Climate change skeptic turned proponent

[Aractus]

On a point of order, to embed the video just put the youtube url with no syntax in the post. I can't see it embded in either FF or Chrome. Also, use http and NOT https like so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTk8Dhr15Kw

or

http://youtu.be/kTk8Dhr15Kw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTk8Dhr15Kw

The famous Richard Muller professor from UC Berkeley who doubted the climate change was real back in 2003. He formed his own group to study the issue and came to the same conclusions as previous climate scientist. His "conversion" story just under 5 minutes.

(video)

Best line is at the very end, "If you say it's something else and I don't know what it is, my answer is something else that just happens, by accident that perfectly matches the carbon dioxide increase ... are you serious?"

He did not in my view put forward a convincing argument at all. All his arguments amounts to is that "I found correlation between CO2 and climate change". So what? Sceptics acknowledge that, and sceptics also acknowledge that CO2 should have some effect on raising global temperatures. The models put forward by NASA and others have CO2 contributing at most 50% of the global warming trend since the beginning of the 20th century, with black carbon and methane mostly making up the rest. There's no computer model on the planet that proposes that CO2 is solely to blame.

But really even that is not what climate scepticism is about. Climate scepticism is not about the past and whether nor not CO2 is 50% responsible for the 20th century trend of global warming, but let's assume for argument's sake that it is and that the science is totally 100% settled on that.

If you look at the infrared spectrum which CO2 absorbs you see that the present quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs nearly the total of what it appears to be capable of absorbing. Let's say that CO2 global mean concentration today is roughly 400ppm, and that we really started this trend back at around 285ppm.

H2O was thought to be responsible for between 90-95% of the greenhouse effect on our planet. That's a large margin for error since it then means the remaining minor gasses are either between 5% to 10% responsible in total. The total greenhouse effect is also not known, it is however estimated.

In recent years those numbers have been revised, it is now believed that H2O is between 36-70% responsible, and CO2 between 9-26%! That's now a much larger margin for error than what was thought ten yeas ago!!

Now to get back to the point. Climate sceptics don't deny that CO2 effects the global temperature - of course it does since it's a GHG. They also don't deny that it contributes to global warming - it should contribute something because it's risen from 285ppm to close to 400ppm.

The things that climate sceptics doubt are these: 1. that greenhouse gasses are the major or primary driver of present climate change; 2. that there's a negative feedback mechanism that makes temperatures "spiral out of control".

There are a further two observations made by the sceptics: 1. that all predictions over the past 20 years have been dramatically wrong and that even the IPCC's predictions for the next 100 years have been progressively scaled down; 2. that while it's true that no one has an alternative explanation for the exact cause of the 20th century warming trend, it's also the case that no one has been able to fully explain prior climate change and what its causes were and in particular the MWP. If we can't explain what caused climate change 1,000 years ago, then what makes us so sure we can explain what is causing climate change today?

[Aractus]

Oh the third thing that climate sceptics doubt is that policy can affect the climate. I.e. it's likely that any effort we make to curb CO2 emissions will have a negligible effect on climate change.

Now I should have mentioned this before, but the reason why sceptics have their doubts is because the claims have never been experimentally verified. There have been attempts to experimentally observe the mythical "negative feedback mechanism", and some climate scientists say they have evidence in support of one, whilst others say they have evidence that there isn't one.

[Surgenator]

He did not in my view put forward a convincing argument at all. All his arguments amounts to is that "I found correlation between CO2 and climate change". So what? Sceptics acknowledge that, and sceptics also acknowledge that CO2 should have some effect on raising global temperatures. The models put forward by NASA and others have CO2 contributing at most 50% of the global warming trend since the beginning of the 20th century, with black carbon and methane mostly making up the rest. There's no computer model on the planet that proposes that CO2 is solely to blame.

I agree that CO2 cannot be the sole cause. What make his analysis impressive is it's a data vs data comparison. It is not a data vs model comparison. From his paper

Rather than adjust (homogenize) individual records for known and presumed discontinuities (e.g. from instrument changes and station moves), we split the records into portions occurring before and after such apparent discontinuities, creating essentially two records from one.
[...]
We have obtained an estimate of the Earth land surface temperature from 1753 unto the present. The limited land coverage prior to 1850 results in larger uncertainties in the behavior of the record; despite these, we see behavior that is significant. [...] Since the 1950s, we observe a rise in the average land surface temperature of 0.90 ± 0.05°C (95% confidence). This value is in the middle of the
comparable values reported by other groups, but with an estimated uncertainty approximately twice as tight as those of prior reports. Exact comparison of uncertainties is slightly complicated because each different group frames the uncertainties in slightly different ways; however, for the year 1951, we estimate an annual land average uncertainty of ± 0.06°C versus ± 0.14°C for CRUTEM and ± 0.17°Cfor NOAA [7,25]. GISS has never published a comparable land-only uncertainty statement.

Source

He was answering the question "Are the temperatures rise natural fluctuations or not." You don't need to make models when you're comparing data vs data. Since the older data becomes your model.

NASA and IPCC are focused on predictability; hense, they need to make accurate models to make predictions. IPCC generally compares data vs model. Hense, the accuracy of the model can come into question.

I don't have time today to address your other points. I'll get to them later.

[FreeTony]

Even though I am educated up to Masters level in Physics, I wouldn't dream of doing anything other than accepting what those at the forefront of physics say about the latest research. I just don't have the expertise.

Yet you have people that have no formal education in climate science, and most having last studied science as a child, thinking that they know more than the experts. Climate science seems to suffer from this more than most, possibly because people can more likely form an uneducated opinion on "is it hotter this year?" rather than "what is the best way of incorporating general relativity and quantum mechanics?". I really feel sorry for the scientists that have to put up with this.

[Surgenator]

But really even that is not what climate scepticism is about. Climate scepticism is not about the past and whether nor not CO2 is 50% responsible for the 20th century trend of global warming, but let's assume for argument's sake that it is and that the science is totally 100% settled on that.

If you look at the infrared spectrum which CO2 absorbs you see that the present quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs nearly the total of what it appears to be capable of absorbing. Let's say that CO2 global mean concentration today is roughly 400ppm, and that we really started this trend back at around 285ppm.

H2O was thought to be responsible for between 90-95% of the greenhouse effect on our planet. That's a large margin for error since it then means the remaining minor gasses are either between 5% to 10% responsible in total. The total greenhouse effect is also not known, it is however estimated.

In recent years those numbers have been revised, it is now believed that H2O is between 36-70% responsible, and CO2 between 9-26%! That's now a much larger margin for error than what was thought ten yeas ago!!

The percent contribution of greenhouse gasses is not a settled science. You pointed this out on how the percent changes as we learn more. So I cannot assume that "science is totally 100% settled on [whether nor not CO2 is 50% responsible]."

Now to get back to the point. Climate sceptics don't deny that CO2 effects the global temperature - of course it does since it's a GHG. They also don't deny that it contributes to global warming - it should contribute something because it's risen from 285ppm to close to 400ppm.

The things that climate sceptics doubt are these: 1. that greenhouse gasses are the major or primary driver of present climate change; 2. that there's a negative feedback mechanism that makes temperatures "spiral out of control".

Muller's study focusses on the overall deviation from natural. The fact that temperature follows so closely to CO2 rise is surprising. But considering the amount of CO2 increased in the atmosphere, it is not that surprising.

The human produced greenhouse gasses are the major/primary driver of present day climate change. The scientific community agrees.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations.

What is not agreed upon is the degree each GHG contributes.

The negative feedback loop depends on the models. Muller's study doesn't address it directly. His study is a comparison of before and after. IPCC is better at handling this question since it takes into account all the intricacies that affect climate.

There are a further two observations made by the sceptics: 1. that all predictions over the past 20 years have been dramatically wrong and that even the IPCC's predictions for the next 100 years have been progressively scaled down; 2. that while it's true that no one has an alternative explanation for the exact cause of the 20th century warming trend, it's also the case that no one has been able to fully explain prior climate change and what its causes were and in particular the MWP. If we can't explain what caused climate change 1,000 years ago, then what makes us so sure we can explain what is causing climate change today?

Predictions are hard to make when you're working with a choatic system which is what climate is. On the quantitive level, IPCC's predictions are wrong. However, they are not wrong qualitatively. They're model's predictions and data are all pointing to the same conclusion, the earth is warming.

You can go to this link for an in depth talk about MWP. The summary is that whatever caused the MWP is NOT what is causing our warming period.

Oh the third thing that climate sceptics doubt is that policy can affect the climate. I.e. it's likely that any effort we make to curb CO2 emissions will have a negligible effect on climate change.

I don't understand what how you can doubt that. Anthropogenic GHG are driving warming, so not producing them will slow down warming. When it will slow down and start cooling again is another question entirely.

Now I should have mentioned this before, but the reason why sceptics have their doubts is because the claims have never been experimentally verified. There have been attempts to experimentally observe the mythical "negative feedback mechanism", and some climate scientists say they have evidence in support of one, whilst others say they have evidence that there isn't one.

Let the climate scientist argue it out amounts themselves about the negative feedback mechanism. The more important point is the world is warming and what we can do about it. The details help answer the logictics of it, but aren't necessary to make the major decisions.

[Aractus]

Muller's study focusses on the overall deviation from natural. The fact that temperature follows so closely to CO2 rise is surprising. But considering the amount of CO2 increased in the atmosphere, it is not that surprising.

The human produced greenhouse gasses are the major/primary driver of present day climate change. The scientific community agrees.

No, what he found was a correlation. He did not prove anything. Everyone knows there's a correlation if you look hard enough.

My point however remains that without a negative feedback mechanism (and I don't believe that there is one) it's just a logarithmic increase - and that's frankly what people should expect. With a mythical negative feedback mechanism programmed into the computers it spits out exponential temperature rise which is ridiculous. And why do you suppose they think that there's a negative feedback mechanism? Because without one they can't get the CO2 increase to correlate to the temperature rise of the 20th century. It's bad science, it's one assumption after another.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations.

What is not agreed upon is the degree each GHG contributes.

The negative feedback loop depends on the models. Muller's study doesn't address it directly. His study is a comparison of before and after. IPCC is better at handling this question since it takes into account all the intricacies that affect climate.

Well it obviously directs it since without it CO2 cannot be the driving factor.

Predictions are hard to make when you're working with a choatic system which is what climate is. On the quantitive level, IPCC's predictions are wrong. However, they are not wrong qualitatively. They're model's predictions and data are all pointing to the same conclusion, the earth is warming.

Well firstly chaos theory itself is an outdated model. Under the chaos world view everything is reducible to its core components; however we now know that isn't the case. For example you have a near limitless choice of meals you can decide to eat tomorrow all of which will have exactly the same net effect; you also have another set of near limitless meals that will have a slightly different yet shared effect, etc. Chaos theory can't explain that. But we do know with all probability that you will eat something tomorrow - what it is isn't as important as the fact that you do it. These are mechanisms that override chaos, that function perfectly fine despite the appearance of there being a chaotic environment.

Climate science is very complicated, that's true. The weather system is not fully understood.

You can go to this link for an in depth talk about MWP. The summary is that whatever caused the MWP is NOT what is causing our warming period.

Well that's rubbish. The MWP we have to assume was a global event - are you really telling me that you think ice on Greenland melted to a point that Farmers in the middle ages left behind their homes that are now frozen in permafrost that hasn't thawed since, and that it was a local event?

But look, the thing is that everything that climate scientists could look at to be causing it led them nowhere - in fact they even proved it wasn't due to sunspot activity or solar flares. So you have a very dramatic event with no known cause to this day. So until you work out for certain what caused it how can you possibly say it's "not the same thing that's causing present temperature rise"?

CO2, Methane and Black Carbon DO cause an increase in global surface temperature, but they are not the driving force of climate change.

I don't understand what how you can doubt that. Anthropogenic GHG are driving warming, so not producing them will slow down warming. When it will slow down and start cooling again is another question entirely.

Well because it's a fact. Let's say, as I said before, that I accept the science and that there's going to be a 2-4 degree increase in temperature between now and 2100, and that CO2 is 50% responsible, Methane and Black Carbon mostly making up the other 50%.

Australia's emissions are about 1.1% of the global total. Let's say we cut our emissions by 50%. Right that would contribute 0.6% to the CO2 component, and only 0.3% to reducing global warming in total; thus the net effect would be that we reduce global warming's trend by 0.006 to 0.012 degrees. That isn't even measurable. So the net effect is that we would make an immeasurable difference.

[Surgenator]

Muller's study focusses on the overall deviation from natural. The fact that temperature follows so closely to CO2 rise is surprising. But considering the amount of CO2 increased in the atmosphere, it is not that surprising.

The human produced greenhouse gasses are the major/primary driver of present day climate change. The scientific community agrees.

No, what he found was a correlation. He did not prove anything. Everyone knows there's a correlation if you look hard enough.

Yes he found a strong correlation that didn't exist before humans started to dump loads of GHG into the atmosphere. That suggest causation. For it to be coincidence is ridiculous, the correlations is too good. I have yet to hear another viable theory that explains so nicely the warming we're seeing.

My point however remains that without a negative feedback mechanism (and I don't believe that there is one) it's just a logarithmic increase - and that's frankly what people should expect. With a mythical negative feedback mechanism programmed into the computers it spits out exponential temperature rise which is ridiculous. And why do you suppose they think that there's a negative feedback mechanism? Because without one they can't get the CO2 increase to correlate to the temperature rise of the 20th century. It's bad science, it's one assumption after another.

First off, the negative feedback mechanism would cool the earth not heat it. So without a negative feedback mechanism we should expect an exponential rise in temperature.

What part of the negative feedback mechanism you don't believe exist: surface temperature increase -> increase evaporation -> more low clouds -> reflects more sunlight into space -> surface temperature decreases?

There is also a positive feedback mechanism that fights against the negative feedback. The two are not at equilibrium. The positive one is winning and thats why we are seeing an almost exponential rise in temperature.

What is not agreed upon is the degree each GHG contributes.

The negative feedback loop depends on the models. Muller's study doesn't address it directly. His study is a comparison of before and after. IPCC is better at handling this question since it takes into account all the intricacies that affect climate.

Well it obviously directs it since without it CO2 cannot be the driving factor.

CO2 is a GHG. How do other GHG direct it, but not the CO2 GHG? How can you get such a high correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise?

Predictions are hard to make when you're working with a choatic system which is what climate is. On the quantitive level, IPCC's predictions are wrong. However, they are not wrong qualitatively. They're model's predictions and data are all pointing to the same conclusion, the earth is warming.

Well firstly chaos theory itself is an outdated model. Under the chaos world view everything is reducible to its core components; however we now know that isn't the case. For example you have a near limitless choice of meals you can decide to eat tomorrow all of which will have exactly the same net effect; you also have another set of near limitless meals that will have a slightly different yet shared effect, etc. Chaos theory can't explain that. But we do know with all probability that you will eat something tomorrow - what it is isn't as important as the fact that you do it. These are mechanisms that override chaos, that function perfectly fine despite the appearance of there being a chaotic environment.

No, chaos theory is NOT an outdated model of climate. Chaos theory does not apply to meal selection because meal selection doesn't dramatically depend on what you eat before and taste preference are not interdependent. So your analogy doesn't work. Climate is affected by temperature, temperature is affected by CO2, and CO2 is affected by the ocean water temperature. There is just one interdependent part of climate. The interdependency is what makes it chaotic.

You can go to this link for an in depth talk about MWP. The summary is that whatever caused the MWP is NOT what is causing our warming period.

Well that's rubbish. The MWP we have to assume was a global event - are you really telling me that you think ice on Greenland melted to a point that Farmers in the middle ages left behind their homes that are now frozen in permafrost that hasn't thawed since, and that it was a local event?

We don't have to assume anything. The temperatures of the earth at the MWP were measured.

We employ the global proxy data set used by (13) comprising more than a thousand tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment, and other as-sorted proxy records spanning the ocean and land regions of both hemispheres over the past 1500 years

source

So the MWP wasn't as warm as you suspected. It was a regional warming, not global warming.

But look, the thing is that everything that climate scientists could look at to be causing it led them nowhere - in fact they even proved it wasn't due to sunspot activity or solar flares. So you have a very dramatic event with no known cause to this day. So until you work out for certain what caused it how can you possibly say it's "not the same thing that's causing present temperature rise"?

We have this very well known cause, antropogenic GHG. The other theories were not able to reproduce the heating trend we're seeing.

CO2, Methane and Black Carbon DO cause an increase in global surface temperature, but they are not the driving force of climate change.

And your proof for this is where?

I don't understand what how you can doubt that. Anthropogenic GHG are driving warming, so not producing them will slow down warming. When it will slow down and start cooling again is another question entirely.

Well because it's a fact. Let's say, as I said before, that I accept the science and that there's going to be a 2-4 degree increase in temperature between now and 2100, and that CO2 is 50% responsible, Methane and Black Carbon mostly making up the other 50%.

Australia's emissions are about 1.1% of the global total. Let's say we cut our emissions by 50%. Right that would contribute 0.6% to the CO2 component, and only 0.3% to reducing global warming in total; thus the net effect would be that we reduce global warming's trend by 0.006 to 0.012 degrees. That isn't even measurable. So the net effect is that we would make an immeasurable difference.

Where are you getting your numbers for the decrease in temperature? Plus, your argument is "our instruments can't measure it then it's not worth it." That is ridiculous.

[Chas]

The declining alkalinity of seawater is going to be a far larger catastrophe.

Hard to get worked up over climate change.

That is simply one of the effects of the causes of climate change. It's all one system.

[Aractus]

First off, the negative feedback mechanism would cool the earth not heat it. So without a negative feedback mechanism we should expect an exponential rise in temperature.

Sorry yes I meant positive feedback mechanism. We do know there is a negative feedback mechanism (in the presence of increased CO2 the oceans increase their absorption) that does go a way to maintaining the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

There is also a positive feedback mechanism that fights against the negative feedback. The two are not at equilibrium. The positive one is winning and thats why we are seeing an almost exponential rise in temperature.

That's not how a positive feedback mechanism works. The argument is that other atmospheric content "magnify" the effect that CO2 has.

CO2 is a GHG. How do other GHG direct it, but not the CO2 GHG? How can you get such a high correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise?

Because it's just a correlation, and it in fact doesn't correlate correctly until it's passed through a complicated computer modelling program that specifically has a positive feedback parameter on the CO2. Without knowing what it is or why it's there. Is it H2O? Nitrogen? Something else? All they say is that they "know it exists because it's in the computer models"; and why is it in the computer models? Because they put it there.

Let's put this in perspective, say the Higgs Boson. It is believed that the Higgs Boson may have been experimentally observed, however well before we observed it we described it in detail what was thought to exist. With CO2's positive feedback element there's no theory whatsoever behind it, other than the fact that "if you add that parameter to the computer model you can correlate climate change to being driving by CO2". There was no theory before that which supported the idea, and it hasn't been experimentally observed. And with this we're not talking about something as difficult to observe as the Higgs Boson - if it was there it should be obvious and easy to test for and confirm.

We don't have to assume anything. The temperatures of the earth at the MWP were measured.

What with weather stations do you mean?

We have this very well known cause, antropogenic GHG. The other theories were not able to reproduce the heating trend we're seeing.

So what? There doesn't have to be any other theory for the present one to be incorrect.

Where are you getting your numbers for the decrease in temperature? Plus, your argument is "our instruments can't measure it then it's not worth it." That is ridiculous.

No, saying that something less than 0.1 degrees is meaningful is ridiculous.

[Surgenator]

First off, the negative feedback mechanism would cool the earth not heat it. So without a negative feedback mechanism we should expect an exponential rise in temperature.

Sorry yes I meant positive feedback mechanism. We do know there is a negative feedback mechanism (in the presence of increased CO2 the oceans increase their absorption) that does go a way to maintaining the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

You have to show that rate of antropogenic CO2 pumped into the atmosphere is equal to the rate of CO2 absorbed by the ocean. However, we know this is not the case since the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up by 40% according to your numbers.

Also, the ocean water store a lot of natural GHG. As the water warms up, it can holds less and less GHG, giving a positive feedback.

As the surface temperature increases, ice melts which reduces the amount of light reflected back into space. Hence, a positive feedback.

CO2 is a GHG. How do other GHG direct it, but not the CO2 GHG? How can you get such a high correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise?

Because it's just a correlation, and it in fact doesn't correlate correctly until it's passed through a complicated computer modelling program that specifically has a positive feedback parameter on the CO2. Without knowing what it is or why it's there. Is it H2O? Nitrogen? Something else? All they say is that they "know it exists because it's in the computer models"; and why is it in the computer models? Because they put it there.

Muller doesn't have complicated modeling programs. His is a simple correlation/anti-correlation study of previous trends to current trends.

The argument for antropogenic GHG is very simple. Before we pumped GHG into the atmosphere we had X climate patterns. After we pumped GHG into the atmosphere we have Y climate patterns. X does not equal Y. Y is hotter than X. The only difference between the two sets is if human were pumping GHG into the atmosphere. You can waste your time arguing about the details, but the overall picture tells only one story.

Let's put this in perspective, say the Higgs Boson. It is believed that the Higgs Boson may have been experimentally observed, however well before we observed it we described it in detail what was thought to exist. With CO2's positive feedback element there's no theory whatsoever behind it, other than the fact that "if you add that parameter to the computer model you can correlate climate change to being driving by CO2". There was no theory before that which supported the idea, and it hasn't been experimentally observed. And with this we're not talking about something as difficult to observe as the Higgs Boson - if it was there it should be obvious and easy to test for and confirm.

Really, no theory. How about is ice mealting when it is hot not a theory? How is ice reflects light better than dirt not a theory? How is Henry's law of gas concentration in water not a theory?

We don't have to assume anything. The temperatures of the earth at the MWP were measured.

What with weather stations do you mean?

I gave you the research paper link and quote from it that states where they got their temperature samples from. So please don't strawman me.

We have this very well known cause, antropogenic GHG. The other theories were not able to reproduce the heating trend we're seeing.

So what? There doesn't have to be any other theory for the present one to be incorrect.

True, the present one does not have to be correct. However, it matches the heating trend very well. Coincidence, I think not.

Where are you getting your numbers for the decrease in temperature? Plus, your argument is "our instruments can't measure it then it's not worth it." That is ridiculous.

No, saying that something less than 0.1 degrees is meaningful is ridiculous.

How do you know it's ridiculous? How do you a 0.1 degree decrease is not significant?