NASA: Only 10 Years Till Irreversable Climatic Danger Point

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by astrocreep
and if not, at least the grant money will come in handy.

Grant money doesn't sit in the researchers' personal bank account...

Well, I guess the answer about which 'sceptic' box you fall in may have been provided.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by melatonin]

Thanks for labeling me. Sometimes I have no idea which label I carry until its applied. Yep, I have no political gain nor have I any stake in anything except knowing the truth. Nah, I don't think I will ever find it but the hunt is enlightening. The issue that I am not willing to carve in stone something so contreversial soes not mean I dismiss. I am only saying it cannot currently be proven not that it will never be.

Originally posted by astrocreep
Then I suggest sticking to your guns. I don't care. I am almost self-sufficient and will be by the time you and your cohorts economically repress the world. But, in the end, you will discover you have no control over climate change as it has been for billions of years. I guess so long as one feels good in the moment, tis all that matters.

But, alas I fear you will always have your skeptics, those who value data over emotion and a good cause. Best of luck in the endeavor to control it. Though many in the past have failed, I'm sure you all will prevail, and if not, at least the grant money will come in handy.

Thats a big crock of bull hooey if I ever heard it.

(1) Changing the way we do business... from excess to conservation, developing alternative energies and converting over to them... conservation and conservation renewal will create an economic boom like none other.... if only because there is so much to be done.

(2) WHILE WE CANNOT CONTROL THE CLIMATE BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE CANNOT AFFECT IT... why is that so hard to understand? This has nothing about feeling good and never has thats another big load of merde.

(3) Yeah skeptics who value data so long as it supports THEIR opinions are not skeptics, they are ideologues.

Your line is just that... a line.


[edit on 2-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by astrocreep
Thanks for labeling me. Sometimes I have no idea which label I carry until its applied. Yep, I have no political gain nor have I any stake in anything except knowing the truth. Nah, I don't think I will ever find it but the hunt is enlightening. The issue that I am not willing to carve in stone something so contreversial soes not mean I dismiss. I am only saying it cannot currently be proven not that it will never be.

I did say 'may'.

The opportunity to act like a real sceptic is still available. What this involves is challenging your own conceptions of issues, as well as that of others. You seem to exhibit strawman views of climate science, if you want to challenge this view, a little reading of what this complex science entails can help. The IPCC report is a good place to start.

Science does a poor job of proving anything. It will provide a high degree of certainty, but never 100% proof or absolute Truth(TM). It is always tentative. That is where the scepticism comes into play, questionning and testing our preconceptions and that of others.

Astrocreep... you have no interest in finding any truth except that which you label truth to support your opinions. The same thing that you accuse those who disagree with you of doing.

Originally posted by grover
Astrocreep... you have no interest in finding any truth except that which you label truth to support your opinions. The same thing that you accuse those who disagree with you of doing.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, I haven't labelled anything either here nor there, I merely asked why it is so taboo to question a scientific theory. I don't label anything truth in this case because as I said, the study of earth's climate is so broad reaching, science has not began to grasp all the facets yet. Hell, we don't even know enough to know we don't know, apparently.

However, I do find it curious that many of you have developed some sort of litmus test for anyone wishing to discuss the topic as a skeptic as if you can somehow prevent it. I love the term, "strawman" being applied to it. Is this news or have I mistakenly entered into a topic in the religion forum?

Its not like anything I have presented is some sort of fanciful make believe ideas. I mean, we all learn how dynamic the planet is in Highschool Geoscience. Look, I can't disprove global warming and I don't want to try but what I can do is take any entry level earth science book and give you a half dozen other catalyst just as probable.

I'd like to see more work done on it. I think the best way is to prevent any company or political faction from directly funding it and allow the model to be thrown out and actual data used. I did find the IPCC report interesting and would have liked to have read it before a week of editing by UN beaurocrats. Thats also what defamed the 93 report and got many of the contributors worked up. I do also wish CNN would have aired their special on the scientist who disagreed with what was ultimately published. I tuned in at the time advertised but for some reason it did not air and the whole thing kinda went away. Now, I'm wondering. Time for do a little research.

And as we all squabble on here nothing gets done...

Were all along for the ride boys and girls, lets do what humans do best. ADAPT!

Originally posted by melatonin

Yeah, of course, we expect warming to be happening in every single region in every single month, no actually every day all over the world...don't be silly.

Hence you can't have it both ways... During the RWP, the MWP and the LIA the same thing happened. Everywhere in the world it wasn't the "same", there were differences in temperatures. There was mostly a warming trend as can be seen by all the research data I have given from around the world, which you keep trying to dismiss.

In some areas of the world it was a lot warmer than in other areas, yet you, alongside Mann and associates, have been trying to use this fact to claim "those events were not Global nor warmer than the present".

Yet you want to ignore the fact that during the current warming the same thing is happening.

Are we to say the current Climate Change is no "global event" because on overall the South Pole is gaining Ice mass?

Antarctica's gaining ice in some spots
Science News, July 2, 2005
...............
Overall, an average of 1.8 cm of precipitation would have piled up each year on the areas of the continent that were visible to the satellites, Davis and his colleagues say in the June 24 Science. That adds up to 45 billion tons of snowfall annually. The transfer of that much moisture from the oceans would cause world sea levels to drop about 0.12 millimeter each year.--S.P.

findarticles.com...

Are we to say that the current Climate change Earth is undergoing is no "Global event" because not every area of the world has been experiencing the same warming, or because "the warming was not synchronous"?

Originally posted by melatonin

From Mann et al. 2003:

And then you claim you don't use Mann's data...

Are we going over again on how Mann has been trying to dupe the world into believing the RWP, the MWP, and the LIA didn't exist?....

Originally posted by melatonin
This shows the fraction (number] of records during a particular timeframe that are above a threshold level of temperature, this uses 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere. A wider region of warming is present during the late 20th then any time in the previous 1200 yrs

Sigh....

Accumulation and 18O records for ice cores from Quelccaya ice cap. The period of the Little Ice Age stands out clearly as an interval of colder temperature (lower 18O) and higher accumulation. Such evidence demonstrates the Little Ice Age was a climatic episode of global significance. From World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (educational slide set).

academic.emporia.edu...

And how many times do i have to excerpt dozens of other research which differ to what Mann, associates and yourself keep claiming?...

Sorry melatonin, but the few data you post from Mann and a couple of his associates does not quantify as valid when dozens of other research around the world contradict those claims of yours, Mann and his few associates.

Originally posted by melatonin
You sound like a young earth creationist arguing against carbon dating. Your approaches are very similar in many respects.

I am no "young Earth creationist"... another of your lame attempts to dismiss the facts which contradict your claims...

Originally posted by melatonin
All we need to know is the carbon budget, we are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than is accumulating. About 7 GtCarbon every year now, a proportion of which can completely account for that which accumulates to give the yearly CO2 rise (which is less than the human-sourced emission, carbon sinks account for the remainder).

No, we need to know exactly how much CO2 is anthropogenic and how much is natural... and so far the methods used to take these measurements are not "fool proof". Carbon isotope levels have been changing throughout the history of Earth, and we have had spikes of C13, C14 and even C12 in several past Climate Changes.

Originally posted by melatonin
If you have problems with approaches in radiocarbon measurements, publish a paper on it. Otherwise, your criticisms are moot. I'm sure the scientists in this area are quite aware of the variables that could affect their measurements, unless they forgot to read the Encyclopedia Britannica...

Actually the link to the encyclopedia Britannica was for "your perusal" as you seem to be unaware of what I was talking about.

Originally posted by melatonin
But, just FYI, it's actually C-13/C-12 ratio that is the main method of measuring this phenomena (e.g. Ciais et al. 1995). C-14 is an additional bonus, along with oxygen measurements for highlighting the CO2 increase is predominately anthropogenic.

I am familiar and know well the Carbon 13 to Carbon 12 ratio method, as I have talked about it in the past on several occasions...

And BTW, are you also going to claim that there haven't been changes and spikes in the stable isotopes in the geological record during Climate Changes in the past?.... C13 has had "natural spikes" in many Climate Changes in the past, and not to mention that phytoplankton influences also the amount of C13 in the oceans when they are stressed.

Keep trying to make up excuses melatonin.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin

CO2 is not the only variable that affects climate. I've stated this numerous times. It doesn't need to go back in time, it needs a trigger that eventually results in the emission of CO2, which then does its GHG thang by increasing temps.

Which as stated on numerous research it won't increase temperatures much...

A slight increase in water vapor levels on the atmosphere causes more warming than a doubling of CO2 ever would, and guess what?... as stated time and again, we are in a warming trend which "raises naturally GHGs" such as H2Ov and yes CO2 also alongside other GHGs.

Originally posted by melatonin
................
We emit more CO2 into the atmosphere every year than is accumulating in the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce a pretty negligible amount. What is released by the oceans and terrestrial sinks is also removed by the same sinks. Work it out.

Wow, who knew... apparently melatonin is now also trying to claim that GHGs have not increased to very high levels in the past naturally...

I guess he is learning from Mann on how to dupe the world into believing such crap...

Originally posted by melatonin


CO2 is not the only variable that affects climate. I've stated this numerous times. It doesn't need to go back in time, it needs a trigger that eventually results in the emission of CO2, which then does its GHG thang by increasing temps.

It's called a positive feedback.

it's called a cop-out

if there's no change, there's nothing to feed back on, iow, the onus still lies with the GW supporters who want to focus on CO2 at any cost, to produce credible evidence that a miniscule change of CO2 concentration triggered your feedback loop which then magically went away as soon as level X was reached (otherwise we'd still be stuck in it, if it's 'amplification' was as high as you seem to suggest), or declined quickly at higher concentrations...for whatever reason.

there are two aspects which immediately come to my mind:

1st: relying on measurements barely above the threshold of sensitivity is a hallmark of pathological science

2nd: if even the slightest disturbance causes GW, while the rest is the result of 'positive feedback' we're way past that point anyway and progressive future increases are inevitable, which would render Kyoto ineffective and ecologically irrelevant.


that is if there's any way to identify such a miniscule increase as a cause in the data set which can reasonably be isolated (ie. one shouldn't be able to find 500 other instances which look the same, but nothing happened) from the data set without peeking into the warming graph (=cheating).

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by grover
Astrocreep... you have no interest in finding any truth except that which you label truth to support your opinions. The same thing that you accuse those who disagree with you of doing.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, I haven't labelled anything either here nor there, I merely asked why it is so taboo to question a scientific theory. I don't label anything truth in this case because as I said, the study of earth's climate is so broad reaching, science has not began to grasp all the facets yet. Hell, we don't even know enough to know we don't know, apparently.

However, I do find it curious that many of you have developed some sort of litmus test for anyone wishing to discuss the topic as a skeptic as if you can somehow prevent it. I love the term, "strawman" being applied to it. Is this news or have I mistakenly entered into a topic in the religion forum?

Its not like anything I have presented is some sort of fanciful make believe ideas. I mean, we all learn how dynamic the planet is in Highschool Geoscience. Look, I can't disprove global warming and I don't want to try but what I can do is take any entry level earth science book and give you a half dozen other catalyst just as probable.

I'd like to see more work done on it. I think the best way is to prevent any company or political faction from directly funding it and allow the model to be thrown out and actual data used. I did find the IPCC report interesting and would have liked to have read it before a week of editing by UN beaurocrats. Thats also what defamed the 93 report and got many of the contributors worked up. I do also wish CNN would have aired their special on the scientist who disagreed with what was ultimately published. I tuned in at the time advertised but for some reason it did not air and the whole thing kinda went away. Now, I'm wondering. Time for do a little research.

Then why belittle those who feel differently as opposed to respecting them as fellow travelers?

Originally posted by Muaddib

Accumulation and 18O records for ice cores from Quelccaya ice cap. The period of the Little Ice Age stands out clearly as an interval of colder temperature (lower 18O) and higher accumulation. Such evidence demonstrates the Little Ice Age was a climatic episode of global significance. From World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (educational slide set).

academic.emporia.edu...

And how many times do i have to excerpt dozens of other research which differ to what Mann, associates and yourself keep claiming?...

So you present a single regional proxy again, heh.

No, we need to know exactly how much CO2 is anthropogenic and how much is natural... and so far the methods used to take these measurements are not "fool proof". Carbon isotope levels have been changing throughout the history of Earth, and we have had spikes of C13, C14 and even C12 in several past Climate Changes.

7GtC released by humans into the atmosphere every year, about half of which accumulates and accounts for the yearly atmospheric rise. Sinks show no net natural loss of carbon.

We know where the carbon is coming from.

Which as stated on numerous research it won't increase temperatures much...

Aye, just 2-4.5'C globally.

Wow, who knew... apparently melatonin is now also trying to claim that GHGs have not increased to very high levels in the past naturally...

Can't quite see where I said that. But the current release of CO2 is predominately human-sourced.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by astrocreep
However, I do find it curious that many of you have developed some sort of litmus test for anyone wishing to discuss the topic as a skeptic as if you can somehow prevent it. I love the term, "strawman" being applied to it. Is this news or have I mistakenly entered into a topic in the religion forum?

What you said earlier is a strawman view of climate science...

How can you uphold a theory that asked us to disregard the major influences such as solar insolation, albedo and orbit changes and hinge upon a rather miniscule variable?

You can discuss many things without an argument being called a strawman, it applies to particular types of arguments, like the one above.

The theory doesn't ask you to disregard these other variables. It attempts to account for them.

Originally posted by Long Lance
if there's no change, there's nothing to feed back on, iow, the onus still lies with the GW supporters who want to focus on CO2 at any cost, to produce credible evidence that a miniscule change of CO2 concentration triggered your feedback loop which then magically went away as soon as level X was reached (otherwise we'd still be stuck in it, if it's 'amplification' was as high as you seem to suggest), or declined quickly at higher concentrations...for whatever reason.

there are two aspects which immediately come to my mind:

1st: relying on measurements barely above the threshold of sensitivity is a hallmark of pathological science

2nd: if even the slightest disturbance causes GW, while the rest is the result of 'positive feedback' we're way past that point anyway and progressive future increases are inevitable, which would render Kyoto ineffective and ecologically irrelevant.

Heh, cop out. Yeah, OK. I guess you accept that increasing temps, cause more water vapour, that as a GHG causes warming. That is positive feedback as well.

We're not talking about miniscule changes, we are talking about the same changes that bring about ice-age cycles. This involves changes of around 100ppm in CO2.

The current idea is that orbital changes result in a temperature increase, this eventually results in a release of CO2 from the biosphere (e.g. from oceans as suggested in a study earlier), this further increases temperatures, as it is a GHG (this will also include changes in albedo and other variables). These phenomena are still under examination, but it is sufficient to know that CO2 is generally a positive feedback, just like water vapour is.

Why would it be a runaway effect? It's quite acceptable to think an equilibrium would eventually be reached. It seems to have been that way for 650,000 years.

Since when is there anything such as a 'pathological' science? There is pseudoscience, there is science. If climate science follows the methodology of science - such as producing testable falsifiable predictions, then a science it is.

Whether Kyoto is irrelevant or a waste is not something I particularly care about. I'll let the politicians and economists battle this out. That is where the real debate is now, seems to be little in the scientific literature.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Heh, cop out. Yeah, OK. I guess you accept that increasing temps, cause more water vapour, that as a GHG causes warming. That is positive feedback as well.

We're not talking about miniscule changes, we are talking about the same changes that bring about ice-age cycles. This involves changes of around 100ppm in CO2.
...

none of this adresses my original objection, that the preceeding influence can only cause the succeding factor, not the other way around. CO2 that wasn't around when the warming trend started can't be responsible for it. call it an 'alibi' if you wish.


if you accept that warming trends come before CO2 increases, and that we're currently undergoing the same scenario, whereas CO2 is again lagging the warming trend, you'll have to admit that the notion does not help the case of primarily CO2 induced GW.

don't get me wrong, i'm not sure on the last part, either, what i do know, though is that without a runaway effect, the whole idea of extreme urgency seems a lot less credible, doesn't it?

You

Muaddib
CO2 has always lagged temperature increases, meaning CO2 increases in the past have always been an effect, and not a cause, of Climate Change.

Logical fallacy.

Chickens cause eggs, and eggs cause chickens.

Originally posted by Long Lance
none of this adresses my original objection, that the preceeding influence can only cause the succeding factor, not the other way around. CO2 that wasn't around when the warming trend started can't be responsible for it. call it an 'alibi' if you wish.

No-one proposes it was the initiator. It was an amplifier, a positive feedback. I think I've said that a few times now. CO2 is estimated to account for about 30% of the warming as we leave a glacial period.

if you accept that warming trends come before CO2 increases, and that we're currently undergoing the same scenario, whereas CO2 is again lagging the warming trend, you'll have to admit that the notion does not help the case of primarily CO2 induced GW.

But it's not the same scenario really. The CO2 is not being produced because of some other intitiating factor, unless you count humans in this way. It is predominately human-sourced. As a GHG, it causes warming, you are arguing against basic physics here.

If it was a natural effect, we would see CO2 being lost by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. But they are actually showing a net gain.

So in this case, the CO2 is not acting as a positive feedback, it is an anthropogenic forcing.



[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]

i simply don't get is why CO2 set free by 'positive feedback' should be considered any different from CO2 introduced by 'anthropogenic forcing'. it does, after all exhibit the same spectral lines, doesn't it?if i understood it correctly, past CO2 and climate data is not applicable, because today's situation is different? if that's the case, may i ask who brought it up in the first place? as evidence for what exactly? what is Al Gore doing all the time with his graphs?

besides, i thought the idea was to prove that CO2 caused GW, not assume that GW is caused by CO2 and go from there. it is of course true that, viewed in isolation, more CO2 means a stronger greenhouse effect. the dispute is simply if the whole planetary system has no choice but to undergo GW, and to what extent, when CO2 concentrations increase.

i'm not the one singling out CO2, but correct me if i'm wrong, the whole climate change show is based on reducing CO2 emissions, and only that.

Originally posted by Long Lance
i simply don't get is why CO2 set free by 'positive feedback' should be considered any different from CO2 introduced by 'anthropogenic forcing'. it does, after all exhibit the same spectral lines, doesn't it?if i understood it correctly, past CO2 and climate data is not applicable, because today's situation is different? if that's the case, may i ask who brought it up in the first place? as evidence for what exactly? what is Al Gore doing all the time with his graphs?

In essence, it isn't treated any differently. In both cases it causes warming, that's what GHGs do.

As far as Al Gore and his graphs, I assume he is attempting to show the close relationship between CO2 and climate over the last 650,000 years (or whatever timeframe he shows).

besides, i thought the idea was to prove that CO2 caused GW, not assume that GW is caused by CO2 and go from there. it is of course true that, viewed in isolation, more CO2 means a stronger greenhouse effect. the dispute is simply if the whole planetary system has no choice but to undergo GW, and to what extent, when CO2 concentrations increase.

i'm not the one singling out CO2, but correct me if i'm wrong, the whole climate change show is based on reducing CO2 emissions, and only that.

CO2 is one factor in climate change. In the current circumstances, it is one of the human variables. Deforestation and land use changes are others.

If we accept that human activity is significant during the current warming period, as suggested by all major scientific organisations and supported wholeheartedly by the scientific literature, it can only be a good thing to reduce our emissions of this GHG and attempt to restrict the extent of the human-based climate change. This does not mean that other human effects should be ignored.

TBH, whether people/politicians want to bother is entirely up to them, the science is sound, do what you will with the knowledge.

Even if it is just a planetary cycle, isn't cutting back on pollution a good idea anyways?

I still say even if global warming were proven to be wrong, it would still be prudent to change how we consume.

Reminds me of a verse from Revelation 8:7 at the End of Days:

"The first sounded, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up."