Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[debodine]

DanielWW:

I am not that bold, but thank you for thinking I might be. I think it is safe to say I am not only a minority view but even an outlier within engineering, NOT a mainstream thinker when it comes to science. I believe you can rest easy based upon that point due to the lively discussion and engagement you see on this forum.

The truth is that science itself (or more accurately, the scientific method) is not what I consider untrustworthy, it is the interference of human nature in the realms of scientific inquiry. My very first two questions when presented with any modern scientific data is, who paid for it and who gains by the conclusions? It is the same two questions I ask with political, judicial, legal, economic, banking, insurance and the pronouncements of any other endeavor that has anything to do with money.

But being an outlier means I will have no influence that you need to combat to be able to have beneficial discussions. The scientific method in its pure form is a beautiful process. It is the non-scientific prejudices and objectives of participating and controlling human beings that stops me from trusting in general.

 

[cranky108]

Simple solution to many problems "Solient Green".

Because most propls can't seem to see beyond the end of there noses, there is a push for solutions that make it go away, with little concern for the externalities.
Fix that problem, and you have fixed many more problems.

 

[2dye4]

Wow this debate is still roaring on full speed.

I wonder what the standard of proof really is among the skeptics.
They bring up imperfections in computer models and initial condition capture,
many of which are very likely impossible to ever satisfy to their standards.

So if 50 years from now the climate is much warmer in terms of the sensitivity
to how we have adapted to it and there is much suffering and hunger with
weather routinely setting records for extremes never imagined, will it still
be so important to validate away the last few tenths of a percent of doubt.

Look it is simple. In 2000 years ( 20 one hundred year spans ) the climate
has never done what it has done in the last 100. Something with a rough probability
of 1/20 has happened and coincidentally a known causative effect has presented
itself for the first time in this 100 year span.

We make decisions to take drastic measures on far lower odds. I would give the odds
of Saddam Hussein having used WMD on the USA at less than 1/20 if we didn't invade but
we did it anyway. And that wasn't cheap. Where is the outrage at that waste of money.
Oh, yeah those with the gold made more gold during that one.

 

[beej67]

Look it is simple. In 2000 years ( 20 one hundred year spans ) the climate
has never done what it has done in the last 100. Something with a rough probability
of 1/20 has happened and coincidentally a known causative effect has presented
itself for the first time in this 100 year span.

A dozen known causative effects, many of which are man made, have presented themselves, but the only one the IPCC wants to focus on is the one that makes certain people and organizations money, because they've positioned themselves to capitalize on carbon "trading."

We make decisions to take drastic measures on far lower odds. I would give the odds
of Saddam Hussein having used WMD on the USA at less than 1/20 if we didn't invade but
we did it anyway. And that wasn't cheap.

Yeah, and who made the money off that deal?

A: Some of the same people.

Where is the outrage at that waste of money.
Oh, yeah those with the gold made more gold during that one.

They sure did. I would never dream of associating the two cases for fear of being called a tin foil hatter, but since you brought it up, there are a lot of really quality parallels.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

"Yeah, and who made the money off that deal?" ...

munitions manufacturers,
army (mostly) equipment manufacturers,
airport security monitor manufacturers,
mercenary (private armies, private security) organisations,
people with lots of maney to invest, who know the right people for advice,
and (with the utmost respect and with no intention to denegrate) VA hospitals
(a lot of money is to be made due to the misery of others) ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

2Dye4,
If I write a computer model to predict the next fall of a dice. If I calibrate that model to exactly match the last 100 million falls of the dice, then I have a 1 in 6 chance that it will predict the next fall of the dice. Exactly the same as if the model did not exist. Same with climate models. No one has to prove an alternate theory to disprove a bad technique. The climate changes. Always has. Always will. Models (beyond generating heat) will have nothing to do with either the fact, magnitude, or direction of the next change. When a climate model gets the next value right (random chance says that it must happen occasionally) the world sings hosannas. When the model gets it wrong (normal case), the cheerleaders are out for a drink and miss it. That is the state of climate science. The grid is too course. The boundary conditions have too many forced variables, the grid-to-grid transfers are too weak, and our understanding of the arithmetic that describes fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics is inadequate to allow us to predict tomorrow's weather better than 50% of the time (I know that climate and weather are different things, climate is when everyone's future is threatened by the next big scare and weather is a choice between carrying an umbrella or not).

So no, a projection based on a computer model will never satisfy the requirements for "proof" of anyone who has ever pulled the arm on a slot machine or engaged in any other form of activity based on random chance.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[GregLocock]

And to get back to the heat based models.

In the short term they have to model the ENSO effect and whatever the equivalent is in the Atlantic. They can't even predict the timing of the nexrt ENSO peak, never mind its magnitude.

Admittedly over a couple of full cycles it all averages out, and the average length of an ENSO strong to strong cycle is 27 years (on average), so a heat based model should be testable this century. The signals from 30(?) buoys in the Pacific is very useful but does not forecast ENSO.

In the longer term the heat based models have to account for the variation in heat generated by the earth's core, and despite some bluster on this subject, the poles flip in a short period of time geologically speaking (250 years, fastest rate of change observed is 50 degrees PER YEAR), and changes are detectable on an annual scale as well. I do not know how efficient these changes in circulation are, and I'm going to have a little dig around. Given the huge masses, and high velocities, involved, I have a suspicion that ignoring them is rather a silly thing to do in the long term.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLocock]

Well I was wrong about that. The energy content of the Earth's magnetic field is only 10^19 J or thereabouts, compared with annual insolation of 5*10^24 J it doesn't seem likely that changing it would create much heat. Oh well. plenty more unknowns both known and unknown to look at.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLocock]

rb1957 " i'd be interested in seeing the thought process. "

3.35E+11 tonnes of carbon from fossil fuel, 1750 to 2007
1.23E+12 tonnes of CO2 due to fossil fuel
2.99E+12 total atmospheric CO2 582 ppm by mass 2007
2.17E+12 total atmospheric CO2 422 ppm by mass 1750
8.23E+11 change in atmospheric CO2 1750 to 2007
67% %age of fossil fuel CO2 still in atmosphere

Which surprised me

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[2dye4]

beej67

""A dozen known causative effects, many of which are man made, have presented themselves,""

How about listing a few please or link to a list ??

Zdas

So a computer model is completely useless. Then how do you expect one would ever 'prove' a climate change hypothesis ??
Obviously closed form equations are even harder than numerical simulations.
Seems like your framework prevents any conclusion from ever being made. A well known tactic even if that is not your motivation.

And again lets not forget that all we are arguing about is whether to conserve a finite resource or use it up as fast as is economically
possible.

I suspect if the cost of presenting fossil fuel to the consumer were one tenth what it is now we would all be driving some
variation of tracked tank to the supermarket and vigorously defending the need to do so for our quality of life.

 

[TGS4]

So a computer model is completely useless.

Not at all. I have made my career out of numerical simulations (i.e. computer models). When used in their range of applicability, and applying appropriate and understood boundary and initial conditions, ensuring grid convergence (i.e. the answer is independent of the mesh), and ensuring that the constitutive equations are correct, numerical models can provide reasonable answers to well-posed questions. They cannot "prove" anything, however.

And again lets not forget that all we are arguing about is whether to conserve a finite resource or use it up as fast as is economically
possible.

I have had this discussion with moltenmetal (who got frustrated with these discussions and left) - the two issues are completely separate (and, BTW, I think that there is a case for using liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transportation only, and not for stationary energy generation). If the stated goal is the preservation of hydrocarbon resources, then it needs no pretext of some tangentially-related "global warming". But, that's not what we are discussing - and trying to shift the discussion won't work.

Look it is simple. In 2000 years ( 20 one hundred year spans ) the climate has never done what it has done in the last 100. Something with a rough probability of 1/20 has happened and coincidentally a known causative effect has presented itself for the first time in this 100 year span.

Um - I'm not really sure what metric you are basing this statement on (probably Mann's fraudulent hokey-stick), but it is demonstrably false, even in the last 100 years (where we actually have instrumental records). The period of 1910-1945 had a rate of temperature increase virtually indistinguishable from 1979-1999

. The overall temperature was warmer during the Roman Warm Period, and then we plunged down into the cold depths of the Little Ice Age, and have then rebounded to the Modern Warm Period. Sorry, but "never done what it has done" is complete bunk! And man's (CO2) contribution only became significant after WW2 (1945), so blaming mankind for anything prior to 1945 is also not in keeping with the CO2-driven CAGW hypothesis.

Try again.

 

[2dye4]

""They cannot "prove" anything, however""

If so what use could they be for investigating climate change given the difficulties you and zdas have placed on the solutions.
You surely must understand i said a computer model is completely useless in the context of the discussion we are having.

"" the two issues are completely separate ""

Well I would think that the utility of the current course would have some impact on the policy debate
given that climate change cannot be proven beyond and any doubt much like every other scientific idea.
It is a matter of calculated probabilities of loss, so yes the need for the usage is central to the debate.

"Um - I'm not really sure what metric you are basing this statement on "

Take the scientifically accepted temperature reconstruction of the past 2000 years, calculate a mean and a variance
from the series. Get climate temperature for the last 100 years and calculate its average.

How many standard deviations taken from the 2000 year series is the last centuries mean above the 2000 year mean.

M1 = Mean of 2000 year reconstruction.
S1 = Standard dev of the 2000 year reconstruction.

M2 is the last 100 year mean temp.

what K satisfies this eqn.
M1 + K*S1 = M2

It gives a measure of the hockey stick. And no the hockey stick has not been discredited.

I'll bet if your utility bill had the same shape you would go looking for leaks in your insulation due to the
sudden change indicated by the bump in the graph.

 

[zdas04]

Computer models are useless at predicting the future. Remember that the input to one iteration is the output from the last iteration.

Also the myth of vanishing hydrocarbons just isn't so. Living organisms generate something on the order of 500 millions tonnes of methane per year from biological processes. The number has been huge for millions of years. It has been estimated (I'm across the world from my library so I can't cite a reference) that 0.5% of that mass of methane is captured in silts and aqueous environments. Of the amount that is trapped, most will leak out the edges of the trap long before it can ever be harvested. The Oil & Gas industry is going after something like 1 billionth of a percent of the hydrocarbons that have been created. Hydrocarbons are anything but finite.

When the fossil fuels run out we will just have to get a tiny bit smarter about capturing the results of life. We are already doing it. Many farms are composting animal and vegetable waste to extract the methane to run generators and farm equipment. Many cities are capping landfills and generating power from the trapped gases. We will do more. If the AGW hypothesis is correct (which would really shock me) then we will do more for the climate by capping biological sources than all the cap and trade, all the EPA regulations, and all the IPCC could ever do, simply in our own self interest.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

No, it’s not a textboox example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I will give you the textbook example:

What IS an argumentum ad ignorantiam – “My proposition is true because you cannot prove it to be false” or “Your proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true (in my mind)”

What is NOT an argumentum ad ignorantiam – “I have a theory which predicts, if true, some consequences will occur. Those consequences have been demonstrated to be in agreement with empirical observations. The predictions of counter-theories are not in agreement with empirical observations.”

With the proper definitions in mind, let’s review what I said:
The anthropogenic climate change theory states that human influences, primarily through the release of CO2, are affecting the climate and causing the surface temperature to warm. The theory predicts various physical consequences as stated above. These predictions have been shown to be in agreement with empirical observations. Furthermore, counter-theories, such as the change in climate is caused by orbital cycles or solar activity, make predictions that fail to agree with or directly oppose empirical observations.

Beyond that, I have explicitly stated what reasonable, plausible observations would cast doubt on the theory for me:

[ul]
[li]If ENSO neutral years showed a notable decline in temperature trends over a significant time-span --> it doesn’t, they show a very consistent warming trend, even during the “pause”[/li]
[li]If both ocean heat content and surface temperatures showed a notable decline over a significant time-span --> it doesn’t, OHC shows an increase, especially in the deep ocean, during the “pause”. This is exactly what you’d expect to happen in an La Nina dominated period.[/li]
[li]If during the next positive PDO/IPO period, the temperature trend does not resume warming --> we’ll see[/li]
[/ul]

That’s not argumentum ad ignorantiam, that’s how science is done. That’s how theories work.

Now, what IS an argumentum ad ignorantiam is, “I’m not convinced by the data, therefore the theory is false”. If you claim to not have that stance and instead believe it is inconclusive, then you must remain open to the evidence. Reviewing the science at WUWT or CATO isn’t really being open to the evidence, it’s looking for a comfortable and convenient spin that fits your apriori assumptions

TGS4’s rundown of climate models – this is a great rundown of models but, unfortunately, it contains many naïve or incorrect assumptions regarding how climate models are structured. This just emphasis my previous point – you may know about models but you don’t understand climate science or climate models. If you want to understand, I recommend the following reads from Gavin Schmidt of NASA, one publication from NASA and aClimate Model FAQ on his blog, Real Climate.

Regarding TGS4’s question to me regarding biases - you got me, my love for paying taxes has biased my view on the science.

Regarding the warming rate in the early 20th century, look at atmospheric aerosols during that period. The amount of anthropogenic CO2 released (much smaller than today but still non-zero) mixed with the lack of aerosols and the fact that 1910 was a solar minimum and 1940 was a solar maximum all combine to account for the warming during that period without needing to adjust any forcing values for CO2, aerosols or solar activity. It’s not an argument against the theory: it is consistent with our understanding of climate science.

I’ll add that we now have lower solar activity than in 1940, more aerosols, are in a negative PDO but have much higher global temperature. Please explain how, if CO2 isn’t influencing temperatures, this could be the case. (again, this is NOT an argument ad ignorantiam because the scientific community’s theory can and DOES explain it)

Also, weren't you arguing that temperature trends mean nothing and are a useless metric? I guess you forget that when you can make a (mistaken) argument using them. Well, regardless, I can disprove theses arguments by whichever way you like.

 

[2dye4]

""The Oil & Gas industry is going after something like 1 billionth of a percent of the hydrocarbons that have been created. Hydrocarbons are anything but finite""

REALLY ??

I had something typed to say until I realized what today's date is. Good one ZDAS04.

Now if you are serious .....

There are some holes that need filling. When speaking of the hydrocarbons that have been created
are you meaning everything created back through the millions of years life has inhabited the planet ??

If so this is not relevant because nature also destroys hydrocarbons over the same time span so the figure
is irrelevant to what is stored in the Earth.

Also I eagerly await beej67 answer about the dozen other plausible man made causes of the warming we are seeing.

 

[ewh]

Obama seems to be following in Reagans footsteps... both cow farts and burps.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/033114-695328-white-house-to-regulate-cow-flatulence.htm

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[zdas04]

It is actually April 2 where I'm at, and I was serious. Hydrocarbons are created everywhere all the time. Methane is the single most renewable substance on the earth. I keep reading about dairy farms that are totally self sufficient on power (swamp gas off digesters run generators and compressors for CNG for vehicles). The very best of them capture something like 1% of the methane generated on their properties. Land fill capping is the municipalities wheel of fortune for the next decade.

Yes, there are many processes that convert methane into other stuff. Some (large) amount of it leaks into space as well. The part that survives and can be captured economically will satisfy our energy needs in perpetuity (to say nothing of any biogenic methane that we capture won't become a greenhouse gas, certainly a much larger reduction in GHG than all the cap and trade ever done). This is not conjecture. The technology has been developing for decades and it is getting pretty damn cool. Capital costs tend to have a 2-3 year payout and the capital equipment bought has a multi-decade track record running on fossil fuels. The most "renewable" energy on the planet.



David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[GregLocock]

"Well I was wrong about that. The energy content of the Earth's magnetic field is only 10^19 J or thereabouts, compared with annual insolation of 5*10^24 J it doesn't seem likely that changing it would create much heat. Oh well. plenty more unknowns both known and unknown to look at."

Well, I was probably wrong in saying I was wrong. The major energy content of the core's energy is kinetic energy, the magnetic field is a side effect of the core's convective activity. An analogy would be a loudspeaker. We think it is there to make noise , all it mostly does is turn electricity into heat.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rconnor]

GregLocock, see my responses in bold below:

Temperatures have increased Agreement

CO2 concentrations have increased Agreement

Anthropogenic contributions to the increased CO2 concentrations vastly outweigh natural sources. Proves nothing some argue that the increase in CO2 concentrations are from natural sources. I agree, it’s silly but it does disprove that

Ocean heat content is increasing (at all depths) Unproven, changes in temp would have to be of the same oreder as changes in atmospheric temp if they were to drive them which they aren't. NOAA data and the second part is just false

Ice coverage is decreasing. Symptom …of increasing energy (while aerosols are increasing, solar activity is decreasing and CO2 is increasing). I agree.

Humidity is increasing. Symptom …of increasing energy (while aerosols are increasing, solar activity is decreasing and CO2 is increasing). I agree.

Sea level is rising. Symptom …of increasing energy (while aerosols are increasing, solar activity is decreasing and CO2 is increasing). I agree.

Outgoing longwave radiation is reduced across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity)). measured over 30 years or less You’re point being? 30 years is not insignificant and requires a physical explanation. I’ve got mine, what’s yours?

Increased downward infrared radiation across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity) No comment?

The stratosphere is cooling while the surface is warming (unexplainable by solar activity) also unexplainable by computer models not true at all, explainable and predicted by the theory, produced in models and observed in nature, remeber the missing …hotspots? Ya, remember John Christy’s quote? “It is likely that a net spurious cooling corrupts the area-averaged adjusted radiosonde data in the tropical troposphere, causing these data to indicate less warming than has actually occurred there”. Remember this rebuttal to the argument, found in the comment section of the Spencer blog post which incited this trope (which Spencer never responded to)?

Nights warming faster than days (unexplainable by solar activity). urban heat effect part of Watt’s imagination, see Berkley Earth Space Team data which was specifically designed by skeptics past (Muller) and present (Curry) to account for urban heat effect. They concluded that it had no effect on the data.

Rising tropopause (unexplainable by solar activity). Dunno Doesn’t surprise me

Cooling and contracting ionosphere (unexplainable by solar activity). measured since when? I don’t have the exact date on hand but what’s your point? Do you have a physical explanation of how this could happen on its own or by solar activity? Probably not but the CO2 theory can.

Ocean acidification (unexplainable by solar activity). Tiny change, chemically meaningless. Not really here to argue this point but it does demonstrate the increase in atmospheric CO2 and it’s interaction with other parts of the climate system

That's pretty much a ragbag of observations many with accurate data lengths of perhaps twice the length of the pause. ragbag? All major predictions of the CO2 theory demonstrated to be in agreement with empirical observations is “ragbag”? This is when I know you’re closed off from discussing this issue seriously

You haven't begiun to deal with

global warming is good Compelling argument! Such nonsense. A little bit of warming would be nice for my location but would negatively affect those in other areas. I’m not apathetic enough to say that’s a “good thing”. Continued warming beyond that would continue to adversely affect more and more areas and do a number on the biosphere. When our climate “changed before”, it usual resulted in some pretty wide scale extinctions and massive changes in the biosphere. A rundown of the “good” changes you speak of can be found here or here

adaptation is better than CO2 reduction Again, compelling argument! Again, such nonsense. I like the quote from John Holdren:

We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.”

See the Stern Review, German Institute of Economic Research Report, Watkiss et al. 2005, they all report massive long-term advantages to mitigating climate change versus adaptation. Mitigation costs and climate related damages amount to ~$12 trillion in 2100 and ~$30 trillion by 2200. Without mitigation, the damages are estimated to be ~$20 trillion in 2100 and ~$75 trillion in 2200.

Furthermore, while reducing emissions by 10%, BC’s GDP has kept pace with the rest of Canada, even when it was the only Province with a carbon tax. Further it has allowed the province to drive down income and corporate tax rates to some of the lowest in Canada. Furthermore, it’s provided millions of dollars per year to low income families. Seems like carbon taxes don’t lead to the economic dystopia some think they do.

Sorry rconnor I can have an opinion on the models, and the last 17 years says You have offered no new defense of the “pause” as a valid argument after my 13th time debunking it. It remains a non-valid argument that at best they are being misused, and at medium bad they are a waste of time and at worst they are being used to push an idiotic agenda.

 

[beej67]

""A dozen known causative effects, many of which are man made, have presented themselves,""

How about listing a few please or link to a list ??

First and foremost, agriculture and urbanization reduce the net vegetative total on the Earth. While relatively carbon neutral, this reduces the energy 'removed' from the system by photosynthesis processes - an energy balance term that is almost universally ignored by atmospheric chemists when they model climate.

Agriculture and urbanization also make drastic changes to the global albedo, causing more heat to be absorbed by the earth and less to be reflected. This is another energy balance term that is not only ignored by atmospheric chemists, some of them in the IPCC have had the gall to claim that our current level of agriculture and urbanization has produced a net cooling effect on the earth, even though the effect of urban heat islands is verifiable, and can be seen both from space and in local weather patterns.

Then of course there's a third major energy balance term that's ignored by climate scientists related to the other two - the hydrologic cycle itself. Every jump a molecule of water makes on its path through the hydrologic cycle is a loss of energy in the energy balance of the planet, which is ignored by the atmospheric chemists. The hydrologic cycle is the earth's primary mode of self-cooling. In fact, as the earth warms, and more water enters the atmosphere, the hydrologic cycle increases and bleeds off more heat. This again is measurable, in sea water temperatures several degrees lower after a hurricane passes over a region, but it's again ignored by the atmospheric chemists.

And the hydrologic cycle spills back into the albedo thing above, as well! Clouds are white. White reflects light. Increased cloud cover itself reduces global albedo. Another energy balance term ignored by the climate scientists.

Next, there's the effect that agriculture and urbanization has on the hydrologic cycle, by breaking the chain. Agricultural land produces less efficient evapotranspiration than fallow land, particularly the forests and grasslands typically plowed under for agricultural use, so that's an impediment to the earth's ability to cool itself. Urbanization has an even more profound impact on the hydrologic cycle, because you're sealing the rainwater away from the groundwater, making streams flashier, reducing base flow, and cutting that cycle off anywhere you build a city. Which, again, is ignored my the atmospheric chemists. So there's another energy balance term they ignore or downplay.

Then you've got direct heat, from the giant heat exchanger everyone has on their house and place of work. You've got direct heat from all the technology we use. You've got direct heat from the power plants we use in industry and power generation. This direct heat again can be seen from space, with satellites, but the IPCC does everything they can with some very sketchy science to show they shouldn't have to account for that energy balance term.

Then you've got changes in the fauna of the planet begot by human population expansion. I stuck this link in the last thread:

http://xkcd.com/1338/

Mammals are very hot creatures by comparison to everything else on the planet. We have spread not only ourselves throughout it, but a fantastically large amount of other mammals, in terms of mass. That again ties in with all the aforementioned agricultural energy balance terms, but it creates new ones as well. There's a lot more methane in the atmosphere now than there used to be, due to the proliferation of livestock, and methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, chemically speaking, but its energy balance term too is ignored or downplayed by the atmo chemists.

Hey, check out the hockey stick on methane:

Looks familiar, doesn't it? It's the same hockey stick as carbon. And yet the atmospheric chemists are claiming that anthropogenic carbon is somehow worth more than total carbon to justify their models (after calibration) while not saying the same thing about methane. Why couldn't it be that methane is worth more than we expect?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, it's all of these things. And the real hockey stick we need to be calibrating our models to, is this one:

Every single one of the energy balance terms I mention above all have the same hockey stick shape. A climate model that looked at any one of them in isolation and none of the rest could be calibrated to that same hockey stick shape and still produce good predictive results. But the quality of the predictions would say nothing about actual causation, because all of these things are correlated to one thing: human population.

Now, why aren't the climate scientists looking at these other factors? Why in fact are they trying their best to downplay these other factors, intentionally, with some very sketchy science? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess it has something to do with where they're getting their funding.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com