Skip to main content

View Diary: Carter & Harris: Gore "an embarrassment to U.S. science" (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  On the other hand, at YKos, (0+ / 0-)

    I talked with a professor of atmospheric science at Duke University for thirty years, and he was not convinced that CO2 was forcing global warming.

    We didn't take issue with the fact of global warming, but with anthropogenic CO2 forcing of global warming.

    But I'll advocate for lowering CO2 because it is a unifying enemy that everyone can get together and hate, and maybe not hate each other so much.

    Thanks for the free book, "The Weathermakers." I'm reading it. Not done yet.

    The perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Don't be an ideot.

    by ormondotvos on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:29:20 AM PDT

    •  See, there's a difference. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lorenzodow

      "Not convinced" is a whole lot different than the message of ignorance these people like to perpetuate.

      Even I know the link between CO2 and global warming is not proven.  But I also recognize that we may not be able to wait until it's proven; by then it will probably be too late.

      I view it as more of a cost-benefit analysis.  What are the costs if we do nothing about it, if it's true?

      •  Then you are wrong. The link between (4+ / 0-)

        CO2 and global warming IS  proven.

        Find a single peer-reviewed scientific paper which denies it.

        Also, see my post below about the CO2-global warming connection.

        Why do you think the Venus is so damn hot? No not just because it is closer to the Sun than the Earth.
        Actually the Merkur is even closer and it's surface is cooler than that of the Venus.

        Venus
        Avg. distance from Sun 108,208,926 km
        CO2 96.5%
        Surface mean temperature  737 K.

        Merkur
        Avg. distance from Sun 57,909,176 km
        CO2 3.6%
        Surface mean temperature 440 K

        •  Careful there. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rustybias

          I come from a background in mathematics, so when I say "proven", it's to a much more rigorous standard than most would have.  Identifying a strong correlation is not yet enough to say something is proven, as correlation does not imply causation.  Even "clear and undeniable evidence" does not imply that it's "proven", at least mathematically speaking.

          I will say there's a very strong link between the two.  But I'll also say that when there's a strong correlation between two things, there's usually a reason behind it.  So even if there isn't a causal relationship, there's probably some kind of confounding or hidden factor behind the scenes causing the correlation, and that in itself should be investigated.

          I agree with you about the connection.  I just want us to be careful not to misuse a loaded word like "prove" when talking about these things.

          •  By that standard nothing can be proven outside of (0+ / 0-)
            mathematics.

            But of course people use the word "proven" often when they see irrefutable physicical evidence for something.

            It's not colleration it's causation.
            More GHG in the atmosphere leads to higher global mean temperatures.

            "So even if there isn't a causal relationship, there's probably some kind of confounding or hidden factor behind the scenes causing the correlation, and that in itself should be investigated"

            What does that "confounding or hidden factor behind the scenes causing the correlation" mean in this particular case?

            The word 'prove' has meaning outside of mathematics,
            whether you like it or not.

    •  If he is so sure why doesn't he publish (4+ / 0-)

      his views in peer-reviewed journals?

      And if he has done it where is it?

      " that CO2 was forcing global warming."

      "with anthropogenic CO2 forcing of global warming."

      So which is it? The two are not one and the same.

      There are both natural and man-made causes of post-industrial warming. But if you want to understand the difference watch this video:

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      Did the professor tell you that if not man-made GHG emission then what explains the scale and speed of warning in the post-industrial age?
      Or does he say that post-industrial warning is not anomalous? If so when did a similar warming period occur in the past?

      Remember that many sceptics even in the early 90s simply denied that the Earth was warming.
      Since that argument collapsed completely now they are shifting to the "OK there is global warming but humans have nothing to do with it" an argument which essentially claims that despite putting billions of tones of GHG/year into the atmosphere, and despite now having the highest CO2 levels in 650,000 years (380 ppm) and despite having irrefutable evidence of CO2-induced global warming somehow we still are not responsible for post-industrial warming.

      Hello? Would that professor explain what happens to those billions of tones of man-made GHG?

      There was a debate about this on a Gore board.
      The skeptic referred to a paper by  Mark Pagani (see: http://earth.geology.yale.edu/... et al as evidence that in the past while CO2 levels were higher than today tempretures were lower.

      So someone contacted Mark Pagani to ask him whether this was true and as usual it turned out that the skeptic misrepresented Pagani's paper.
      Here's what Pagani wrote:

      The miocene appears to have been warmer relative to today. The height of the climatic optimum centers at ~17 million years ago. CO2 appears to have been lower than today...closer to pre-industrial values. No one has any estimates of other green house gases, like water vapor or methane.

      These estimates and time periods cover many millions of years. Over those time scales other factors are critical to climate, like changes in geography, mountain building (Himalayas, Andes, and others), and ocean circulation, that are irrelevant to discussion regarding modern climate change.

      There is clear and undeniable evidence for CO2-induced warming...CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" trap long wave radiation (heat) radiating from the earth and sustain the earth's ambient temperature...without an atmosphere the earth would be 30 C cooler (go spend a night on the moon and see how comfortable that is)..the more trapping ability of the earth's atmosphere ..the more heat is sustained. If geologic time is invoked as an argument against CO2 warming, I advice you to look at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum 55 million years ago. This event occurred on time scales equivalent to today's scenario (in a few thousand years) and was sustained for only ~100,000 years. Prior to 55 million years ago CO2 appears to have been quite high..(~2000 ppmv)..likely an ice-free world (consistent with high CO2) with broad leaf forests surround the Arctic. During the event CO2 rapidly rose (estimates and reasons vary..but there had to be about 2 doublings of CO2) as evidenced by the change in the carbon isotopic composition of carbon and the massive dissolution of carbonates in the ocean (CO2 is actually an acid and will lower pH ..as is evident today). the earth experienced a 5 C rise in temperature...So even under extremely warm conditions and very high CO2 levels, the earth warmed even more as would be predicted.
      your friend is either misinformed or is politically motivated to ignore the evidence.
      yours, mark

      Touche.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site