TOO LATE? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

Originally posted by melatonin
I happen to find your waving of a your weak credentials around as some sort of 'sword of truth' pretty sad. And your responses betray your pretty superficial understanding of this stuff. You have an undergraduate degree, cool. It adds nothing.

See mel, this is why we stopped talking before. I know your degree is not in chemistry or biology, but have I hounded you about 'what do you know about ecology anyway'? You've gone into the bounds of basic disrespect for your fellow human beings yet again (credentials aside) and I yield the remainder of the discussion to the voice that seems comfort you most, your own.

Originally posted by majestictwo
"The region, the largest frozen peat bog in the world, had begun to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago. Scientists believe the bog could begin to release billions of tonnes of methane locked up in the soils"

so wait a minute, the peat bog isn't as old as the planet?
I am confused, do you mean that temperatures change and that they changed enough to make a peat bog freeze 11,000 years ago?
Who caused that? was it because the flora and fauna didn't produce enough Co2, where there too many trees sucking up the Co2?

in 2005 Queensland researches found ancient mangrove forests entombed beneath the Great Barrier Reef.

Dr Dan Alongi from the Australian Institute of Marine Science says they have unearthed 9,000-year-old mangroves in old river channels that were swamped when sea levels rose after the last ice age.

so now these boffins are saying we had an ice age, next they will be telling me that the earth revolves around the sun and climate change is natural.

Well that's weird. I am just now reading a physics paper that mentions the giants you spoke of:

Authors trace back their origins to the works of Fourier [37,38] (1824), Tyndall [39[43] (1861) and Arrhenius [44[46] (1896). A careful analysis of the original papers shows that Fourier's and Tyndall's works did not really include the concept of the atmospheric greenhouse eect, whereas Arrhenius's work fundamentally diers from the versions of today. With exception of Ref. [46], the traditional works precede the seminal papers of modern physics, such as Planck's work on the radiation of a black body [33, 34]. Although the arguments of Arrhenius were falsied by his contemporaries they were picked up by Callendar [47[53] and Keeling [54[60], the founders of the modern greenhouse hypothesis.5 Interestingly, this hypothesis has been vague ever since it has been used.

a couple quotes from the 5 page summary:

Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth albeit any physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse eect, however is a mirage" [204]. The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious

...

The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the average" fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justication anyway, was given up.

...

In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

Paper title is Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
link is here: arxiv.org...
114 pages

Originally posted by saint4God
See mel, this is why we stopped talking before. I know your degree is not in chemistry or biology, but have I hounded you about 'what do you know about ecology anyway'? You've gone into the bounds of basic disrespect for your fellow human beings yet again (credentials aside) and I yield the remainder of the discussion to the voice that seems comfort you most, your own.

Oh, come on, saint. You make a comment about having a sciency degree to add weight to pointing out words in an article. Did the degree equip you to read words? Does you having a degree in biology add weight to you pointing out 'maybe''s and 'could''s? lol. And before that start with a kiddie story with the interpretation we don't know everything.

I'm happy enough to discuss the science, but you don't appear able to.

But that's no problem. If all you have is the ability to say we're not absolutely certain about particular phenomena and don't know some stuff, then it would be pretty boring anyway. See ya later.

I know your degree is not in chemistry or biology

It's totally irrelevant what I have. It adds nothing to the discussion. But I do have a grade B 16+ in French, mon ami!

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

The gentle, short-term global warming that occurred in the late 20th century falls within previous natural rates and magnitudes of warming and cooling. It is therefore prima facie unalarming, especially when one remembers that the historic ground temperature records usually cited in support of the warming are warm-biased by the urban heat island effect.

In comparison, the radiosonde record shows no significant warming between 1958 and 2005, and the ‘warming trend’ displayed by both the radiosonde and satellite temperature curves since 1979 can alternatively (and perhaps preferably) be represented as a single step increase of ~0.20 C across the 1998 El Nino (Gray 2006).

However, irrespective of the way in which the 1979-1998 data are interpreted, it remains the case that the late 20th century phase of rising temperature terminated in 1998.

No warming has occurred since 1998 (Figs. 5, 8) despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of about 15 ppm (5%).

so no reason to panic then?


edit to add link
nzclimatescience.net...

[edit on 12/12/08 by RogerT]

Originally posted by RogerT
Paper title is Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
link is here: arxiv.org...
114 pages

What do you find convincing about it?

When you googled it, and read it, what argument did you find convincing?

reply to post by melatonin


Just skimming through at the mo. 114 pages with a lot of physics. I'm going to need to reach for the text books

Originally posted by RogerT
Just skimming through at the mo. 114 pages with a lot of physics. I'm going to need to reach for the text books

It has some physicy-looking type stuff, yeah. It essentially does a 40 or so page criticism of the idea of the greenhouse effect as a true greenhouse, which it isn't seen as, and then goes all wacky.

You do know that you could upload a manuscript to Arxiv? The authors have never ever published a peer-reviewed article on climate science, and I'm sure when they publish this comedy piece, they'll have the Nobel waiting for them, lol. I won't hold my breath, like.

Without the greenhouse effect we would freeze and Venus would be a tad cooler. About 400'C cooler.

Originally posted by RogerT

No warming has occurred since 1998 (Figs. 5, 8) despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of about 15 ppm (5%).

so no reason to panic then?

Panic?

Why 1998? You do know that's the peak El Nino year? And the last year or so has been a La Nina period?

The comment 'despiting' appears to suggest that temperatures must always rise if CO2 increases. Don't you see a problem with that?



Global warming also stopped in 1983 and 1991. You're noise-dwelling.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

Are you saying the authors are not peer reviewed physicists, or just that this paper has not been peer reviewed?

As for the graph. OK, it has 3 best fit straight lines which show a warming trend. Why is a straight line best fit more valid than a sinusoidal line over a longer time period.

Here's a graph of temp change over 2000 years. Looks like a pretty normal sine wave, which is after all, how nature more often operates.



Making graphs of selective parts of data sets to prove a point is a bit dubious IMO. It's the same way the Immunisation Propoganda perpetuates the myth that immunisation wiped out disease. When you plot data from the same sources just a few years earlier, the crock is exposed for what it is.

Is this similar in the AGW debate?

For example: why quote the 'highest CO2 in 650k years', as if 650k years is something special. If global temps were similar 150 million years ago yet CO2 was at least 10 times higher, doesn't this change the emphasis somewhat?

You say I am dwelling on noise from a linear trend, yet isn't it possible that pro AGW is dwelling on noise from a normal rhythmical trend of continuous climate change?

[edit on 13/12/08 by RogerT]

Since i lack the time and interest to add to and reread all my collected materials it may be simplest to ask you ( Mel) if you think there are solutions to AGW that does not include a reduction in living standards for anyone on the planet. I am not talking about smaller cars, still eating far more than you need, living in somewhat smaller homes and so forth but about all these proposed 'population reductions' schemes and general reduction in international trade and movement.

Stellar

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by majestictwo
"The region, the largest frozen peat bog in the world, had begun to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago. Scientists believe the bog could begin to release billions of tonnes of methane locked up in the soils"

so wait a minute, the peat bog isn't as old as the planet?
I am confused, do you mean that temperatures change and that they changed enough to make a peat bog freeze 11,000 years ago?
Who caused that? was it because the flora and fauna didn't produce enough Co2, where there too many trees sucking up the Co2?

in 2005 Queensland researches found ancient mangrove forests entombed beneath the Great Barrier Reef.

Dr Dan Alongi from the Australian Institute of Marine Science says they have unearthed 9,000-year-old mangroves in old river channels that were swamped when sea levels rose after the last ice age.

so now these boffins are saying we had an ice age, next they will be telling me that the earth revolves around the sun and climate change is natural.

Who knows; climate change is underway though and if humans hadn't added to it it may not have started at this time, we won't know yet if we have increased the depth of climate change.

I'm not one of those who thinks it totally natural, and that there is nothing we can do to change it. We may not stop it, but surely we shouldn't make it worse.

Originally posted by RogerT
Are you saying the authors are not peer reviewed physicists, or just that this paper has not been peer reviewed?

It was fairly clear. What they conclude would be ground-breaking, it would overturn the very nature of basic radiative physics. So why not publish in a proper journal and get the Nobel?

They might have papers in something, but they appear to have pretty basic understanding of radiative physics. Indeed, the article has been pulled to shreds by climate scientists all over the interwebs for very silly basic errors (e.g., using a number for planet emissivity that already takes into account the greenhouse effect to show there is no greenhouse effect, lol).

The article essentially tries to show there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect...does that even sound correct? How does an infrared satellite even work?

As for the graph. OK, it has 3 best fit straight lines which show a warming trend. Why is a straight line best fit more valid than a sinusoidal line over a longer time period.

Here's a graph of temp change over 2000 years. Looks like a pretty normal sine wave, which is after all, how nature more often operates.

I'm getting deja-vu...you're not part of team-redneck are you?

The Loehle paper is published in 'Energy & Environment'. A 'journal' which is essentially the dumping ground for pseudosceptic climate 'science' - I doubt any respectable scientist would even think of publishing in it. There are numerous proxy reconstructions for the last 2000 years published in respectable journals by proper paleo dudes, they are very similar in their outcome...

Making graphs of selective parts of data sets to prove a point is a bit dubious IMO. It's the same way the Immunisation Propoganda perpetuates the myth that immunisation wiped out disease. When you plot data from the same sources just a few years earlier, the crock is exposed for what it is.

Dude, you made a cherrypicked claim about cooling since 1998.

I posted data which covered that exact period, showing that in the last 30 years there have been a couple of times one could claim 'teh globe is now cooling!11!eleventyone!'. You are essentially hiding in the noise. There is no reason why temps must necessarily always rise due to CO2 rise, that would suggest that CO2 is the only factor in climate.

You ignore that point about your cherrypicking selectivity, criticise me for being selective (lol), and move on to another issue. This appears to show basic intellectual dishonesty.

Is this similar in the AGW debate?

You're certainly following the normal path in these discussions. You post issue, I answer. You ignore, move goalposts, and ask another question.

That's why there is little chance of a 'debate'. It's like scatter-spudgun denialism.

For example: why quote the 'highest CO2 in 650k years', as if 650k years is something special. If global temps were similar 150 million years ago yet CO2 was at least 10 times higher, doesn't this change the emphasis somewhat?

I think the whole climate system of the earth was different 150 million years ago. Again, you are making the error that CO2 is the only factor to account for.

You say I am dwelling on noise from a linear trend, yet isn't it possible that pro AGW is dwelling on noise from a normal rhythmical trend of continuous climate change?

I doubt it, we have the basic physics that shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have the fingerprints of GHG-induced warming. We have periods in geological time where massive releases of carbon have resulted in significant warming. We have good evidence of the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 increases.

Releases of CO2 will force a warming of the climate. That is basic physics, supported by observations and models.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by StellarX
Since i lack the time and interest to add to and reread all my collected materials it may be simplest to ask you ( Mel) if you think there are solutions to AGW that does not include a reduction in living standards for anyone on the planet. I am not talking about smaller cars, still eating far more than you need, living in somewhat smaller homes and so forth but about all these proposed 'population reductions' schemes and general reduction in international trade and movement.

Stellar

I really don't know, Stellar. The answers and solution to the problem are not my forte. I don't see why the solutions to climate change would need a significant reduction in living standards.

As I said, I despise the politics. I'm all for moving to nuclear energy for the time-being. We have to find renewable energy sources anyway. We have to make that energy source self-sustainable, as the cheap and dirty energy won't last forever. It was essentially a freebie the earth has given us to for the opportunity to kickstart a sustainable process.

As for population reductions, I think it makes sense for humans to reduce their sprog-output. I don't think it needs anything more than that. Nothing subversive.

reply to post by melatonin


No I'm not team anything. Just asking questions. when you answer them I consider your answer and move on to my next question. Sorry if that seems like I'm moving goalposts. I thought you'd already said you weren't interested in a debate, so I am just asking questions of someone who seems to have a lot more info at hand than I do. it shortcuts my need to do my own laborious searching and I appreciate it.

there seems to be some valuable and valid criticism of the IPCC reports and the consequent AGW propoganda, and there is also some obvious baloney. I don't want to get hung up on the not-so-obvious-to-a-layman baloney, so I ask, and ask , and ask some more

my questions are not rhetorical, they are genuine. some of your answers make complete sense and effectively close that particular avenue of thought for me, others bring up new questions, which I then either ask or store for later when I've got a bit more info.

however, I need to get back to a life outside of this AGW train of thought, so will ask one more question and then bow out for now.

you say: "I think the whole climate system of the earth was different 150 million years ago. Again, you are making the error that CO2 is the only factor to account for."

this really floored me as I thought the entire AGW premise was based on MMCO2 causing a dangerous and unprecendented rise in CO2 levels which will lead to a catastrophic rise in global temps that will destroy life as we know it. Or at least that is what is continuously pumped out of just about every msm outlet nowadays.

If historical records show a flourishing earth, without runaway temps, and a CO2 level of 4000 ppm, why the big hoo haa about 400 ppm? How can you dismiss this so easily with a simple statement starting with 'I think'?

If the climate system was so different back then, when was the climate system similar enough to warrant comparison? Is this where the 650k years comes in and if so, why? What changed 650,000 years ago that made the climate system suddenly become more representative of today?

thanks.
R

Originally posted by RogerT
No I'm not team anything. Just asking questions. when you answer them I consider your answer and move on to my next question. Sorry if that seems like I'm moving goalposts. I thought you'd already said you weren't interested in a debate, so I am just asking questions of someone who seems to have a lot more info at hand than I do. it shortcuts my need to do my own laborious searching and I appreciate it.

You criticised me for answering in the most effective manner a question that you asked, lol. It was as if my comment was just a random unconnected point.

You cherrypick, I answer the cherrypick, you complain about me being selective, decide to move to 2000 years to raise another issue. It doesn't really suggest that I should bother answering, I might as well communicate with my parrot.

there seems to be some valuable and valid criticism of the IPCC reports and the consequent AGW propoganda, and there is also some obvious baloney. I don't want to get hung up on the not-so-obvious-to-a-layman baloney, so I ask, and ask , and ask some more

Heh, I'm not so sure you are very skilled at making distinction between baloney, propaganda, and science. Indeed, you appear to have it bass ackwards.

But, I get it. You feel the truth in your heart, you are just searching for the evidence that fits.

That's fine.

Some are led by reason and evidence, others are led by gut. I wonder how that fits with the idea of people attempting to find evidence to fit preconceived biases, though.

my questions are not rhetorical, they are genuine. some of your answers make complete sense and effectively close that particular avenue of thought for me, others bring up new questions, which I then either ask or store for later when I've got a bit more info.

Fair enough. But chasing the denier's canards you find on random websites to toss at me is pretty tedious.

you say: "I think the whole climate system of the earth was different 150 million years ago. Again, you are making the error that CO2 is the only factor to account for."

this really floored me as I thought the entire AGW premise was based on MMCO2 causing a dangerous and unprecendented rise in CO2 levels which will lead to a catastrophic rise in global temps that will destroy life as we know it. Or at least that is what is continuously pumped out of just about every msm outlet nowadays.

And all things being equal, it very likely will.

It's pretty simple. For example, if the sun would be so kind to decide to reduce its output sufficiently whilst we burn everything worth burning, then a CO2 increase will have a negligible impact cf. baseline. It would just make up the difference.

Climate involves various factors. Currently some are anthropogenic.

If historical records show a flourishing earth, without runaway temps, and a CO2 level of 4000 ppm, why the big hoo haa about 400 ppm? How can you dismiss this so easily with a simple statement starting with 'I think'?

You are comparing apples and bananas. The earth was quite different 150 million years ago (although, I think for 4000ppm, you need to go back much much further than that - about 400 million yrs) and the sun was weaker in such deep geological timescales.

If the climate system was so different back then, when was the climate system similar enough to warrant comparison? Is this where the 650k years comes in and if so, why? What changed 650,000 years ago that made the climate system suddenly become more representative of today?

thanks.
R

Not really, the 650,000yrs is the limit of one particular ice core that provides data. IIRC, it appears that CO2 levels have not been higher for about 2million years - but I'd have to check to be sure. I think comparing to the most recent glacial cycle period makes sense. We have modern poles, continents in similar places (and therefore similar currents), and a sun not so weaker than today.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by melatonin]

You criticised me for answering in the most effective manner a question that you asked, lol. It was as if my comment was just a random unconnected point.

okeydokey, heh, ahum, yah

Heh, I'm not so sure you are very skilled at making distinction between baloney, propaganda, and science. Indeed, you appear to have it bass ackwards.

But, I get it. You feel the truth in your heart, you are just searching for the evidence that fits.

That's fine.

Some are led by reason and evidence, others are led by gut. I wonder how that fits with the idea of people attempting to find evidence to fit preconceived biases, though.

You're right, I'm not so skilled at that (that's why I'm not afraid to ask), and I often have things upside down or back to front.

Funny though, how often the upside down position turns out to be vindicated.

You are correct, I am trying to find evidence to disprove the assertions made by the media, supposedly backed by the consensus of the scientific community vis a vis the IPCC. When something smells like a turd, there's usually a reason for it

Hang on, isn't looking for evidence to contradict a theory the 'scientific method'? Who cares, I'm not a scientist, so it's ok if I got it wrong again.

I asked you because you have all the answers and know you are right. If you felt I was casting doubt on you personally, that's my poor communication, as my doubts are with the message. sorry you felt the need to respond in kind and belittle me, you kinda had me up to that point.

[edit on 13/12/08 by RogerT]

Originally posted by RogerT
You're right, I'm not so skilled at that, and I often have things upside down or back to front.

Funny though, how often the upside down position turns out to be vindicated.

Is it that common? I know science moves on from time to time, but you think that we'll find that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Perhaps after that we'll find that apples fall up...

That's quite some wishful-thinking. I could see that perhaps we'll find that the projections are off a tad, maybe under- or over-estimated, that's not beyond the realms of possibility - but either is possible. We can only use the evidence we have and make reasonable inferences. It's good enough to throw people in electric chairs in some places.

You are correct, I am trying to find evidence to disprove the assertion made by the media, supposedly backed by the consensus of the scientific community vis a vis the IPCC. When something smells like a turd, there's usually a reason for it

Even in the face of evidence that each little nugget you present from these denier websites is no more than a polished or unpolished turd?

Perhaps that's why you perceive such an odour...

You're bass ackwards again. The science is telling us stuff. The IPCC is an organisation that integrates the somewhat disparate areas of research to produce a more coherent message. The media spouts its own version of the truth - sometimes close to the mark, other times not so close.

Hang on, isn't looking for evidence to contradict a theory the 'scientific method'? Who cares, I'm not a scientist, so it's ok if I got it wrong again.

Heh, sort of. Essentially, taking a Popperian position, we can never really find evidence to ultimately show a theory or hypothesis to be True - it accepts uncertainty. But we can supposedly empirically demonstrate a hypothesis or theory to be False. What we can do is find evidence to support/confirm hypotheses and theories, and scientists put their hypotheses on the line every time they empirically test.

But the difference between how science and pseudosceptism works is in the way that pseudosceptics ignore blatant evidence that contradicts their gut instinct. If solid evidence showed that CO2 could not possibly act to warm climate, then any decent scientist would have to accept it. A pseudosceptic is unmoved by contradictory evidence. And that's what we see across the board, from creationists to climate science deniers to homeopathy.

I could spend hours demonstrating evidence that the earth is more than 6000-10000 years old, but YECs would be unmoved. In their hearts, they feel the earth is 6000-10000 years old and Adam rode a dinosaur. And that's good enough for them, so everything else is wrong by fiat. They start and finish with their emotion-based conclusion. Evidence and reason need not apply.

And that approach applies to most other forms of denialism.

I asked you because you have all the answers and know you are right.

lol

If you felt I was casting doubt on you personally, that's my poor communication, as my doubts are with the message. sorry you felt the need to respond in kind and belittle me, you kinda had me up to that point.

Haha. I'm sure I did...

I always like this issue with style over substance. Being nice and fluffy makes no difference - it's just packaging. I call things how I see them, no fluffiness. Don't be so precious. You keep demonstrating this is a reciprocal thing.

I also like notpologies, lol.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by majestictwo


Firstly the effect of CO2 to warm our atmosphere is grossly overstated. Those who actually look at the data (that would exclude nonsensical scientsits who are paid big bugs specifically to spout off warnings about global warming) know that the vast majority of the global warming of the previous decade, and I have to say previous decade because we are currently in a state of GLOBAL COOLING... is due to the sun giving off more heat and nothing else!

But that said, yes if enough CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere we will get nasty climate disaster. After a couple decades of global cooling people will write off global warming as something invented by Al Gore to sell books. Then a couple decades later when we finally get enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make a difference I really don't doubt there will be hell to pay. I very strongly doubt however that it is too late at all. I think 50 years down the road if I'm still alive I'll start to worry about it.

we should expect the worst
because it was planned that way