OT: How to profit from AGW?

rn

unt

So CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we've injected a lot more of it into the atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the earth is rising, but this rising temperature is caused by something else, which you can't actually identify, but definitely isn't CO2.

I'm not so much worried by your posting style as I am by the underlying insanity that it reveals.

The data you present is the local temperature for the centre of the Greenland ice-cap itself, at around -30 Celcius. Arctic temperatures are currently varying twice as fast as the global temperature with which you are comparing it, and local temperatures can and do vary without necessarily having any effect on global temperature.

The Younger Dryas doesn't seem to show up at all in the Antarctic and New Zealand records

so - as usual - you are comparing apples with pears.

Because, in that particular history, temperature rise drives CO2 levels, by influencing its solubility in the oceans. This happens to be one of the positive feedback mechanisms that has to be invoked to make the small Milankovitch forcing to produce a large enough temperature excursion to explain the alternation of ice ages and interglacials. For completeness the other postive feedback mechanism is the albedo change with the changing ice and snow cover on the northern hemisphere.

This is elementary stuff - if you haven't heard about it yet, you haven't been doing any reading.

The ice core data. You've got temperature changes and you've got CO2 level changes. The geologists can tell you roughly how far south the Norther Hemisphere ice cap got, which gives you the albedo change. That's the data that got the scientific establishment on board.

Read about it here - though you don't get to the good stuff until pretty much the bottom of the page (and it's a long page).

We do, but you can't or won't understand it. This isn't the first time I've pointed you at the American Institute of Physics site on the history of global warming

If you go to the trouble of reading it, you should end up a lot less ignorant.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

=3D

Since the establishment that you are referring to was the Catholic Church, I can't really see why you think you can claim that it was scientific (unless you are completely insane, which could be a plausible proposition, though it rather takes the fun out of arguing with you).

It can scarcely be described as either scientific or as an establishment.

It draws its membership from the establishment and does include a few scientists, but it is - and always was - a rather ideosyncratic group. You are perfectly correct in claiming that I'm going to rate its influence and significance rather lower than would fit with your demented argument - any sane person would.

sume!

As a prophet, you are a total failure.

I'm not saying that you are stupid, merely deluded.

wrong.

All computer models are incomplete. They'd run much too slowly to be useful if they weren't. All of them are going to be imperfect, and thus - to some extent - wrong. This doesn't happen to make them useless. Spice models are incomplete and wrong in exactly the same way, but useful nonetheless.

You'd like to think so. Your grasp of reality is a little too weak for your opinion on the subject to be worth worrying about.

ou =3D

here?

be ripped apart in > seconds?

No. Because they would be boringly orthodox - I'd be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, to use the English idiom.

they can sell more > heating fuel.

he oil companies

I did in fact point out to you that the oil companies would be just as happy selling oil to power air-conditioning units, so your original proposition was merely ignorant nonsense. Since you don't seem to be able to comprehend that this is an effective counter-argument, it is a little difficult to take you seriously.

You've said that before.

That does seem to be your perception, but your perceptions don't seem to be worth much.

change that will

"Natural cycles" that you know nothing about, can't describe or predict, but still prefer to the well established opinions of climatologists.

You are at least good for a laugh.

I just did.

One has one's civic duty. If I didn't belittle your postings on climate change, other people might think that they were correct, or no worse than respectable scepticism, when in fact they are nonsensical gibberish.

Roughly the technical equivalent of a steam-driven cyclotron. With a little bit more work you could interface a pneumatic sensor to an Ethernet, as a service to people hanging onto even more obsolete equipment.

Perhaps *you* should think about getting a life.

Knowing about Ethernet got me a job back in 1979, back when RS-232 wasn't (quite) obsolete.

With any luck, log into my Linux partition and get gEDA to do what I want.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

SNIP

/quote Sloman

snipped-for-privacy@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com

The ice core data goes back a lot further and is subject to a lot less debate. It does represent a genuine global average - as evidenced by the fact that the Greenland ice cores - as far as they go - tell the same story as the longer Antartic ice cores, though the Antarctic ice cores do go back further.

/end quote

And I agreed with you at the time on this point.

Now you say:

/quote from above

The data you present is the local temperature for the centre of the Greenland ice-cap itself, at around -30 Celcius. Arctic temperatures are currently varying twice as fast as the global temperature with which you are comparing it, and local temperatures can and do vary without necessarily having any effect on global temperature

The Younger Dryas doesn't seem to show up at all in the Antarctic and New Zealand records

/end quote

So the Greenland ice cores aren't representative of global temperatures and do not agree with the antactic ice cores.

But on 20th Dec you said the opposite that the Greenland ice cores represent a genuine global average and agree with antarctic ice cores.

You can't have it both ways.

Every time it comes to actual facts you lie, cheat and change your position.

SNIP

SNIP

Since you didn't answer this point by showing that I have denied CO2 is a GHG I take this as a tacit admission that you have lied about me, again.

You have a bad habit of arguing with what you think I think not with what I actually say.

So you are an idiot as well as a liar.

SNIP

ata

nd

The data you found does seem to be local and is presented in terms of absolute temperature. Most of the discussion of the ice core temperature data is in terms of deuterium ratio which - if I understood the discussions correctly - is also affected by the place where the water evaporated, while the temperature data is presented a deviations from some arbitrary norm.

The Antarctic and Arctic ice core data do both follow the ice age to interglacial temperature and CO2 variations, which are large and persistent, and swamp any local noise on the individual records. There certainly doesn't seem to be any local noise on the CO2 and methane data from the ice core data - though as you have pointed out, diffusion through loose packed fresh snow means that the encapsulated gases represent an atmospheric sample that has been averaged over some decades after the dust and snow first settled.

I can. For CO2 and methane this seems to be absolutely true. In so far as the temperatures are deduced from the deuterium content of the water in the ice, I was under the impression that the ice core data reflected evaporation temperatures - which is to say, the temperatures of extended areas of sea surface with a bias towards the areas closer to the equator, where evaporation is faster.

Your Greenland data is the first I've seen to give absolute surface temperatures at the ice cap, and I don't know how they were derived, but the obvious point is that they have to be local, because evaporation is negligible at -30 Celcius.

There's certainly enough agreement between the arctic and antarctic ice core temperatures for them to be clearly representing the same variation from ice age to integlacial. If there are small-scale and relatively short term local temperature variations from one core to the next, this doesn't vitiate their utility for calibrating/testing CO2 forcing.

As it happens, I can. As usual, you are taking a point made in particular context and claiming that it contradicts a rather different point being made in a rather differnt context.

I certainly don't lie or cheat. When one digs deeper into a subject, it always becomes more complicated than it seems on superficial inspection. This forum, where most of the information is being directed a people who know even less than you, normally requires broad- brush explanations, rather than nit-picking analysis.

Your own venture into nit-picking analysis has certainly thrown up one point where I was keeping my explanations simpler than they might have been, but that doesn't make me either a liar or a cheat.

My position remains what it always has been - you don't know what you are talking about, and need to do quite a bit of reading.

would be a good place to start. You'd waste a lot less time investigating blind alleys if you had a better picture of the science, in part because the history describes how a number of people headed up quite a few of the same blind alleys, and were eventually set on the right path by specific chunks of scientific work - in some cases work that you claim that you can't find (because you don't know how to look for it).

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You claim that the current warming is not due to the CO2 we have been pumping into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, but due to unspecified "natural" causes.

I take this to mean that if you admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you only do so on the proviso that it isn't working as a greenhouse gas at the moment.

You do seem to deny that it is working as a greenhouse gas at the moment, which comes to the same thing, though you may be sufficiently confused about the subject that you can't recognise this.

You don't seem to be aware of what you are actually saying, so I can't call you a liar. You can maniplate complicated concepts so you probably aren't an idiot, but you do seem to have trouble constructing a coherent argument, probably because you are too ignorant to understand the implications of the claims that you make.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Wrong again. Clearly my position is too subtle for you.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 causes warming. We agree on that much.

I don't believe that CO2 is the main contributor to recent warming since the LIA.

Other warming causes include GHGs, solar, soot deposits, change in land use, change in ocean currents. And natural variability.

Pielke Snr blog is worth reading if you want to understand the wider picture, which I doubt.

/quote

Is The Human Addition Of Carbon Dioxide The Primary Human Climate Forcing?

This is the focus of the Copenhagen meeting. The clear answer, based on a wide range of peer-reviewed papers is NO.

The human addition of carbon dioxide is an important climate forcing, as I have posted on previously (e.g. see) but it is not the only important forcing and does not appear to even be the most important

/end quote

I am sure CO2 still functions as a GHG.

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.

For example see today's post:

You keep using my posts as straw men.

I have never said that CO2 does not cause warming. You continue to twist and turn rather than admit you are a liar.

Stop transferring your personality disorder on to me you lying SOB.

/quote

ABSTRACT: Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here. Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only ~1% errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas ~11,500 years before present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty. Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation. Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios. Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes.

/end quote

You can always look at the data for various ice cores yourself.

SNIP

e data

l and

As I've done, but it isn't at all specific about the methods used to establish the temperatures. It does point to a number of published papers which ought to be more specific, but the publishers all want $31.50 for the full text.

I have managed to find a freely accessible paper that does seem to talk about the sort of paleothermometry used to create your Greenland ice-core data. It doesn't seem to involve the deuterium ratio in the ice - as might be expected from the fact that it does make assertions about the temperature at the surface when the snow was accumulating - but newer and rather more complicated techniques

So the deuterium-based ice core temperatures that I was talking about on the 20th December 2009 are not the same temperatures that you are quoting for the Greenland ice-core data that you presented.

Your temperatures were local, not averaged over much of the hemisphere, and in no way comparable with either the deuterium based ice-core temperatures I was talking about on the 20th December 2009 or the current global average temperature (whether collected by averaging satellite obsrvations or by combining lots of weather station data).

So I'm neither a liar nor a cheat, and you have - once again - made it painfully obvious that you don't really know what you are talking about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Greenhouse gases other than CO2, like methane and water?

For which there's absolutely no evidence, and lots of good physics which says that the solar output hasn't varied much and isn't going to vary much (apart of the - very gradual - 30% warming over the past four billion years

Where? coming from what?

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

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.

which is what you have just been talking about.

Which sounds very authoratitive, but happens to represent a rather ideosyncratic personal opinion. Pielke Snr hasn't persuaded many of his colleagues of the correctness of his ideas, and his enthusiasm for attributing most of the current warming to aerosols doesn't fit too well with the historical record of the consequences of big volcanic eruptions.

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.

Piekel is no doubt delighted to find a paper that fits his preconceptions - having an ideosyncratic point of view does prompt people to latch onto anything that might be seen as supporting their point of view. I'll wait to see whether people like Hansen see the work the same way.

Most of them are. You need a better understanding of what you are talking about.

What you do say earlier in today's post is "I don't believe that CO2 is the main contributor to recent warming since the LIA" and then proceed to blame the warming on other greenhouse gases (presumably including water, which is actually the main contributor, but - since it can't accumulate in the atmosphere in its own right, is only important in amplifying the effects of the longer-lasting greenhouse gases) and a washing-list of unquantified effects, most of which have been shown to be unimportant.

The critical weakness in your understanding does seem to be your lack of enthusiasm for positive feedback from water vapour. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more of it is going to warm the planet directly. This raises the vapour ressure of water above the oceans, which produces additional greenhouse warming.

We happen to know the amount of positive feedback required to make the Milankovitch mechanism work, and that is what the climate science community is plugging into its climate models.

Since you don't seem to understand the the significance of this particular bit of evidence, you feel free to deny the positive feedback from CO2 levels to water vapour levels, and consequently devalue to the effect of the rising CO2 level to the point where you think we can ignore it.

Ignorance isn't a personality disorder. Telling someone who is pointing out your ignorance that they are a lying SOB isn't actually a useful response, but since you don't seem to be equipped to educate yourself into a less woefully ignorant state, a certain measure of childish frustration is to be expected.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

SNIP

Again you prove you are beyond reason.

Expecting that eco crook Hansen to give a balanced view on AGW is like expecting the Pope to give a balanced view on God.

But I see you have to wait for Hansen's papal bull before having an opinion. Sheesh.

SNIP

Whether you like it or not, Hansen is part of the climate concesus, and Piekel isn't.

By the nature of things, there are a lot more climatologists who are like Hansen, than there are who are like Piekel. If the paper is a good as Piekel thinks - which is to say, it represents some kind of break-through - the word will get around, and Hansen (or one of the hundred or so figures with similar status in the field) will endorse it and start talking about the way it changes things).

Your paranoid theory that Hansen is some kind of eco crook is irrational, and your religious analogy is a give-away. The Pope is into dogma, scientists are interested in what the data has to tell them, and they can - and do - make up their own minds. Some of them do come to conclusions that don't stand the test of time - Piekel is probably one of them - and others a little slow to abandon theories that don't fit the evidence, but in general it makes sense to trust the concensus.

If Hansen were persuaded then one could assume that the case was pretty strong. He isn't by any means the only mains-stream climatologist whose opinion would b more persuasive than Piekel's, but he is one whose name is widely recognised, which is why I used him as an example.

And you complain about straw men.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

A consensus seems to be a new term for a bunch of crooks.

Hansen arrested several times for protesting with the "rent a mob".

Jones, Mann, Briifa et al of climategate fame destroying data and ignoring freedom of information requests.

I am pleased Pielke is not part of the Consensus. There is a chance of independent thought.

But you dare not have your own opinion you have to wait for the Consensus. Very sad.

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

And CFCs.

Solar is not just TSI. And there is increasing evidence that Svensmark was on to something.

Also the thermosphere and its interaction with other layers is still poorly understood.

/quote

?The Sun is in a very unusual period,? said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. ?The Earth?s thermosphere is responding remarkably ? up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.?

/end quote

/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

Not soot:

/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

SNIP

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.

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

/end quote

SNIP

-...

Your idea of "proof" is as defective as your idea of reasoning.

Only in your little world of paranoid delusion.

A more expensive mob than you could afford to rent.

Jones did suggest destroying e-mails - not data - in a private e-mail, but since none of the people you list seems to have actually destroyed any data, this can be taken to have been a rehetorical expression of frustration at the denialist industry using the freedom of information act to frivolously harass climate scientists.

True. His existence does point up the fact that scientist do think for themselves and can get things wrong in consequence. Since the kind of "independent thought" that you favour is heavily dependent on Exxon- Mobil and similar sourcres of funding, while not noticeably dependent on facts or evidence, Pielke's position is pretty much irrelevant to yoiur interests.

No, merely realistic. I do have some idea about how little I know about the nuts and bolts of climate science - the recent case of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-core temperatures, which I thought to be exclusively derived from deuterium ratios, leaving me puzzled by historical ice-cap temperatures that you came up with, that turned out to have been determined from essentially the same ice cores, but from other isotope ratios to give a much more localised temperature measurement than you get from deuterium ratios.

You - of course - didn't have a clue about them being a different sort of measure of a temperature at a very different place, and went on to call me a liar and a cheat, which is the sort of mistake it is a little too easy to fall into when you don't know what you are talking about, and don't even know enoguh to realise it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

le.

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

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

Christopher Monkton is another

About ozone destruction. His ideas about charged particles influencing cloud production are rubbish.

Not so poorly understood as to justiify claims of significant changes in solar output.

So what? Which molecules?

Localised and anthropogenic

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

Localised and anthropogenic

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

Interesting, but scarcely persuasive.

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.

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

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.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

SNIP

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

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.

SNIP

But not CO2

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

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.

/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

Another anthropogenic but not CO2.

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

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

My point for the last year is to show that the science is not settled, CO2 is not that important, and climate scientists don't have much of a clue about measuring things.

SNIP

I agree. You no little about climate science and regurgitate the stuff spoon fed to you.

Funnily enough I posted the same link several times and you responded to the posts. I'm not surprised as no one else had done the thinking for you and you couldn't cope with new data on your own.

SNIP

/quote

If you have a scientific background and you still believe in man-made global warming, get out a cup of coffee, a cup of tea, or a glass of brandy, whatever helps you think best, and watch the following lecture from the Cern, one of Europe's most highly respected centers for scientific research:

/end quote

SNIP