To start, it appears that there is, indeed, a hockey stick when plotted over the past 500 years:
Plotted back 1200 years, a MWP appears, in spades, from roughly 900 AD to 1100 AD:
Regressing to 5,000 years, the MWP begins to look normal:
Going 11,000 years back, even the MWP looks normal to small, and the recent upturn is not even noticible, at least as an aberration. More surprising is the rapid rise from a much colder period from around 9,000 to 8,000 years ago:
At 13,000 years back we see a cold spell; the recent hockey stick is absolutely swamped in comparison:
At 50,000 years back, we see that the cold spell is very long:
Finally at over 400,000 years, the plot shows periodic warming out of long spells of cooling climate. And the changes are abrupt.
Just from these graphs, taken by themselves, one might conclude that modern civilization developed in a warm period, one that contained fluctuations both much higher and much lower than the climate we observe today. And one might also conclude that the length of the previous warming spells might indicate that we are approaching the end of our warm period, too.
Taken along with sediment data and the complete Yamal tree ring data as well as the adjacent Yamal/Siberian temperature measurements, one might conclude that nothing unnatural is happening in the climate. Even if it is unnatural, it does not approach - much less exceed - normal, natural operating boundaries, nor is its amplitude more than negligible in the overall performance of earth's climate variabilty.
In fact, there is a caveat on the ice core data. One scientist is concerned that the CO2 might have decreased with time as it outgassed from the ice. This would mean that the cores show a lower amount of CO2 than actually existed, and that the historical temperatures were, therefore, even warmer than the cores indicate. But even without this issue, the cores show that the variations in modern temperatures are swamped by global historical variations. Given that outgassing is a parabolic function (depending on the physical configuration it could be hyperbolic) the adjusted curve might eliminate the hockey stick rise over the last 150 years, altogether.
17 comments:
From what I can understand, one of your arguments can be stated like this:
1. Temperatures in 1905 (the ice core data linked to ends 95 years before present, and the study was published in 2000) were not greater in amplitude or magnitude when compared with temperatures of the past
2. Therefore, current warming is not caused by CO2
Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Non sequitur fallacy.
Also, global warming began around the middle of the 20th Century, not 1905, so this argument fails to even address global warming.
And your second argument seems to be:
1. Temperatures in 1905 were not greater in amplitude or magnitude when compared with temperatures of the past.
2. Humans survived with no problems before.
3. Therefore, the current warming is not a problem.
Your conclusion fails to take into account the cause of the current warming, which you did not refute with the above non sequitur. The cause is the problem, not the current magnitude.
Also, global warming began around the middle of the 20th Century, not 1905, so this argument fails to even address global warming.
I never said or implied that CO2 does not have the potential to cause some greenhouse effect, even though the coefficient of reflection of CO2 would seem to indicate that.
The graphs use CO2 to indicate a substantial MWP and LIA, which Jones et al disclaim in order to establish a more agreeable baseline for their claim of imminent disaster.
These data are congruent with the sediment data and the complete Yamal data (trees and measured) as I said. (They are not congruent with the fear of huge environmental catastrophes due to human injection of CO2).
They also indicate that we exist in a warm period that is a cyclic phenomenon independent of man made CO2.
Also indicated is the earth's tendency to correct itself back to temperatures substantially lower than we are used to. And it indicates that our warm period is somewhat prolonged compared to previous periods. And the heating from mid 1850's to 1905 or so is swamped by the temperature variability shown in the core data.
Since it is thought that CO2 contributes to heating in a logarithmic fashion, and saturates early, what evidence is there to show that it has not already saturated and the effect of further increases nullified? After all, the core data is based on CO2 concentrations which have been abnormally high for 10,000 to 11,000 years. If more CO2 reflects more IR, then less IR should reach earth in the first place.
According to Moberg et al, global warming (rewarming) started around 1600 after the Little Ice Age, not 1900. The AGW started in the 1850's due to coal fired plants, homes and everything, with "adequate" measurements starting around 1900 or later. This information all depends on the source, of course, because each researcher has his own ox to gore.
The known discrepancies of the surface data coupled with the correlation of contradictory proxy data sets leads one to suspect that not only is anthropogenic warming in haitus, it likely doesn't exist at all, at least w/r to CO2. Especially in light of the transmissive/reflective characteristics of CO2 in the IR range, and coupled with this logic: if IR is transmitted to earth, why would it not be transmitted from earth through the same characteristics? The idea that multilayer interfaces influence this fails because the characteristic transmissivity is too small, and the angle too large.
Today the EPA declared CO2 a "pollutant", a political move with dark intent.
You said in your original post, "taken along with sediment data and the complete Yamal tree ring data as well as the adjacent Yamal/Siberian temperature measurements, one might conclude that nothing unnatural is happening in the climate."
This argument seems to me to be in the form:
1. Present X is claimed to be attributable to man.
2. Past X is attributable to nature.
3. Therefore, present X is not attributable to man.
Again, your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Non sequitur and also strawman, as this is not how the IPCC reached their conclusion.
As pointed out in the article What If the Hockey Stick Were Wrong, CO2 as the primary driver of modern climate is concluded from detection and attribution studies done on 20th Century data. It is not based on measurements of past temperature.
You did not address your non sequitur and strawman in your reply, but instead spoke of whether CO2 is or is not a greenhouse gas. This is a different argument. Red herring fallacy.
Therefore, my criticism of your logic still stands. QED
And your second argument is in the form:
1. Future X is claimed to be a problem
2. Past X was larger in magnitude than future X
3. Therefore, future X will not be a problem
I pointed out that you failed to take address the cause of warming. For instance, if the cause of previous warming were orbital variation, then these are cyclic and self-limiting. If the cause of modern and future warming is manmade with no end in sight, then the cause is not cyclic and self-limiting and could be a potential problem. I am not arguing whether they are correct about that cause or not, only that the concern is the non-cyclic, non self-limiting cause of warming, not the magnitude.
So your logic here is another strawman.
You also failed to take into account the dependence of modern civilization and economy on stable climate. While it may have been warmer 10K years ago, a global economy that depends on stable climate did not exist then. One of the major concerns is massive displacement of people. Some areas that are farmable may become arid, some arid areas may become farmable. Sea level rise of even a few inches will still render large areas uninhabitable. The global economy would face serious disruptions with this type of refugee situation and displacement of people. While not the end of the world, it may be a serious concern.
Your logic here is a strawman.
You also failed to take into account the entire 20th Century of warming on the ice core graph, which ends in 1905. You said, "AGW started in the 1850's due to coal fired plants, homes and everything, with "adequate" measurements starting around 1900 or later." This is incorrect. According to the IPCC, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." (emphasis theirs) Since the graph doesn't even include AGW on it, discussions of whether it is or is not greater in magnitude than in the past is not possible.
So your logic here is a strawman.
My criticism of your logic for your second argument still stands. QED
"If the cause of modern and future warming is manmade with no end in sight, then the cause is not cyclic and self-limiting and could be a potential problem"
This is not the case, because CO2 saturates and does not have an influence beyond a certain point. It is also the case that CO2 is so transmissive that it is highly unlikely that it is a problem in the first place.
"stable climate" argument.
If mankind cannot adjust to a variable climate, it will perish.
"The IPCC says..."
The IPCC is a parrot organization for the Climate Terrorist Cartel.
It is highly likely that there is no warming, so your analysis of my comments is moot. The actual data from Siberia and Australia indicates just that: no warming.
However, you are on the right track, in that the supposed AGW could have been compared, CO2amplitude wise, to the cores. However, that would require conjoining two separate data sets, which I do not intend to do.
However, given that the amplitude at ~1905 is roughly 4 degrees F lower than the historical peaks, the conjoined data would show that current temperature and forecasted temperature rise is well below previous highs.
My argument stands. (but keep 'em coming).
I failed to address this issue:
"You said in your original post, "taken along with sediment data and the complete Yamal tree ring data as well as the adjacent Yamal/Siberian temperature measurements, one might conclude that nothing unnatural is happening in the climate."
This argument seems to me to be in the form:
1. Present X is claimed to be attributable to man.
2. Past X is attributable to nature.
3. Therefore, present X is not attributable to man.
Again, your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Non sequitur and also strawman, as this is not how the IPCC reached their conclusion.
My argument is definitely not as you delineate. It is this:
1. Past X is attributable to nature.
2. Present X taken from untainted sources is exactly what is expected from a linear continuation of past X.
3. Therefore there is no reason to believe that human influence is involved.
Moreover, it absolutely requires human intervention in the data in order to produce non-natural appearing deviations: i.e. fraud.
"This is not the case, because CO2 saturates and does not have an influence beyond a certain point. It is also the case that CO2 is so transmissive that it is highly unlikely that it is a problem in the first place."
This response addresses the argument "Is the IPCC correct about CO2 being dangerous?" I am not making this argument, so it is a red herring.
I am addressing your argument that "temperatures have risen before with no ill effects, therefore AGW is not a problem." The concern with AGW is the cause of warming and possible displacement of people within a modern civilization, as well as disruption to the economy, not whether it is or is not currently warmer than it has been in the past. Even if they are wrong about this your logic is still a strawman since it attacks a position that AGW does not take.
"The IPCC is a parrot organization for the Climate Terrorist Cartel."
You are attempting to criticize the position of AGW so you need to attack the argument they are actually making. The IPCC collates and summarizes this argument, regardless of whether they are a "climate terrorist cartel" or even whether they are right or wrong. Instead of addressing their argument, you attacked them personally. Ad hominem and poisoning the well.
"It is highly likely that there is no warming, so your analysis of my comments is moot. The actual data from Siberia and Australia indicates just that: no warming."
Even if there is no warming, you are attempting to criticize AGW. As the IPCC argues, AGW began after 1950 and attribution of CO2 to AGW comes from detection and attribution studies in the 20th Century, not measurements of past temperature. So using a graph of past temperatures to criticize AGW does not criticize the argument they are making. Strawman.
"2. Present X taken from untainted sources is exactly what is expected from a linear continuation of past X."
AGW does not attribute CO2 to modern climate by looking at past temperatures, so this is another strawman. Read What If the Hockey Stick Were Wrong for more information.
Apparently I am no longer able to comprehend your meanings.
Let’s try this. You said:
"If the cause of modern and future warming is manmade with no end in sight, then the cause is not cyclic and self-limiting and could be a potential problem"
I said,
This is not the case, because CO2 saturates and does not have an influence beyond a certain point. It is also the case that CO2 is so transmissive that it is highly unlikely that it is a problem in the first place.
I now continue with what I thought would be obvious but apparently was not:
Therefore the statement, ” future warming is manmade with no end in sight” is not true; there is an end in sight: CO2 saturation, as I just said. And of course if the CO2 concentration is not the problem (it has been inferred, not proven) then the warming is not man-made.
You make three presuppositions which you insist that I must take as true, and then make a conclusion based on those presuppostions (not unlike your false dilemmas): 1. There is current warming and there will be short term future warming; 2. there is man-made warming; 3. it will never saturate (stop).
I reject all three of your premises and I refuse to make a decision based on them. First, there is a considerable body of data indicating that THERE IS NO CURRENT WARMING, man-made or otherwise. Second, the concept that CO2 is a warming agent is inferred and is not supported by simple physics. So human contribution is not proven, especially if there is no warming. Third, the CO2 in the climate will reach saturation and will not sustain infinite warming, cooling or anything else.
If your point is that I must accept your premises or else I engage in fallacy, I do not accept the premises or the charge, because to accept false premises is a fallacy itself. It is like saying (since you like analogies) “if every other person is a mass murderer, then every other person could be a problem”. The conclusion – if forced – is valid but it is based on a false premise, making the entire affair false. A true conclusion cannot rationally derive from a false premise: it is not rational to make such a conclusion. (An example of where “valid” is not the same as “true”).
NEXT
The IPCC is not engaged in making arguments as you suggest; it is a reporting function. If you want to quote arguments, then quote the scientist that makes them, not the IPCC. It is my opinion that the CRU and others will sometime in the future be acknowledged to have been a terrorist cartel, profiting from spreading fear. I stand by this opinion.
(continued in next comment)
(continued in the next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
NEXT
The idea that global warming is based solely on measurements made in the 20th century is an attempt to ignore the overwhelming data that indicates that it is not a problem; it also ignores the increasing data that indicates cooling, not warming. The drive to “prove” AGW is becoming more religious oriented, in the sense that actual data and empirical science is ignored or scorned in the pursuit of a preconceived answer: warming, man-made. (see my comments on the blade of the hockey stick, below).
NEXT
I said,
Present X taken from untainted sources is exactly what is expected from a linear continuation of past X."
You said,
AGW does not attribute CO2 to modern climate by looking at past temperatures, so this is another strawman. Read What If the Hockey Stick Were Wrong for more information.
I say,
AGW certainly should be and could be based on looking at proxy data which has not been criminally manipulated in order to produce a fraudulent trend. The article you reference makes the case that AGW is proved merely by the existence of the BLADE of the hockey stick, it doesn’t need the handle. But it is the blade that is false, pure and simple. Ignoring the handle is not the point, it is a ruse. This is a blatant attempt to misdirect the attention by claiming that the “hockey stick” graph is not important; this is obviously because it has been discredited – not the handle of the stick – the blade of the stick. It is the blade that is the issue, always has been the issue, and it – the blade - is likely false as determined increasingly by data analysis of the huge adjustments to the data that are required to change the trend from negative to seriously positive. This argument is the transparent defense of a highly probable fraud.
BTW, the realclimate.org is a de facto mouthpiece for CRU; anything written there is seriously compromised by their hand-in-hand association with the culprits.
"I now continue with what I thought would be obvious but apparently was not: Therefore the statement, 'future warming is manmade with no end in sight' is not true"
And as I said, even if the IPCC is wrong about future warming you are still attacking a strawman. The concerns of AGW stem from radiative physics, not past temperature data. If you read TAR from 2001, you will find little reference to past temperature because the concern does not stem from that.
Even if AGW is wrong and CO2 does not cause warming, by attacking comparisons with previous temperatures you are attacking a position that AGW does not hold.
"THERE IS NO CURRENT WARMING"
So John Christy and Roy Spencer, both skeptics, are fudging their satellite data as well.
"Second, the concept that CO2 is a warming agent is inferred and is not supported by simple physics."
This can be duplicated in the lab, in front of your very eyes, and has been known and well studied since 1850. And you said, "I never said or implied that CO2 does not have the potential to cause some greenhouse effect."
"The article you reference makes the case that AGW is proved merely by the existence of the BLADE of the hockey stick."
I don't think you read the article at all: The main reason for concern about anthropogenic climate change is not that we can already see it (although we can). The main reason is twofold.
(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch “climate skeptics”.
(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.
No temperature data needed. You can throw it all out. You can dispute this argument if you wish, but attacking the hockey stick does not attack global warming.
"BTW, the realclimate.org is a de facto mouthpiece for CRU; anything written there is seriously compromised by their hand-in-hand association with the culprits."
Irrelevant. If you wish to attack your opponent, attack your opponent. Not a paper mache version of him you created yourself.
Martin said,
And as I said, even if the IPCC is wrong about future warming you are still attacking a strawman. The concerns of AGW stem from radiative physics, not past temperature data. If you read TAR from 2001, you will find little reference to past temperature because the concern does not stem from that.
Even if AGW is wrong and CO2 does not cause warming, by attacking comparisons with previous temperatures you are attacking a position that AGW does not hold.
This is totally beside the point, and I suspect you know it. My points deal with the following:
1. Does warming exist?
2. Does Anthropogenic warming exist?
3. If either 1 or 2 are “yes”, is it serious?
As I continually make obvious, it is #3 that I consider the most important, and that by far. Your argument about the self-limits of AGW is, frankly picayune and deceptive. I reject it for the reasons I gave yesterday. It is a waste of time, because it serves only to falsely serve a viewpoint, not objective science or its political ramifications.
Martin:
” "THERE IS NO CURRENT WARMING"
So John Christy and Roy Spencer, both skeptics, are fudging their satellite data as well.”
I have no idea. Kindly return to the subject: there is a considerable body of evidence – raw data – that suggests strongly that “THERE IS NO CURRENT WARMING”. If you want to discuss that data, then go ahead.
Martin:
”Second, the concept that CO2 is a warming agent is inferred and is not supported by simple physics."
This can be duplicated in the lab, in front of your very eyes, and has been known and well studied since 1850. And you said, "I never said or implied that CO2 does not have the potential to cause some greenhouse effect."
I also said that the transmissivity of CO2 is so low that the effect would be tiny. Plus the effect is logarthimic, plus CO2 saturates.
And the CO2 effect was rejected up until sometime around the late 1950’s. As far as I can tell it has been accepted now as a hypothesis, not as a fact.
Martin said,
“No temperature data needed.”
Perfect. The ultimate rejection of empirical data in favor of inference. Exactly the position of evolution, too: no data required. This why you attack anything I say except the actual data: the data is inconsequential.
So we must now ignore any data and go with Al Gore/James Hansen. Now I get it. Thanks for clearing that up. Sounding more religious all the time.
OK, I apologize for the sarcasm above. The rest stands, though.
"This is totally beside the point, and I suspect you know it. My points deal with the following: 1. Does warming exist? 2. Does Anthropogenic warming exist? 3. If either 1 or 2 are “yes”, is it serious?"
But that's not the point you made in your original post. You've changed the subject. If you scroll up, look at your original post, you will see that you made the point that "from ice core data and Yamal tree data, nothing unusual is happening."
My only point was in criticizing that point, because if you are familiar with AGW you will see that it does not make its conclusions based on measurements of past temperatures. By saying "from ice core data and Yamal tree data, nothing unusual is happening" you are attacking a position that AGW does not hold.
"So we must now ignore any data and go with Al Gore/James Hansen."
Of course not. I'm not making appeal to authority here. AGW forms its conclusions based on radiative physics. Everything else is peripheral, a sideshow, a curiosity.
AGW comes ONLY from: CO2 as a greenhouse gas, CO2 increasing, and all other known drivers of climate being quiet.
That's the argument for AGW. If you criticize ice cores, you are not criticizing AGW. If you criticize tree rings, you are not criticizing AGW. If you criticize CRU's data, you are not criticizing AGW.
If you criticize CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you are criticizing AGW. If you criticize CO2 increasing, you are criticizing AGW. If you criticize the absence of all other known climate drivers, you are criticizing AGW.
I.E., you can't find a flaw in paleo-climate reconstruction and conclude that AGW is a hoax. You haven't even touched AGW.
How do I know this? Because I worship AGW? Because I want it to be true? No, because I understand what it says. And watching skeptics punch the wall to the left of it and then claim a knockout makes me wonder if they are real skeptics or simply ideologues making distracting gestures.
Martin said,
"That's the argument for AGW. If you criticize ice cores, you are not criticizing AGW. If you criticize tree rings, you are not criticizing AGW. If you criticize CRU's data, you are not criticizing AGW.
If you criticize CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you are criticizing AGW. If you criticize CO2 increasing, you are criticizing AGW. If you criticize the absence of all other known climate drivers, you are criticizing AGW.
I.E., you can't find a flaw in paleo-climate reconstruction and conclude that AGW is a hoax. You haven't even touched AGW."
That's truly odd. You seem to be saying that the one and only case being made for AGW is NOT any data on temperature, past, present or future; the ONLY case being argued is that CO2 IS the tautological cause, no data required. Let's pare this down so there is no misunderstanding:
AGW=CO2.
or perhaps,
AGW=K*CO2.
Is this what you are claiming?
Absolutely no data required?
No other forces for heating or cooling?
One of these equations is an axiom?
I hope you don't mean this literally, Martin... But it would certainly make for simple models! And it would explain why our conversation has not made much sense to me.
And you accept this AGW axiom?
"the ONLY case being argued is that CO2 IS the tautological cause, no data required."
Of course not. I never said that. Please keep in mind that I am not necessarily making the case for AGW here, or even defending it at all. I'm only pointing out that ice cores, tree rings, and paleoclimate are extra information that do not make the case for AGW at all and never have.
Your opponent makes argument X, and as an aside tangentially related arguments A, B, and C
You are criticizing argument A, and claiming that you have criticized argument X.
I am not necessarily defending argument X, here. I only point out that you are criticizing argument A, not X.
Now. Replace X with:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is increasing, is the primary driver of modern climate, and may cause problems in the future.
And replace A with:
Ice core and tree ring data shows that it is very likely warmer than it's been in 400 years, and possibly warmer than it's been in 1000 years although with less confidence.
What you seem to be doing is criticizing ice core and tree ring data (whether modern temperatures are warmer than before), and claiming this is criticism of AGW (CO2 being the primary driver of modern climate).
It appears then that you have completely mistaken my point. If I must only argue against CO2 as the sole driver (cause) of global warming and that all warming is anthropogenic, plus be restricted to not arguing that ice cores and tree rings are valid data in the argument, then the argument is Orwellian and impossible, not to mention biased and irrational.
And what is even more interesting is the role that inferential modeling takes in declaring excessive runaway feedbacks for the future that did not occur in the past. The flip-flop permanent latching mechanism is flawed in the sense that it has never occurred previously, and that the climate has been bi-stable in saturated modes, then mysteriously unsatures itself. It oscillates in a square wave fashion, with a longer duty cycle in the cold state than in the warm. But it does not remain latched in either state.
This is the legacy of the ice core data. It can be seen that the earth is not in a stable mode until it reaches a saturation mode, either cold or warm, where it remains until some unkown forcing causes it to flip. This is natural and normal. The mode we are in now is close to saturation on the warm side, and this is clearly shown in the core data. It is normal. It doesn't matter how many stories the modellers come up with, saturation is the normal mode, not stopping in the linear transition zone as politician would like us to do. That is why CO2 doesn't really matter: the earth will head for saturation on its own, regardless of what we do. That's because the climate is only stable when it is in one of the saturations, again clearly shown in the core data.
Designing a system that is stable outside of saturation is extrememly difficult. Every variable must be known and immediately compensated for. Expecting to stabilize the earths climate as it seeks its own stability (in saturation) is very likely a fool's errand. It makes more sense to deal with the inevitable and make preparations, not impoverishment.
Blaming this on humans is outside the factual history of normal global warming and cooling oscillations. Global warming and cooling do exist inexorably, possibly either beneficial or deadly; anthropologically deadly AGW, not so much.
Humans should adapt and not be so rigid.
"If I must only argue against CO2 as the sole driver (cause) of global warming and that all warming is anthropogenic, plus be restricted to not arguing that ice cores and tree rings are valid data in the argument, then the argument is Orwellian and impossible, not to mention biased and irrational."
Huh?
Your opponent is making this argument:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. CO2 is increasing
3. All other known climate forcings are weak or absent
4. Therefore, CO2 is the primary driver of modern climate
That's AGW, in a nutshell. This is not Orwellian; THAT'S their argument. Period. I'm not arguing they are correct, I'm arguing that THAT'S their argument. If you wish to dispute it, then dispute one of these premises.
What you are doing is this:
1. Ice core data shows the earth was warmer in the past
2. Therefore, AGW is wrong
Which premise of the AGW argument have you addressed with that? None.
My comment said "global warming", not AGW.
My argument is that AGW will not be significant in the overall global warming story. Global warming/coooling happens without any intervention form humans.
Global warming is not AGW, it is much more than AGW.
I will repeat previous observations: the glaciers would have melted with or without human intervention; they were at the edge of freeze/non-freeze threshhold, so tiny changes in delta T produce big changes in leading edge melt. Whether this has been accellerated by humans is debatable, given definite indications of both MWP and LIA and the relentless upward slope in ice core data. Regardless, it would have happened anyway.
This is what I'm discussing, or at least I thought I was, on this particular thread. (I admit to getting the threads mixed up). What can I clear up that I'm not making clear?
As for attacking AGW on its CO2basis I can only say that I find that speculative, based on refractive / reflectivity calculations, especially in the presence of overall global warming despite human interference. However, this could be implied by having high/low temp data that shows increasing lows.
Anyway how about if we choose just one post to comment on? You choose.
Post a Comment