Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[donald]

That seems like semantics. Can there be "non-causal" influence?

If I have failed to be clear with the word 'caused', I shall define my use to mean where a thing is the only cause.

Are CO2 emissions one of the contributions to climate change? Sure, but there would be climate change anyway, with or without us, because we are in an interglacial, so there need be no 'cause' as it would already happen.

So I do not at all think it is correct language for someone to say CO2 emissions are 'the cause' of climate change.

'To cause' is not typically used to mean 'to be causal' and is therefore not the inverse of 'to be non-causal'.

I think mine is a very ordinary use of the meaning of the word 'cause' on which you are making a semantic dance. If it were otherwise, you could accuse me of causing the Iraq war because I paid taxes to folks who made some bad decisions. That's not a typical use of the word 'cause'. Was my tax money a factor in the war? Yes, everyone's was. Did we cause it? No.

Sometimes a thing is caused by many factors, without any single one the thing would not have happened. These can be called 'multiple causes' but you would still not say any single one 'was the cause'. In climate change's case, CO2 emission is still not 'one of the causes' because climate change would have happened anyway. We're in an ice age. Climate change happens. It would be anomalous if there was no climate change. The question is degree of climate change with or without CO2 emission, because climate change itself is inevitable.

 

[AndyH]

As the Sun gets hotter over millions of years....

Maybe so, but the 'physics' model does not describe periods where CO2 dropped while temperatures rose, and vice versa.

Physics is not a 'model'. Maybe you'd care to cite an example of where you think reality fell on the floor?

 

[donald]

Physics is not a 'model'.

You are managing to reverse everything I say in a way I had no idea anyone could reverse it!

'Physics' was the adjective, not the noun. A 'physics model' [in this case 'greenhouse earth'] is a model that employs physics, as opposed to one based on the statistical inference from geological records.

I don't know of any climate models that embed historic records within an analysis of statistically likely outcomes. That could be a really good way to run a simulation, and maybe someone does that, but I'm not aware of one.

Maybe you'd care to cite an example of where you think reality fell on the floor?

I don't understand 'Fell to the floor'. Do you mean where CO2 and global temperature were not 'in synch'. I am lead to believe (I have not done the geology myself, of course) that the CO2 levels in the cretaceous dropped steadily, while the global temperature rose and remained steady yet high for many millions of years as CO2 dropped futher.

Is that the sort of geological example you've asked me about?

 

[WetEV]

Maybe so, but the 'physics' model does not describe periods where CO2 dropped while temperatures rose, and vice versa.

Let me try to follow your logic here:

If CO2 is not the only cause of climate change, then CO2 can not be a cause of climate change.

Looks like a logic fail to me.

If something else changed climate, such a continental drift, then CO2 levels would react to reduce the change. Suppose the moving of land opens up a large basin that was once arid and is now filled with water. Evaporation increases, making the water content of the air higher, warming the climate. This would increase rock weathering, reducing CO2 levels, and reducing the size of the warming. So the climate is then warmer, and the CO2 level is then lower.

Or suppose a large land mass drifted from lower latitudes across a pole. Ice collects on land easier than on water, so an ice free ocean is transformed into a polar ice cap as the land onto the pole, reflecting more short wave, and cooling the climate. As the climate cools, rock weathering would slow, and CO2 levels would then rise to reduce the size of the cooling.

And

 

[WetEV]

I am lead to believe (I have not done the geology myself, of course) that the CO2 levels in the cretaceous dropped steadily, while the global temperature rose and remained steady yet high for many millions of years as CO2 dropped futher.

As the Sun gets hotter over time, if the climate of the Cretaceous was indeed steady (and it wasn't) and nothing else changed (and it did), then the CO2 level would fall.

 

[donald]

Let me try to follow your logic here:

If CO2 is not the only cause of climate change, then CO2 can not be a cause of climate change.

No. If CO2 is not the only cause of climate change, then CO2 can not be stated as THE cause of climate change.

I'm quite surprised at how many ways something simple can be misinterpreted.

Climate change would happen anyway. CO2 emissions might be aggravating and accelerating that change. It might even be possible that without CO2 emissions the global temperature would have cooled and it is possible that CO2 emissions have reversed that.

But what is certain is that the climate will change during interglacials.

If something else changed climate, such a..... etc.

Yes, I do not disagree with anything you're saying. But do climate models currently take into account all these other mechanisms into one model?

I'm being asked to believe the predictions of simulations that don't take these things into account. Now, they either take them into account, or the simulation results are subject to debate on whether these are more significant factors.

You're not asking me to believe the physics of the greenhouse-warming model and then disregard all the other physics too, are you?

 

[donald]

As the Sun gets hotter over time, if the climate of the Cretaceous was indeed steady (and it wasn't) and nothing else changed (and it did), then the CO2 level would fall.

OK, so following that logic, climate models would need to take the last century's increase in solar activity into account for their models too, wouldn't they/do they?

11-year average values of the Northern Hemisphere Land temperature (T) and the length of the solar cycle (L).

11-year running average of Northern Hemisphere land temperature, (before 1860 estimated by means of tree-ring analyses, and long-term variation of solar activity expressed by means of auroral observations)


... or are we only to consider solar variation when it serves one side of an argument than another?

 

[Stoaty]

OK, so following that logic, climate models would need to take the last century's increase in solar activity into account for their models too, wouldn't they/do they?

Educate yourself man!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[donald]

Educate yourself man!

I have. I went and found these graphs.

I have to say that I find the tone of responses quite ugly. I do feel bullied for daring to ask questions that I do not know the answer to.

All I have to say to you is that if your only responses come down to telling me that I should go educate myself when my question is not one that you 'like', then you are just being extremely unhelpful. If you have no interest in helping someone understand and find information, then why do you bother to reply other than to bully them for not knowing?

I'll also say that I have significant doubts about the graph you show. It is the combined data from two sources. One shows an increasing trend, the other shows a decreasing trend. The pivot point is where one study ends and another starts. Show me a plot where the data comes from the same source, if you please.

For now, I'll go with the university/referenced data I put up, rather than your random site.

 

[donald]

This graph shows two proxies, each from one continuous source:

Please explain the discrepancies to the plot that you have referenced.

 

[Stoaty]

I'll also say that I have significant doubts about the graph you show. It is the combined data from two sources. One shows an increasing trend, the other shows a decreasing trend. The pivot point is where one study ends and another starts. Show me a plot where the data comes from the same source, if you please.

For now, I'll go with the university/referenced data I put up, rather than your random site.

There is a conflict between saying "I don't know." and then "having significant doubts" when information is provided. That is not a random site. It is a well-known site referenced often on climateprogress.org (now on thinkprogress.org) and was started by John Cook:

"John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally studied physics at the University of Queensland. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. In 2011, he co-authored the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, published by Earthscan. In 2013, he co-authored the college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer, published by Springer."

If you want more technical information, you can go to realclimate.org where the climate scientists hang out.

 

[donald]

There is a conflict between saying "I don't know." and then "having significant doubts" when information is provided.

That's nonsense. There are plenty of things we all 'don't know' but can still have significant doubts about someone's argument towards it.

To say you have to know something before you can doubt it is truly one of the more bizarre things I've read here.

I'm not hugely interested in your 'appeal to authority' argument. It could be written by Einstein for all I care, and if the person who has written it has any interest and self-respect then he'd find a challenge engaging rather than something to rebuff by saying 'look how important and well regarded I am'.

You have completely dodged my question with your appeal to authority. I'm just looking for an explanation between the, now four, traces showing solar activity proxies, and your trace (which shows one data set also with an upward trend, and one that shows a downward trend).

We have 5 traces showing upward trends in solar activity, and one downward trend, and in your logic I cannot doubt the latter isn't more important than the other 5 because I have not claimed to know which ones are right?

 

[Stoaty]

I'm not hugely interested in your 'appeal to authority' argument. It could be written by Einstein for all I care, and if the person who has written it has any interest and self-respect then he'd find a challenge engaging rather than something to rebuff by saying 'look how important and well regarded I am'.

Well, most of us aren't hugely interested in a person who says "I don't know, I don't have the background to understand this." but refuses to trust information from scientists. If you aren't going to trust the "Einsteins" of climate science, your only option to get enough information to form an educated opinion is to get a PhD in climate science.

 

[donald]

Well, most of us aren't hugely interested in a person who says "I don't know, I don't have the background to understand this." but refuses to trust information from scientists.

OK - why should I not trust the traces of solar activity I have put up? They are from 'scientists' too.

I'm asking for guidance on understanding the information, not simply to be given information and told that I should not doubt it.

Somehow I am being expected not to doubt information that is self-contradictory. That's quite a tough call to make on me.

 

[klapauzius]

'To cause' is not typically used to mean 'to be causal' and is therefore not the inverse of 'to be non-causal'.

I think mine is a very ordinary use of the meaning of the word 'cause' on which you are making a semantic dance. If it were otherwise, you could accuse me of causing the Iraq war because I paid taxes to folks who made some bad decisions. That's not a typical use of the word 'cause'. Was my tax money a factor in the war? Yes, everyone's was. Did we cause it? No.

I think we are not really discussing science here. The science is settled, and you can deny it all the way you want.

This is really about psychology....
It seems you have guilt issues, i.e. if you only believe firm enough that the climate is going to change anyway, you dont have to feel bad for burning fossil fuels and cause all the bad things that happen as a consequence.

So rather than admitting there is problem, that needs to be addressed, you choose to ignore/deny it, so you dont have to feel bad about being part of the problem.

I wonder if there is something like AGW-denier anonymous, the psychopathology seems to be the same as for alcoholics...The first step is always to acknowledge that there is a problem.

We all burn fossil fuel, so we all are responsible. However, there is nothing to feel too bad about, as long as you acknowledge ALL the costs associated with it.

After all, the last 200 years are an unprecedented success story for western civilization, and it was all made possible by easy, cheap energy (oil, gas and coal).

Now we know that there is a price to it that is getting to high, we have the alternatives, so its time to move on.

 

[donald]

I think we are not really discussing science here. The science is settled, and you can deny it all the way you want.

This is really about psychology....
It seems you have guilt issues, i.e. if you only believe firm enough that the climate is going to change anyway, you dont have to feel bad for burning fossil fuels and cause all the bad things that happen as a consequence.

So rather than admitting there is problem, that needs to be addressed, you choose to ignore/deny it, so you dont have to feel bad about being part of the problem.

You've clearly not read my earlier posts.

In regards 'denying the science', I appear not to understand the science so I cannot deny it. It has not been explained to me in a way that I find convincing.

If I present a graph showing solar activity going up, and someone shows me another going down and says 'educate yourself', sorry, that is not a persuasive argument as to which is right. Argue why the 'up' graph is wrong and the 'down' graph is right and I'll listen.

Tell me I'm ignorant and you've no chance of persuading me. Do you really think that's a good way to persuade someone, to tell them they need to do some self-educating elsewhere?

And don't go telling me that it is up to me to educated myself. It isn't. It is for those who wish other to behave in a certain alternative way to explain why they should behave in that way.

If you are unable to persuade a Chartered Engineer who was a Research Fellow in computational electromagnetics and who already thinks all fossil fuel burning should be stopped immediately in favour of nuclear and renewables, then how the heck are you going to persuade people who already have entrenched views disbelieving AGW?

It's not for those who are not convinced there is a problem to persuade themselves there is a problem. It is for those who say there is a problem to persuade others to behave differently, and why. So far, all the conversations in this thread have generally been along the lines of 'educate yourself, stop doubting others'. Nope. Wrong way around. You have not persuaded me, and I assure you I am persuadable on this topic and have been seeking answers, which have been excruciatingly difficult to extract. I am still none the wiser why the traces of solar activity I put up are being regarded here as 'wrong'.

 

[Stoaty]

It's not for those who are not convinced there is a problem to persuade themselves there is a problem. It is for those who say there is a problem to persuade others to behave differently, and why. So far, all the conversations in this thread have generally been along the lines of 'educate yourself, stop doubting others'. Nope. Wrong way around. You have not persuaded me, and I assure you I am persuadable on this topic and have been seeking answers, which have been excruciatingly difficult to extract. I am still none the wiser why the traces of solar activity I put up are being regarded here as 'wrong'.

OK, here is the 5th IPCC report (see particularly the figure on page 14). Remember that this is what scientists in over 100 countries can agree on:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you want the nitty gritty details (and no, I do NOT understand a lot of the details in this part) see pages 688-690 of this PDF:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you may gather from the second PDF, there isn't a "simple" answer to a complex question.

 

[WetEV]

But do climate models currently take into account all these other mechanisms into one model?

:lol:

Some things can be ignored safely at some scales.

Continental drift moves land at about an inch a year. No point what so ever of including that in a climate simulation for a hundred years.

 

[WetEV]

Oh, Henrik Svensmark.

Why don't you quote the source for the pretty picture? That would provide some context.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So let us assume that Svensmark's idea is correct, and on a century time scale there might be as much as plus or minus 0.3C change in climate. OK?

For the next century, we have no idea what so ever which direction cosmic rays might change, and could do nothing other than adapt infrastructure to be robust to a changing climate (which we should do anyway). On the other hand, we do know that we are changing the CO2 level that will change climate by a lot more than 0.3C. If the paleoclimate record is trusted, about 3C plus or minus about 1C for each doubling of CO2, and we are more than doubling CO2 over the next century. So the increase in CO2 will cause an order of magnitude larger than any change from Svensmark's cosmic ray theory, and less than the unknowns in the CO2 warming.

 

[Stoaty]

I'm not hugely interested in your 'appeal to authority' argument.

I would say that you have misused the term "appeal to authority". Here is an accurate definition:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but it is not reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."