Climate Change

[okc chemist]

I defy anyone to prove to me that "global warming" is irrefutably a
predominantly anthropogenic process. The scientific method does not
get you there, true facts on A.G.W. are few and far between. Please do
not give me links to environmental activist sites like Real Climate. I
said irrefutable evidence, not politics.

I want to see where a debate on global warming can go if we
use ....just the facts, Madam. If the members here are too eaten up
with politics to scientifically and intelligently discuss the issue,
just ignore this post.

[Eric Swanson]

Having just read a little about Karl Popper lately, I think that your
request for irrefutable proof is impossible. Science doesn't work
that
way, in the sense that absolute proof is a near impossibility. At
least,
you (apparently) agree that the Earth is warming, which is still an
unresolved question to many people.

Given that the Earth is indeed warming and doing so in ways which are
consistent with AGW, it's really up to the skeptics to show how the
warming could be happening without AGW. As far as I'm aware, there is
no such explanation available.

[Tom Adams]

On Dec 31 2007, 12:30 am, okc chemist <gle...@cox.net> wrote:

There is no irrefutable evidence that global warming is anthropogenic.
Nor is there irrefutable evidence that antropods, heat, or the Earth
exists.

You gotta be a little bit gullible to believe in this stuff.

Get back to us when you lower your standard of evidence.

[Michael Tobis]

Yeah, the other amusing thing about this particular troll is the idea
that evidence from "activist sites" (including RC!) doesn't count.

"The deck is full of red deuces, so long as you ignore the black
cards, the picture cards and the numbers bigger than two and a half,
all of which obviously have an agenda." Indeed.

Still, a troll is a troll. No matter how sadly amusing this particular
challenge was, I think we really ought to provide one place where the
conversation has moved on from the "global warming, misguided myth or
vicious conspiracy" question.

mt

[okc chemist]

No, this "troll" would be satisfied if someone can make the case for
A.G.W. using The Scientific Method. I would say the burden of proof
exists with those who claim it exists, not those who do not.
You have a problem with science being established the way science is
supposed to be established? No stacked deck here. Just show me that
your facts support the theory. It doesn't matter what you or I
personally believe. No politics, no Real Climate and no anti-AGW
sites. Not opinions, not consensus, these are not science. Pure facts
that can reasonably prove a true scientific basis for A.G.W. Do I ask
too much? Show a poor aging environmental chemist the great truths
that you can reveal.

> > > said irrefutable evidence, not politics.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Eric Swanson]

Again, you imply that the scientific method provides a "reasonable"
proof
of truth. Not quite as strong a requirement as you first requested.

Well there's lots of data regarding the spectroscopic characteristics
of
the atmosphere and the gases of which it is composed. Do you, as a
scientist, agree that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2
will change the optical transmission of infrared energy thru the
atmosphere?
What would you expect to be the result of those changes? Can you
describe
them without the use of a mathematical model?

[William Connolley]

On the off chance that you are really interested in information, then
the IPCC report of WGI is probably the best place to start, if you
want everything nicely backed up by refs to papers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm.

If you want something more accessible, then wiki is good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

But if you just want to dismiss all sources you disagree with as
"political", then... there is no hope for you.

-William

--
William M. Connolley | www.wmconnolley.org.uk | 07985 935400

[okc chemist]

I would expect more infrared to be absorbed by additional CO2, of
course, although there are some wavelengths that allow almost 100%
transmittance. There is also something called saturation, according to
some. If I remember correctly, there is a huge IR absorbance band of
the C=O bond at about 1,700 cm-1. Again, I am looking for proven
facts, not opinion, mine, yours or anyone elses. Show me some
reproducible data on IR that QUANTIFIES the effect, and your point is
well taken. So can the Scientific Method verify anthropogenic global
warming or not? I do not dispute there has been some warming, or that
humans may have a role in it. Again, my opinion or my politics is
meaningless. From a pure and unbiased scientific viewpoint, Where are
the actual provable and reproducible scientific hard facts? We have
agreed on one that has been confirmed: 1. There has been some warming
of actual global temperatures in the past century or so. O.K. We have
a fact. Now lets test it.

> > that you can reveal.- Hide quoted text -

[okc chemist]

Respectfully, sir, I am looking for data, not the opinion of the IPCC
group or anyone else.I believe my understanding is a bit advanced for
the Wiki level of science. As I posted above, I want verifiable,
reproducible hard facts to plug into the Scientific Method to try to
prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming. My purpose is genuine,
I assure you. I have stated one fact: that some warming has occurred
globally in the past century or so. Now where do we go from here? No
opinions, no politics but Facts: a.k.a. Science.

> William M. Connolley |www.wmconnolley.org.uk| 07985 935400- Hide quoted text -

[Raymond W. Arritt]

okc chemist wrote:
> Respectfully, sir, I am looking for data, not the opinion of the IPCC
> group or anyone else.I believe my understanding is a bit advanced for
> the Wiki level of science. As I posted above, I want verifiable,
> reproducible hard facts to plug into the Scientific Method to try to
> prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming. My purpose is genuine,
> I assure you. I have stated one fact: that some warming has occurred
> globally in the past century or so. Now where do we go from here? No
> opinions, no politics but Facts: a.k.a. Science.

You want data? How many cartons of empty terabyte drives do you have
handy? Cripes, talk about ill-posed questions...

The closing comment "Facts: a.k.a. Science" is a dead giveaway that
there's nothing to be gained from wasting more time on this nonsense.

Ray

[Eric Swanson]

Here's a few links and references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Notice the quantitative graph of atmospheric transmission at the
bottom
of this page:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/RemoteSensing/remote_04.html

And, what's wrong with the IPCC WG I? See Chapter 1, section 1.4.1
and the references given there:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf

BTW, the CO2 band of interest is at about 15 micrometers.

If you really want to get into it, look up Kunde, et al.,
J. Geophys Res., 79, 777-794, (1974).
----------------------------------------------------------------

[Michael Tobis]

Or, you might consider the surface temperature of Venus to test your
saturation hypothesis.

A simple grey-atmosphere model may be what you are looking for in the
event you are serious.

Here's a document (in MS Word format unfortunately) from an undergrad
meteorology class that explains the basics.

http://tinyurl.com/23ab9x

mt

[Eli Rabett]

Typically this comes from someone who is not very familiar with
spectroscopy of small molecules, but has done organic/maybe analytical
chemistry and seen an IR spectrum. As Eric points out below, the band
that is most important is the 15 um bending band which sits near the
peak wavelength for emission from a 300 K blackbody (surface of the
earth). In addition people with such a level of experience usually
don't realize that the CO2 molecules efficiently transfer their energy
to the other molecules in the atmosphere by collision which heats the
atmosphere, and that collisions also maintain a constant population in
the vibrationally excited states of CO2. This equilibrium leads to
emission from the CO2 part of which warms the ground in turn.

On Jan 4, 8:32 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:

[John Fernbach]

I'm not a scientist, but a journalist, so maybe I shouldn't comment on this string. 

 

Nevertheless, I wonder about the legitimacy of the word "irrefutably" in this challenge.

 

Given the way scientists think about the world, is ANY theory ever "irrefutably" proven? 

I don't think so. 

 

I think even the most respected and generally accepted scientific theories are only provisionally "proven" -- are seen as supported by the preponderance of the data, until some brash scientitic pest like a Copernicus or a Newton comes up with a new paradigm.

 

My sense of the AGW controversy is that the preponderance of the evidence supports the notion of "anthopogenic" GW, but not that most climate scientists are 100% convinced of the truth of this theory -- or any other theory, for that matter.  

 

That's why the IPCC in its periodic reports has expressed an increasing confidence in AGW theory - but without saying that their conclusions are "irrefutable." 

 

Whatever uncertainties may or may not exist over AGW, I think chemist is demanding an impossible standard of proof in his challenge.. 

okc chemist <gle...@cox.net> wrote:

---

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Tom Adams]

Dr. Connolley was pointing you to the references in the IPPC report.

Look in the scientific literature on the matter.

But why do we have to tell you this? Respectfully sir, it seems a
nobrainer.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[okc chemist]

Thank everyone for your responses.

I will look into the data presented when time permits. Like all of
you, time is my most precious commodity. I am impressed with the
materials I have seen, especially the IR portion.

Regards,

TA

[okc chemist]

On Jan 8, 12:04 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank everyone for your responses.
>
> I will look into the data presented when time permits. Like all of
> you, time is my most precious commodity. I am impressed with the
> materials I have seen, especially the IR portion.
>
> Regards,
>
> TA

P.S. I hope those who have written hostile comments to me or suggest
that I am a troll are not involved in teaching or scientific research.
It's pretty obvious who the more mature and logical posters are in
this thread. Respect begets respect. Good scientists should encourage
skeptics and be ready to defend their work to anyone, anytime,
anywhere. Consensus is not science.

I am merely a senior (read old) environmental chemist who has
questions that are unanswered by the literature.If this group
cannot...or will not... answer my questions, I will seek answers
elsewhere.

I recommend this article for those who never knew or need to be
reminded how science is supposed to work:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

I will post again after I have finished looking at the materials
presented to me earlier, probably tomorrow.

[Michael Tobis]

OK, OKC, you may be serious after all, but your coming on strong
dismissing RealClimate and IPCC as "activist" doesn't bode well and
left me and others with the impression that you are a troll.

As for the role of consensus in science, it's a necessary though not
sufficient component. If you question everything you will find
yourself in the 17th century trying to be a renaissance man, which is
admirable enough I suppose but not very practical. This is an
interesting topic in itself, but I suggest that the folks squawking
about consensus haven't really thought about how intellectual progress
works.

Consensus isn't infallible, but many scientific communities with a
policy impact have a formal consensus gathering process. I have seen
consensus documents out of NIH for instance. How else are we to
communicate with the policy sector? Government sponsors bringing
together the experts to see what those experts agree about. This is
perfectly appropriate. Do you have some other mechanism to propose?

I understand you are unconvinced that IPCC and RealClimate represent
science, but it's peculiar to be asking us to ignore some of our most
valuable resources in outlining the situation to you. It's one thing
to be skeptical, another entirely to be dismissive.

So if you aren't a troll, please proceed without prejudging sources.

mt

[Michael Tobis]

PS, OKC, recall where you started:

"I defy anyone to prove to me that "global warming" is irrefutably a
predominantly anthropogenic process. The scientific method does not
get you there, true facts on A.G.W. are few and far between. Please do
not give me links to environmental activist sites like Real Climate. I
said irrefutable evidence, not politics."

That seems more a provocation than the beginning of an honest inquiry.

You can't effectively determine whether something is fraudulent by
coming in guns blazing and screaming fraud, then seeing whether they
welcome your skeptical inquiry. By this standard everything is
fraudulent!

mt

[okc chemist]

I agree that I initially came on a bit strong, and am quite capable of
admitting my errors. I apologize for the bad start. I regret my cranky
old man demeanor.

I have asked a very straightforward question, which no one has really
addressed. I conceded that I believe that increased CO2 in the
atmosphere will cause warming, and that in my OPINION, humans have
some role in it. Our chidren are taught in High School, make that
Elementary School, about the Scientific Method and how we scientists
must follow it to present research as the genuine article. I have
asked that the case be made for AGW by using the scientific method.
That's it. What I got was some really good information on IR, CO2 and
modeling, indeed some very kind replies, but nothing directly relevant
to my only question. I got theory instead of facts, data and controls.
Window dressing is nice in a formal paper or in a text book, but I
have distilled it all down to this simple question: "Utilyzing the
Scientific Method, prove that AGW causes climate change." I expect
facts and controls to back up the experimental portion.

Now I am an analytical guy, usually running GC, GC/MS all day.(yes, I
test air too) I am not a researcher or an educator. I have to run
several sets of controls by EPA protocol before running a real world
sample. Theory will get me no where in my work. I deal with linear
curves, peaks on chromatographs and mass spectral data. My work is
absolutly reproducible at any competent facility anywhere. This may
help explain why I expect facts, not theory. I can't tell one of my
customers that it "might be carbon tetrachloride, but then again, it
may or may not be".

If I am asking too much of the present knowledge of atmospheric
science, just say so and we will move on. I do have some modeling
questions I would like to know the answers to. I am not trying to be a
Dick or a Lindzen........

[sploo.laroo]

okc,

I think it may be helpful to explain why the IPCC is a good place for
you to go to address your question. We should not expect you join a
cargo cult and take somebody's conclusion at face value. Rather, if
you look at the purpose of the IPCC, it is merely to summarize and
assess the existing peer reviewed literature on climate change.
Indeed it is true that diplomats have a hand in crafting the summaries
for policymakers and the synthesis reports. Therefore, these
summaries are not the proper place for you to go to answer your
question. Instead you need to go to the full Working Group 1 report.
The full report explains in great detail each aspect of the problem,
and, most importantly, fully references every conclusion to a
published paper in the peer reviewed literature.

So pick an aspect of the problem, such as infrared radiative transfer
and the greenhouse effect, and find the relevant discussion in the
report. In the case of the most recent report, this information is
split between chapters 1 and 2 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf;
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf).
Chapter 1 references the classic papers by Fourier, Tyndall,
Arrhenius, Callendar and others. Chapter 2 explains the latest trends
in greenhouse gas concentrations and the result of implementing
radiative transfer theory in the latest numerical models. All
completely referenced to peer reviewed articles. If so motivated, you
can follow the entire development of the science over 150 years.
Unfortunately, Chapter 2 has a tendency to reference the 2001 IPCC
assessment report. But that report is also available free via the web
and is fully referenced.

Don't waste your time worrying about things like "consensus". The
important point here is that if you do not agree with the IPCC's
interpretation, no problem. Simply dig into the literature they have
cited and make your own determination. I don't think anyone here is
suggesting that you merely accept the policymakers summary at face
value, but rather to appreciate that the full IPCC Working Group 1
report (at 1000+ pages) is the most concise, fully referenced summary
of the existing literature on the subject of climate change.

If you find a conclusion of the IPCC that you think is not supported
by the literature (and some scientists have published such criticism
in high-profile journals), then this forum might be a good place to
bring it up. If the scientists here are honest, and I suspect they
are, they will listen. But be prepared for some vigorous debate.

You will have to come to terms with the fact that this science is not
exact. This will become apparent if you truly do dig deeply into the
literature cited in the full IPCC report. And especially if you jump
to the chapter on attribution and try to test the hypothesis you
originally posed about whether or not "global warming is irrefutably a
predominantly anthropogenic process." The conclusion of the IPCC
(which by the way only pegs the certainty of this at ~90%) depends on
many measurements, some with quite poor levels of precision and
accuracy, and numerical models, which employ many approximations.
Therefore, to properly judge whether to accept the IPCC conclusion it
is necessary to reflect on the imprecisions and approximations and
make a judgment about whether or not they meet, in the aggregate, the
90% level of certainty cited by the IPCC. I think this already
answers your question about "irrefutable proof" in the negative.
However the question before the diplomats for whom the IPCC report was
written is not whether or not anthropogenic climate change has been
irrefutably proven. Rather it is whether or not there is a sufficient
risk of dangerous anthropogenic climate change to warrant taking
action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This is a different
question altogether.

Best,
Eric

[okc chemist]

I need to re-state my question, since I screwed it up:

Utilizing the Scientific Method, show that human CO2 emissions are the
predominant factor responsible for climate change.

TA

> > mt- Hide quoted text -

[Eric Swanson]

You are asking the question again. Did you bother to look at the
other
references offered to you? for example, I'm led to understand that
this is a great reference :

Weart, S., 2003: The Discovery of Global Warming. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 240 pp.

(also available online at: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ )

One problem with your "Scientific Method" request. There's no other
Earth to experiment on. All we've got is this one and the computer
models.
You can't just run in to the lab and cook up some experiment to test
your
neat hypothesis, like there is in other fields of science. That said,
there have
been measurements, such as the one I listed published back in 1974,
which show that there is a Greenhouse Effect and that it's caused by
CO2
and H2O. So, the theory is that increasing CO2 (which has been
measured)
will result in a warmer Earth. So far, there's not been evidence
that the
warming (which has been measured) is NOT caused by the increase in
CO2, although there's no absolute proof that the increasing CO2 IS
the
cause.

I think you need to do your homework.

ES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Michael Tobis]

OK, OKC, so can you, using the scientific, method prove that the earth
goes round the sun? What you are asking is much less straightforward
than you give credit for. The relationship between textbook science
and research science is something you ought to think about. Where did
the textbooks come from? How did the sort of certainty you are asking
for emerge from fallible humans making observations?

Regarding the proportion of recent warming due to human activity, it's
**almost certainly the great majority**. To get to that point we
consider multiple streams of evidence. If you are genuinely
interested, do read the IPCC WGI , please. Then maybe we can talk
about parts of the picture that interest you.

More important for practical reasons is that the warming and
associated changes we have already seen are almost certainly much
smaller than those to come.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html (start with the Summary
for Policymakers) is pretty much the best that can be done for you. It
may not be what you are asking for but it does summarize the state of
knowledge and its sources honestly and effectively. If IPCC is not
good enough as a starting place for you we can probably not do better
here; its purpose is specifically to address questions like yours, and
many of the most respected professionals in the field have contributed
time to the process.

At present, though you claim to be interested, you don't seem to have
taken the time to look into it.

mt

[Jim Torson]

At 12:53 PM 1/9/2008, sploo.laroo (Eric) wrote:
>okc,
>
>I think it may be helpful to explain why the IPCC is a good place for
>you to go to address your question.

Here is another discussion of why the IPCC should not be
dismissed:

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/02/02/dessler/index.html

You're Getting Warmer

The scoop on the new IPCC climate-change report

By
<http://www.grist.org/cgi-bin/search.pl?query=gristauthor=%28Andrew%20Dessler%29&reverse=on&sort=gristdate>Andrew
Dessler
02 Feb 2007

[Here are some excerpts:]

What is the IPCC, and what's the deal with its new report?

When climate change emerged as an important environmental issue in
the late 1980s, the world governments' first response was to
establish an international body to produce summaries of scientific
knowledge of climate change. That body is the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. The IPCC has completed three major reports since
its formation, in 1990, 1995, and 2001, and throughout 2007 will
release its Fourth Assessment Report (hereafter referred to as the AR4).

...

The IPCC reports are widely regarded as the authoritative statements
of scientific knowledge about climate change, and as such they carry
enormous weight in both the scientific and policy communities. The
immense credibility of the IPCC's reports arises from the credible
process that produces it. The reports are based on the peer-reviewed
literature and are written by hundreds of expert climate scientists
from over 100 countries. The reports then go through multiple layers
of review, including expert peer review by thousands of climate
scientists who were not authors of the report.

The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, then went
through review by a blue-ribbon panel convened by the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences, which endorsed its findings. The conclusions of
the IPCC reports have also been endorsed by the American Geophysical
Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, and others.

The resulting IPCC reports are accepted worldwide as the best
summaries of what the scientific community knows about climate change
and how confidently we know it.

[Visit the website for the complete article]

Andrew Dessler is an associate professor in the Department of
Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University; his research focuses on
the physics of climate change, climate feedbacks in particular. He
blogs at <http://gristmill.grist.org/user/Andrew%20Dessler>Gristmill.

[okc chemist]

Eric:

Thank you for the excellent reply. Again, I am not an AGW denier; I
have stated that I believe the theoretical part of it. I may have
differences with what the IPCC writes, but probably not huge ones.
I will look over the work again to see whether I find anything of
immediate interest. You mention many things they write about, but how
much is a well, almost indisputable fact? I think that you tell me
that most of the data is "iffy" While I am not trying to disprove AGW,
I am always skeptical of suspect data in any case.

The question is the Scientific Method and is manmade CO2 validated
through it as the predominant element of global climate change
causation?

I appreciate your response.

Regards,

TA

[Raymond Arritt]

okc chemist wrote:
> I need to re-state my question, since I screwed it up:
>
> Utilizing the Scientific Method, show that human CO2 emissions are the
> predominant factor responsible for climate change.

What do you mean by "the" scientific method?

Ray

[sploo.laroo]

OKC,

Well, I think maybe we're making a bit of progress, but I'm not sure.
Eric Swanson seems to hit the nail on the head. It sounds to many
(all?) of us like you are asking for a single, reproducible,
controlled experiment that validates (or not) the hypothesis of
anthropogenic global warming. That would be the two parallel Earths
(more if you want to reproduce it) which is obviously intractable.

> immediate interest. You mention many things they write about, but how
> much is a well, almost indisputable fact? I think that you tell me
> that most of the data is "iffy" While I am not trying to disprove AGW,
> I am always skeptical of suspect data in any case.

Your skepticism is appropriate. I could try to answer your question
about the level of certainty of each piece of data supporting
anthropogenic climate change. But it would take somewhere in the
neighborhood of 1000+ pages, and I don't have that kind of time.
That's why we are repeatedly referring you to the literature. Some of
the evidence is iron-clad. Some of it still has big error bars.
Perhaps you can look over the literature and get back to us on which
pieces of evidence do not meet your standards for adherence to the
scientific method. Then we can have a more specific discussion

Happy reading,
Eric

[Hank Roberts]

OKC, a question back to you. How familiar are you with the subjects
touched on here?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/37/14580

[okc chemist]

Eric:

I think that you may have thought that my restating of the AGW
question was a response to your post, which it wasn't. It was meant as
an edit to my previous post, but the timing didn't work out quite
right. Sorry for that.

I have read everything you have linked. Again, you assume that I don't
agree with CO2 induced climate change, and that is not the case. I
wasn't asking you to re-invent the wheel, or to
have me re-read the material. One link didn't work, but that's not too
important. I accept what you have stated, that is, that the science of
climate change is not exact enough to be upheld by the Scientific
Method. Fair enough, lots of things aren't, and it doesn't mean that
it is incorrect. I fully appreciate the fact that "proof" in most
science is not irrefutable, and it was a poor initial choice of words
on my part. I find a 90% chance of increased atmospheric CO2 levels
increasing warming to be very substantial, and suspect it is actually
higher than that.

Yes, what actions we might be able to take to remediate climate change
is a very important
question, and other than the obvious factors,I have no quick answer.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----------------

>
>
>
> okc chemist wrote:
> > I need to re-state my question, since I screwed it up:
>
> > Utilizing the Scientific Method, show that human CO2 emissions are the
> > predominant factor  responsible for climate change.
>

> > TA- Hide quoted text -

[okc chemist]

I would think that one could readily prove that the Earth circles the
Sun from
the data gathered by NASA over the years. Yes, I believe the
scientific method would
prove it. I am not an astronomer, so I won't bother. I do get your
meaning, however.

I do not question the evidence of anthropogenic global warming, as I
have previously
stated several times. I am not a "denier". Everyone here has reacted
as if I am a denier
simply because I ask: "Utilizing the Scientific Method, show that

human CO2 emissions are the

predominant factor responsible for climate change". Alright,the
subject is too complex, so
the question cannot be answered. That is fair enough to me. I
understand that absolute scientific proof of anything is nearly an
impossible task. Evidently, the scientific method should no longer be
taught if not totally discarded since it has no purpose anymore.

Since so many here keep doubting my sincerity, I see no compelling
reason to remain a member of this group. I understand that this is
your group, and I will leave it upon your request.

TA

On Jan 9, 5:11 pm, "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, OKC, so can you, using the scientific, method prove that the earth
> goes round the sun? What you are asking is much less straightforward
> than you give credit for. The relationship between textbook science
> and research science is something you ought to think about. Where did
> the textbooks come from? How did the sort of certainty you are asking
> for emerge from fallible humans making observations?
>
> Regarding the proportion of recent warming due to human activity, it's
> **almost certainly the great majority**. To get to that point we
> consider multiple streams of evidence. If you are genuinely
> interested, do read the IPCC WGI , please. Then maybe we can talk
> about parts of the picture that interest you.
>
> More important for practical reasons is that the warming and
> associated changes we have already seen are almost certainly much
> smaller than those to come.
>

> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html(start with the Summary

[okc chemist]

While I accept the work of the IPCC, the links that you gave me were
to a site that even calls themselves environmental activists. If I
were to link you to the site of a friend of mine, say David Deming,
you would be screaming "a pawn of big oil! foul". I had asked for a
debate free of politics. It cuts both ways, my friend.

The part of it that is science is good, and I respect the comments of
Dr. Dessler. Please, no politics. Politics has no role in science.

On Jan 9, 5:41 pm, Jim Torson <jtor...@commspeed.net> wrote:
> At 12:53 PM 1/9/2008, sploo.laroo (Eric) wrote:
>
> >okc,
>
> >I think it may be helpful to explain why the IPCC is a good place for
> >you to go to address your question.
>
> Here is another discussion of why the IPCC should not be
> dismissed:
>
> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/02/02/dessler/index.html
>
> You're Getting Warmer
>
> The scoop on the new IPCC climate-change report
>
> By

> <http://www.grist.org/cgi-bin/search.pl?query=gristauthor=%28Andrew%20...>Andrew

[okc chemist]

I suppose this version of the Scientific Method is good enough:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I believe we have determined that the anthropogenic CO2 effect on
climate change is not currently testable by the method due to the
complexity of atmospheric chemistry, various other factors and the
interactions thereof. The link mentions that there will be exceptions
to the use of the scientific method. My question has been answered
satisfactorily.

On Jan 9, 5:45 pm, Raymond Arritt <rwarr...@bruce.agron.iastate.edu>
wrote:

[sploo.laroo]

OKC,

Uh Oh! We're beginning to seriously run off the rails. Many aspects
of this problem have been studied in great detail using the principle
of the scientific method. Are the concentrations of greenhouse gases
increasing in the atmosphere? Is that rise attributable to fossil fuel
burning and other human industrial activities? Do the greenhouse
gases absorb infrared radiation? Has the greenhouse effect on Earth
been enhanced? Does the enhanced greenhouse effect correspond to the
infrared absorption by gases linked to human activity? Is there a
radiative imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing
infrared radiation? Has the temperature of the planet increased? Can
the observed radiation imbalance and concomitant warming be explained
without considering the increase in greenhouse gases? All of these
hypotheses have been explored extensively in the scientific literature
using observations, theoretical formulation, predictions based on
those formulations, and tests of those predictions against further
(and in many cases) independent measurements. In this fashion the
scientific method has been used, and continues to be used, to build a
case that human industrial activities leading to greenhouse gas
emissions are causing detectable changes in Earth's climate.

If we've run you out of this group, that's a shame. But please don't
leave thinking that the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change
cannot be tested using the principles of the scientific method,
because that is what is exactly what is going on in the halls of
hundreds of institutions around the globe. The problem is merely that
nobody in this group is able to prove it to you in a single post to
this discussion group because the scientific case for anthropogenic
climate change has been established through a complicated chain of
reasoning that is documented in a very extensive peer-reviewed
literature.

-Eric

[Hank Roberts]

Chuckle. Seems he knew the answer he wanted, and left as soon as he
could claim he got it.
...

> > I believe we have determined that the anthropogenic CO2 effect on
> > climate change is not currently testable by the method

Uh, huh -- "the method" -- as though there were one simple test to
apply, yes or no, black or white, hot or cold, to the entire question.

Sure, there is. First collect sufficient identical planets to allow
statistically valid comparisons, then experiment using a double-blind
crossover design ....

[David B. Benson]

On Jan 12, 3:18 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

> I believe we have determined that the anthropogenic CO2 effect on

> climate change is not currently testable by the method ...

Has somebody already pointed out that the C13 ratio showss that the
excess carbon in the active carbon cycle is definitely fossil carbon?
Has somebody already referenced a good book on atmospheric physics?

You understand that without global warming (so-called greenhouse)
gases (principally CO2) the earth would be 33 K colder?

[okc chemist]

I am still here, and have no agenda. I am actually quite impressed
with the sincerity
of most of my responders.

[okc chemist]

I am familiar with both the C13 ratios and the role that GHGs play in
keeping the planet heated to temperatures much more bearable for
humans. Perhaps you can explain to an old chemist exactly what
"inorganic carbon" is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.

T.A.

[James Annan]

okc chemist wrote:
> I am familiar with both the C13 ratios and the role that GHGs play in
> keeping the planet heated to temperatures much more bearable for
> humans. Perhaps you can explain to an old chemist exactly what
> "inorganic carbon" is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.

I'm not the OP, but this seems like a reasonable place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compounds_by_element#Carbon

James

[Hank Roberts]

On Jan 15, 7:49 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:


> "inorganic carbon" ...
I wouldn't use the term, but it's explained there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compound

"Inorganic carbon compounds
Many compounds that contain carbon are considered inorganic; for
example, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonates, cyanides,
cyanates, carbides, and thyocyanates. In general, however, workers in
these areas are not concerned about strict definitions...."

It's not an important distinction at least since urea was synthesized
(grin).

And it's not used in climate science, as far as I know, at all. It
may come up confusing people when talking about the difference between
actively cycling carbon in the biosphere, and fossil carbon tied up
geochemically whether as coal, petroleum, or minerals. For that see
"biogeochemical cycling" and it matters for the long term.

The term hasn't anything to do with C-14 ratios; those do tell us how
long carbon has been buried and are a marker for the increase in
atmospheric CO2 caused by burning that "fossil fuel" -- Weart's
History at the AIP covers that.

[David B. Benson]

On Jan 15, 7:49 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am familiar with both the C13 ratios and the role that GHGs play in
> keeping the planet heated to temperatures much more bearable for

> humans. ...

Apologies. I (and so you) meant C14/C12 ratios. I gather that you
accept that the excess carbon in the active carbon cycle is of fossil
origin, placed there by humans burning fossil fuels. I gather that
you accept that additional CO2 in the atmosphere (all else being
equal) will warm the planet. Then why do you not accept AGW?

Once the physics of global warming gases is understood (at least 100
years now) and once the source of the excess carbon is understood to
be anthropogenic, it seems to me that scientific methods directly
arrive at the conclusion of AGW.

[okc chemist]

David:

I have stated several times in this thread that I am not an AGW
denier. I am just trying to understand why it is nearly accepted as a
proven fact, when like you say, 100 more years of research are
required. There is good evidence that the burning of fossil fuels
accounts for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, I am told, yet the
C14(not 13?) ratio has increased only 0.15% against a normal variation
of 0.05% Sounds pretty thin to me, in spite of some claiming it's a
huge amount. It may be tough for me to comprehend, because in my work
whether a sample contains 10 ppb of CCl4(which now I'm told isn't even
organic)or 10.015 ppb is not exactly an Earth shattering difference.
In fact, it would be well within the limits of precision and
reproducibility and I would be very pleased with the result. By my
standards, a trivial deviation with all kinds of possible sources of
error, but still totally irrelevant.

[Hank Roberts]

Errr, okc, you're turned in the wrong direction. Turn the other way:

On Jan 17, 5:15 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> ... like you say, 100 more years of research are
> required. ...

>
> On Jan 16, 5:52 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:

...

> > Once the physics of global warming gases is understood (at least 100

> > years now) ...

The century he's referring to is described here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

You're appearing confused on levels of carbon isotopes.
This may help:

"... Only 14C is radioactive with a half-life of 5730 years. In the
atmosphere, 14C occurs principally as 14CO2 and is usually produced by
nuclear reactions between cosmic ray neutrons and the nitrogen atoms
of the air (Libby 1952). Solar (heliomagnetic), geomagnetic, and ocean
forcing all play a role in atmospheric 14CO2 (Stuiver and Braziunas
1993). Before nuclear bomb testing during the 1950s and early 1960s,
radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere had been in decline. Suess (1955)
demonstrated that forests grown between 1930 and 1950 had 14C values
20-40 per mil below those of pre-1890 woods as a result of
anthropogenic 14C-free CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution.
Nuclear bomb testing has since swamped the "Suess Effect(1)." ..."
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm

[David B. Benson]

On Jan 17, 5:15 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... proven fact, when like you say, 100 more years of research are
> required.
NO! It has been known for over 100 years.

> There is good evidence that the burning of fossil fuels

> accounts for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, ...

Another line of evidence is the reports of economic activity
put out by (nearly) all governments, taking pride in how much
fossil carbon was extracted from the ground each year. Using
these, the usual estimate is that humans have added about
500 billion tonnes of carbon to the active carbon cycle in the
last 250 years.

So multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that the
additional carbon is anthropogenic in origin. Seems
completely scientific to me...

[Tom Adams]

On Jan 17, 8:15 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David:
>
> I have stated several times in this thread that I am not an AGW
> denier. I am just trying to understand why it is nearly accepted as a
> proven fact, when like you say,100moreyearsof research are
> required.

Have you bothered to even look at the "Discovery of Global Warming"
web page that we pointed you to weeks ago?

The first research on CO2-induced global warming was done 150 years
ago by Tyndall.

>There is good evidence that the burning of fossil fuels
> accounts for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, I am told, yet the
> C14(not 13?) ratio has increased only 0.15% against a normal variation
> of 0.05% Sounds pretty thin to me, in spite of some claiming it's a
> huge amount. It may be tough for me to comprehend, because in my work
> whether a sample contains 10 ppb of CCl4(which now I'm told isn't even
> organic)or 10.015 ppb is not exactly an Earth shattering difference.
> In fact, it would be well within the limits of precision and
> reproducibility and I would be very pleased with the result. By my
> standards, a trivial deviation with all kinds of possible sources of
> error, but still totally irrelevant.
>
> On Jan 16, 5:52 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 7:49 pm, okc chemist <okcchem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am familiar with both the C13 ratios and the role that GHGs play in
> > > keeping the planet heated to temperatures much more bearable for
> > > humans. ...
>
> > Apologies.  I (and so you) meant C14/C12 ratios.  I gather that you
> > accept that the excess carbon in the active carbon cycle is of fossil
> > origin, placed there by humans burning fossil fuels.  I gather that
> > you accept that additional CO2 in the atmosphere (all else being
> > equal) will warm the planet.  Then why do you not accept AGW?
>
> > Once the physics of global warming gases is understood (at least100

> >yearsnow) and once the source of the excess carbon is understood to

> > be anthropogenic, it seems to me that scientific methods directly

> > arrive at the conclusion of AGW.- Hide quoted text -

[Steve Bloom]

For the second time Weather Channel chief meteorologist Stu Ostro has posted (link below)
on what seems like an interesting idea that an apparent AGW-driven poleward migration of
NH high pressure zones has resulted in an identifiable pattern of screwy weather.
Anything to this?

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_14587.html

[Steve Bloom]

Just to add that the symptoms Stu describes sound suspiciously like some of the things
that are expected to result from the poleward climate zone shift. Recent review article
abstract and link:

"Widening of the tropical belt in a changing climate

"Some of the earliest unequivocal signs of climate change have been the warming of the air
and ocean,
thawing of land and melting of ice in the Arctic. But recent studies are showing that the
tropics are
also changing. Several lines of evidence show that over the past few decades the tropical
belt has
expanded. This expansion has potentially important implications for subtropical societies
and may lead
to profound changes in the global climate system. Most importantly, poleward movement of
largescale
atmospheric circulation systems, such as jet streams and storm tracks, could result in
shifts in
precipitation patterns affecting natural ecosystems, agriculture, and water resources. The
implications
of the expansion for stratospheric circulation and the distribution of ozone in the
atmosphere are
as yet poorly understood. The observed recent rate of expansion is greater than climate
model
projections of expansion over the twenty-first century, which suggests that there is still
much to be
learned about this aspect of global climate change."

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/climate/JournalPDFs/SeidelEtAl.ngeo.2007.38.pdf

[okc chemist]

Alright, Hank I'm with you, (I think) the C14 has DROPPED because
crude oil and coal have very little C14 remaining in their
composition, and have "diluted" the "normal" CO2 in the atmosphere.
My question of a trivial net effect is nevertheless still valid, at
least sccording to the types and levels of measurements I am
accustomed to.

TA

[okc chemist]

David:

I think the C14 ratio is pretty good evidence, but I think that the
C14 change is actually a rather small one. Last week I was looking at
some data on how much CO2 the oceans have absorbed in the past 200
years. I was quite surprised to calculate the net effect as a 0.44 ppb
increase, again, a very small number over 200 years and billions of
metric tons of CO2. The estimates of the carbon effects of oil and
coal production should be a useful tool, I would think. Deforestation
is certainly a factor.


I have no doubt that human activity has increased CO2 in the
atmosphere. I still wonder what other mechanisms may be involved in
the overall scheme of things. I am a strong believer in energy
conservation and am all for improving the efficiency of and reducing
the pollution of our powerplants and motor vehicles. I think increased
hydroelectric and nuclear power are fantastic ideas. CO2 capture has
many applications I'm sure. Deforestation should cease immediately.
The evaluation of and remediation of the many polluted sites we have
here in the U.S. are my line of work, after all.

[Michael Tobis]

That the accumulation of CO2 is anthropogenic is about as far from an
open question as you can get.

The record of the past century is too different from previous times
for anything like a typical oscillation to account for it. The
isotopic evidence is just icing on the cake, really.

The ratio of carbon to air or water doesn't matter. The ratio of
arsenic to body mass that will kill you is pretty small too.

In the case of the atmosphere, it is the concentration of radiatively
active gases that matter, and that is changing at a substantial rate.

In the ocean, you need to consider the reaction rates of the various
organic compounds to understand the pH spike that the ocean is
getting.

I still recommend that you actually take the time to read the IPCC
documents rather than sharing your first impressions of the whol;e
business with those of us who have been thinking about it for quite a
while. It's really a pointless exercise.

OKC, you claim to be scientifically literate and seriously interested.
Presumably we have convinced you that we are reasonably serious.
Please, then, go read the documents that have been prepared for people
just like you. Just squawking on a mailing list without doing your
homework doesn't seem all that helpful to anyone.

mt