Cause and Effect and Global Warming

[JohnStOnge]

I think that many people believe that a cause and effect relationship between human activity and elevations in global temperatures over time has been unequivocally demonstrated. That is not true. Inferring a cause and effect relationship on the basis of statistical data requires controlled experimentation and, of course, controlled experimentation to infer a cause and effect relationship in the referenced case is not possible. It should be noted that the IPCC concedes that point in its 2007 Working Group 1 Report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change.

I'd post a link to the report but I don't have 15 posts yet and this site doesn't allow posting links until a person gets to that point. But you can find it at the IPCC web site. So find it, pull up the pdf version of Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,, then go to page 660 (the sixth page of that chapter). Or you can pull up the web page version and do a search for the word "experiment." In the pdf version, you'll find the relevant language starting at the bottom of the page in the left column. It goes like this:

"‘Attribution’ of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible..."

After the word "possible" the authors go on to explain what they did given the situation. But that is not important to the point. The situation is that unequivocal "attribution" is not possible. Otherwise, I don't agree with their use of the terminology "level of confidence." The concept of a confidence level with respect to inferring cause and effect is intimately tied to the concept of a controlled experiment. You can't really have a credible confidence level with respect to cause and effect without the experimental control, and I think the IPCC is misleading the public in representing probability statements it makes as confidence levels. I think it gives the statements an aura of quantitative credibility that is not really justified.

There are other references in the report to controlled experimentation being needed to infer cause and effect, but the one I quoted is the most direct and unambiguous instance of conceding the principle that I could find.

Finally, note that there are a lot of references to "experiments" in the report that are not experiments on anything real. They are experiments on models. They tell the investigators what doing different things will make the models say. They're great for infering cause and effect with respect to what the models do. But they can't be viewed as legitimately inferring cause and effect with respect to the actual climate system.

 

[Old Rocks]

Relevant experiments were done over a hundred years ago, and defined how CO2 absorbed various wavelengths of infrared. Predictions were made that increasing the GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere would result in the warming of the Earth. That is exactly what has happened.

We have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, and the CH4 by 250%. We have leveled forests, and decreased the ability of the natural world to absorb the excess CO2 we have generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

We are now seeing the results of the increased CO2 and other GHGs in the melting of glaciers and ice caps.We are observing an acidification of the ocean waters, getting very close to an amount that will negatively affect the single celled plants and animals at the base of the food chain.

You can parse the meaning of the words all you care to. That does not change the reality of the effects of our changing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

 

[dilloduck]

Relevant experiments were done over a hundred years ago, and defined how CO2 absorbed various wavelengths of infrared. Predictions were made that increasing the GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere would result in the warming of the Earth. That is exactly what has happened.

We have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, and the CH4 by 250%. We have leveled forests, and decreased the ability of the natural world to absorb the excess CO2 we have generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

We are now seeing the results of the increased CO2 and other GHGs in the melting of glaciers and ice caps.We are observing an acidification of the ocean waters, getting very close to an amount that will negatively affect the single celled plants and animals at the base of the food chain.

You can parse the meaning of the words all you care to. That does not change the reality of the effects of our changing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Who cares ?

 

[Old Rocks]

Relevant experiments were done over a hundred years ago, and defined how CO2 absorbed various wavelengths of infrared. Predictions were made that increasing the GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere would result in the warming of the Earth. That is exactly what has happened.

We have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, and the CH4 by 250%. We have leveled forests, and decreased the ability of the natural world to absorb the excess CO2 we have generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

We are now seeing the results of the increased CO2 and other GHGs in the melting of glaciers and ice caps.We are observing an acidification of the ocean waters, getting very close to an amount that will negatively affect the single celled plants and animals at the base of the food chain.

You can parse the meaning of the words all you care to. That does not change the reality of the effects of our changing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Who cares ?

Most people with a little intelligence.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Relevant experiments were done over a hundred years ago, and defined how CO2 absorbed various wavelengths of infrared. Predictions were made that increasing the GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere would result in the warming of the Earth. That is exactly what has happened.

We have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, and the CH4 by 250%. We have leveled forests, and decreased the ability of the natural world to absorb the excess CO2 we have generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

We are now seeing the results of the increased CO2 and other GHGs in the melting of glaciers and ice caps.We are observing an acidification of the ocean waters, getting very close to an amount that will negatively affect the single celled plants and animals at the base of the food chain.

You can parse the meaning of the words all you care to. That does not change the reality of the effects of our changing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

It's not a matter of parsing words. The fact that predictions of a general warming trend were made and a general warming trend was observed does not mean cause and effect was inferred. It means an association consistent with the the expectation was observed. But association in observational data does not prove causation. To infer cause and effect, you need to make a prediction then conduct a controlled experiment that yields results consistent with it. If you want I can post a discussion of that principle from a statistics text.

But I really don't think that's necessary. First of all, I suspect you already know I'm right about the rule. If not, the IPCC itself concedes the point. For several year's I told people that cause and effect had not been inferred but I'd never actually looked at the IPCC text. Finally I decided to look and found that they do recognize the principle. They don't spend a lot of time on it. They kind of sweep it under the rug. But they recognize it and note that what it would take to provide an unequivocal cause and effect inference is not possible. There's no need to parse words with respect to the language I quoted. The authors pretty directly said that unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments that are not possible.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, it is not very well controled, but we are making the experiment. I do not see the CO2 rise stopping before 500 ppm or more. If we are not already over the tipping point, we will be at some point before we reach the 500 ppm level. At some point after the tipping point there will be an adrupt climate change that will change the aspect of survival for all things living on this planet. Definately the planet will no longer support the present human population.

We have seen this progression in geological history. Feedback from PETM could explain sustained warming
© 2004 Eugene S. Takle
Feedback from PETM could explain sustained warming



An abrupt global warming 55 million years ago, often referred to as the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), occurred in connection with a massive release of 1,000-2,000 Gt of carbon in the form of methane hydrate from the ocean floor (Bowen et al., 2004). Although long-lived by human-lifetime standards, carbon dioxide (lifetime ~ 100 years) and methane (lifetime ~ 10 years) have short lifetimes by geological standards. So the reason for the sustained warming of the PETM remains a mystery. Increases in tropospheric water vapor and decreased soil sequestration of carbon, both of which will occur quickly with the stratospheric build up of carbon dioxide and methane, likely contributed as positive feedbacks to the warming. On the other hand, delayed negative feedbacks, such as weathering of silicates and delivery of nutrients and alkalinity to oceans would have contributed negative feedbacks that gradually (over 70,000 years) allowed the climate to recover from the 5 to 10 degree Celsius warming.

The noteworthy message of Bowen et al. (2004) is that not all feedbacks have the same time scale and that the carbon-induced warming of the PETM likely triggered some kind of positive feedback that amplified and sustained the abrupt rise in temperatures. The negative feedback, although possibly equally as effective, was slower to become established and lasted well beyond the effective period of the positive feedback. Will there be an analogous and abrupt positive feedback to amplify the current warming?


Reference
Bowen, G.J., D.J. Beerling, P.L. Koch, J.C. Zachos, and T. Quanttlebaum, 2004: A humid climate state during the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum. Nature, 432, 495-499.

 

[Old Rocks]

Past global warming suggests massive temperature shift in our future
mongabay.com
December 7, 2006


If past climate change is any indication, Earth could be in store for some significant global warming according to research published in the December 8, 2006, issue of the journal Science. The work suggests that climate change skeptics may be fighting a losing cause.




The study, led by Mark Pagani, associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale, looked at an episode of rapid climate change that occurred some 55 million years ago. Known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), the period was marked by a rapid rise in greenhouse gases that heated Earth by roughly 9° F (5° C), in less than 10,000 years. The climate warming caused widespread changes including mass extinction in the world's oceans due to acidification and shifts of plant communities due to changes in rainfall. The era helped set the stage for the "Age of Mammals," which included the first appearance of modern primates.

The research, based on fossil records of terrestrial plants and oceanic plankton, suggests that the world's climate is highly sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, finding that a doubling of CO2 concentrations can raise global temperatures by at least 4 ºF (2.2 ºC). Current projections show that natural background atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are expected to double around mid-century due to fossil fuel combustion.

Past global warming suggests massive temperature shift in our future

 

[elvis]

Relevant experiments were done over a hundred years ago, and defined how CO2 absorbed various wavelengths of infrared. Predictions were made that increasing the GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere would result in the warming of the Earth. That is exactly what has happened.

We have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, and the CH4 by 250%. We have leveled forests, and decreased the ability of the natural world to absorb the excess CO2 we have generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

We are now seeing the results of the increased CO2 and other GHGs in the melting of glaciers and ice caps.We are observing an acidification of the ocean waters, getting very close to an amount that will negatively affect the single celled plants and animals at the base of the food chain.

You can parse the meaning of the words all you care to. That does not change the reality of the effects of our changing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Who cares ?

Most people with a little intelligence.

And the scientists that hold the view that global warming was NOT caused by man have no intelligence?

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr Guy Harrington's Research Pages
Terrestrial environmental changes during the PETM

The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a rapid global warming event at ≈ 55.8 Ma that had major impacts upon terrestrial and marine biota. The PETM was probably caused by the massive release of greenhouse gases at similar rates to present and forecast rates of fossil fuel burning. This pulse of global warming entailed c. 8 ºC warming of sea-surface temperatures at high latitudes and an increase of land temperatures by c. 4–6 ºC in warm-temperate, continental North America. This event is well documented from several terrestrial settings but there are very few floral records from within the PETM.


Part of this research is in collaboration with Dr Scott Wing (Smithsonian Institution), Dr Jon Bloch (University of Florida), Dr Francesca Smith (Northwestern), and Doug Boyer (Stony Brook) and investigated remote parts of the Bighorn Basin which yielded fossil mammals, plants and pollen. Early results indicate that massive change occurred to plant communities leading to rapid taxonomic turnover. Plants with contemporaneous tropical distribution are found fleetingly in the Bighorn Basin together with immigrant taxa that mark the Early Eocene in warmer parts of North America, such as the US Gulf Coast. When temperatures cooled after this event, plants that thrived in the Palaeocene of the Bighorn Basin return (there is no extinction) and are joined by a few immigrant taxa that previously were found only on other Holarctic continents. The plant response to this warming varies by region because extinction of ≈20% is noted from the eastern US Gulf Coast.


I have studied other parts of North America including the Palaeocene–Eocene transition on the eastern US Gulf Coast (Mississippi and Alabama) and from North Dakota. Palynological, sedimentological and geochemical changes from North Dakota are being studied with Dr Clay Kelly and Dr Cynthia Stiles (University of Wisconsin, Madison) in order to understand the role of silicate weathering within the PETM. The PETM is present within the Golden Valley Formation which weathers as prominent brightly coloured buttes in west-central North Dakota (see below).

Dr Guy Harrington's Research Pages

 

[garyd]

In a word nonsense. CO2 has already given us 75% of the warming we can expect from CO2 alone.

 

[Old Rocks]

Who cares ?

Most people with a little intelligence.

And the scientists that hold the view that global warming was NOT caused by man have no intelligence?

As a per centage, damned few scientists deny the AGW. So we have to go through this again. Every single scientific society states AGW is a fact. Every single National Academy of Science states the same. Every single major university likewise. Irregardless of the nation or political form of government, there is an internationaly overwhelming consensus among scientists that AGW is a fact. Even one of your so called sceptics, Dr. Lindzen states that the GHGs are warming the atmosphere. He just thinks that they will not continue to do so. However, the effects that he predicted would be a negative feedback have not been observed as predicted. Not observed in a lessor amount, simply not observed at all. Therefore his hypothesis has been falsified.

Once more, the physics of GHGs has been established for over a century. We know how CO2 and other GHGs warm the atmosphere, ground, and ocean. What we do not know is how fast the natural positive feedbacks kick in. But we are finding out.

Previously stored methane is beginning to be released as the Arctic warms due to global warming. The release of methane from the Arctic seabed is in itself a contributor to global warming induced by Arctic shrinkage and the recent thawing of seabed permafrost.[6] Recent observations[7][8][9] of accelerated release in arctic ocean regions of Siberia may indicate the start of a "runaway" situation due to a positive feedback loop, with the increased atmospheric methane causing additional warming, in turn causing accelerated releases. Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian Arctic, was also recently observed to be releasing large amounts of methane, estimated at over 4 million tons.[10]

Arctic methane release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost,[11] with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal.[12][13] The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the Lena River and the border between the Laptev Sea and the East Siberian Sea. Some melting may be the result of geological heating, but more thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north.[14] Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[15] Shakhova et al (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,[16][17] equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO2.

In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[18] and the United States Geological Survey's Climate Change Science Program both identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one of four most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The USCCSP released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of this risk.[19]

 

[elvis]

Most people with a little intelligence.

And the scientists that hold the view that global warming was NOT caused by man have no intelligence?

As a per centage, damned few scientists deny the AGW. So we have to go through this again. Every single scientific society states AGW is a fact. Every single National Academy of Science states the same. Every single major university likewise. Irregardless of the nation or political form of government, there is an internationaly overwhelming consensus among scientists that AGW is a fact. Even one of your so called sceptics, Dr. Lindzen states that the GHGs are warming the atmosphere. He just thinks that they will not continue to do so. However, the effects that he predicted would be a negative feedback have not been observed as predicted. Not observed in a lessor amount, simply not observed at all. Therefore his hypothesis has been falsified.

Once more, the physics of GHGs has been established for over a century. We know how CO2 and other GHGs warm the atmosphere, ground, and ocean. What we do not know is how fast the natural positive feedbacks kick in. But we are finding out.

Previously stored methane is beginning to be released as the Arctic warms due to global warming. The release of methane from the Arctic seabed is in itself a contributor to global warming induced by Arctic shrinkage and the recent thawing of seabed permafrost.[6] Recent observations[7][8][9] of accelerated release in arctic ocean regions of Siberia may indicate the start of a "runaway" situation due to a positive feedback loop, with the increased atmospheric methane causing additional warming, in turn causing accelerated releases. Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian Arctic, was also recently observed to be releasing large amounts of methane, estimated at over 4 million tons.[10]

Arctic methane release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost,[11] with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal.[12][13] The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the Lena River and the border between the Laptev Sea and the East Siberian Sea. Some melting may be the result of geological heating, but more thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north.[14] Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[15] Shakhova et al (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,[16][17] equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO2.

In 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system[18] and the United States Geological Survey's Climate Change Science Program both identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one of four most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The USCCSP released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of this risk.[19]

And those who deny it's man-made, they got their degrees out of a cracker jack box, correct?

 

[Old Rocks]

In a word nonsense. CO2 has already given us 75% of the warming we can expect from CO2 alone.

Show your source for this assertation. For it is not at all true.

 

[Old Rocks]

Elvis, I know a few mossybacked geologists that still do not accept Tectonic Theory. Singer, one of your prize climate sceptics, has also testified that cigarettes are harmless. In fact, a great many of the present scientists being used by Inhofe also testified for the tobacco industry.

 

[garyd]

Nice lie. The Hungarian who claims we can expect all of One degree warming most of which we have already experienced from CO2 works fortobacco industry Now? Scientist from India work for big tobacco?

This is just more strandard leftist cant attempting to demonize those who don't go along to get along.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nice lie. The Hungarian who claims we can expect all of One degree warming most of which we have already experienced from CO2 works fortobacco industry Now? Scientist from India work for big tobacco?

This is just more strandard leftist cant attempting to demonize those who don't go along to get along.

Still no source for this mythical Hungarian scientist. Not even a name. Come on, Gary, you can do better than that. Name names and sources. Thus far, you are doing the tooth fairy act.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nice lie. The Hungarian who claims we can expect all of One degree warming most of which we have already experienced from CO2 works fortobacco industry Now? Scientist from India work for big tobacco?

This is just more strandard leftist cant attempting to demonize those who don't go along to get along.

By the way, no demonization needed. You people are just freakin' stupid. You constantly try to back statements with, "well, I heard this at some time or another, some famous scientist said it, I know it is so, so just accept it". This is a discussion of a scientific subject. You are expected to back your statements with sources and verification. Thus far, you have shown yourself to be incapable of doing so.

 

[garyd]

Ask and ye shall recieve that and a whole lot more:
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Ask and ye shall recieve that and a whole lot more:
Global Warming Science in Perspective.

Wonderful, absolutely wonderful


Midweek Cuckoo:Gary Novak « moonflake



I have mentioned mushroom scientists Gary Novak before, but it was prior to the inception of the Midweek Cuckoo, and I did not do him the justice he truly deserves. I believe Gary’s time has come.

Gary Novak has a master’s degree in biochemistry, specialising in yeast physiology. According to him, ‘mental pain’ forced him out of graduate school (apparently “mental pain is caused by distracting sights or sounds which contact memories containing pain which are too close to the surface”) and he retreated to the peace of a vacated farm in South Dakota, were he has been ever since.

Gary has spent the last 30 years researching the evolution of the morel mushroom, and has concluded that the morel mushroom is in the process of evolving from a yeast. I’m not really qualified to comment on the veracity of that, but the mycology community has apparently not published any of his research, a fact which Gary believes is evidence of a massive conspiracy in the scientific community to hide the truth. It’s Gary’s bizarre misunderstanding of physics that I am actually qualified to address, and believe me, in all my years teaching and tutoring the subject I have never seen someone misconstrue the theories of physics quite so… thoroughly.


Let’s start with a quote from him, just to warm you up to the way he thinks:

I was thinking about Einstein’s equation which says that the energy in matter is equal to its mass time the velocity of light squared. It occurred to me that he would have had something if he hadn’t squared the velocity of light, because nothing can move at velocity squared.

Yes indeed, Gary appears to think that the “c squared” is meant to imply that something is actually moving at velocity squared. Of course, it has lead him to question the equation of kinetic energy, which also includes a velocity squared. Here’s Gary’s opening salvo:

So I started reviewing the subject. There is a precursor formula for the kinetic energy equation. It says force times distance equals kinetic energy for an accelerating mass. I immediately recognized the force-distance analysis to be erroneous, because the force does not move through any distance relative to the mass it acts upon. Distance relates to the starting point, while the force does not act upon the starting point.

Gary embarks on a long winded “proof” where he invalidly tries to compare the acceleration of a mass-losing rocket against gravity to the falling of a constant-mass object accelerated by gravity, and thinks that because he doesn’t get the same answers in the two completely different situations, somehow this disproves all of physics.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ye Gods and little fishes, I give you articles from the National Academy of Sciences, and you give me complete flakes.