Do "skeptics" here now agree CO2 causes global warming?

Question

One guy has a new model. He agrees that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us. But his new model says global warming will cause cold deep ocean water to come to the surface and keep things cool for a few years.

So the "skeptics" have seized on this one paper and support it, going against all they say about models and about global warming.

What they're missing is that there are many scientists with many other models that disagree. This is why the IPCC is so valuable. They examine all the models and describe the most likely to be correct, because they have been REPLICATED.

The "skeptics" are steadily getting more desperate, as scientific data reduces them to being exactly like the people who deny we went to the Moon.

So they'll even support a paper which says CO2 causes warming and whose title is:

GLOBAL WARMING: Mother Nature Cools the Greenhouse, but Hotter Times Still Lie Ahead

How desperate are they, that they'll do that?

Answer 1

Accept that your hypothesis has never been that co2 causes warming, but catastrophic warming.  

The Climate Denier Trick

There are a lot of reasons not to be worried about "inaction" on global warming.  To justify the enormously expensive cuts in CO2 productions, on the order of 80% as supported by Obama and Clinton, one has to believe every element of a five-step logic chain:

   1. Mankind is increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere

   2. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes the world to warm (by some amount, large or small)

   3. The increases in CO2 from man will cause substantial warming, large enough to be detectable above natural climate variations

   4. The increases in world temperatures due to man's CO2 will have catastrophic impacts on civilization

   5. These catastrophic impacts and their costs are larger than the enormous costs, in terms of poverty and lost wealth, from reducing CO2 with current technologies.

Climate alarmists have adopted a rhetorical trick that no one in the media seems willing to call them on.   They like to wage the debate over global warming policy on points one and two only, skipping over the rest.  Why?  Because the science behind numbers one and two are pretty strong.  Yes, there are a few folks who will battle them on these points, but even very strong skeptics like myself accept points one and two as proved.

Here are some examples of how this trick works.  If, like me, you do not accept steps 3-4-5 in the above logic chain, you will be called a "denier."  When asked what a denier means, a climate alarmist will often position this denial as somehow disputing #1 and #2.  On the other hand, if one publicly accepts #1 and #2, the alarmist will shout "QED" and then proceed to say that strong action on CO2 is now justified.  When an alarmist says that the a consensus exists, he is probably correct on points 1 and 2.  But he is absolutely incorrect that a consensus exists on 3-4-5.

The effects of CO2 acting alone on temperatures are quite small -- And everyone, even the alarmists, agree!  A doubling of CO2 concentrations, without other effects that we will discuss in a moment, will heat the earth no more than about 1 degree Celsius (though several studies recently have argued the number is much less).  This is not some skeptic's hallucination -- this is straight out of the IPCC third and fourth assessments [IPCC text quoted here].  In fact, the IPCC in their reports has steadily reduced their estimate of the direct contribution of CO2 on temperatures.  CO2, acting alone, warms the Earth only slowly, and at this rate we would see less than a degree of warming over the next century, more of a nuisance than a catastrophe.

But some scientists do come up with catastrophic warming forecasts.  They do so by assuming that our Earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks that multiply the initial warming from CO2 by a factor of three, four, five or more.  This is a key point -- the catastrophe does not come from the science of greenhouse gases, but from separate hypotheses that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedback. This is why saying that greenhouse gas theory is "settled" is irrelevant to the argument about catastrophic forecasts.  Because these positive feedbacks are NOT settled science.

The above was a quote from the climate skeptic's blog.  For the whole article:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

When scientists say it is the sun, they are saying it is the main driver of 20th century warming.

It is not just one study.  The change of phase of the PDO is a well known phenomena.  Even NASA says it has shifted to its cool phase.  

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

To get catastrophic warming we need a positive feedback.  Cooler oceans do not provide this positive feedback.

Rejoice!!!  It is too early to tell, this may be the final nail in the coffin that we are not doomed!  All is well!  No need for costly co2 reductions.   Or do you think energy use is good regardless of AGW?

Answer 2

I am not a climatologist.  I have never professed to be.  but i do write and run computer simulations for a living, and have for over a decade.  the ONLY thing i can tell you with my computer models, is that with 100% certainty, the models will be WRONG.  its just a matter of HOW wrong.  even the expected values of the VERY best computer models will vary by 10-20% from the actual values, and thats if you have perfect data, and a 100% understanding of the system being modeled.  we have neither with climate data.  we are yet to fully understand the the workings of the atmosphere, and how it relates to climatic changes.

There is inherent bias in ALL models.  a HUMAN programmer will create the model based on a series of assumptions.  thos eassumptions will drive the results.  The Feedback loop never asks for contrary data, unless its programmed in, again, by the HUMAN.  If i had any knowledge of the climat system being studied in these climate computer models, i guarantee you i could write algorithms that actually make the models show COOLING in the future, and not warming.  

DOn't base your opinions on the results of computer models

Answer 3

No.. The sun causes global warming. Without it we would experience Global Freezing.

Answer 4

Bob, only a certain spectrum of information is allowed entry into their brains. So the part that says "global warming may be delayed" gets in, causing them to conclude it's all a fraud, while the part that says "anthropogenic global warming is still real and  this will only temporarily delay it" is filtered out.  They will accept that this model is good and forget past criticisms of all other models being unreliable.

Of course, they won't bother to read the actual report. Taking headlines or out-of-context quotes by coal-industry bloggers is all they need to believe.

Answer 5

I don't recall reading that CO2 does not assist in holding heat (primarily, solar-sourced) near the Earth's surface.

The issue for many of us is the reliability of the data used to study/forcast the Earth's temperature, as well as the fledgling state of climate science.  We are now seeing the negative result of hasty or 'knee-jerk' reactions to the perceived need for less CO2 emissions....... ie.....Ethanol.  Climate science needs to develop a bit more before the majority of us take the AGW issue seriously.  

By all means.... clean air and water are positive causes worthy of support.... but the AGW cause continues to lack credibility.

Addendum:

Some food for thought.............................

"In policy making, especially in a political arena, consensus building is a key ingredient. In attempts to make science relevant and useful, the politics of democracy tend to promote, even in some cases demand "scientific consensus." However, as a "community of belief" develops, skepticism is no longer regarded as a virtue. In a civilization that is founded on science, this is an unfortunate state of affairs and detrimental to our future.

Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: "A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit."

The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."

For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982).

Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology."

Answer 6

Pretty desperate, Bob.  See my answer to this one.

Answer 7

no.

Answer 8

Bob,

Your guy is talking about "turnover", usually associated with lakes, but he's using it with the oceans.

I think one of the best things we could do in relation to this issue is to completely step away from the models.  The best, most complete model is, at the end of the day, just an estimation. I find it interesting that none of the models have been able to predict climate for today when provided with the data from the 20th century.

Why not stick with actual empirical measurements.  If you look at the paleo-climate data you will see that the earth does indeed warm up, but for there to be a "warming" kind of implies that there was a cooling.  I think now would be a good time to say "ITS A CYCLE!!".

Please go to this link and read these peer reviewed articles:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/200...

Answer 9

No...

Answer 10

That goes back to the fact that for most skeptics the whole thing is political. They wouldn't care about global warming at all apart from the politics and they would readily agree that mankind was causing it if politics weren't involved. If in some weird way we could lower taxes due to global warming, these people would be the most fanatical about it's reality. These sorts of people put politics before science and it is disgusting. They display no free will whatsoever in the matter.

Answer 11

Good morning Bob, well it's probably after noon where you are. Sure I believe we will have global warming. I just deny the end result and resent media's exaggeration of AGW and the mindless public panic it causes. I don't agree that the world will be destroyed or even damaged by global warming, it will just slowly change a little. The IPCC is not valuable, they propagate this false fear. No I don't think it is the scientific portions of the IPCC; it is the bureaucratic portion. Why do skeptics respond to science with politics?  Because the IPCC's science, is not science, it is politics.

Answer 12

Bob.......your `pet subject` is now becoming..............Mundane.

please research another , or risk being removed from my Contacts List.

Answer 13

I will continue to be that 'Thorn in your side', until you start to accept some basic science and move closer to the 'middle ground' rather than pick on some minor flaws in some statement or proposal that you disagree with because it does not follow your belief.

I also note that your reference only says 'one guy', I do not know who this 'one guy' is that you are referring to, so I can not make any informed decision.(one way or the other)

I can say without a doubt however is that computers or 'computer models' only output what the program tells it to.

Computers can not think or predict the future!

It is no surprise to me that a radical way of thinking on one side of any issue will only attract extreme opposition to that belief if it is not supported by facts.

The general public do not have access to the truth, and do not have a basic understanding of science.

What many people can rely on is the fact that they know for a fact that no matter what happens, they are being 'RIPPED OFF'!!!

I would like you to show me some proof that 'AGW' actually exists other than some 'Computer Model' which you seem to believe in so faithfully.

Show us any scientific evidence which could prove your beliefs that man is even remotely responsible for any climate change.

Also please show us how we know what the average global temperatures are supposed to be in order to decide whether we are above or below that mean.

I could go on, but I am pretty sure it would be a total waste of time.

Answer 14

If a mechanism is to be considered both cause, and effect, then what you have is usually referred to as "Circular Logic."

Bob, this is a bad thing, ok.

It is either cause, or effect, otherwise it would be a positive feedback loop and we would have had only one ice age, or only one warm period, in the whole history of the earth.  Since we can scientifically document the existance of multiple ice ages, then it cannot be both cause and effect.  Just one.

Answer 15

I wish you could have just ask, 'what do you make of this new German report ?' instead of couching it your irrational views of skeptics.

What does this skeptic think about it.  Nothing, I have not seen the report or even read much on it.  Why?  I don't need another HAL9000, or in this case HANS9000 telling me the AE-35 unit is going to fail.

Just off hand, the presumption is that heat is being absorbed then blended into the deep ocean water, but that would somewhat be contradicted by the data in the ARGO program which has indicated no warming in the oceans.

Do the authors claim that this absorption increase is caused by the synchronization of decadal and multi decadal oscillations?  If so, what would be the frequency of the new global oscillation, and how did it relate to observed temperatures in the 20th century and prior?

What did they use for their CO2 forcing, and why that value?  Do the assume stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols will remain at historic lows or return to "normal" values?  Then there is the water vapor/cloud cover issue.

Too many questions about the work, so I guess well have to wait for it's release to the general public to see what they did.

Answer 16

Sounds like they read my theory yesterday, and simply beat me to the publisher!  (Go ahead, say "I told you so".)

The title "Mother Nature Cools the Greenhouse" is highly misleading because no cooling is involved, the thermal mass and mixing of the oceans simply slows the warming a bit.  ExxonMobil's professional propaganda jerks are going to have a field day misrepresenting this one (I may visit a couple of the denialist sites that they fund for amusement).

That the ocean slows the warming has been pretty obvious all along (just walk onto a beach, the sand warms a lot faster than the water, also observing the La Nina phase of the ENSO ocean current cycles demonstrates the global reach of ocean influence), and ocean temperatures are incorporated into the global temperature models.  Odd that it wasn't covered in papers 50-100 years ago.

On both the warming and mitigation sides of the issue I'd like to understand how scientists tease out CO2 warming from black carbon warming, and how they separate ocean mixing mitigation influences from aerosol mitigation.  

I'd like to see if they explain some of that, and why they think they have some new spin on "the ocean warms slower, slowing global warming".  Do you have a link?

geoweeg -

So you're a geologist... do you work for (or around) the oil industry?  Did your instructors have oil industry experience in their background?

Answer 17

No. Not quite.

A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.