrated the scale of his mercury thermometer:
"placing the thermometer in a mixture of sal ammoniac or sea salt, ice, and water a point on the scale will be found which is denoted as zero. A second point is obtained if the same mixture is used without salt. Denote this position as 30. A third point, designated as 96, is obtained if the thermometer is placed in the mouth so as to acquire the heat of a healthy man." (D. G. Fahrenheit,Phil. Trans. (London) 33, 78, 1724)
.
-----
There is more to the 'history' but the needed DETAIL is already seen here, having NO ABILITY to consistently MEASURE in a reproducible manner LIMITED ALL SCIENCE, and still does.
Perhaps the platformers of 'greenhouse issues' need to comprehend MORE and attempt 'belittlement' much less (cavalaxis...), certainly attempting to produce a position for myself will avail you little. Try reading what I post instead, and make comments accordingly which would be helped is there was not deletion, i.e. active censorship, with following spurious comments ('Coby' & 'cavalaxis'). The truth and open discussions are what is attempted to be suppressed, THAT is the observed traits of behavior
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At May 23, 2006 6:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
So, with the FIRST intelligible meteorological records date from the late 1600's and reproducible temperature measure from the 1720's, there is little that can be validly made of median 'temperature' trends with regard to climate, even to understanding WHY such trends are at all relevant TO climate and if so in what manner.
Realise that Temperature is linked to Pressure; both via molecular kinetic velocity (i.e. molecular kinetic energy) and that alterations to the kinetic energy of a system can be expressed by production of Turbulence rather than measured as alteration to Temperature.
Sea levels have been rising in IRREGULAR manner for near 20,000 years; whilst glaciers have been melting for that period also as the Ice point altitude rises through the atmosphere. Presently permanent ice needs to remain above ~2500 metres to remain 'permanent'; ~20,000 years ago this altitude could have been as low as 1500 metres.
Climate is ALWAYS changing, has always been changing and only ever has offered PERSISTENCE of 'situation'. Glaciers have been melting for 20,000 years, that is how the last Glaciation Event was reverted and this process is still proceeding. Notice the time frame in thousands of years also...
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At May 27, 2006 4:15 AM,
Anonymous said…
It is the median kinetic velocity that is measured as Temperature, but that kinetic energy being used to support the atmosphere against gravity is NOT available for measure as Temperature, to example one area that involves Kinetic Energy in producing 'WORK'.
It is also that the few millilitres of gas in ice cores is NOT a sample whose 'behavior' can be correlated to a population, these 'samples' are STATISTICALLY insignificant as a 'population sample', it is NOT enough to simply say it is a 'random sample'.
Again and also with the situation of how Gas is RELEASED within settling snow, there is NOT a controlled mix, so these 'samples' mentioned are also NOT validly datable, as well as presenting also a STATISTICALLY insignificant view of the POPULATION of molecules that is the Atmosphere, to compound the statistical Error 'situation'.
It is not at all STATISTICALLY significant that there IS any difference tween ice cores, the next point to make, it is not that any claim towards the 'Population' of molecules that is the Atmosphere can be made from these ice core 'samples', including any notice of 'anomalies'.
It is that the ice core samples CANNOT actually STATISTICALLY show any 'Population correlation', they are too small, and so be indicative OF a 'Population behavior'.
This is all well KNOWN (common knowledge) principles of (perhaps advanced) Statistical Analysis, and is not at all a ["unique scientific theory'"] of my own in any manner.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At June 14, 2006 10:36 PM,
Anonymous said…
What is interesting is that this article tries to pass off theories as facts -- most of the arguments about temperature are scientific opinion, not facts. If you changed your bias about global warming, you would suddenly be posting other contradictory scientific opinions as facts.
Just like the posers Al Gore and Bill Clinton (posers because they have chosen a 'great cause’ that has no intrinsic moral value), your rhetoric is laughable ... so thanks for the laugh!
Now if you want to truly help the human race, go do something like helping the poor (yes, give them your money and your time), clean up the smut on the internet instead of crying about free-speech, help your neighbor for goodness sake!
At June 15, 2006 9:26 AM,
coby said…
"help the poor", good noble advice. Or one could spend time posting trolls on the internet...
At July 17, 2006 3:24 AM,
Peter K. Anderson said…
It is a fact that the surface temperature IS rising and is doing so with the Land surface leading and the Ocean surface following. This is NOT at all produced by a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. What is being mentioned by myself are Facts known from the observed behaviours of materials, NOT 'opinion' festooned upon a 'greenhouse wagon' and paraded as 'science'.
What is interesting 'anonymous' is that you attempt seemingly to belittle by innuendo, avoiding any direct mention or example.
There is warming, it is obviously so and is just as obviously the surface that is warming. It is obviously following a trend linked to Human population, and then to the effect this population is making upon the Land surface. See slides in http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ .
It is also SCIENCE and FACT that the material from any collection of 'ice core' cannot be seen to validly represent any situation of either behavior OR composition of the Atmosphere. This is in both the (statistically insignificant) content of the materials from those core (compared to the total 'Population'), and the amount of mass in the material so contained in a total again compared to that mass of the Atmosphere.
Proxies are NOT relevant, they cannot validly guess at 'turbulent cooling' or notice the variation in 'temperature" (the measure of residual kinetic energy) within a MATERIAL exposed to the atmosphere. It is not SCIENCE to simply 'opinion' such as valid' and that is ALL 'climate science' still attempts with its 'theatre'.
The 'greenhouse science' does not even notice the differing behaviours of materials TO incident Radiation, or even the difference tween Energy presented as a Photon, or existent as kinetic energy validly.
I am not offering rhetoric either 'anonymous', and make few 'jokes', please give example or else cease attempting charade and innuendo
There is NOT any recognised 'Internet troll' and that self proclaimed/self edited ''WikipediA' is NOT recognised as a valid 'reference source', it is just another blog.
That IS the issue with 'internet references', there is far too much pretentious anonymity to allow anonymous (internet) identities and their (internet) blogs to be taken at 'face value' as 'they' have NONE.
So 'anonymous', can you give some 'specifics' for the innuendo you otherwise produce?
As a proven REAL person,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod (Trademark)
From the (ACTUAL) PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com (My REAL account email)
At August 07, 2006 5:46 PM,
Anonymous said…
I have to agree with Hartlod that using internet references is absolutely the wrong way to go. But in pushing this line of reasoning, he is signing the death warrant of his own point of view. His problem is going to be to find articles in respected, peer-reviewed climate science journals that back any of the claims he makes in his posts.
I would also like to point out, as coby has on several occasions, that his posts are nearly impossible to follow, and this discussion would be improved dramatically if he would drop the jargon and write in a clear manner. I have a physics background and I can hardly understand what he is saying!
Hartlod is also going to have to explain why, if he is correct about all of this, he hasn't published any articles himself. As we say in sports, it's easy to criticize the team on the field from the sidelines, so either "suit up or shut up". As coby has pointed out on other sections of his blog, the confluence of science from a wide variety of areas that has led to almost every real scientist in fields related to climate science (and especially those in climate science itself) accepting the basic tenets of anthropenically induced global climate change. Unless one is conducting experiments oneself, one is hardly in a position to say that this incredible consensus of scientists the world over is wrong. The hubris is startling.
Hartlod challenged others to prove to him where they are right. I believe this to be exactly opposite of what must happen. In defending the minority view, it is incumbent upon Hartlod to show why he is right. And he can only do so with publications (as mentioned above). A true skeptic will provide evidence for why he is skeptical of a given issue; he will not take a view a priori (as has been seemingly done by Hartlod) and seek out only information from dubious sources that confirm his bias.
I look forward to Hartlod proving his climate scientist worth with a few publications that are sure to upend climate science as we know it.
At December 06, 2006 5:46 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hartlod's (tm) pseduoscientific rants are nonsense. It is true that the air bubbles captured in ice represent an interval of time, as the ice doesn't instantaneously lose porosity. However, this would merely affect the resolution of the record, and scores of peer-reviewed articles present valid atmospheric data taken from ice cores. The existence of error bars does not obviate the validity of data, and conclusions of warming and relatively stable pre-industrial pCO2 are quite reliable.
It is telling that Hartlod(tm) does not address the geochemistry involved: It is the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the trapped bubbles that are used to determine paleotemperature. Paleo-pCO2 measurements are made by measuring the concentration of CO2 in the sample. The two measurements are thus independent, but demonstrate a very strong correlation. See, for example, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm
The correlation between pCO2 and paleotemperature has been found in proxies that go much further back in time, as well. See, for example, Demicco, Lowenstein and Hardie in Geology 2003.
Steve Davis
Department of Geological and Environmental Science
Stanford University
sjdavis@stanford.edu
At December 13, 2006 8:41 PM,
Anonymous said…
I have read all the comments to date - some are interesting, others not.
In just about all of the discussion by all parties, it seems that some basic facts have not been discussed or well defined. For instance, what defines an "ice age", as related to geologic time.
Also, regarding the ice cores, what are the variables, how are the error ranges determined, what is the scientific basis for determining that the CO2 levels are/are not directly or passively related to temperature increase; ie; the chicken or the egg.
With regard to proxy studies, same basic questions, are these direct or passive correlations, what evidence that tree ring core thickness depends only on temperature (what about precipitation, cloud cover, volcanic activity, sea surface temperatue changes, sea current changes, solar irradiance changes, cloud cover, etc.)
How are these variables accounted for when analysis of ice cores is completed, or for that matter when computer models, and/or proxy studies are completed.
I am a geologist and a meteorologist, and as such may have a slightly different perspective than others. In the context of geologic time (billions of years) it is apparent that the earth has been completely ice free (no polar ice caps, no galciers, etc.) for long periods of time. Dinosaurs once roamed Antarctica, although admittely plate tectonics have shifted it's location over time.
CO2 levels are dependant upon a plethera of factors, including (but not limited to) amount of surface covered by water, amount of life (flora and fauna) CO2 sinks, carbonate sources. All of these are also related to temperature, as are oceanic currents, which can produce cause and effect.
Plate tectonics also produce climatic changes, again for a number of reasons, including causing oeanic current changes.
Solar irradience changes can also produce cliamtic chages, both short and long term. Of course, volcanic eruptions can also cause chages in climate, both locally and globally.
Much has been mused pro and con regarding the medieval warm period; this seems almost mute when one considers the little ice age occurred between the medieval warm period and the present. Of course the temperature recovered following the little ice age. Within the framework of geolgoic time, it strikes me that neither event is of particular importance.
I apreciate any and all thought on the above.
KAS
At December 14, 2006 10:54 AM,
coby said…
Hi KAS,
Yes, we could do with some definitions in many of the discussions. "Ice Age" is used rather loosely here as in public discourse. We are of course still in an ice age, as there are polar ice caps, but often people use the term to describe a period of more extensive glaciation, properly called a glacial period in the glacial/inter-glacial cycles within the current millions of years-old ice age.
I highly recommend reading the IPCC report for answers to all of your good and technical questions. This blog is really targeted at the low hanging intellectual fruit of the mass media and internet debates. The finer points of the science are found in the journals. You can get some very interesting and sophisticated discussion and questions answered at Real Climate's blog though.
One thing I will pick up on, you said "Of course the temperature recovered following the little ice age". Why? This expectation presupposes a natural or normal state to which the climate system wants to return, I don't think that is supportable. The climate changes for a reason. Near as we can tell, the LIA was the result of solar weakening and some excess volcanism throwing sun-blocking sulphates into the stratosphere. What makes it more likely those factors would reverse rather than stay the same or even increase?
About your taking the long view, sure, within the framework of geologic time nothing human matters one whit. So what? We still care about ourselves, our children and our cultures even if the planet doesn't.
Thanks for the comment!
At January 22, 2007 9:52 AM,
Walt Bennett said…
I saw or heard or read somewhere (possibly in "An Inconvenient Truth") that LIA may have been caused when a surge of fresh water was released from North America during the retreat of the last ice age. The hypothesis, as I recall, was that there was a 'dam-burst' which created the St. Lawrence Seaway and flooded the North Atlantic with fresh water, upsetting the north atlantic oscillation current, blocking tropical warmth from migrating north.
Is that no longer a popular theory?
At January 22, 2007 10:59 AM,
coby said…
Hi Walt,
You are confusing the LIA with the Younger Dryas event.
At January 31, 2007 7:25 AM,
Anonymous said…
""Global surface temperatures recorded over just one hundred and some years is not long enough to draw any conclusions or worry about anyway. ""
I couldn't agree more.
At April 27, 2007 8:40 AM,
ROC said…
Very little is true in information you site here...even our own National Academy of Sciences states there is very little confidence of climate proxies(models) older then 400 years.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
And given that there was a mini ice age between 900 and 1200 AD it's not surprising.
At November 07, 2007 6:57 PM,
stvrob_63 said…
Much of the information/links you have posted give a misleading impression that the end of the 20th century was warmer than any other part of the Holocene. This idea is relatively new and is not at all part of the consensus view. There are abundant well researched and properly reviewed papers which suggest that global temperatures have been warmer many times in the past 11,000 yrs. Here is a well written excerpt (from an author who is no skeptic) which is much closer to a "consensus" viewpoint
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
This new idea about the 20th century being the warmest of the Holocene can be traced to the multi-proxy study of Mann et al. in 1998. As it turns out, this study turned out to be mathematically flawed:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/legates041003.html
The global warming debate will have to carry on from the viewpoint that the 20th century was not the warmest in the Holocene.
There are also some interesting sociological studies which suggest that the high points of human civilization appear to coincide with periods of global warmth (Roman Empire, Rapid european growth in middle ages, modern era of growth) while periods of cooler climate have coincided with the low points in human civilization (collapse of Rome, Dark ages, black death , european population collapse, famine)
At December 13, 2007 1:50 AM,
Will Nitschke said…
"Thus we can say that if our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is warmer now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years."
This seems to be an extreme point of view, even among most of the supporters of the CO2 hypothesis. I haven't heard this idea being promoted before in what I thought was the serious literature (that withstood criticism). Perhaps I have not read enough.
A good reference for further reading here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=8
At March 10, 2008 6:39 PM,
Big Jon said…
So what you are saying, is the last 100 years or increasing temperature is all manmade/CO2 related, and has nothing to do with anything else.
What if the overall percentage of water vapor was greater by 1%, wouldn’t that equate to 3 centuries of continued CO2 output? (Water vapor is 25x more abundant in the atmosphere, and 3x greater radiator of solar energy than CO2, so percent to percent it is 75x stronger.
At a massive 0.54% of the atmosphere CO2 is hardly a bother, not to mention it is required for life. Mans contribution is what? 0.06%? I think my uncles flatulence has contributed that much.
Medieval warm period, we don’t have accurate global temperatures to call on, since the invention of the thermometer was still centuries away, but There were a lot of things in place we do not have today. Greenland was green. England had Wine. Even in the far northeastern US, and southern Canada, Indians were growing crops we have to grow further south today.
‘Warmest in 1000 years’ means less when 600 years of the period was covered in ice. The little iceage did happen. I know it’s a shock, but it did. To be honest warming isn’t nearly as bad as cooling. As it stands today the mean temperature of earth is only 56 degrees. Personally I find that a little chilly. Warmer temperatures would mean we could grow more crops into parts of Canada not reachable today, and central Russia. Cooler temperature means billions starve.
At March 10, 2008 8:39 PM,
coby said…
Hi BigJon
Changes in solar output contributed perhaps as much as 50% to the early 20th century warming. The rest is anthropogenic.
For the rest of your points please look at the guide listing, they are all addressed in detail in there.
Thanks for the comment!
At May 27, 2008 11:43 PM,
Anonymous said…
The mean of a range of studies put the current warm period higher than at any other time since the last glacial (the Holocene period), but of those studies there is wide variance, with some showing higher temperatures, and some showing much lower.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The consensus view is that the current warm period (late 20th century to present) is probably hotter than the hottest period of the mid-Holocene, but that view is qualified.
To find out the mainstream view, check out the IPCC;
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
from page 460.
This blog has a page on it. Here are some others.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=67
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/ok-perhaps-recent-20th-century-warmth-is-anomalous-over-the-past-millennium-or-two-but-wasnt-it-warmer-during-the-holocene-optimum-some-6000-years-ago/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
barry
Post a Comment
<< Home