This was an eye opener - cont.
- Thread starter stugray
- Start date
- Status
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
That's because CO2 hasn't historically (until now) been the trigger for warming, but rather the long term forcing through feedback loops. The Milankovitch cycle is often the trigger. This is the aspect of warming that really causes me "alarm".
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
You don't throw them out, but you don't trust them, what's the difference? Models are the only glimpse into the future we have, I just can't understand not basing decisions on them with a great deal of weight. There are uncertainties, I get it, but there comes a time when you have to stop clinging to details when you can't see the forest from the trees any more. A point that has been continually brought up is the very conservative nature of the projections. You seem to not trust the models because they might project more warming than they should, but it could just as well not project enough warming.
ScooterTDI
New member
Yes, but it is interesting that the graph that was previously presented in this thread that showed the CO2 tracking the temp (or vice versa) through the Milankovitch cycles was used as an arguement to show that temp is a consequence of CO2, when, on average, it is not.
Scott
Scott
ScooterTDI
New member
Again, you need to listen to what I am saying. I am NOT saying that I don't trust the models because I don't think they are correct. I am saying that models are not crystal balls. It doesn't matter if they are considered conservative or not. They have limitations. They cannot tell us our future.
There is a difference between "basing" a decision and "informing" a decision. "Basing" implies that the bulk of the information being used to come to a decision is from a particular source (or type of source). "Informing" simply means that a particular source of information will be used in the decion-making process, but it will not constitue the bulk of the information being used to come to a decision.
Modeling is not a scientific endeavor and it shouldn't be treated as if it were. I am not "clinging to the details" here. This is a fundamental concern about the use and interpretation of modeling.
Scott
stugray
Premium Member
I love the article posted above:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full
Here is one of my favorite quotes:
"Thus, assuming only that our estimates are approximately correct, we assert that the processes producing the non-CO2 GHGs have been the primary drive for climate change in the past century."
That SAYS right THERE that Green house gases OTHER THAN CO2 have been the PRIMARY driving force in climate change.
This directly contradicts what most of the chicken little AGW people are saying.
The main focus of the Kyoto protocol is to reduce CO2 emissions.
If you read the article above you will also find this tidbit:
"Moreover, in comparing forcings due to different activities, we must note that the fossil fuels producing most of the CO2 are also the main source of aerosols, especially sulfates, black carbon, and organic aerosols (4, 23)."
If you read on in the article it states that the production of Aerosols COUNTERS the forcing of the GHG-CO2.
And therefore - Burning fossil fuels has nearly a NET ZERO effect on GW.
Hence "The aerosol forcing that we estimate (6) has the same magnitude (1.4 W/m2) but a sign that is opposite that of the CO2 forcing. Fossil fuel use is the main source of both CO2 and aerosols, with land conversion and biomass burning also contributing to both forcings."
I wont comment any further at the moment but this article ( IMO ) is exactly what some of us are saying about the models.
Until we have more data we cannot say if the current models are correct or not.
According to this article, we could reverse GW by producing MORE AEROSOLS.
Stu
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full
Here is one of my favorite quotes:
"Thus, assuming only that our estimates are approximately correct, we assert that the processes producing the non-CO2 GHGs have been the primary drive for climate change in the past century."
That SAYS right THERE that Green house gases OTHER THAN CO2 have been the PRIMARY driving force in climate change.
This directly contradicts what most of the chicken little AGW people are saying.
The main focus of the Kyoto protocol is to reduce CO2 emissions.
If you read the article above you will also find this tidbit:
"Moreover, in comparing forcings due to different activities, we must note that the fossil fuels producing most of the CO2 are also the main source of aerosols, especially sulfates, black carbon, and organic aerosols (4, 23)."
If you read on in the article it states that the production of Aerosols COUNTERS the forcing of the GHG-CO2.
And therefore - Burning fossil fuels has nearly a NET ZERO effect on GW.
Hence "The aerosol forcing that we estimate (6) has the same magnitude (1.4 W/m2) but a sign that is opposite that of the CO2 forcing. Fossil fuel use is the main source of both CO2 and aerosols, with land conversion and biomass burning also contributing to both forcings."
I wont comment any further at the moment but this article ( IMO ) is exactly what some of us are saying about the models.
Until we have more data we cannot say if the current models are correct or not.
According to this article, we could reverse GW by producing MORE AEROSOLS.
Stu
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
What? Temperature follows CO2 about 90% of the time, it's the beginning of warming where temp lags.
Dingo44
New member
Very interesting, very interesting indeed....
It seems that because CO2 emissions and concentrations are so relatively high that CO2 has become the target in the war on AGW. The media, who is unfortunately responsible for distributing this info to the public, has consistently failed to mention other causes for warming. They always blame CO2 as the only culprit, when it's not.
I remember reading in the locked thread that the cooling trend during the post WWII economic boom was attributed to sulfur aerosols. So wouldn't that be a proven way to lower temps? Or is there not enough data there to make any conclusions?
It seems that because CO2 emissions and concentrations are so relatively high that CO2 has become the target in the war on AGW. The media, who is unfortunately responsible for distributing this info to the public, has consistently failed to mention other causes for warming. They always blame CO2 as the only culprit, when it's not.
I remember reading in the locked thread that the cooling trend during the post WWII economic boom was attributed to sulfur aerosols. So wouldn't that be a proven way to lower temps? Or is there not enough data there to make any conclusions?
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I'm going to give you a chance to amend your statements and think about what you wrote before I blast your reading comprehension skills and better judgment.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I'll give you a chance as well.
ScooterTDI
New member
Look for yourself at the reference. On average, greenhouse gas concentrations lag behind temp by several hundred years. Now, that is not to say that temp is always leading greenhouse gas concentrations, but on average it is a few hundred years ahead.
Scott
ScooterTDI
New member
Hold your horses here. The article also makes a good point about how aerosol effects are relatively short lived, while CO2 has a significantly longer lifetime in the atmosphere. Meaning that over the long-term there is a good chance that the CO2 driven effects will out-pace the aerosol effects.
Scott
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
That's one half of where he went wrong.
Superstretch18
New member
The other half?:
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
No, you look for yourself. CO2 lags in the beginning of the warming phase, the rest of the temp record shows a very tight correlation.
ScooterTDI
New member
Let me guess what the other issue you see is...
He has been argueing against the validity of modeling, but he likes that modeling study.
Scott
ScooterTDI
New member
Did you go look up there reference I got that stement from? You didn't. I'm not talking about the graph that was posted here.
Scott
- Status
Similar threads
