# brazil84's Global Warming Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693 "2007-12-12T02:16:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/101 "2007-12-17T15:19:59Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] You’re not admitting your ignorance. You are admitting other people’s ignorance. [/quote] What are you talking about? I admit that I did not know about Milankovitch cycles until yesterday. I don’t claim to understand what causes ice ages. I don’t claim to understand what caused the Medieval Warm Period. And I don’t claim to understand what caused temperatures to increase this century. > [@](#): > > I.e., you are saying that you think that you know better than the scientists themselves (and the National Academy of Sciences, etc., etc.) what they understand and how well they understand it. If you really understand these things well, then you need to be able to answer challenging questions about them. If you dodge the questions, it suggests that you don’t understand things as well as you claim to. > [@](#): > > You’re going to have to be more specific. I don’t see where you are talking about where CO2 changes significantly in one direction and temperature in the other. Here’s what I said before: > [@](#): > > As far as I can tell, it’s widely accepted that in the past, there have been numerous periods of rising temperature followed by rising CO2 levels, followed by decreasing temperature, followed by decreasing CO2 levels Was this not specific enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/102 "2007-12-17T16:31:02Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Was this not specific enough for you? [/QUOTE] And, this contradicts the current scientific understanding that I explained to you how? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/103 "2007-12-17T16:33:43Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] And, this contradicts the current scientific understanding that I explained to you how? [/QUOTE] Who says it does? All I did was ask a simple question. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/104 "2007-12-17T17:02:06Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Who says it does? All I did was ask a simple question. [/QUOTE] Well, your questions often seem to be irrelevant word games. The important point of the scientific understanding of those cycles is the conclusion that the climate sensitivity is about 3 C for the radiative forcing produced by a doubling of CO2 levels. You can refer to this as Lex Luther overwhelming Superman for all I care. The words don’t matter (although some descriptive language is better than others, clearly, in communicating what is going on)…What matters is the mathematics and science. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/105 "2007-12-17T17:10:54Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] Well, your questions often seem to be irrelevant word games. . [/QUOTE] I don’t know what to tell you. How exactly is my question a “word game”? Here’s the question again: > [@](#): > > Interesting, so you believe that the effects of a change in sunlight distrubution was enough to dominate the CO2/warming loop that has been hypthesized? Where is the game? What is ambiguous about my question? How exactly is it unfair? ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/106 "2007-12-17T21:07:41Z")
I haven’t read any of the 60+ responses that have occured since this post; if I’m repeating something someone else said or addressing points you’ve retracted, I apologize, and if I’m saying something that contradicts someone else, I’ll address the contradiction as I move through the thread. > [@brazil84](#): > > The calculation I was referring to was in Post 10. What you quoted is more of a conclusory statement than a calculation. The calculation in post #10 is a detailed version of the conclusion posted in post #1. In post #1, I stated that the calculated blackbody temperature of the Earth is 248K and its actual temperature is 287K. Post #10 is the calculation of the first part. > [@brazil84](#): > > Assume that total pre-industrial greenhouse warming is 35 C. If 5% is due to CO2, that’s 1.75 degrees due to CO2. 38% of 1.75 is indeed about 0.7. > > Ok, now take a look at this chart that compares global temperature and CO2 levels: The chart you provided has nothing to do with the calculation you posted. As a matter of fact, you are now citing a proxy CO[sub]2[/sub] record (despite your insistence on first-principle calculations only) to try and contest a bona fide first-principle calculation. If you accept the calculation, then you accept the fact that CO[sub]2[/sub] is competent to affect the changes we see. > [@brazil84](#): > > [http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/05/historic\_co2.jpg](http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/05/historic_co2.jpg) What’s so confusing about this picture is why you think this would be evidence in your favor. (1) The CO[sub]2[/sub] record here is proxy data. I’m not exactly sure what the proxy is, but considering they didn’t know about atoms in 1880, I’m pretty sure they weren’t measuring CO[sub]2[/sub]. (2) It’s unsurprising that CO[sub]2[/sub] doesn’t track exactly with temperature. As you’re so quick to point out, there are plenty of natural cycles in the temperature record, and as the IPCC has pointed out (which, might I helpfully add, is a _great_ reason to actually read the report), the anthropogenic effect is probably only in the back half of the century (which your graph suggests). > [@brazil84](#): > > Not really. It looks as though you have misunderstood my point. Perhaps; re-phrase your point using standard climatological definitions and the explanation process is going to be easier. > [@brazil84](#): > > Not at all. The models predict different amounts of CO2 increases AND different responses of the climate to those changes. If there are different CO[sub]2[/sub] increases, why would you expect the climatic change to remain constant? Each model has the same response to CO[sub]2[/sub] _per unit increase_. That is, if we knew exactly how much CO[sub]2[/sub] we would be emitting in 2050 (an economic, not a climatological, question), then we could predict with much smaller error bars what the climatological response would be. The differences that you see between the SRES scenarios, then, represents economic uncertainty; the variation within a SRES scenario the climatological uncertainty. > [@brazil84](#): > > A specific example [of being able to compare two values without knowing their absolute magnitudes] What makes you think your specific example applies to this situation, then? > [@brazil84](#): > > Nope. But you claim that two values can NEVER be compared if their magnitudes aren’t known. That’s simply false. I guess you’re right. In accounting and perhaps a few other fields, you can. Comparing economic growth to climatological damage is not one of them. > [@brazil84](#): > > Can you give me some cites and quotes? Thanks! Sure! ][IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001)](http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm), [NAS Climate Change Report (2001)](http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange/), and [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007)](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm). You declined my simple request for proving you read the linked citations; I’m not going to spend time finding and quoting the relevant passages for you. The offer is open - at any point when I see evidence that you’ve actually clicked on those links and absorbed a little bit about what scientists have said, I’d be more than happy to quote you exact passages. > [@brazil84](#): > > Then why did you say this earlier: Because the thread is specifically about answering question _in_ order. > [@brazil84](#): > > Dude, you’re the one who brought up economic growth – it wasn’t me. But I’m happy to cease discussion of the issue in this thread and leave the discussion for my economic growth thread. I don’t disagree you’d be happy to cease discussion in this thread, since you don’t really respond to any of the climatological points. This really goes back to the question of how you’re going to argue the economics of something when you don’t know how it works. You have yet to answer the questions posed to you in a previous post: > [@aptronym](#): > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > I think that’s [that global temperatures have risen] probably true but I think it’s likely that global temperatures haven’t risen as much as some claim. > > On what basis do you contest the instrumental temperature record? > > … > > IPCC 3AR WG1: Chpater 2.2, esp. Figure 2-7. > NAS CCR: Chapter 5. > IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 1, esp. Figure 1.3. > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > I don’t know [if humans caused greenhouse gas increases]. > > Well, scientists do. > > IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 3.4, esp. Figure 3-3. > NAS CCR: Chapter 3. > IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 2.3, esp. Figure 2.3, and take special note of Figure 2.3(b) and learn why 13C/12C is super-important in determining how much CO2 comes from fossil fuels. > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > No [I do not accept that greenhouse gases are competent and necessary to explain warming]. > > On what basis? Scientists disagree with you. > > Competency: > IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 6.13, esp. Figure 6-6. > NAS CCR: Chapter 5. > IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 2.1, esp. Figure FAQ 2.1 > > Necessity: > IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 12.2, esp. Figure 12-7. > NAS CCR: Chapter 5. > IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 9, esp. Figure 9.5. > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > No [I do not believe increases in temperature will cause net harm]. > > On what basis? Scientists disagree with you. > > IPCC 3AR WG2: Chapter 2.6, esp. Figure SPM-1. > IPCC 4AR WG2: Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM-2. ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/107 "2007-12-17T21:26:46Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Personally, I believe that that the best interpretation of current science is that global warming is occurring, and man is partly responsible for it. However, I hate to see the politicization of science, and the global warming debate is far too politicized. Skeptics have a hard time getting government funding. [/quote] Even if science were politicized, you’d have a hard time explaining away the NAS support of the IPCC. As I’ve pointed out but it’s worth repeating … (1) The NAS was created prior to industrialization, 30 years before the first mention of global warming, 120 years before the Vostok ice core was pulled and global warming research really began, and 140 years before the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. (2) The NAS, although appointed by Lincoln, has propagated itself without any political influences for 140 years, and has been selective of the top U.S. scientists on the basis of their scientific prowess alone. (3) The NAS was asked by a Republican-dominated Congress and President; and funded by a Republican-dominated Congress. (4) None of the NAS’s recommendations were adopted by Congress or championed by the President. It’s really hard to make a case that the NAS report is politicized in any way. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > I would by no means call the debate closed. For that matter, no scientific debate should ever be called ‘closed’ but should always be open to new evidence and new theories. I agree in principle - and challenge you to think about such “new evidence” and “new theories”. You’ve cited two Senate reports, two mainstream media articles, and a blog as “evidence”. Are you seriously saying that these are less politicized than the NAS report? You’ve also cited new theories - except that no other theory adequately explains the observed data. Let’s say, for instance, that anthropogenic gases are not causing warming. In that case, we have warming which greatly outweighs the observed causes. In essence, you are asked to choose between the following: (A) The Earth is warming, humans are increasing GHG’s, the effect of GHG’s is 12x more powerful than observed natural factors, and the difference between natural factors alone and observations is exactly the magnitude of anthropogenic factors. (B) The Earth is warming, humans are increasing GHG’s, but the two are totally uncorrelated. We can’t explain why the Earth is warming so much, but we’re sure that this is due to as-yet undiscovered natural factors. The latter does not constitute a scientific theory. It fails to explain the observed data. Now, if global warming skeptics were to actually come up with a valid theory - one that explicitly explains all the observed data and makes testable predictions - I would be happy to consider it. Contrary to popular belief, science journals publish contradictory information all the time. My favorite was a series of back-to-back Nature articles from 2004, the first which argued Voyager 2 had passed the heliopause, and the second of which argued it hadn’t. Both sides had ample evidence in their favor; the decisive experiment couldn’t be run because the machine had been broken down. ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/108 "2007-12-17T21:47:13Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] You’ve got me thoroughly confused. I’m not arguing the temperatures. Or the ice cores. [/quote] Let me put it simply: how do you know that a Medival Warming Period existed at all? Your answer would be that the proxy temperature data from ice cores and tree rings shows it - without such data, we really have no clue what temperatures were like prior to 1880. > [@Quartz](#): > > I agree that we’ve been emitting plenty of CO2. Okay, so the question is whether the CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere is the same CO[sub]2[/sub] that we’ve been emitting. And this question has a very clever answer - how do we tell where the CO[sub]2[/sub] came from? The answer is isotopic labeling. Plants prefer [sup]12[/sup]C (carbon-12) over [sup]13[/sup]C. In our atmosphere, present-day plants readily exchange both with the atmosphere, so that there is an equilibrium value. However, in old plant matter (fossil fuels), there’s an unusually low concentration of [sup]13[/sup]C because it has not exchanged with the atmosphere for a long time. We can tell whether burning fossil fuels actually causes the increase because we can observe the concentration of [sup]13[/sup]C drop as CO[sub]2[/sub] increases. > [@Quartz](#): > > Wrong question. I’ll repeat: has the CO2 we’ve emitted caused the warming we’ve seen? It is entirely possible - there’s a good corellation - but TTBOMK, it has yet to be **proven**. I’ll try and restate what we know; then, I’ll let you respond as to whether you think this constitutes a proof or not. (1) The CO[sub]2[/sub] that we’ve emitted is _capable_ of causing the temperature increase (the first-principle calculations I’ve posted to **brazil84** ). (2) The amount CO[sub]2[/sub] that we’ve emitted “pushes” (radiative forcing) the temperature 12x harder than natural forces _that we know about_. (3) When you run simulations of past temperature and omit greenhouse gas forcing, you cannot reconcile the data (there is a large gap). When you include it, you see a good match. Without creating a duplicate Earth and selectively increasing the CO[sub]2[/sub] on one (which would constitute a formal “proof” of causality), what would you like to see before you say that this is more than correlation? > [@Quartz](#): > > But there might be another cause entirely: we’re currently at the warming level of the MWP and AGW didn’t cause that. Or did it? The absolute temperature doesn’t matter. We could be colder than the MWP and still be looking at AGW. AGW is about the rate at which temperatures are increasing - the Earth could be getting colder, but AGW could slow it down; likewise, the Earth could be getting warming, but AGW could accelerate it. Scientists believe the latter is the case - the Earth would otherwise be slowly warming without us, but that with us, this warming is much faster. This may be repetitive, but it’s worth repeating - _even if temperatures were getting colder, anthropogenic global warming might still be true!_ In this case, we’d be cheering global warming, but that eloquently explains why the questions I listed have to be considered in order. What scientists are sure about is that the world is getting warmer and that we’re a partial, if not the major, cause. Now the next question is equally important - _will global warming actually hurt us_? The answer is far less certain than the first two questions. ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/109 "2007-12-17T21:51:53Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] This is much too close to a personal insult. Back off. [/quote] Am I allowed to repeat citations that he asks for that have already been posted, and/or harp on the fact that they’ve already been posted? ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/110 "2007-12-17T22:00:16Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Lol. I got the 5% number from **aptronym**. It’s his or her calculation. And I agree that it’s not right – I was simply using his or her “linear” assumption. [/quote] (1) I’m a “him”. (2) Nice try at playing us off one another, but it’s futile. Linear or logarithmic, the difference would mean the difference between you being absolutely wrong and just wrong. As claimed by Lindzen, the difference between linear and logarithmic is a factor of 3. If the linear assumption is correct, the anticipated warming from GHG is +0.7[sup]o[/sup]C. If the logarithmic is correct, the warming is only +0.2[sup]o[/sup]C. Either way, if you read the IPCC report, you’ll note that only “most” of the warming _in the back half of the century_ is attributed to anthropogenic causes - half (the bottom end of “most”) of the half of the observed +0.8[sup]o[/sup]C warming is +0.2[sup]o[/sup]C. In other words, if Lindzen is right, then the IPCC is dead right. If Lindzen is wrong, the IPCC is actually underestimating the effect of CO[sub]2[/sub]. Under no scenario are you correct. > [@brazil84](#): > > He or she really claimed that a simple calculation involving CO2 can and does account for observed warming. And that models are necessary only to confirm this result. Really? [QUOTE=aptronym, post #1] Just to be clear, the greenhouse effect is certainly not linear, but we’re in the right ballpark here. [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/111 "2007-12-17T22:14:50Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] As far as I can tell, it’s widely accepted that in the past, there have been numerous periods of rising temperature followed by rising CO2 levels, followed by decreasing temperature, followed by decreasing CO2 levels. [/QUOTE] Not exactly. The data you’re probably talking about is the Vostok ice core data, which shows a strong correlation of CO[sub]2[/sub], dust, and temperature. That sometimes CO[sub]2[/sub] level rises precede temperature rises and sometimes lag has been a subject of debate (which is probably what you’re thinking of). We’ll answer the question you asked first. > [@brazil84](#): > > What caused the temperatures to decrease? The answer is simple - a variety of things. The IPCC reports, if you bothered to read them, would tell you that many things affect temperature - both positively and negatively. Dust and particulates (both from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions and meteorite impacts) cool the Earth, for instance. In the past, it’s quite likely that these, along with orbital factors, caused the Earth to cool and warm (Milkanovitch cycles). Now, let’s answer the more interesting question you didn’t ask. > [@various global warming skeptics](#): > > How do we know that current CO[sub]2[/sub] increases aren’t an effect instead of a cause of current temperature increases? A good question with a technical answer. Let’s explain how this works first. Oceans work as large resevoirs of CO[sub]2[/sub]. They absorb and emit CO[sub]2[/sub] and act as buffers. The solubility of CO[sub]2[/sub] is lower at higher temperatures - so when temperatures rise, the oceans _can_ release CO[sub]2[/sub] (which is why we sometimes see lagging). On the other hand, as shown before, CO[sub]2[/sub] can cause temperatures to increase (which is why we sometimes see leading). So the big question is which scenario are we seeing right now? To answer this, you look at the oceans - if it’s the first scenario, we would expect the oceans to be _releasing_ CO[sub]2[/sub]. **But they’re not.** The oceans are taking up a sizable chunk of the CO[sub]2[/sub] that we’re emitting. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/112 "2007-12-17T22:51:41Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I don’t know what to tell you. How exactly is my question a “word game”? Here’s the question again: > [@](#): > > Interesting, so you believe that the effects of a change in sunlight distrubution was enough to dominate the CO2/warming loop that has been hypthesized? Where is the game? What is ambiguous about my question? How exactly is it unfair? [/QUOTE] I don’t understand what you mean by dominating. But, let me answer the question this way: When CO2 levels are remaining fairly constant while the Milankovitch orbital cycles are causing the sunlight distribution to change (and thus causing ice sheets to grow or shrink) then, yes, the forcing due to the latter can be larger than the forcing due to the former. In any given situation, you have to compare the radiative forcings of each thing that is happening. ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/113 "2007-12-17T23:44:16Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I have no idea [whether models predict that temperatures should run off into a Venus or Mars-like state]. But that’s not the point. [/quote] Maybe this isn’t the point that you’re talking about directly, but it’s a big point in general. That you have no idea what the models predict is an enormous disadvantage in a rational debate - especially since the models, their results, and scientifically agreed interpretation of those results _has been linked to you_. The point is not only that the model data is known, but also that it is _known to you_. This thread is not about some tree-dwelling environut telling you that the world is coming to an end. This is about three scientists telling you this is what scientists think, and then _linking you to the data which says so_ while you ignore the evidence and repeatedly call for citations already given. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/114 "2007-12-18T00:14:41Z")
[QUOTE=aptronym] The calculation in post #10 is a detailed version of the conclusion posted in post #1. [/quote] Yes or no: The calculation in post #10 contains no variable that corresponds to CO2. Simple yes or no question. > [@](#): > > The chart you provided has nothing to do with the calculation you posted. > As a matter of fact, you are now citing a proxy CO[sub]2[/sub] record (despite your insistence on first-principle calculations only) Where do I insist on first-principle calculations only? Anyway . . . yes or no: There have been periods in the last 130 years when CO2 levels rose and average temperatures fell. Simple yes or no question. > [@](#): > > It’s unsurprising that CO[sub]2[/sub] doesn’t track exactly with temperature. As you’re so quick to point out, there are plenty of natural cycles in the temperature record, In that case, your simple calculation doesn’t mean much. Indeed, when **jshore** read my response to your post, he or she apparently thought I had constructed a strawman. > [@](#): > > Perhaps; re-phrase your point using standard climatological definitions and the explanation process is going to be easier. I already defined my terms. If you have a specific question, I will try to answer it. > [@](#): > > If there are different CO[sub]2[/sub] increases, why would you expect the climatic change to remain constant? Who says I do? > [@](#): > > Each model has the same response to CO[sub]2[/sub] _per unit increase_. That is, if we knew exactly how much CO[sub]2[/sub] we would be emitting in 2050 (an economic, not a climatological, question), then we could predict with much smaller error bars what the climatological response would be. And if we knew exactly how climate responds to CO2, we could predict with much smaller error bars what the future climate will be like. Right? > [@](#): > > What makes you think your specific example applies to this situation, then? Because in either situation, you have a net quantity. We know that there has been a net increase in human well being in the last 100 years. It’s as simple as that. > [@](#): > > Sure! I don’t see any quotes. > [@](#): > > You declined my simple request for proving you read the linked citations; I’m not going to spend time finding and quoting the relevant passages for you. And I’m not going to spend my time doing your research for you. If you claim that some authority supports your position, simply quote that authority and link to it. It’s as simple as that. > [@](#): > > I don’t disagree you’d be happy to cease discussion in this thread, since you don’t really respond to any of the climatological points. Dude, what are you talking about? I offered to stop talking about economic growth at your request and even though you are the one who brought the issue up. > [@](#): > > You have yet to answer the questions posed to you in a previous post: If you want to present something concrete, as opposed to waving your hands around the IPCC reports, I will attempt to respond to your points. (To the extent that you have fairly characterized my position.) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/115 "2007-12-18T00:30:26Z")
[QUOTE=aptronym] (1) I’m a “him”. (2) Nice try at playing us off one another, but it’s futile. [/quote] Dude, did you read **jshore** ’s post? I was responding to you, and he or she thought I had constructed a strawman. Among other things, he or she asked where I got the 5% figure from – I told him or her it came from you. > [@](#): > > As claimed by Lindzen, the difference between linear and logarithmic is a factor of 3. If the linear assumption is correct, the anticipated warming from GHG is +0.7[sup]o[/sup]C. If the logarithmic is correct, the warming is only +0.2[sup]o[/sup]C. > > Either way, if you read the IPCC report, you’ll note that only “most” of the warming _in the back half of the century_ is attributed to anthropogenic causes - half (the bottom end of “most”) of the half of the observed +0.8[sup]o[/sup]C warming is +0.2[sup]o[/sup]C. 0.2C over what time period? > [@](#): > > Under no scenario are you correct. What exactly is the claim I made that you feel is incorrect? > [@](#): > > Really? Really. > [@aptronym](#): > > I HEREBY SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOP - READ THE OP, IT CONTAINS A FIRST-PRINCIPLE CALCULATION WITHOUT ANY MODELS THAT SHOWS THE MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTION OF OBSERVED CO2 LEVELS MATCHES THE INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE EFFECT! > [@aptronym](#): > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > if one could calculate the effects of increased CO2 from first principles; and the effects were increased temperature that lined up with historical temperatures, then why would anyone use GCMs to predict AGW? > > Because of skepticism. One proof of anthropogenic global warming isn’t enough. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/116 "2007-12-18T00:33:07Z")
[QUOTE=aptronym] Maybe this isn’t the point that you’re talking about directly, but it’s a big point in general. [/quote] Then let’s discuss it. > [@](#): > > That you have no idea what the models predict Lol. That’s not exactly what I said. > [@](#): > > This is about three scientists telling you this is what scientists think, and then _linking you to the data which says so_ while you ignore the evidence and repeatedly call for citations already given. Sorry, but I’m not your research assistant. If you have some authoritative source, then quote it. ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/117 "2007-12-18T01:09:25Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Yes or no: The calculation in post #10 contains no variable that corresponds to CO2. Simple yes or no question. [/quote] No. > [@brazil84](#): > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > If it were possible to demonstrate the currently popular CO2 AGW theory with a first order calculation (and without models that incorporate positive feedback loops) the warmers would be screaming about it from the rooftops. > > > > But just give me a cite. > > Where do I insist on first-principle calculations only? Post #35, as quoted above. > [@brazil84](#): > > yes or no: There have been periods in the last 130 years when CO2 levels rose and average temperatures fell. > > Simple yes or no question. Yes. The explanations are in each of the three reports linked at the beginning - IPCC 3AR, NAS CCR, and IPCC 4AR; furthermore, I’ve alluded to the reasons in my last flurry of posts. If you read each of the posts I made today and take five minutes of critical thinking, you will determine for yourself why this is the case and why it actually supports, rather than detracts from, the IPCC reports. > [@brazil84](#): > > In that case, your simple calculation doesn’t mean much. Indeed, when **jshore** read my response to your post, he or she apparently thought I had constructed a strawman. Another veiled attempt to try and play your opponents off of one another? Here’s a simple yes or no question for you: Do you accept my first order calculation as proof that CO[sub]2[/sub] is competent to affect the temperature changes we see? > [@brazil84](#): > > I already defined my terms. If you have a specific question, I will try to answer it. I’ve already posted my specific questions. You categorize “sensitive” and “non-sensitive” scenarios based on the temperature ranges they give, and then you claim that the temperature ranges are solely a function of sensitivity - a conclusion which is obvious because you’re claiming correlation to a self-categorized variable. Simple question: what variable is the independent variable, and what variable is the dependent variable in your analysis? > [@brazil84](#): > > Who says I do? You do. > [@brazil84](#): > > A model that predicts a lot of warming for a certain increase in CO2 levels is sensitive. A model that predicts less warming for the same increase is less sensitive. > [@brazil84](#): > > The models predict different amounts of CO2 increases AND different responses of the climate to those changes. If you agree that models predict different amounts of CO[sub]2[/sub] increases, why _wouldn’t_ you expect different responses? If the different models predict different amounts of CO[sub]2[/sub] increases, then your classification of the models as “sensitive” versus “non-sensitive” simply reflect the differences in projected CO[sub]2[/sub], not differential response to per-unit changes. > [@brazil84](#): > > Because in either situation, you have a net quantity. We know that there has been a net increase in human well being in the last 100 years. It’s as simple as that. No, it’s not. (1) There is still an unaddressed inconsistency in your argument. If you don’t accept that global warming causes net harm, then you concede the possibility that global warming, not economics, has caused the increase in human well-being. (2) Even if you resolve the inconsistency in (1), you still have to point out why you’d think that economics is winning by a large margin - I could claim that global warming in the 20th century has reduced our GDP by 99%, and that had global warming not occurred, we would be 100x richer today than we currently are. (3) Once you finish explaining (2), then you have to explain why you would dismiss efforts to curb global warming - after all, even if global warming had a small effect, if scientists predicted it would be 10x worse in the 21st century (i.e. +10[sup]o[/sup]C and that the effects were exponential (i.e. 1000x worse than seen), then a 10-fold increase in GDP may not be enough to offset the problem. What you are claiming is that without any knowledge of how much the Earth has warmed in the past 100 years (since you criticize the instrumental temperature record in post #35), and without any knowledge of how much the Earth is expected to warm, and without any knowledge of how harmful such a warming would be, that a 10-fold increase in world GDP will clearly trump any of those effects. That is a clearly indefensible position. > [@brazil84](#): > > I don’t see any quotes … And I’m not going to spend my time doing your research for you. You have links in post #1 of this thread and then a chapter and section citation with an exact figure citation. You are not doing my research for me - you are doing your research for yourself. > [@brazil84](#): > > If you claim that some authority supports your position, simply quote that authority and link to it. It’s as simple as that. If only it were as simple as that! In post #38 of the Economic Hockey Stick thread, you asked for quotes that showed the NAS supported the IPCC. In post #39 you were given 6 quotes. In post #40, you dismissed all six quotes with: [QUOTE=brazil84] Whatever. I read your selections. My point stands. [/QUOTE] Simple yes or no question: Were the quoted passages exactly what you requested? > [@brazil84](#): > > If you want to present something concrete, as opposed to waving your hands around the IPCC reports, I will attempt to respond to your points. (To the extent that you have fairly characterized my position.) I have presented top-level reviews of peer-reviewed data (the IPCC and NAS reports) and then I have cited you the exact subchapter and exact graphs that support my position. Then I supplemented that with the first-principle calculations you requested. You have yet to respond in any factual way to any of the data presented. You have also taken up positions factually contrary to the IPCC and NAS and then refused to answer direct questions about the basis on which you do so. Should there ever be a question about which direct questions those may be … > [@aptronym](#): > > [Quote=brazil84] > I think that’s [that global temperatures have risen] probably true but I think it’s likely that global temperatures haven’t risen as much as some claim. On what basis do you contest the instrumental temperature record? … IPCC 3AR WG1: Chpater 2.2, esp. Figure 2-7. NAS CCR: Chapter 5. IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 1, esp. Figure 1.3. [Quote=brazil84] I don’t know [if humans caused greenhouse gas increases]. [/quote] Well, scientists do. IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 3.4, esp. Figure 3-3. NAS CCR: Chapter 3. IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 2.3, esp. Figure 2.3, and take special note of Figure 2.3(b) and learn why 13C/12C is super-important in determining how much CO2 comes from fossil fuels. [Quote=brazil84] No [I do not accept that greenhouse gases are competent and necessary to explain warming]. [/quote] On what basis? Scientists disagree with you. Competency: IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 6.13, esp. Figure 6-6. NAS CCR: Chapter 5. IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 2.1, esp. Figure FAQ 2.1 Necessity: IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 12.2, esp. Figure 12-7. NAS CCR: Chapter 5. IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 9, esp. Figure 9.5. [Quote=brazil84] No [I do not believe increases in temperature will cause net harm]. [/quote] On what basis? Scientists disagree with you. IPCC 3AR WG2: Chapter 2.6, esp. Figure SPM-1. IPCC 4AR WG2: Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM-2. [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![aptronym](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@aptronym](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aptronym)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/118 "2007-12-18T01:45:07Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Dude, did you read **jshore** ’s post? I was responding to you, and he or she thought I had constructed a strawman. Among other things, he or she asked where I got the 5% figure from – I told him or her it came from you. [/quote] Dude, you do realize that, even if **jshore** and I disagreed with each other, that wouldn’t make you less wrong? **jshore** is pointing out that the IPCC is right; I’m pointing out that the first-order calculations are more than right. And incidentally, **jshore** is right. 😛 Most scientists believe CO[sub]2[/sub] is responsible for much more than 5% of the greenhouse effect (Wikipedia says 9-26%); however, 5% is the commonly cited figure by Richard Lindzen and other global warming deniers. Rather than launch into a big discussion about which number is correct, I chose the lowest accepted value to show that even with all Lindzen’s objections factored in, the IPCC is still right. > [@brazil84](#): > > 0.2C over what time period? The time period is given in my post. Read it more carefully. > [@brazil84](#): > > What exactly is the claim I made that you feel is incorrect? This one: > [@aptronym](#): > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > No [I do not accept that greenhouse gases are competent and necessary to explain warming]. > > On what basis? Scientists disagree with you. > > Competency: > IPCC 3AR WG1: Chapter 6.13, esp. Figure 6-6. > NAS CCR: Chapter 5. > IPCC 4AR WG1: Chapter 2.1, esp. Figure FAQ 2.1 > [@brazil84](#): > > Really. Simple A/B question: So you’re arguing that you’ve been proven wrong, or that you’ve been proven wrong by two different independent methods? Either I’ve proved you wrong once or twice; as far as I’m concerned, the question is settled. > [@brazil84](#): > > Sorry, but I’m not your research assistant. If you have some authoritative source, then quote it. As I pointed out before, I’d be more than happy to quote the sources if I felt there was a greater than 0% chance you’d read it. You’ve dismissed, without evidence, the other quotes I’ve given. You’re not my research assistant - you’re your own research assistant. If you can’t find the citations I’ve listed, or if you don’t have the time to look them all up, then simply look **one** up and make an educated comment about it; I will then have some evidence that you read \>0% of my quotations, and have already promised to post the rest of the quotes for you. This is not an exercise to send you on a wild goose chase - it took a non-trivial time to look up the subchapter references and graph references to begin with. I’ve met you more than halfway, **all you have to do is find click on a link and find figure 2-7 in chapter 2-2**. What’s so hard about that? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/119 "2007-12-18T10:46:22Z")
[QUOTE=aptronym] No. [/quote] Thank you for admitting that. So much for your “detailed version” > [@](#): > > Post #35, as quoted above. Are you kidding? That’s not an insistence on a first principle calculation. I’m simply pointing out the implausibility of your claim. > [@](#): > > Yes. And that shows that your simple calculation doesn’t mean much. > [@](#): > > Another veiled attempt to try and play your opponents off of one another? If **jshore** states or implies that you are wrong, is there any reason I should not mention it? > [@](#): > > Here’s a simple yes or no question for you: Do you accept my first order calculation as proof that CO[sub]2[/sub] is competent to affect the temperature changes we see? Affect? There’s no need to do a calculation to conclude that CO2 can affect temperature changes. > [@](#): > > I’ve already posted my specific questions. You categorize “sensitive” and “non-sensitive” scenarios based on the temperature ranges they give, Not at all. If that’s what you think I did, then you totally missed the point. Why not answer my earlier question: And if we knew exactly how climate responds to CO2, we could predict with much smaller error bars what the future climate will be like. Right? > [@](#): > > Simple question: what variable is the independent variable, and what variable is the dependent variable in your analysis? CO2 output and climate response to CO2 are independent. Temperature is dependant. And it’s not an analysis, I’m just re-grouping the analyses you alluded to. > [@](#): > > You do. No, you’ve got it 100% backwards. I would expect the climate change to be different for different CO2 changes. (Assuming the same sensitivity to CO2.) Please try reading what I post a little more carefully before you hit the reply button. > [@](#): > > If you agree that models predict different amounts of CO[sub]2[/sub] increases, why _wouldn’t_ you expect different responses? Where did I say otherwise? And please read my posts before you quote me. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. > > (1) There is still an unaddressed inconsistency in your argument. If you don’t accept that global warming causes net harm, then you concede the possibility that global warming, not economics, has caused the increase in human well-being. Nonsense. Human well being has clearly been improved by increases in wealth and technology. Vaccines; better communication; etc. > [@](#): > > (2) Even if you resolve the inconsistency in (1), you still have to point out why you’d think that economics is winning by a large margin - Look at my economic growth thread, in particular the cites about drops in death due to extreme weather. > [@](#): > > (3) Once you finish explaining (2), then you have to explain why you would dismiss efforts to curb global warming - after all, even if global warming had a small effect, if scientists predicted it would be 10x worse in the 21st century (i.e. +10[sup]o[/sup]C and that the effects were exponential (i.e. 1000x worse than seen), then a 10-fold increase in GDP may not be enough to offset the problem. Remotely possible, but the difference in effects is so profound that the warmers carry a huge burden. > [@](#): > > You are not doing my research for me - you are doing your research for yourself. Lol. Whatever. I’m not going to spend time looking for quotes that may or may not support your position. That’s your job. > [@](#): > > Simple yes or no question: Were the quoted passages exactly what you requested? No, and that’s why I prefer quotes. It’s very easy to just wave one’s hands, point to some long document, and claim it supports one’s position. > [@](#): > > I have presented top-level reviews of peer-reviewed data (the IPCC and NAS reports) and then I have cited you the exact subchapter and exact graphs that support my position. Haha. Just like in my temperature thread when you stated thus: > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, temperature reconstructions from the glaciers (Science 29 April 2005: > Vol. 308. no. 5722, pp. 675 - 677) suggests a historical cooling/warming of +/- 0.2oC/century from 0-2000 CE and tree ring chronologies (Science 22 March 2002: Vol. 295. no. 5563, pp. 2250 - 2253) suggest a historical cooling warming of +/- 0.3oC/century from 800-2000 CE. I went through the trouble of looking up your graphs and they didn’t support your position. You were wrong and you never even acknowledged it. You just disappeared from the thread. Like I said, I’m not your research assistant. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/120 "2007-12-18T13:03:53Z")
[QUOTE=aptronym] Dude, you do realize that, even if **jshore** and I disagreed with each other, that wouldn’t make you less wrong? [/quote] Less wrong about what? Anyway dude, it’s looking pretty lonely on that rooftop up there. > [@](#): > > The time period is given in my post. Read it more carefully. You give more than one time period in your post. Why not just answer my question? > [@](#): > > This one: Fine - please feel free to provide cites and quotes to show that CO2 is sufficient and necessary to explain global warming. Given your admission that there are other forces at work, it seems like you will have a hard time doing this. > [@](#): > > Simple A/B question: So you’re arguing that you’ve been proven wrong, or that you’ve been proven wrong by two different independent methods? Either I’ve proved you wrong once or twice; as far as I’m concerned, the question is settled. Lol. Whatever, dude. When did you stop beating your wife? Lol. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693.md?page=7)