What lines of evidence attribute CO2 to global warming but do not depend on climate models?

Question

Here is an example of a description of "human fingerprints" as lines of evidence for CO2-driven global warming: http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

So I ask, are they any lines of evidence supporting the AGW theory that do not depend on models?

(Note: Consider your answers carefully. For example, a statement like: "we have lab results that show CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"" is not a line of evidence which supports the theory that adding XX of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause YY warming.)

Answer 1

Yes Mike, this is a point that I made long ago.



The simple truth is; there is no conclusive, empirical evidence supporting the theory that CO2 has a *significant* effect on global temperature.



It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if you increase the amount of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, you’ll get *some* warming. But the important question is: how much? And we have no empirical evidence to support any of the answers we’re getting for that question.



As you point out, Jeff M’s links are simply evidence that CO2 is behaving as a greenhouse gas. However, CO2 on its own will only have a minor effect on temperature. To get to the predicted catastrophe, we have to include feedbacks, and the results of these feedbacks are simply model predictions.



We can test the effects of CO2 in the laboratory, so we can fairly accurately model the direct effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. But to suggest we can take this one, fairly well-understood, aspect of the climate and then suddenly accurately model the hugely complex *entire* atmosphere is arrogant beyond belief.



Essentially, pegminer hit the nail on the head with his “You mean like saying that an autopsy may show a bullet wound, but that is not a line of evidence that it caused a death?” analogy.



In Global Warming-land, a post-mortem would work like this:



Pathologist examines body, the body is dead, the body has a bullet wound, bullet wounds can kill people, and therefore the cause of death is a bullet wound. No further examination required. No actual evidence to link the bullet wound to the cause of death is required. Anyone who suggests that the bullet wound may not be the cause of death is attacked, called names and associated with gun manufacturers.



Well that’s me convinced then.



For a theory to be accepted it need to be proved with reference to concrete observations of the real world. In other words, the Warmists need to make predictions about how the climate will change that we can then compare to actual *independent* observation of the climate. And so far, of course, they’re not doing too well. The Warmists appear to be finally accepting that Hansen’s 1988 predictions were wrong (what does that say about their constant claims in the past that he was “extremely accurate”?) Bizarrely, though, they seem to be trying to claim that he *was* right after all, if we correct his predictions, with the benefit of hindsight, now that we have the right answer.



Um? OK then. So, if I’m allowed to edit my prediction once I know the correct answer, does that mean I can claim to be able to accurately predict the winning lottery numbers?



This is, of course, nonsense. Hindcasting is *not* the real trick. Editing your incorrect answers, once you know the real answer is *not* the real trick. What the Warmists need to do is make predictions and then compare them to independent observations. If they’re consistently correct, then that adds weight to the accuracy of their theory.



Sadly, how many of them predicted the slowing in the warming rate (or even cooling: HADCRUT, RSS) in the 21st century so far.



None, right?



So the theory, in its present form, is wrong.



Q.E.D.

Answer 2

You drag a deceptively broad net. your question says 'climate model' but your edits suggest you are including any model. This is a nonsense approach. Science operates by comparing real observed data to 'models'. That is how you decide if your 'model' has merit or not. Eg, you see thing falling down. They always seem to fall down, not up. You start to make a hypotheses, that there is some force pulling things down. you might then create a mind model to make some predictions as a result of that hypotheses. Then you collect more data to see if your predictions are right. If the data confirms your predictions then your model is a good start. If you find some data that does not fit well with your model, then you modify your model, and see if that now fits. eg, you observe some objects 'falling' up, so you might investigate the hows and why's and add the concept of buoyancy to your model of gravity. This does not mean that the theory of gravity is flawed because we use a model to lep us understand it, nor is there a problem in refining a model to make it better in light of new information. That is the way science works. you are trying to say something is bad or wrong because people use the normal processes of science.

Answer 3

We've taken about 150 Pg of carbon from the ground and put it in the atmosphere.



Which is a problem because empirical science tells us that when there was this much CO2 in the atmosphere things were much different. Not that different in-and-of-itself is a problem, it's the rate of change to which we will be unable to adapt.



But empirical science is based on measurements and mathematics, and mathematics is a model, which can't be trusted, so I guess we can ever really know anything, can we Mike? Except that measurements and mathematics have shown that decreased sunspots correlate with cooler temperatures, which according to you we can trust.



This is known as hypocrisy, Mike. And hypocrisy is why the AGW controversy is a political problem, not a real scientific controversy; primarily caused by lying disingenuous hypocrites.



http://www.whrc.org/global/carbon/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html

Answer 4

Pegminer wrote "You mean like saying that an autopsy may show a bullet wound, but that is not a line of evidence that it caused a death?".



I can give you all the scientific explanations necessary to show that if I kick a ball, that ball showed move. The distance that that ball should travel is another thing. Saying that the greenhouse effect is real and that most of the warming is attributable to our adding greenhouse gases does not prove your hypothesis of catastrophic warming. All you have proven is that the earth should warm. But by how much is another thing. It also does it prove that positive feedbacks will amplify this warming.



Nor have you have proven that the increase in the earth's temperature will cause climate change that is of concern. By climate change I mean more storms, and the change in precipitation patterns on a local level (wet areas becoming wetter, dry areas drier). Why do all believers assume that that is a given?



Is this the type of scientific reasoning that climate scientists are teaching their students? It is no wonder that many of them believe the global warming hypothesis.



Edit for Mike: Pegminer in a round about way just answered your question. There is no observational evidence, it is all based on computer programs. The line of reasoning goes like this: these computer programs say if we increase co2 we should get some warming. We have had some warming, therefore, this warming must be due to co2 and this warming will be catastrophic.



What is more their line of reasoning that only co2 can account for this warming is the same as those who believe in Intelligent design. Those who believe in Adam and Eve give some evidence to the existence of god (miracles, near death experiences, the bible) they then give evidence against evolution, (the statistical probability of randomness, the missing link) and then they conclude the god must have created man. No proof is necessary. Then they called skeptics anti-scientific to reflect the fact that they are anti-scientific.



pegminer wrote:



It seems to me that you and Mike and Phoenix are asking for is some sort of signed confession from CO2 "Yes, I'm responsible for the warming that's been seen."



When political activist make claim of "settled science" we demand to see the proof. Skeptics are funny that way.



You also seem to forget. You cannot model something that is never in a state of equilibrium, like the earth's climate is. That is why when your overwhelming proof is climate models, that is a very weak proof. Especially since climate models fail miserably. Not have they only failed to predict the slow warming rate over the past decade, they also fail to predict climate change at a local level. This is also very important. If dry areas become wetter, that is a big big plus in the cost benefit analysis of reducing co2 emissions. Stop assuming that all the catastrophes associated with a warming world is a given.



By the way that clouds will act in such a way as to amplify the co2 warming is not a law of physics. That is why there is so much uncertainty over cloud behaviour. In a warmer world dry areas will become drier is also not a law of physics.

Answer 5

I suppose they are all based on "models" of some kind. Even Jeff's OLR studies can only constitute "fingerprinting" because a basic radiative transfer model shows rising CO2 should decrease outgoing LW at frequencies which CO2 absorbs. In fact, much of the supposed "fingerprints" can be derived from simple box models or radiative-convective models and don't require the use of a fully-coupled AOGCM.



It really becomes a semantics argument since all of science bases testable predictions on models of some sort. It's how theories are validated.

Answer 6

>>@JeffM - What do you think this statement in your linked study means? "Changes were detected in the spectra that, through the use of a radiative transfer model, were attributed to known changes in radiative forcing,forcing."<<



Mike, I really thought that you knew better.



A radiative transfer model is just some equation based on the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, which is a function of the change in radiation intensity (I-vector) along a ray path to local absorption (k-vector) and volume emission (j-vector).



All mathematical equations are called models.



Regression analysis is modeling - and a regression equation is referred to as a model.



Newton's law of gravity is a model = an equation = a ratio of mass product and squared radial distance.



Algebraic functions are models. Y = ax + b is the general linear model of all linear equations. It models a straight line.



All of science is nothing but models. The scientific process is model building.



Galileo said, 'Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the universe." If you are using math - then you are building models.



=====



Quill --



<


You see there is no 'Control Big Bang' - so we can never know if the physics of our universe are real.



And, in case you have not noticed over the past several decades - the experimental method does not work when we try to look further back in time than the instant following the Big Bang. Where did you think all the talk about string theory and multiverses came from?





======



Quill,



>>we go 15 years no warming.<<



1980 through1989 was the 3rd warmest decade on record.



1990 through 1999 was the 2nd warmest decade on record,



2000 through 2009 was the warmest decade on record.



2005 and 2010 are tied as the warmest individual years on record.



http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/28/hottest-decade-year-week-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-volume/



And the top 11 warmest years on record have all been in the last 13 years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm





I guess there is a reason you did not specify which "15 years", huh?

Answer 7

All very interesting. All I know my world has been in a long term warming trend for over 16,000 years. Along the data curve there are thousands of short term rapid variations both increasing and decreasing.in temperature. I just do not see that much difference in what has been happening the last 200 years. We seem to have peaked out about 1998, and are now back down to about where we were 20 years ago. I would love to see a mathematical probability or statistical analysis that just takes the data from the 300,000 years of ice core samples and compares this with the last 100 years or so. Forget the chemical process theory, Climate process theories, and just look at the actual data we have.

Answer 8

That's not really the right question to ask, Mike. I believe increased CO2 concentration has lead to an increase in global temperatures. It's basic physics, no model needed. We lose.



I don't believe continued CO2 emissions will lead to CATASTROPHIC temperature rise. We know the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature forcing is positive and logarithmic. In order to have a problem, the feedbacks must be quite positive, amplifying the effect of CO2 threefold. This is where the climate community and their armchair advocates fail.

Answer 9

>>>is not a line of evidence which supports the theory that adding XX of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause YY warming



Well if it's climate sensitivity you are looking for and evidence that does not involve climate models, you can perhaps look at some of these:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6404/abs/360573a0.html

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/a75134944633kt74/



Your question implies that the lines of evidence that do use models for comparison are dependent on model outputs to be correct. I would fathom only partly - models aren't magical guesses. Basic physics supports the hypotheses behind many of these lines of evidence: decrease outgoing long wave radiation, and the outer atmosphere is expected to cool. Do you have any physical mechanism for how this might not be the case? Not one that could ALSO explain it, but an explanation that refutes that hypothesis qualitatively?



Do you have a complaint against the physical theory behind the greenhouse effect? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that in theory increasing its concentration by 40% will cause some sort of warming?



Emission of greenhouse gases by humans from organic sources is expected to decrease the 13C ratio due to the Suess effect. Do you have any physical explanation for why this is qualitatively false?



If you increase GHG concentrations, one would physically expect a decreased diurnal temperature range due to retention of heat. Qualitatively, is this physically wrong?



I haven't researched models, but the way I see it in my mind is that if you want to identify how much a certain aspect of the climate has an effect on something, you need to MODEL it. Is there something wrong with that? How else would one quantify the cooling effect of greenhouse gases on the upper atmosphere, for instance, when you also have ozone depletion cooling as well, if you don't have any mathematical prediction to base it off of? How much should the diurnal temperature range decrease, how much should the 13C ratio fall, so on(?). Is the problem really that models are used (which I think is a silly complaint) or that the models are inadequate to give us a good mathematical representation? Why not ask a question about that?



Then you have various other observations that - quantified by climate models or not - fit well with the man-made CO2 hypothesis qualitatively. Oceanic acidification, depletion of oxygen, increased downward LW and decreased outgoing LW, human emissions of CO2 over 30 Gt per year now - many, many indicators of a CO2 cause.





I think bob326 summed it up very nicely in his last statement.

Answer 10

You said



"For example, a statement like: "we have lab results that show CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"" is not a line of evidence which supports the theory that adding XX of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause YY warming."



You mean like saying that an autopsy may show a bullet wound, but that is not a line of evidence that it caused a death?



EDIT: A person that believes a scientist would call him a skeptic says:



"Well that's kind of the issue that prevents Global Warming from being a hard science.



"You see there is no 'Control Earth' where we can compare what would be happening if Humans weren't releasing old world carbon."



In other words, it's completely impossible for climate science to be a "hard" science because there are no alternate Earths that we can run experiments on. Of course those heliophysicists that just forecast a quiet period for the sun will be disappointed they aren't doing hard science either--they simply don't run any experiments on those alternate suns. I don't see too many physicists running experiments on black holes, either.



This forum (especially on the "skeptic" or "unconvinced" side) seems to be filled with people that feel qualified to judge what is and isn't science, what is and isn't the scientific method--although they have neither done scientific research nor have studied science.



EDIT for Eric and Mike: Well YOU are the ones making the stupid rule that we don't use models to analyze what's going on. Why not go one step further and say show the warming depends on CO2 without using the laws of physics? What a bunch of Luddites.



Another EDIT for Eric: What's the matter Eric, did my laws of physics comment strike too close to home, so you feel compelled to attribute things to me that I didn't say?



Not all models are computer models, physics relies on models ALL the time because usually in the real world there are all sorts of complications that make calculation by hand difficult. Without using computers at all we know that the greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth habitable. Without water vapor and CO2 both in the atmosphere we would freeze fairly quickly. It's not too hard to say that by adding more greenhouse gases we expect the Earth to warm more. How much? Well that's pretty difficult to say without running computer models--but understanding that increasing the greenhouse effect WILL increase the temperature is pretty straightforward, no models necessary. Then you claim there is no observational evidence. Huh? There is observational evidence of warming all over the planet. The mean temperature of the planet is going up, glaciers are retreating, spring is coming earlier, etc. There is also observational evidence that the sun is NOT responsible for the warming we've seen.



It seems to me that you and Mike and Phoenix are asking for is some sort of signed confession from CO2 "Yes, I'm responsible for the warming that's been seen." Sorry, science doesn't work that way. You like to pretend there all sorts of other things responsible for the warming we've seen, but you have nothing, really, but an attempt to confuse and spread misinformation.



Another EDIT for Eric: You said "You cannot model something that is never in a state of equilibrium, like the earth's climate is." Do you want to retract that? It's one of your silliest statements ever.

Answer 11

Satellites have directly measured the reduction in long-wave radiation escaping the atmosphere and the increase in long-wave radiation being reflected back to earth. The increased radiation is coming back in the specific frequencies of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The effect of CO2 has been directly measured.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm



The stratosphere and ionosphere are cooling thus proving that the increasing warmth of the stratosphere is happening from below, from the surface and not from the sun or other external cause. Likewise, the Tropopause is rising.

http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf

http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/topics/global_change_science.pdf



The calculations you are talking about indicate that the addition of human-generated greenhouse gases have caused a climate forcing during the industrial era of 2.9 Wm-2 ±0.2 Wm-2.



********

Mike, you are being bizarre. OF COURSE real measurements are used to test and improve the models. The models depend on the observations. The observations do not depend on the models. The observations are independent of any model, and that is what you asked for. The CO2 connection is proved without the use of models; the models are used to crunch the numbers to project the future.

Answer 12

>>What lines of evidence attribute CO2 to global warming but do not depend on climate models?<<

>>(Note: Consider your answers carefully. For example, a statement like: "we have lab results that show CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"" is not a line of evidence which supports the theory that adding XX of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause YY warming.)<<



Maybe you should consider your question more carefully. You ask what evidence attributes CO2 to global warming and then later ask what evidence attributes global warming to CO2...

Of course, any evidence that shows that CO2 is a positive feedback is evidence of both.



_

Answer 13

Well that's kind of the issue that prevents Global Warming from being a hard science.



You see there is no 'Control Earth' where we can compare what would be happening if Humans weren't releasing old world carbon.



We can collect data, speculate at relationships & run computer models - and Warmists are in perpetual denial regarding how susceptible these models are to the bias of the researcher.

Because there is no Control Earth there is no double blind. No one is fired for inaccurate models.

People accept predictive tolerances that any other field of Science would find absurd.



Global Warming is barely Science - much less Settled Science.



Political forces & Researcher Bias relentlessly trample genuine Climate Science.

CO2 it trending upward. CO2 is the villain. Hence literally ANYTHING trending either direction can be associated with CO2. Is the Ocean ph slowly becoming less basic? Well that must be CO2 based ACIDIFICATION. Passionate Actresses plead for the salvation of the Planet...



But hard science - no. No one is filling 2 pools with ocean water. Maintaining a 0.01% higher level of CO2 over one & measuring the change in PH. Cities can be dumping untold tonnage of raw sewage into ocean water not a scientific blink at blaming PH shift on that, nope it must be that extra 0.01% CO2 in the air above.



Then there's the Hollywood language. The Oceans are not becoming less Base or more Neutral - they are ACIDIFYING. The term is not incorrect, it's just clearly the scariest sounding one. CO2 rising by 30% sounds really bad, but a 0.01% increase does not. Both terms are accurate - but Warmists always use the scarier one. Because Political Theater trumps Science.



Edit:

pegminer & Gary F

Heliophysicists have billions of suns to study, though only one up close. They have observed many sunspot cycles. Heliophysicists know their computer models are NOT settled science. They know their computer models for high temperature/gravity/pressure nuclear reactive turbulent plasma flow in a star is speculative.



Climatologists have one Earth, driven by a star we don't fully understand.

The last computer model prediction said 'hockey stick' catastrophic temperature rise & we go 15 years no warming. But not one hint of humility. Skepticism is a sin & sign of stupidity. The Science is Settled. A 0.01% change in CO2 is driving temperature rise.



You guys are like a doctor claiming to know the cause & cure for cancer from doing a study on a single rat.

Skeptics say "How can you know that from a single rat?"

Warmist say "We've done computer models on this rat."

We say "You mean from all the other rats you've studied?"

You say "No, we've never even seen another rat, but we know this one is getting cancer & we know how to cure it"

We say "Have you studied cancer in humans?"

You say "No, the rat is the only living creature we've ever studied"



And then when we're skeptical, you deliver a lecture on how we are stupid and don't understand science. Yikes.

Answer 14

You plot any hard data ... it is a model.



You create/generate any map ... it is a model.



You do any statistical analysis ... it is a model.



You cary out any mathematics ... it is a model.



You realise even your computer is carrying out algorithms all the time ... thus modelling!!



So do we disregard all models, or only those that don't agree with your opinion?

Answer 15

Computerized simulation models are

(a) very useful but

(b) neither necessary nor sufficient to prove AGW is real and a serious risk.



Factual evidence 1: Arrhenius predicted global warming over a century ago due to human burning of fossil fuels.

Factual evidence 2: Greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased significantly over the period since fossil fuel usage became significant, and the increase traced conclusively to that fossil fuel usage.

Factual evidence 3: Global average temperatures have been on a long term upward trend for over a century

Factual evidence 4: Climate and weather patterns have been changing faster and more severely in recent decades than has been normal human experience since the neolithlic revolution.

Factual evidence 5: There is no alternative theory to global warming that accounts for 2-4.

Factual evidence 6: Tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of countries have worked independently for many decades figuring out 2-5, and almost none of them doubt it now. This history has been extremely well-documented for many years, see for instance Weart: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm



Observation: Instead reading this basic background information, you have spent an huge amount of time trying -sometimes interestingly, usually rather lamely- to deny it.



Probability: This answer is highly likely to be hidden by cheating thumbs downs, or removed.

Answer 16

Being an outsider I don't believe any of this stuff about global warming. We have climate change but not global warming(or cooling)even during the ice age max/min cycle. You really need to do the math to see the current theories are ignoring very important details about how Earth works. You need to understand the scale of atmosphere relative to the planet for starters.

Answer 17

Nothing but the knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the desire to blame capitalism for something unpleasant.

Answer 18

We have satellite measurements showing that much of the warming is attributable to CO2. I've posted this numerous times before on here.



http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml