December 20th, 2013, 09:35 AM
Hello everyone, I'd like to get some of your opinions on global warming! I wanted to know what you all think about, greenhouse effect, global dimming, if you think global warming is real, or if you think the wierd weather is due to gloabal warming...
Of course it is. It's not a matter of opinion.if you think global warming is real
"global warming" is close to the sloppiest misuse of the language that I can imagine. (something I would expect from an idiot or a politician, and never from a scientist.)
Anthropogenic atmospheric loading is much like adding another blanket. If the sun's activity remains constant (when has it ever?) then another blanket means a warmer atmosphere, whose effects will be felt mostly at high latitudes and high altitudes.
For a more realistic picture, I recommend that you look into equable climate models
I know it is, I just want to know if anyone thinks it is just made up...Originally Posted by Strange
We have enough problems with cranks on the forum, please don't encourage them!
Maybe the snow in Egypt is due to global warming... I don't know much about it but I've heard that global warming is going to start the next ice age?
Ha very true... Very much so when it comes to opinion questions...We have enough problems with cranks on the forum, please don't encourage them!
Even though it points out a rise in global temperature averages?
I agree that 'climate change' is a better term, though.
Well I guess climate change fits the description better... But I put global warming because that is what it is mostly known as.
Yep. To answer your question, again, among actual climate scientists, there is a completely overwhelming consensus.
All of the dissent comes from an extreme handful of climate scientists, some general scientists, but mostly from completely unqualified individuals.
I do not have an opinion about global warming. The vast amount of scientific evidence speaks for itself.
Basically, the "debate" is a manufactured one.Yep. To answer your question, again, among actual climate scientists, there is a completely overwhelming consensus.
All of the dissent comes from an extreme handful of climate scientists, some general scientists, but mostly from completely unqualified individuals.
Opinions? It's a field of study that has had a lot of work put into it over the past 20 years. There's no question that our emissions of CO2 are warming the planet. What that will affect in the future is still being studied; increases in sea level, changes in rainfall patterns and increased extinctions are likely.
Personally I am getting really sick of the deniers ("It's all a plot by Al Gore to enrich himself at the expense of the orphans") and the alarmists ("We're all going to die in ten years!") Both positions are emotionally driven political positions masquerading as science.
From the perspective of my geographic position on the planet, this month I have been freezing my ass off. I'm in the southern part of Canada and compared to the rest of my fellow Canucks, I'm roasting. In the past these conditions were part of a normal Canadian winter, now it is a sign of global warming.
A) "averages"A) Even though it points out a rise in global temperature averages?
B)I agree that 'climate change' is a better term, though.
My late ex wife was 64 inches tall, I'm 71" our average was 67.5 which didn't make me any shorter nor her any taller. Say that we're in an elevator, and an 84" tall man entered the elevator, our average then would be 73" which didn't make my late ex nor me any taller, nor the tall man any shorter.
Averages obfuscate the true effects. Unless you have a compelling need to use them, and understand that you are using a non-real construct, I think them best avoided.
B) "Climate change" comes with it's own obfuscatory baggage. This has been one of the coldest years on record here at 41.8 degrees north latitude, and 91.6 degrees west longitude. In no small part due to last autumns warming of the taklamakan depression, when that warm air was pushed up against the altai mountains, and thence up into the stratosphere. Once there, the warmth rushed poleward in an sst event, disrupting the polar vortex, and spilling the arctic air down to the temperate land masses.
So-------warming did indeed cause cooling, but not for the stratosphere, nor for the arctic.
If you expect to find simplistic answers to climate questions, you are shopping for horse shoes in the children's shoe department.
Physicsforall:
Why do you ask?
"Anthropomorphic climate change" would probably be the best phrase...though I've had discussions with quite a few biologist in the recent months who'd prefer "Anthropomorphic Global Change" to broaden the subject matter into the entire range of human driven changes.
Whatever it's called, the general notion that humans are the strongest causes of change on the planet's "sphere's" (cryo, bio.., hydro.., atmos...) is well documented, studied and indisputable at this point.
anthropomorphic?
or
anthropogenic?
Now, if we could just control solar output......(tsi)...........................
Ah yes. anthropogenic works even better! Thank you.
Some of these terms are more form the layman. "Global warming' is to the point and easily understood. I wonder how many people know what 'anthropogenic' even means. 'Climate change' also fails to carry the threat of the term 'global warming' and we all know the media cannot use a term that does not imply imminent doom.
Regardless of the terminology, the point about the debate still stands.
The real "debate" requires more knowledge than we currently have available.
I could give a damn less if most people do not know what anthropogenic means.
The real "threat" comes from people assuming that they know what will happen based on narrow mindedness, lack of knowledge, or "threat" clichés.
10 years ago, suggesting that a warmer than normal taklamakan could lead to a colder than normal winter for the mid latitudes would have been so far beyond the science, as to be nearing science fiction. Now we have another bit of knowledge which also puts to rest the idea that the atmosphere could not shunt off some of it's warming by venting to the stratosphere.
Why resort to "threats" which have little basis in scientific knowledge?
Wait a bit before crying "WOLF".
What we do know is that we are loading the atmosphere with gasses, some of which have a greenhouse effect by absorbing energy and bending, stretching, and twisting before releasing that energy.
What we do not know is how that anthropogenic atmospheric forcing will effect the weather in any given place on the earth.
If "global warming" which indicates uniform warming is your hypothesis,
then showing that that ain't true for 41.8 degrees north latitude by 91.6 degrees west longitude
gives you the null hypothesis
Without a rigorous diciplined science, all becomes meaningless bullshit best shared over beers or hits on the bong.
(pppfffffffffffffttttttttt "global warming?,,,pppffffftttttttttt,,,,wow, cool dude)
I'll quote myself: "Science is tidy. It is English that is a mess."
You could give a damn less? Does that imply that you do give a damn?
Regardless, it is important because without public support (or worse, the continued public ignorance because of the tireless work of deniers) you can't hope to get any real movement going.
People need to know what is happening to the world around them and why they should be concerned or motivated to act.
Eh...I think you might be underestimating our ability to predict what could happen. You seem to be under the impression that climate change scientists are accurately represented by the alarmists who don't know what they're talking about. I work hand in hand with a number of climate specialists and there is not nearly the kind of divide between our claims and what the data says as you might think.
Don't get your science from news outlets. Get it from peer-reviewed journals and make up your own opinion from there.
"human-made global change" works as well and is simple enough for layman to understand as well as inclusive and broad enough to describe the massive changes over the past few centuries and those projected for the rest of this one.
It's starting to get wordy.
About 150 years ago, a man named Alonzo Denison came to this plot of land(virgin forest) and filed a homestead. He then went back to Ohio, and brought his brother Carl along to homestead the other side of the hill. His nephew made quite a name for himself and a fair living pulling stumps out with his 10 oxen team for others who would turn forest into farm. And farm this land they did for over 100 years. It's hilly here, and the topsoil was thin on the hills.
Depleted, the hills became hay fields for another generation. Each farmstead had some hill, and some bottom land along the river. Then the government bought up most of the land around the river, built a dam, and flooded the rich bottoms. Few farms remained along the river. Then the land was subdivided into smaller acreages for homes. It was only in the last couple decades that the population of this riverine community rose above the level of 1910.
And, I have replanted (some of) the forest that was here 150 years ago------------
Human made change, and change and change again.
anthropogenic atmospheric loading
And your point?
I think it's his usual, trying to say we have "nothing to worry about" because much slower changes have happened in the geologic past.
Never before has it been on this scale.
Human driven change. Never before has it been on this scale.
The geological (and ecological and climate) change. Never before has it been at this speed.
Yet, unlike on a lot of websites, we can get into a discussion about evolution without creationists wrecking the page and turning it into a religious war.We have enough problems with cranks on the forum, please don't encourage them!
As they say, everything is relative.
Alonzo probably couldn't imagine the changes ahead.And your point?
here's a small example
Our bay (once part of his farm) silted in from the last flood.
It is now a water meadow supporting a rich diversity of life, while filtering and cleaning the water
The silt is from topsoil lost from upriver farms. The river is creating for itself a lush floodplain with "wasted" upriver resources.
Does the farmer who lost some of his topsoil know that it has fashioned a watermeadow on Alonzo's old farm? Does that matter.
The very best thing about that silly phrase "global warming" is that it has helped create interests in and direct political money toward climate research.
Climate models are improving to more closely model assumed paleo climates through assumed proxies
Here's a recent one as regards the equable climate questions:
The Early Eocene equable climate problem: can perturbations of climate model parameters identify possible solutions?
That is something which we have only guessed at---------and most of the guesses of the past century have since been proven inaccurate.
Many little bits to the puzzle have come to light indicating both rapid warming and rapid cooling. The causal factors remain a mystery.
To whom?
To the scientists who have discovered the indicators of rapid climate swings.
And to those of us who read of their discoveries.
(are you just being silly?)
To scultor.To whom?
No.
I work with climate scientists and I've never heard any of them mention this. Ever.
Out of curiosity, have you ever published your findings?
Climate change is a fact. I believe the evidence strongly points towards human activity being a large factor but I suspect there is a level of publication bias as well.
as/re:
I read other's workOut of curiosity, have you ever published your findings?
no compilations of mine would be worthy of borrowed materials
eg:
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen
etc
.......so
If you have the answers, If you are certain of the causal factors, then you should share that knowledge.
What was the causal factor in the now estimated 22 degreeF spike in just 50 years at the end of the last glaciation?
Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age | University of Colorado Boulder
then the causal factor(s) for the younger dryas or any of the Heinrich events, or the Dansgaard-Oeschger events
To the best of my knowledge none of the science as re causal factors for these rapid climate swings is settled yet, and there are different camps with different suggestions, who don't seem to be willing to take each other's work seriously.
But, maybe you actually do know what the scientists working in the field don't?
You may have read a portion of the literature, but you have, on a number of occasions, shown that you don't actually understand/want ot understand the conclusions of them.
Paleo
I doubt that you are correct here
When conclusions are forthcoming, I embrace them.
When people jump to conclusions absent sufficient knowledge, I seek comparative and/or counter indicative conclusions.
I made a simple statement:
So stop wasting your and my time by stupidly sniping at me, and, if you do unequivocally know the, or a, causal factor for the above, just share the damned knowledge so we can move on.Many little bits to the puzzle have come to light indicating both rapid warming and rapid cooling. The causal factors remain a mystery.
or,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?????????????
Unequivocally? There is not a mathematical proof which demonstrates causality in anthropogenic climate change. You simply have to determine whether the evidence is substantial enough for you. If it's not, that's fine. Just don't try to use a broad brush to pain the majority of climate scientists as being doubtful. The consensus is that we are having an impact. A significant one.
even if the climate had changed as much and as rapidly in the past as it appears to be changing now there is a lot more at stake now. the human population and the infrastructure needed to keep us happy and alive is vastly larger now than what it was even 500 years ago.
That's my view. We should be grateful that we can identify our own actions and avenues for remedies for what's happened already and what we expect to happen in the next few decades and centuries.even if the climate had changed as much and as rapidly in the past as it appears to be changing now there is a lot more at stake now. the human population and the infrastructure needed to keep us happy and alive is vastly larger now than what it was even 500 years ago.
If changes of this scope and at this speed were arising from some unfortunate combination of natural forcings, we'd be in a much worse position trying to identify actions and processes that we can control to counteract or ameliorate the effects.
Since the end of ww2, there has been an industrial explosion over most of the world and we've been loading the atmosphere(while reshaping the biom) much faster than ever before.
There have been many sudden climate changes in the past, changing temperatures up by 22 degreesF in 50 years was just one example.
If we understand the causal factors for both rapid cooling and rapid warming events of the past, we could use them as guideposts(if you will) in our journey through time and climate.
We could also try to mimic those past causal factors if we need them in the future. Admitting what we do not know, is one simple step in acquiring knowledge, and knowledge is our best hope for the future.
The climate has indeed changed much faster in the past than it is changing now----even with our atmospheric loading------------"WHY?" must be the next step in our investigations into this wonderful shared co-evolutionary biom that allowed us to exist and sustains us in our billions today.
Anyone who has read my posts is likely aware that I loath fear mongering in any way, shape or form. Fear is often anathema to progress in acquisition of knowledge. Fear is an ugly beasty which needs be starved out of existance. So, often, when I think I'm attacking "fear" others may think that I am attacking them--------oops ------ this is not my intention.
Caution is always a good approach to the unknown. It sharpens the mind to potential dangers.
------
kinda as a side note, I think that education should be free for the student as long as he or she wishes to remain a student-------the amount of time usually dedicated to advanced degrees is simply not enough to develope a well rounded understanding of any single body of knowledge, much less the interplay of knowledge gained from different diciplines.
............
And Knowledge, is the only thing that can save us from ourselves.........
,,,,,,,,,'so much for my rant----(I loved the experience and knowledge from the universities I attended, so I'm a tad biased here.)
..............
keep a good thought and a keen curiousity
But that's exactly what climate scientists do!we could use them as guideposts(if you will) in our journey through time and climate.
If you read their statements on this, they rank the priorities guiding their analysis and judgements as
First and foremost - paleoclimate evidence
Second - physics in all its various forms
Third (and a very poor last on the list at that) - computer modelling. And they check the outcomes of the physics models against, you guessed it, paleo data and/or current observations depending on the purposes of the model runs.
adelady
you saw the above link to one of the recent models?
current modeling still falls short of determining/isolating causality------------but soon>?
one recent study found an african drought correlating to ocean acidity and proxied elevated co2-------but fell short in determining a time-line, which leaves definitive causality needing more data.
here are a couple ifs
if we are headed into a solar minimum
and if atmospheric co2 concentrations continue to rise
then as we come out of the solar minimum we'll know more about co2 as causal factor for temperature swings.
and whether co2 would be enough of a forcing agent to create an equable climate....
(but, i'll most likely be dead before that grand experiment plays out--------------gee darn)
Teach your children well. It is they who will see the future.
...................
this from Maureen Raymo: (another of my favorite "50 ft tall women")
I think that Professor Raymo overstates our control (main drivers) just a tad... “Even so, everything I’ve learned about the dynamism of the planet’s climate places me, like most all of my colleagues, strongly in the camp that says we need to take preventive action to keep the planet from warming further. I am extremely concerned that we’ve made such large changes in the composition of our atmosphere with so little understanding of the consequences. The path we are on is completely anomalous to anything that has gone before.”
“People sometimes ask me: ‘When will the next ice age be? The answer is that I’m pretty sure we have already prevented it. Like it or not, we are now the main drivers of the climate, even though so far we’ve been doing it completely by accident.”
But we are most likely a significant contributor to the climate within certain unknown "natural" mechanisms.
Last edited by sculptor; December 21st, 2013 at 01:25 PM.
I wouldn't put too much bank on those Greenland records. The derived data from oxygen isotopes has a lot of problems and is not in agreement with other NH records:
Greenland Ice Not A Reliable Model For Younger Dryas Period - Science News - redOrbit
And even at best they represent a regional change in an areas that perhaps was particularly sensitive to minor changes even beyond normal high latitude variability not a global one.
Abrupt changes from the past are certainly interesting and worth figuring out but given the differences in hydrosphere and cryosphere coming out the last iceage, There's also some pretty strong hypothesis to explain those abrupt change, the leading ones having to do with release of huge amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic where a range of studies have successfully modeled the ice and temperature changes.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/TraCE/do..._LIS_MWP1A.pdf
These of course represented extremely dynamic periods, probably don't have much relevance to our much more stable times where there's been virtually no change to isolation from either solar flux or orbital changes; there's also much less ice which probably means lower change of huge freshwater ice pulse events. Basically the changes most likely to lead to the last abrupt changes are off the table.
Meanwhile current models continue to show very close global verification to observations using the aerosol and green house gas changes though we'd still like to know more about ice dynamics.
You realize(?) that over the time of your ohc chart, we had been having much higher tsi than at any time over the past 1000 to 2500 years?
(pre instrument tsi derived from sunspot activity)
..................
fress water-thermo-haline-circulation
There was also a large pulse of fresh water at end younger dryas(yd) which did not result in a cooling event.
(Fairbanks, 1989)A problem with this hypothesis is the timing of meltwater pulses that are supposed to have triggered the THC shutdown: it was found that a second meltwater pulse, albeit slightly smaller than the first one, occurred at the end of the YD : why didn't it also trigger a similar chain of consequences in the climate system?
Actually about the same as 2500 years ago (Fig 5 of link) and similar peaks during the Holocene. And as important, with less seasonal high latitude amplitude because our tilt is decreasing.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4958.pdf
The recent departure from TSI's slow decline between 500 BCE and about 1500 CE is quite dramatic in recent decades, and the reason quite obvious...a W/m^2 radiative forcing increase from man-made emitted green houses already well exceeding the entire range of estimated TSI range (~1.5 W/m^2) through the entire Holocene. No climatology are claiming that TSI isn't important--but the vast majority of the community is of the opinion that the T change over the past few centuries would be much less without that added greenhouse forcing-- and that over the next half a century greenhouse forcing is likely to completely overwhelm any likely changes to TSI.
I have no opinion on the validity of global warming, climate change, etc. What I do know is that the 'science' of climatology is worse that I've seen presented as science in all my decades. Those doing research are losing credibility. This is not good 'if' there is significant climate change due to human activity. Researchers need put aside agenda, retool and get back to nitty gritty science.
Present facts and not silly scenarios. Silly predictions like 'no child in the UK will see snow after 2005' or 'all the polar bears are going to perish' do more harm than good. They zap the research of credibility. Better to present real evidence of the temperature rising by 'x' and then, when asked about what it means, being honest with 'no clue, but probably not good'.
Examples. Please link peer review literature which you've read and have problems with including specific concerns. Unless you are prepared to do this, than quite frankly you don't have any meaningful reason for your opinion.
Really? The nitty, gritty of the radiative physics in climate science was settled during a period of just over a hundred years - from Fourier in the 1820s to Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. Arrhenius is the standout in this period - the result of his laborious pen and ink calculations of climate sensitivity in the 1890s is much the same as the results we now get from multiple lines of evidence. This timeline of the history of climate science covers all the relevant activities, not just the physicists http://www.skepticalscience.com/cshistory.phpResearchers need put aside agenda, retool and get back to nitty gritty science.
The problems in climate science now are really technical minutiae. If you look at a similar problem of atmospheric gases, ozone depletion, you'll see that the global community took action on the basis of the science at the time - which really had none of the predictive power people are now asking for ghgs. And the measurements we're now seeing for the stabilising of the ozone hole, with little to no discernible decrease in its size, indicate that we were right to act a strongly as we did and it would have been much, much better to have acted sooner than we did. We're now estimating that it will be at least 70 years before we see a sizable, permanent decrease in its size.
If it was good enough for ozone depleting gases, it should be enough for ghgs.
Unlike yourself I don't know the five hundred variables impact in the environment let alone the associated permutations caused by a carbon based molecule.
Fair enough. Than what credence should you put into your strong opinion about how the science is presented. You sited two specific examples, about children seeing snow, and polar bears, but did you consider where ever you heard them? Was it from scientist actually engaging in science by publishing a peer review paper, presentation at a science conference, or as an official report for governmental policy makers? Or was it from a liberal fringe group that should be taken head of in the first place because it should have been obvious they are going to cherry pick and mis-summarize or take out of context something a scientist said or did? Or as happens in the US, deliberate misreporting by fossil fuel industry related groups, for no other reasons that sow doubt and obfuscate the actual science (while doing none of their own)? What was the sources of these by the way?Unlike yourself I don't know the five hundred variables impact in the environment let alone the associated permutations caused by a carbon based molecule.
Do you know every variable involved with the risks of smoking? If not, do you still recognize it as, in general, something that increases your risk for lung cancer?
In point of fact:
Nobody knows.
We have had far too much hyperbole and posturing within climate science (including fear mongering) wherein people, scientists included, form an opinion, and start ignoring contrary data in support of their invested concepts.
In a recent climate paper(April, this year) James Hansen wrote: "...The strongest feedback that we observe on Earth today, from water vapor..."
Have you seen that mentioned in here?
Choosing to focus on just one climate variable(eg: CO2) makes as much sense as "racial profiling". On a good day, it's a wild guess.
CO2 is just a rather lumpy blanket, as are all "greenhouse gasses".
In the above quoted Raymo she postulates that we should be heading into a period of glaciation, but aren't.
Global mean temperature has been relatively flat since 1997 while we've been experiencing lower tsi since the highs of 1960 and 1980--
It remains important to recognize what we do not know, and direct our research there.
Why do you think we focus primarily on CO2? Granted, we expel tremendous amount of it and it is the most easily controlled, but we also focus a great deal on oceanic methane sinks and water vapor is well known to be a potent factor in greenhouse determinations. Simply because you choose to suggest that we deny these facts does not mean that we do...
Here's the entire quote:
"Let's consider a positive climate forcing (say a solar irradiance increase or CO2 increase) that causes a unit of warming. Let's ask how this unit warming will be amplified by a very strong feedback, one that increases the initial warming by 50%. The added warming of 0.5 induces more feedback, by 0.5×0.5 = 0.25, and so on, the final response being 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 + ... = 2. So this very strong feedback causes the final warming to be twice as large as it would have been without the feedback. But it is not a runaway effect. The strongest feedback that we observe on Earth today, from water vapor, is almost as strong as this example. "
Why would you leave out the last part of the quote? In general I find that selectively quoting someone to change the meaning of what they said is somewhat intellectually dishonest.
No climate scientists "chooses to focus on just one climate variable." A great many media types do, however.Choosing to focus on just one climate variable(eg: CO2) makes as much sense as "racial profiling". On a good day, it's a wild guess.
And anthropogenic greenhouse gases are different than natural greenhouse gases. Again, it's something that climate scientists work on every day. The IPCC has spent years analyzing the interplay between all of the above.CO2 is just a rather lumpy blanket, as are all "greenhouse gasses".
Which is exactly what climate scientists are doing.It remains important to recognize what we do not know, and direct our research there.
dishonesty wasn't intended
showing that alternate and varied studies into climate science are important was.
I used the part that made that point
..................
actually "anthropogenic greenhouse gas" loading of the atmosphere is completely natural............one should understand that concern for understanding our actions among other(unknown?) causal factors is important.
If we are indeed headed into a solar minimum, or grand minimum, and anthropogenic atmospheric loading is preventing us from heading into another "mini ice age", or period of glaciation, then the causal effect of our atmospheric loading takes on a whole new perspective.
Does it not?
when I keyboard in my thoughts, consider them all statements within a question.
Do not assume that I have any one position on global warming or climate science beside the position of searching for better scientific questions.
We really do need to understand all causal factors of all radical climate swings as well as periods of stasis if we ever hope to be able to control the climate.
And, control of climate is exactly what is driving many who fear anthropogenic atmospheric loading will lead to uncontrolled global warming.
(an old trick from Bucky Fuller) Take a giant step backward and analyze your concepts, actions and goals from a different perspective.
For the little bit that we do know, there remains much more that we do not know.
[QUOTE=billvon;505210][QUOTE=Physicsforall;505155]
Personally I am getting really sick of the deniers QUOTE]
You seem to make out, that these people are on par, with Holocaust Deniers.
Last edited by Dave Wilson; December 22nd, 2013 at 02:21 PM. Reason: SPELLING
Sculptor, well stated.I've been in geology for over 35 years and I have no idea where this secret science book is that people look up the absolutes on so many variables impacting the climate. Then there is a second secret book that gives definitive consequences for society.The irony is that there has never been a time in history when a lower percent of the population has perished from disease, petulance, drought, famine, etc.
You win the award for Biggest Jump to Conclusion of the Year.You seem to make out, that these people are on par, with Holocaust Deniers.
How "I am getting really sick of the deniers" suggests he holds them to the same low level of esteem that one reserves for Holocaust deniers is beyond me. Seems like a REALLY dishonest attempt to paint someone else as absurd or offensive. In the end, it reflects poorly only on you.
No they are not on a par with Holocaust deniers; those tell lies about millions of deaths that happened in the past, deaths that should never be forgotten, but that cannot be changed by the words and actions of those that deny it happened. Climate science deniers and obstructors tell lies that will stop us preventing hundreds of millions of foreseeable deaths in the future. Their words and actions have far more serious and far reaching consequences. Those that know that climate science is almost certainly right, or who simply don't care and seek to undermine public trust in the science for their own benefit - to perpetuate their profitable but damaging commercial activities, to advance their ideological agenda, to aid their party's election - are worse than Holocaust deniers.
Ordinary citizens can believe and spruik for whoever and whatever they want; that's their right. Scientists have no such right to believe and advocate what they like without restriction - they have strong ethical obligations, most of all around honesty and truthfulness, obligations that are strengthened by the sharing of information and peer review. It's why science has worked so well. If ever there was a debate about the value of science, foreseeing the consequences of excessive fossil fuel burning with sufficient time to change our ways before they get beyond us should be held up as proof of just how valuable science is.
Scientists can't just say whatever they like and nor can our representative and leaders. Elected representatives and unelected community leaders have ethical obligations also, to seek to be well informed on crucial issues and to make sound decisions on our collective behalf. Those that fail to be well informed are irresponsible and negligent - bad enough in my view - but those that promote climate science denial and obstructionism knowing the scientists know a lot better and lot more than they do, and choose to do so anyway are going beyond normal irresponsibility into criminal irresponsibility.
Holocaust denial is vile and detestable but not a crime against humanity; deliberate and knowing efforts to obstruct efforts to prevent the preventable, foreseeable harms of global warming is a crime against humanity.
It's not mentioned here because most people who know even a little about the topic already know it. Water vapor has been a consideration just about every climate paper for the past 60 years...and including and modeled in climate simulations for the past 30 or so. It's a short lived response gas that amplifies the other radiative forcing changes. It's also one of the main reasons why most of the temperature changes both modeled and observed at high latitudes where there's less saturation of the CO IR absorption and re-emission bands by water vapor. Hanson is simply making a statement about what all climatologist (and those that know a bit) already know and have factored it in.In point of fact:
Nobody knows.
We have had far too much hyperbole and posturing within climate science (including fear mongering) wherein people, scientists included, form an opinion, and start ignoring contrary data in support of their invested concepts.
In a recent climate paper(April, this year) James Hansen wrote: "...The strongest feedback that we observe on Earth today, from water vapor..."
Have you seen that mentioned in here?
So what other "fear mongering" statements do you have? Are any official statements, or out of context quips? Same question for fossil, who's provided examples but thus far not backed them up. Are they just made up? Why the polarized denials of the degree of what's actually statistically significant confidence in the science and projections? What the polarized falsehood like geologist, climatologist and oceanographers don't have excellent hypotheses for the radical temperature swings as temperatures climbed into the current interglacial? Are they attempts to be curmudgeonly? Simple incredulity? I'm sorry if we're getting the wrong impression, but the low substantive postings thus far lead others to those conclusions.
--
The biggest factor in future projections is not the climate science...it's the economic forest of green house gas emissions, factory aerosols and large scale ecological forecast of changes to landscapes (e.g. deforestation, reforestation etc) from human activities.
Lynx
models are just models and many(most? all?) have failed to acurately predict the past yet alone the future.
This became painfully obvious when the findings from lake e were published, and the scientists involved couldn't find one single extant climate model that fit their field data.
You seem to be claiming that there are excellent hypotheses for the radical temperature/climate swings of the past, yet fail to mention a single one in detail.
If you would defend your position, please do so by clearly stating an hypothesis for the causal factors of past climate swings that we may examine it in detail.
Me personal opinion is that the extant climate modeling is based on incomplete information and is thereby prone to innacuracy.
When I stated that there is no scientific consensus on what caused the younger dryas, nor the end yd, what I really meant was:
There is no scientific consensus as to the causal factor(s) responsible for the younger dryas nor end yd.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Contrary to an old saying:
What we don't know can indeed hurt us.
Let us end the posturing and seek knowledge.
Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that. You've shown climatological studies which do not focus on specific data sets, then claimed that this is the case because climate scientists either don't understand or refuse to accept the data not included. Sometimes, it just isn't a part of the study you're citing.
Feelings aside, I'm still not sure what you're skeptical about.
Flick: as/reYou are aware of the Lake El'gygytgyn data? And that it's findings fell outside all climate modeling parameters of the time.Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that.
You can see Julie's presentation on youtube, or read the published paper online.
Can you seriously get more innacurate than completely missing something as big as a super-interglacial, or 2 or 3 or 5 or more super-interglacials?
Them things were huge man and lasted for 10s of thousands of years.
Scientists are human beings with all of the weaknesses of any of the rest of us.
Some are so focused on their particular studies, that it is as though they were wearing blinders. Some are arrogant prigs.
I am skeptical not so much of the scientists involved, but more so of the partial message that many seem to take away from the give and take of the evolution of the knowledge base.
Phrases like: "The debate is over" or "The science is settled" always remind me of the generations of anthropologists who blindly followed V. Gordon Childe's misdirection.
I am skeptical about anyone claiming that science has all the necessary answers. That ain't what science does. Science just gives us a series of better and better questions. Love it for what it is, and not for what you want it to be.
I am skeptical of those who seem to think that the extant climate models are accurate without specific proof for their conclusions.
I do not despair climate modeling, and posted a link to a recent one which may answer some questions.
If you make a mistake, embrace that and learn from it then move on.
?? Not at all. They are deniers because their primary characteristic is that they deny climate change. Other people, for very different reasons, deny that the Holocaust happened. They are not the same.You seem to make out, that these people are on par, with Holocaust Deniers.
Well, by definition, it isn't. "Anthropogenic" means "created by man."
However, if your point is that most of the greenhouse effect is caused by natural gases, then that is definitely correct. Indeed, the greenhouse gas effect caused by (in order) water vapor, natural carbon dioxide, oxygen and ozone and natural methane make up the vast majority of the greenhouse effect. This is a good thing; if not for those gases, the surface of the planet would average around 0F rather than the current 60F - and our lives would be a lot harder.
The man made contributions (CO2 and methane plus a few other gases) are only adding a few degrees total to average temperatures. Even the absolute worst case predictions only call for an additional 10F of heating, far less than the 60F that natural greenhouse gases cause.
However, even that amount of change will have a significant impact on rainfall patterns, sea levels, crop viability, number of extinctions etc. Is saying "just let it happen" worth all those changes? That's the political side of the argument. One argument is that cheap power from cheap coal is so beneficial that we will be able to afford the trillions of dollars that climate change will cost us (relocation of communities, greater cost of food, less fresh water etc.) Another is that the damage will be so great that it will overwhelm our savings that come from not switching to cleaner sources of power.
But again, those are political arguments, not scientific ones.
Sure, if you knew that with great certainty. Currently we know the effects of AGW with a pretty good degree of accuracy - we do not know whether or not we are heading into a solar minimum.If we are indeed headed into a solar minimum, or grand minimum, and anthropogenic atmospheric loading is preventing us from heading into another "mini ice age", or period of glaciation, then the causal effect of our atmospheric loading takes on a whole new perspective.
Does it not?
We are trying to control the climate now. We're not doing it intentionally, but by adding so much CO2 we are demonstrably altering the climate. The question is - would we be better off NOT trying to control the climate?We really do need to understand all causal factors of all radical climate swings as well as periods of stasis if we ever hope to be able to control the climate.
And, control of climate is exactly what is driving many who fear anthropogenic atmospheric loading will lead to uncontrolled global warming.
Of course. But in terms of basic climate, we know quite a bit.For the little bit that we do know, there remains much more that we do not know.
Again, consider the cigarette analogy. We do not know exactly how smoking causes lung cancer, and there is no way to say "smoking caused that man's lung cancer." But we do know, with a high degree of accuracy, that it does.
Last edited by billvon; December 22nd, 2013 at 10:52 PM.
At what point is our understanding of the link between GHG emissions and global heat balance good enough? I think it's well past that point. At what point does ignoring the overwhelming scientific support for that link become irresponsible and negligent? I think we are well past that point. It's an accumulating problem, that gets worse the longer we fail to act, so when does delay justified by the urge to understand better become unjustifiable on the basis that delay makes the problem worse? I think we are well past that point as well. We have well funded and deliberate efforts to undermine community trust in that science, exaggerating the extent of uncertainty of that link and downplaying the extent of likely consequences; making national and international policy commitments that are acceptable to climate action obstructionists for the sake of the illusion of fair mindedness and or cautious conservatism is no longer good enough. Given the extreme seriousness and irreversibility of the climate problem, that kind of deliberate effort to prevent action is unacceptable. I don't know about in the USA, but in Australia every formally commissioned report on the problem has emphasised the strength of the science, the seriousness of the problem and the necessity to make prompt and serious commitments to dealing with it. There is no formal advice that says otherwise.
In Canada we have less faith in government commissions than you do in Australia. In our country whenever I hear 'government commission' I turn on some heavy metal rock to drown out the crap.
Fossilborealis, If governments don't fund science who should? If you choose to ignore consistent and persistent advice or prefer listening to loud music than listen to it, that is your choice. Unless you hold some position of trust and responsibility, then you would have an obligation to be well informed. Elected representatives here ignore those reports and actively promote the view that they must be wrong, but I think they are irresponsible and will contribute to failure to address a problem of extreme seriousness.
Like the reports Australia's science bodies present as a matter of course, the specific requests for expert advice commissioned by Australia's government are done by working scientists and qualified, and generally highly and widely respected experts. They have been consistent with global science on climate and remain generally conservative rather than 'alarmist' in their findings. But they are, in my opinion, truly alarming. If there is bias it is that bias - that avoids emphasis of the worst possible case in favor of the most likely case. If they were making findings full of errors and full of biases, well outside what is established science we would all know it very fast; these kinds of reports are widely read and carefully scrutinised by all kinds of people, with varied interests in the conclusions.
We could, of course, presume that every expert report is wrong, on the basis that they are commissioned by governments and publicly funded, but I suggest that presuming the authors are wrong because they work from grants, or within government science bodies would be a based on a logical fallacy. Or perhaps an ideological fallacy?
Meanwhile the science looks more than good enough and consistent enough that for governments and influential leaders and institutions to deliberately ignore it or seek to deny it must be considered irresponsible at best.
I'm not sure Heavy Metal Rock is a rational response to either the climate problem or your trust issues with government commissioned expert advice.
Last edited by Ken Fabos; December 22nd, 2013 at 10:24 PM.
OK Ken, what are you doing to turn things around ?
There is nothing dishonest in my statement. Climate change science is starting to come across as some kind of new religion, one questions the science and you become a denier.You win the award for Biggest Jump to Conclusion of the Year.You seem to make out, that these people are on par, with Holocaust Deniers.
How "I am getting really sick of the deniers" suggests he holds them to the same low level of esteem that one reserves for Holocaust deniers is beyond me. Seems like a REALLY dishonest attempt to paint someone else as absurd or offensive. In the end, it reflects poorly only on you.
Physics is starting to come across as some kind of new religion, one questions the existence of gravity and you become a denier.
A "denier" could be considered someone who denies an accepted reality. In that respect, I agree that they are the same. But to compare the systematic slaughter of millions, the ensuing war which claimed millions more, and the cultural backlash of those events to the human-caused impacts on the planet (with emissions impacts largely due to ignorance, not malice) is an egregious leap.
We may stand to lose even more to a large climatic change than we did even to something as horrible as WW2, but to compare the mentalities is absurd. You may have just played the ultimate victim card.
I already did in the post above, if you have issues with the melt water model I linked to please address them. And the specific example of abrupt temperature change that you referred to (and one that I showed actually had some doubts as to the amplitude). Now please stop being so damn intellectually dishonest.
Here's another one: UMass Amherst climate modeler identifies trigger for Earth's last big freezeMeltwater routing and the Younger DryasMeltwater routing and the Younger Dryas
--
As for the overall view and deniers I tend to agree with Ken to some degree. I think it's deeply morally reprehensible to deny the likely (or even quite possible) consequences of man-made changes to the ecosystem over the next century. It's hard to imagine a lower standard of gauging a society's value than viewing one that deliberately makes conditions more difficult for their descendants and in this case across a global scale.
more later, but:
Have you seriously considered just exactly why the mean global temperature hasn't risen since 1997(2000 by some sources) while we've exceeded 400 ppm of CO2 and continue to load the atmosphere with more and more.
-------
(turning a blind eye toward some information in favor of a predisposition makes for "climate science denial")
..........
I reiterate:
CO2 does not warm the planet, the sun does. Atmospheric CO2 is just a blanket. When we add more CO2 we are just adding another blanket.
Surely you've read Cowtan and Way's results. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online LibraryHave you seriously considered just exactly why the mean global temperature hasn't risen since 1997(2000 by some sources) while we've exceeded 400 ppm of CO2 and continue to load the atmosphere with more and more.
Specifically. No change in the rate of warming once you correct the temperature record to include all the areas excluded from the coverage of HadCRUT and GISS and the like.
Strange, I have never seen the term " denier " used in the physics section of this forum. Anything to do with climate change, and the term " denier " is used very frequently.
You have never heard of "relativity deniers"? We get quite a lot of them. Their arguments are very similar to climate change deniers: the evidence is misinterpreted; it is just math/models not reality; it is a conspiracy; etc.
No, I am not a victim. I am a dude, just the same as you. My hands are tied just the same as you. I try to use the jeep less. I put my shopping in a rucksack thus avoiding plastic bags. I use energy efficient stuff, and that is about it. What more can I do ? Anyway being a denier is good fun,A "denier" could be considered someone who denies an accepted reality. In that respect, I agree that they are the same. But to compare the systematic slaughter of millions, the ensuing war which claimed millions more, and the cultural backlash of those events to the human-caused impacts on the planet (with emissions impacts largely due to ignorance, not malice) is an egregious leap.
We may stand to lose even more to a large climatic change than we did even to something as horrible as WW2, but to compare the mentalities is absurd. You may have just played the ultimate victim card.
careful Dave:
"denier" = Heretic
Great fun until someone ties you to a post and starts piling sticks around your feet.
............
whodathunk Dave had so much fuel in 'im?
Once we set him on fire, a blue flame shot out of his head and burned brightly for 40 days and 40 nights.
Dispelling the darkness with the last of his brilliance.
My hands are not tied. I work in the environmental sciences in an attempt to fix the problems created by people who either don't understand or don't care about their impact on the world around them.
What more can you do? Quit your job, get an education in an environmental field, and apply your expertise to fix the problem. Worked for me.
You guys just going to pass the victim card back and forth and toss out useless rhetoric about how we equate you to holocaust deniers or are you going to get back to the topic?
blue flame, 40 days and 40 nights, global warming................
hell man what do you want>
Nice link adelady, darned entertaining
Hmmmm? I stated that climatology should regroup, hit the refresh button and present scientific findings rather than push an agenda. 'If' there is man made global warming, and 'if ' it is detrimental, then it will actually have MORE credibility and result in actual meaningful results.Because of this I am a heretic and Holocaust denier? Ha...being Jewish, I find this type of attack the last refuge of an ignoramus.
Science is about evidence. It is not about non sequiturs. Because someone did not accept 'a', does not make 'b' any more or any less valid. Science struggles constantly against false logic. Einstein can publish a paper on Special Relativity and it can be received with accolades. This acceptance does NOTHING to make his work on General Relativity valid. His work on General Relativity must stand 100% on its own merit.
No physicist would say to another, 'you doubted Albert's paper on Special Relativity...so who are you to question him on General Relativity?' Au contraire, everything in science is scrutinized and judged. It is not a judgement on the individual. It is a judgement on the very specific science presented.
One questions the science and you become a skeptic. One denies the science and you become a denier.
Warmest year on record: 2010
Second warmest:2005
Warmest decade on record: 2000-2009
Warmest year on record for the US:2012
So if you say "the global temperature hasn't risen since 2010" you'd be a lot closer.
Right, which increases the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat.while we've exceeded 400 ppm of CO2 and continue to load the atmosphere with more and more.
Well, denying that 2010 was the warmest year moves you in that direction, yes.(turning a blind eye toward some information in favor of a predisposition makes for "climate science denial")
Right. And if you put another blanket on your bed, you in general get warmer.CO2 does not warm the planet, the sun does. Atmospheric CO2 is just a blanket. When we add more CO2 we are just adding another blanket.
But you have failed to provide any evidence that there is anything wrong with the current science. Until you do, I see no reason for any such reboot.
You haven't presented any evidence that the current results are not meaningful, that there isn't man made, nor that it won't be detrimental. So I see no reason to ignore the current scientific evidence.'If' there is man made global warming, and 'if ' it is detrimental, then it will actually have MORE credibility and result in actual meaningful results.
Actually, no one accused you (or anyone else) of being a Holocaust denier. That comparison appears to have been made by a fellow "denier".Because of this I am a heretic and Holocaust denier?
And you have not shown any flaws with the evidence.Science is about evidence.
That sounds a lot like a non sequitur.It is not about non sequiturs. Because someone did not accept 'a', does not make 'b' any more or any less valid. Science struggles constantly against false logic. Einstein can publish a paper on Special Relativity and it can be received with accolades. This acceptance does NOTHING to make his work on General Relativity valid. His work on General Relativity must stand 100% on its own merit.
ok
how about we start with just 2 questions?
A) are we headed into a solar minimum?
B) as /re milankovich cycles, are we headed into a period of glaciation?
Flick, quit my job ? You must be crazy. How have you impacted on climate change ? You berate me. and yet you tell me that you are fixing problems created by people who either do not understand, or do not care about their impact on the world around them. What have you done dude ? Please tell me.My hands are not tied. I work in the environmental sciences in an attempt to fix the problems created by people who either don't understand or don't care about their impact on the world around them.
What more can you do? Quit your job, get an education in an environmental field, and apply your expertise to fix the problem. Worked for me.
A) Probably based on what we know about entire range of variability. Given it's range is about 1/2 the total variance in forcing compared to green house gas forcing changes thus far, and less than a 1/4 of that projected for rest of this century, it's unlikely to matter much.
B) No...not for another 50,000 years or so. The current pattern of low eccentricity makes this similar to MIS-II interglacial. An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?.. ..http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~born/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/berger_loutre02.sci.pdf
.. ..when you combine is with ice models you see there's no large scale glaciation coming for quite a long time.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 23rd, 2013 at 05:31 PM.
Tut Tut. Over tired are you? Try taking deep breaths. Please, more of your cut and paste talents. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Wowee! I can cut and paste evidence of alien abductions. Now get back to Google and cut and paste some more.Examples. Please link peer review literature which you've read and have problems with including specific concerns. Unless you are prepared to do this, than quite frankly you don't have any meaningful reason for your opinion.
Lets all cut and paste 'to prove' this agenda of the global warming cultists.
One more point on the term "denier" - as far as I can tell people have been schooled to see the it as intentional comparison to Holocaust denier, with insult presumed to be intentional. They are wrong; without prompting by people who seek to paint the proponents of strong action on climate in the worst possible light the term denier would simply have the meaning it actually has, as someone who denies the truth of something. I don't think I have ever seen any gratuitously deliberate comparisons of Climate science deniers and Holocaust deniers in this forum - apart by my own gratuitous look at how they actually compare.*
I've been asked what I do about the climate problem.
What I do is not anywhere near enough; I live within a society and economy and infrastructure that is built on and geared to fossil fuel use. My energy frugality (in Australian terms) and use of solar for water heating and some electricity will still look like outrageous extravagance to billions of people and does not make my carbon footprint anything like neutral. It is an ethical dilemma at the personal level but I believe the problem is unsolvable if we insist on framing it as collections of individual choices within a system that does not limit the choices available. It's not that I want to prevent choice; I don't. But fossil fuels and the chain of production that use it do not pay the full and true costs and an accumulating burden of external costs is accruing. Ending this kind of sleight of hand accounting is not ideological attacks on free markets, it is advocacy for a market which is not "fixed".
So I advocate for change, express my opinions, debate in forums, write to elected representatives and media and generally add my name to that demographic of Australians and global citizens that seeks appropriate and sufficient action to transition away from fossil fuel dependence and economic based on fabricated illusions about what our prosperity costs. And I am willing to bear a burden of costs in terms of personal prosperity in the process.
The problem is principally one for our social and economic infrastructure and institutions and it's a profound test of their adaptability, capabilities and ultimately their ethical underpinnings. That these institutions tend to reflect the ethical values of the majority of individuals doesn't mean they can't set and enforce minimum standards that are higher than those individuals would choose - what they would choose in the absence of consequences. By making consequences more explicit, an element has been added into the process of choosing. What we pay for energy and the products of energy do not reflect their true and full cost, so it's about prevention of systematic cheating that discounts externalised costs like global warming by introducing orderly change to the systems we rely upon.
Market solutions will only work if the true costs are incorporated into the economics; this test of our society's institutions is one that will not be passed by cheating. The costs cannot be actually written off on paper or avoided by bankruptcy. There will be consequences no matter how strongly we believe, and through our scientists, we have a good idea what they are likely to be; the illusion that we not only can avoid them, but probably will looks like wishful thinking. Or perhaps wishful marketing.
*Reflecting on this, I may have used gratuitously used the term "denier" with people who object to being called that, just for the annoyance value; petty of me, I know.
Last edited by Ken Fabos; December 23rd, 2013 at 05:50 PM.
The reality is you've not posted anything substantive in this entire thread and been unable or unwilling to back up even your own claims as reasons for your opinion...and they were relatively simple things like providing a source for specific quotes that led you to doubt. Stop trolling if you want to stay around here.Tut Tut. Over tired are you? Try taking deep breaths. Please, more of your cut and paste talents. Cut and paste. Cut and paste. Wowee! I can cut and paste evidence of alien abductions. Now get back to Google and cut and paste some more.Examples. Please link peer review literature which you've read and have problems with including specific concerns. Unless you are prepared to do this, than quite frankly you don't have any meaningful reason for your opinion.
Lets all cut and paste 'to prove' this agenda of the global warming cultists.
Seems like some people can provide references to peer-reviewed science and others can just yell, "conspiracy"...
Only if you have very low standards of "evidence".I can cut and paste evidence of alien abductions.
Yes, unlike high standards of discussion like cut and paste. Cut and paste....google and cut and paste some more. Here' a chart showing the frequency of alien abductions over the....yawn....snore.We can all escalate aour position with more cut and paste.Seems like some people can provide references to peer-reviewed science and others can just yell, "conspiracy"...Only if you have very low standards of "evidence".I can cut and paste evidence of alien abductions.
| « Where is the winter? | New research of ocean warming » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
49Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
