[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Well we could have an argument about if the temperature has risen at all since 1998 or if it's too close to call because any rise is within the instrumentation error range but lets just say that there has been very little rise and try to move on.

What would it take for your opinion to become that we are looking at the lower end of the IPCC's predictions?

This is because there is definately nothing significant to worry about from those.

[Bored chemist]

There is obviously a very big difference between what you do and statistical modeling of chaotic processes. For example, if you prove to a stock broker that you can predict the price of a stock to within a 30% margin or error that stock broker would basically throw money at you and you'd both get rich. What is important about climate modeling is not 100% accuracy (though being more accurate is nice) but rather reproduction of trends. That 30% error is not large enough to say that the warming trend isn't happening nor is it large enough to invalidate the conclusion that humans are the cause.

I recon I can manage to predict almost all stock prices to that margin 2 years into the future no problem. 95%+ hit rate.

Your lack of understanding of the world is frightening.

Well, judging by the rate of progress of this thread, it will still be here in 2 years- so put your virtual money where your mouth is. Make those predictions.
Post them here and we will see how well you do.

If there had been the warming expected/predicted by the IPCC/hockey stick and this had produced the increase in hurricanes and other storms as predicted I would agree that there were problems with a warmer earth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-june-set-to-be-wettest-on-record-a7083371.html
I'm obviously not saying that 1 wet month proves much.But it's clear that the extremes are getting more common (and they should get rarer as the historical record grows)

And then we get called deniers.

Well,when you post to say that the weather isn't changing, but it clearly is, what term would you prefer?

[puppypower]

That's not even remotely how logical inference works nor does it address the very real differences between the changes predicted for natural climatic process vs the changes we are currently seeing. One of the clearest signs of the greenhouse effect is that the upper levels of the atmosphere are cooling as the atmosphere near the surface warms. The only thing that can account for this is increased heat retention via greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse gas that is most clearly increasing is CO2 and the only new source of CO2 is humans. The fact that climate has changed in the past in no way counters that argument not the least of which because it complete ignores the differences in the changes we are seeing now from natural changes.

The only real way to know if the present changes in climate and temperature, are due to manmade influences, is to compare the current trends, to another warming trend from the distant past, using all the criteria that Agyejy presented in his long list of graphs.

For example, about 1000 years ago Europe was unusually warm. If we had all the same graphs, such a upper atmosphere temperature, ocean temperatures, that Agyejy presented, full of hard data from 1000 years ago, we could establish a baseline for all the same criteria. With this historical baseline, we would be see if there is more than one way to create climate change and global warming, so we can factor that out. The problem is, we don't have the same level of data, from 1000 years ago, that we have for today. There is no good way to establish a hard data baseline for all these criteria. If these are all connected, into an integrated system, you need to know all of them to get a baseline.

The problem that the lack of a good baseline creates, is like doing analytic chemistry with a mass spectrometer that is not calibrated against any known tangible standards. Instead we will speculate standards, based on theory. Optically, even if your instrument is not properly calibrate, you can still go through all the motions of science. You can put on the lab coat and generate data. You can see  peaks, you can analyze the data, etc. However, none of your claim will hold up, if there is no calibration standard. Theory is not a calibration standard, since theory is an educated guess. I can guess that a meter stick is this long. How about I use that to establish the property lines between our houses? This is not the same as an official meter stick we can all trust. 

Picture if I had a scale, which is not calibrated. I don't know if it is high or low, or by how much. I can still go through all the motions and weigh things, and generate piles of data, so it looks like official science. If publishers does not care if there is an official standard we can publish all types of papers, because all other data collection is done on the up and up. But all the data can be high or low compared to the baseline of hard reality. If theory is sufficient to create this baseline, the shady merchant will zero his scale with a theory that is in his own favor, so he can get a better price. This is why hard data is used.

Would other branches of science be willing to use the same approach of not needing a tangible calibration standard? Instead should we let each branch of science theorize its own standards, based on the data it creates on the fly. Would the EPA allow this, if business did this before they discharge chemicals into lakes and streams?

Since we can't meet the large number of criteria modern science believes influences and reflects climate changes, for 1000 years ago, to create a baseline, the other option is to use the standards of the past; inference science, as the baseline and limit modern data collection to just the same things. This is not as fancy looking, and we would need to give up satellites all the fancy toys. But at least it will create a hard data baseline. Unfortunately, we can get a good baseline, or we can use fancy tools, but not both at the same time.

[Jackm]

Good Question

[Atkhenaken]

 Co2 levels have no effect on temperature.  Co2 properties are such that increasing CO2 doesn't automatically equate with a temperature rise. Once you reach saturation point of CO2, there are no further increases in temperature. Just like glass, if you increase the thickness of the glass in a green house, you wont necessarily increase the green house temperature.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

[alancalverd]

One very simple experiment is worth doing.

The mass of carbon dioxide above any point on the surface is equivalent to a column of pure CO2 just 8 feet high at 1 atmosphere pressure.

Build two "greenhouses" with heavily insulated sides 8 ft tall, and a flat roof of IR-transparent plastic - thin polyethlyene will do, as all it has to do is prevent gas escaping. Add a few horizontal sheets of polyethylene inside the greenhouse to ensure that convection is independent of the gas density. Cover the floor with sterile soil. Fill one greenhouse with carbon dioxide and the other with ordinary air at around 50% saturation. Then measure the temperature a couple of inches above the floor, every 5 minutes for a year.

The difference in mean temperatures represents the worst-case effect of doubling the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.     

Why has nobody published the result of such a simple test? It would be a lot cheaper and far more credible than faffing about with computer modelling of extremely dubious historic data. Perhaps that's the reason!

[jeffreyH]

One very simple experiment is worth doing.

The mass of carbon dioxide above any point on the surface is equivalent to a column of pure CO2 just 8 feet high at 1 atmosphere pressure.

Build two "greenhouses" with heavily insulated sides 8 ft tall, and a flat roof of IR-transparent plastic - thin polyethlyene will do, as all it has to do is prevent gas escaping. Add a few horizontal sheets of polyethylene inside the greenhouse to ensure that convection is independent of the gas density. Cover the floor with sterile soil. Fill one greenhouse with carbon dioxide and the other with ordinary air at around 50% saturation. Then measure the temperature a couple of inches above the floor, every 5 minutes for a year.

The difference in mean temperatures represents the worst-case effect of doubling the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.     

Why has nobody published the result of such a simple test? It would be a lot cheaper and far more credible than faffing about with computer modelling of extremely dubious historic data. Perhaps that's the reason!

People seem to value complexity over simplicity. As if the simple solution has no merit since it is the cheaper alternative.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

One very simple experiment is worth doing.

The mass of carbon dioxide above any point on the surface is equivalent to a column of pure CO2 just 8 feet high at 1 atmosphere pressure.

Build two "greenhouses" with heavily insulated sides 8 ft tall, and a flat roof of IR-transparent plastic - thin polyethlyene will do, as all it has to do is prevent gas escaping. Add a few horizontal sheets of polyethylene inside the greenhouse to ensure that convection is independent of the gas density. Cover the floor with sterile soil. Fill one greenhouse with carbon dioxide and the other with ordinary air at around 50% saturation. Then measure the temperature a couple of inches above the floor, every 5 minutes for a year.

The difference in mean temperatures represents the worst-case effect of doubling the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.     

Why has nobody published the result of such a simple test? It would be a lot cheaper and far more credible than faffing about with computer modelling of extremely dubious historic data. Perhaps that's the reason!

If the result was that CO2 concentrations over very low levels have exactly the same effect whatever the actual concentration where would you get it published?

[jeffreyH]

I would say collect the data first. Don't even worry about publication until you have the CO2 and control data sets. The analysis would be very interesting. Once you have the data you could publish the raw data and initial conclusions here.

[Bored chemist]

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

You need to focus on the word "almost" there.
It's the reason why that argument is "almost" right.

[alancalverd]

Why has nobody done the experiment? Because there is no career in it. And the consequences would be too awful to contemplate.

A couple of students could muck about for a year, collect their MSc, and kill an entire multigigabuck industry with just one number, to say nothing of destroying the reputations of thousands of ecofascists, green politicians and respected academics at a stroke.

Problem is that there is so much money and reputation invested in The Belief that the greenhouses would be destroyed by Believers, so the experiment would have to be done in secret, which would promote accusations of conspiracy, data manipulation and outright cheating, if not a proper witch hunt  and a few unexplained accidental deaths.

Face it, you wouldn't be happy if you discovered that the government had been lying to you for the last 30 years and spending "green" taxes on subsidising windmill manufacturers, unemployable academics, and expensive summit meetings. You might even vote! 

Imagine what would happen if archaeologists found the body of Jesus in a cave with a rock door. "Joseph of Arimathea? No, mate, his family plot is XXVI. Jesus is in plot XXIV. Has been for years. Miracle? More like a clerical cockup. Anything else I can help you with?"  Now multiply the impact by a factor of 10.

I dare anyone to do the experiment.

[William McC]

My whole problem with climate change is that it makes us out to be bigger than we are. The temperature of the planet is not controlled by a little CO2.

The temperature of the planet is controlled by the ice caps. When the ice caps recede billions of BTU's spew into space. When the caps freeze over billions of BTU's are preserved. Since water is heaviest at 40 degrees Fahrenheit most of the ocean is at 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Under the oceans in tropical areas there is 40 degree water.

So the poles act as a thermostat, but so does the entire ocean. Because when the sun comes up over the cool oceans near the equator the surface of the ocean separates from the mass of the ocean quickly, almost creating an oil slick of rather warm almost hot water, on the surface of the ocean that does not mix with the underlying water. That top layer of very warm water acts as a blanket that actually preserves the lower temperature water below at 40 degrees. That is why in the north some of the hottest surface temperatures of water can be found during the months of march, because all of the suns heat is captured and held on the surface of the water.

Plants grow better and faster in CO2 and therefore reproduce more and consume a lot more CO2.

http://www.rockwelder.com/chemicals/ChemistryAndWheels.pdf

http://www.rockwelder.com/chemicals/Water.pdf

http://www.rockwelder.com/weather/Weather.pdf

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

I would say collect the data first. Don't even worry about publication until you have the CO2 and control data sets. The analysis would be very interesting. Once you have the data you could publish the raw data and initial conclusions here.

If he did it and published the results here he would not be allowed to publish it anywhere else. Thus it would vanish into oblivion.

But, if he did that would you thne change your opinion in any way?