<DrumBeat: April 15, 2007The Oil DrumDrumBeat: April 16, 2007>
<My Interview About Community OrganizingThe Oil Drum: LocalSpitzer Promotes Clean Energy, Minus Ethanol>

21 comments on NYC's Carbon Inventory

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

RodG on April 15, 2007 - 7:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Please remember that there is zero proof that CO2 levels are actually driving Global warming. There is only conjecture. Supposed concensus doesn't make something true.

  • In the past CO2 levels have been much higher, but temperature was colder.
  • Recent, more accurate, measurements of CO2/Temperature level comparisons for thousands of years ago, suggest CO2 levels rose after temperature, not before, so CO2 levels did not drive climate change then.
  • 1940's to 1970's temeratures dropped at time of rapid increase of CO2 levels. Fastest temperature rise last century was in 30's when there wasn't much CO2 increase.
  • If CO2 is causing warming, then lower troposphere, Arctic and Antarctic air temperatures should have risen. NASA satellite temperature readings show their air temperatures have not risen.
  • Water vapour is the largest green house gas by far and dwarfs CO2 effects. http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
    Currently there is no physical proof of the CO2 link. Predictions are based on simulations in computers that cannot predict next week's weather, let alone the next El Nino or next drought period. Solar scientists can explain these anomalies and have predicted the last El Nino patterns when CO2 simulations have all failed to.
    Remember the press only report the worst case 1% of simulation results that actually have less than 1% likelihood of ever happening. Most likely scenarios are ignored as too boring!
    We are all sceptical of Government predictions on Oil production figures, please use the same scepticism on CO2 warming delivered by politicians grasping for more power and control and scientists with their snouts in a multi-billion dollar research funding trough!!
    See http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/longversionfinal.pdf for more reading.
    • 0
    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    andrew on April 15, 2007 - 11:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    For what appears to be a scientifically sound counter argument, the results of the last few years worth of climate simulations can be found on page 4 of the IPCC summery http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

    In particular it is concluded that
    "anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate ... leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2." (p5)
    and
    "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
    than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years." (p10)

    "Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas are virtually certain, Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas are virtually certain" (p9)
    "The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer
    than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise." (p9)

    in particular the climate models shown on page 11 show that using current models the observed climate changes can only be re-created by adding forcing terms relating to human induced change.

    The final summery is that, under the A1B scenario the expected temperature rise is 2.8c by 2100, with a (5%-95%) uncertainty range of 1.7-4.4c. These models have been able to accurately 'predict' the last 100 years worth of climate, so it is expected that this 'prediction' for the next 100 years is also quite accurate, assuming that the emissions scenario is also correct. (p13 for numbers, p18 for details)

    For the results of other emissions scenarios and the details of how these numbers were derived, the document is quite readable to those w/o a scientific background.

    0
    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    RodG on April 16, 2007 - 4:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    I'll leave IPCC bashing to the many scientists who are refusing to let their name be linked to it any longer. Remember the IPCC document is a political statement, not a scientific statement. Remember also that many scientists on both sides of the argument regret the scare mongering going on as it alienates many people.
    I'm an engineer and by training and instinct I don't rest until I understand the detail and in this case the science of how CO2 is causing warming. I worried when the only information from alarmists and IPCC was about the story of CO2, no scientific explanation at all. When I did find the science I realised that there is no way CO2 can warm the planet anymore than it has already (which is less than half the observed warming since 1890. Remember we've just come out of a mini-ice age and half the warming at least is a natural cycle from that.
    In fact many scientists who examine the science of what little warming CO2 can do rapidly become sceptics. Look at the only temperatures and infra-red frequencies CO2 can actually absorb heat and look at the frequencies for water vapour [the biggest GW gas by far] and see that there are only limited places on this earth where it is physically possible for CO2 to warm the atmosphere. Then read NASA's satellite data and realise that warming isn't happening in these places, then reflect and investigate more.)
    I do believe we are approaching a resources meltdown (Oil, water, soil etc) but given the science I simply can't understand how CO2 can cause more than a fraction of the warming that's happened. In fact if the solar scientists are correct (and their science is very credible to me) then we a looking at a cooling period soon and will need all the CO2 we can get to help grow the food we need.
    All this talk about extreme climate change is taking the focus away from where we need it, oil depletion, soil and food peaking and more. The biggest game in Project Management is getting the wrong thing right. I worry we are trying to win the wrong game.

    0
    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    andrew on April 16, 2007 - 8:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    Thanks for the reply, and for giving me something to investigate further.

    ps.
    Is it possible to receive an alert if any of your messages get a reply?
    --
    the early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese

    0
    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    Laurence Aurbach on April 16, 2007 - 8:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    On the mini-ice age recovery, Coby Beck's We are just recovering from the Little Ice Age:

    This argument relies on an implicit assumption that there is a particular climatic baseline to which the earth inexorably returns -- and thus that a period of globally lower temperatures will inevitably be followed by a rise in temperatures. What is the scientific basis for that assumption?

    There is no evidence of such a baseline.

    ... Another problem with appealing to a natural recovery from the LIA is that temperature has now risen to levels higher than the assumed baseline climate. So even if some recovery were to be expected, why have we now exceeded it?

    On the scientific credibility of the IPCC, Hayhoe and Dessler's Global warming: Stop arguing and start planning:

    On Feb. 2, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its fourth assessment report on the science of global warming. The report was written by hundreds of climate scientists from 130 countries. It has been reviewed by thousands of other climate scientists and hundreds of government agencies, and it has been opened for public review as well.

    This IPCC report is perhaps the most thoroughly vetted document in the history of science. For this reason, its assessments are widely regarded as the most authoritative summaries of what we know about global warming.

    0
    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    RodG on April 17, 2007 - 2:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    It is also one of the mostly highly politicised documents around, remember the political summary came out first. I've seen blogs from scientists (sorry I forgot to add them to favorites so I can't quote their sites here) who when asked to review a paper were refused access to original data by IPCC and the original authors. How can the report be peer reviewed when you can't review the science, only agree or not agree?
    The hockey stick was released and widely communicated as fact by the IPCC and it took years for the source data to finally emerge. When it did it was clear that the statistical analysis was heavily flawed and the whole hockey stick findings completely wrong. This happened because IPCC refused access to the original data and refused to make the responsible scientists divulge their data. IPCC is still up to the same tricks, so how can you rate their credibility?
    Result is yet another scientist refusing to be part of the IPCC political game. Yes hundreds of scientists contributed, but only a relative handful have control over what gets written. If you review and disagree, it appears that your vote is never published, but you do count as one of the vetting scientists!#@!
    Concensus does not a fact make!
    I would love links to any site that explains the science (not the story or belief) behind how CO2 causes warming. I need infrared frequencies and temperatures at which CO2 can absorb energy and how they relate to overlapping absorbtion frequencies for water vapor. Please then back this up with actual measurements (satellite data from NASA would be good) that show predicted warming is actually happening.
    The only sites that explain the science seem to clearly show CO2 is a very minor contributor. Show me the science! I'm ready to accept arguments either way, but I can't just accept stories from politicians and political scientists. Yes one or two sceptics have been paid $10,000 or so here and there, but governments have paid billions to pro CO2 scientists!

    0
    Comments can no longer be added to this story.
    Laurence Aurbach on April 17, 2007 - 11:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

    The "Hockey Stick" study and source data have been verified by numerous scientific investigators, including the National Academy of Sciences:

    Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

    And from Beck's The hockey stick is broken:

    The fact is, there are dozens of other temperature reconstructions. They tend to show more variability than the original hockey stick (their sticks are not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years, and the 1990s were likely warmer than any other time in that period.

    0
    Comments can no longer be added to this story.