Is the Whole Anti-CO2 Hysteria Campaign Just a Distraction??

By the way...while were on the topic of Alley's ice core data consider that it ends around 1850. What happens when you add in the last 170 years of warming from the instrumental temperature record or post 1850 proxy record?

 

Energy is conserved.

No that is not what I’m claiming.

So you are afraid to read something ??? That’s extremely disappointing from someone who professes to have an interest and curiosity about science. I can only conclude that you have a closed mind.

 

Read the paper.

 

But the warming today is no different from the past warmings. And yet instead of trying to determine why alarmists attribute warming to a correlation and temperature “data” corrupted by urban heating and land use effects.

 

You're looking too far afield. The purpose of the alrmist propaganda is to divert attention from the fact CO2 remediation measures as proposed by politicians are meant to control not the climate, but the people.

 

Exactly. Alarmists pay no attention to the largest emitter of CO2 in the world which happens to be a totalitarian single party communist nation. That’s telling.

 

I know. That's why the hydrosphere and troposhere HAVE to warm.

Then what are claiming exactly?

Convince me to read it. Maybe summarize a few points to pique my interest. But, I'll tell you this. If it claims that ocean temperatures are not affected by infrared radiation then it's a waste of time in the same way reading material supporting n-rays, flat earth hypothesis, perpetual motion machines, etc. are also a waste of my time. Being open minded does NOT mean that have to waste my time with literature that is decisively pseudoscientific.

 

What's wrong with actually downloading Alley's data?

 

Then you should name those factors. What are they? It's not our job to create your theory for you.

If you won't name them, then you are just invoking demons.

 

But the warming today IS different than in the past. No warming or cooling event is exactly the same. They are each the result of the net effect of all modulating influences. And the modulating influences are never exactly the same.

No one is using the correlation and only correlation to conclude that CO2 is a significant influencing factor in the modern warming era. It is molecular physics, quantum mechanics, etc. that are the core of the relationship between CO2 and temperatures. The actual observation of the two is what is used to validate our understanding.

 

I have. It doesn't show what you claim. Here's the paper. Please point out for us the parts you're referencing.

https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331

And here are Dr. Alley's words from another conversation.

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/
---
First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru). After scientists have done the hard work of working out these relations, it is possible to use one ice-core record to represent broader regions IF you restrict consideration to the parts that are widely coherent, so it is O.K. to plot a smoothed version of an Antarctic temperature record against CO2 over long times and discuss the relation as if it is global, but a lot of background is required.

Second, although the central Greenland ice-core records may provide the best paleoclimatic temperature records available, multiple parameters confirm the strong temperature signal, and multiple cores confirm the widespread nature of the signal, the data still contain a lot of noise over short times (snowdrifts are real, among other things). An isotopic record from one site is not purely a temperature record at that site, so care is required to interpret the signal and not the noise. An extensive scientific literature exists on this topic, and I believe we are pretty good in the community at properly qualifying our statements to accord with the underlying scientific literature; the blogospheric misuses of the GISP2 isotopic data that I have seen are not doing so, and are making errors of interpretation as a result.

Thirdly, demonstration that there have been large climate changes in the past without humans in no way demonstrates that humans are not now responsible. Many people have died naturally but murder still exists; it is up to the police to learn whether a given mortality was natural or not, and up to climate science to learn what is causing ongoing changes (and we have good confidence that most of what is happening to climatic global average surface temperature is being caused by humanity now). Similarly, demonstration that life, and humans, survived warmer temperatures in the past in no way shows that warmer temperatures in the future are good for us. If you don’t care about humans and other things with us here, making a big change in climate might be an interesting experiment. Evolution does respond to climate change and produce novel results. I just happen to have a personal bias (shared, I believe, by the majority of the six-plus billion people on the planet) that we should ask what is best for humanity, and pursue that. An opinion, surely, and not purely scientific, but that’s my bias.
---

So, you've defined Alley as an authority, and he says you're wrong about everthing. That would definitively settle things. You're wrong, because your own authority figure says so.

 

The temperature data is from Alley 2004. Current temperature is from Box 2009.

 

Why would warm water current flowing from South to North produce temperatures at gps coordinates representative of re radiation ???

Being open minded would require downloading the free pdf and reading at least the table of contents and any sections of interest.

 

There is no proof - only a correlation and a high school science experiment.

 

I'm not understanding the question. Ocean currents are an advective process. They move heat around. SSTs are definitely affected by ocean currents. No disagreement here.

Radiation is a different mechanism unrelated to ocean currents. Ocean currents do not directly affect the downwelling infrared radiation directed toward the surface. Some of the DWIR is the direct result of GHGs. DWIR definitely affects SSTs.

Would you mind posting the link again. I'll take a look and see what it says about DWIR.

 

Even Tyndall's gas tube and thermopile experiments in the 1800's are likely beyond the reach of high school abilities. Infrared spectroscopy requires expensive equipment. And, of course, the explanations require an understanding of molecular physics and quantum mechanics. There's proof alright...a lot of it spanning 150 years and many disciplines of science. We know with 100% certainty that CO2 is a thermal barrier to infrared photons.

 

Ocean currents are both horizontal and vertical.

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

We know a lot of things. But we have no definitive proof that the increase in CO2 in the last century has anything to do with our current warming period.

 

No, I'm not invoking demons. Please don't bore me with such nonsense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with such curiosity. I asked what the well understood known factors are, what the not so well understood known factors are, and what some plausible yet unverified factors could be, not even that there necessarily are any. I personally don't know of any plausible yet unverified factors, as I'm not versed well enough, but anyone with a decent amount of fluid intelligence knows that that's a valid question. And, who knows, maybe there happens to be somebody here who is well versed in this subject, has high intelligence (both fluid and crystallized), willingness to indulge in such curiosity, and is perhaps even able to actually name some, if there are any. So, can you think of some or not?

 

You will quickly learn that alarmists do not tolerate questions.

If you are interested read the free book linked in post #67.

 

Yes. Everybody knows this. That fact does not preclude DWIR from influencing the temperature of the ocean.

The document states that LW radiation is absorbed by the ocean and that DWIR provides ingress energy. I take that as acknowledgement that DWIR can influence ocean temperatures.

Anyway, I thought the section "Can a global mean temperature be measured?" would be a good place start. I wasn't wrong. There are some incredibly misleading statements in there.

Overall this reads like a dissertation from a defense lawyer. The intent, like most contrarian talking points, isn't to advance understanding, but to tear it all down. I see little if any attempt to further the science, improve datasets, improve predictions, etc. If you disagree can highlight something in which the author attempts to improve the accuracy of datasets, predictions, or understanding that hasn't already been tried?

I see the this is as the same strategy contrarians used to cast unjustified doubt on the link between sulfur dioxide and acid rain, CFCs and ozone depletion, smoking and cancer, etc. Note that in those cases the contrarians were merchants of doubt instead advocates for improved understanding. That's how this document reads. So do you think my time is better spent reading this or academic text books and peer reviewed publications?

 

Most of the incident radiation is absorbed in the oceans. Now read the sections on why SST has nothing to do with re radiation. Go to the conclusions and read the referenced sections.

Peer review is meaningless. The pdf book has ~ 600 references to academic papers, etc... You are well read in this subject and yet, as I've observed with every other progressive alarmist, you aren't interested in anything contrary to your opinion that CO2 is driving our current warming.

 

I don't see where it says that.

By the way, I'm noticing other misleading statements. For example, the author has a whole section on the GCR hypothesis. The problem is the GCR hypothesis has been solidly falsified.

Again, I see nothing in this text that actually improves the ability to explain and predict the climate. All I see is rehashing of known and addressed concerns, nuh-uh arguments, misleading statements, and random dart throwing of hypothesis that have already been tested and falsified.

Remember, one tenant of science is to always further understanding of reality. That necessarily means for new hypothesis or theories to be incorporated into the consensus they must improve upon the explanatory and predictive power of what is already available. This text does nothing of the sort.

I know of no theory which ignores the CO2 forcing that can provide a better match to reality than what we already have. In fact, these no-GHE or weak-GHE theories are astonishingly terrible at matching reality. And that's what this text seems to advocate for. So why would I, scientists, or anyone else seriously consider them?

 

And you know all this without actually doing your homework. What are you afraid of ???

Look, do what you want. I have no control and could care less. But the notion of reducing the rate of our current warming by reducing CO2 emissions is not possible. All this is is an attempt to create hysteria and gain political power. A dead give away to this is the total disregard to reducing the CO2 emissions from the global leader.

BTW the cosmic ray influence on climate has not been debunked.

 

You know how the game works. I could present a 200 page document (or the 5000 page AR5 report) and ask you the same thing. The difference here is that my citations use an all-in evidence based approach as opposed to a cherry-picked evidence approach. That's why your citations focus on casting doubt and advocate for theories that provide inferior matches to reality as compared to the theory that my citations advocate for and which generate new information and understanding that leads to progress in understanding.

That may be true, but increasing CO2 still results in increasing temperatures.

The GCR hypothesis was already well on its way to being dismissed, but Dunne 2016 and Pierce 2017 convincingly falsified the mechanism. Nevermind that the hypothesis actually predicted that the Earth should have been cooling for decades when in reality it actually warmed.