Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haig said:
Not everyone agrees CO2 is the be all and end all ... :eek:
Click to expand...
No one should be ignorant enough to think that CO2 is the be all and end all Haig. Just like no one should be ignorant enough to think that the Sun is the be all and end all. That is not Judith Curry in 2013.

CO2 ‘control knob’ fallacy (?) is Judith Curry commenting on what a newspaper reporter wrote.
The reporter was mostly right. For the last ~35 years with the output from the Sun decreasing slightly, CO2 has been the 'control knob' of climate. As we go further back than ~35 years, CO2 becomes less and less of a 'control knob'.
Judith Curry misinterprets Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature. Without CO2 Earth would be icebound but still have an atmosphere, i.e. it would not be like the Moon with its wide swings of temperature.
Judith Curry points out that that known science that internal variability also plays a role.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to bother reading all the posts in this thread but I just want one question answered.

If we value science, why can't the posters communicate a valid theory with respect to global warming.

I mean an actual theory that passes scientific scrutiny meaning something that can be tested.

None of the babble here really gets to the issue and all the arguments fall flat.

Here is a hypothetical theory...

At "x" ppm CO2 the global temperatures will rise "y" degrees celsius.

We can certainly test this theory. My contention is that the quacks on this site can't even muster an argument rooted in science because those arguing in favor of Anthopogenic.. bla bla bla are not really interested in science.

Its all political posturing
 
At "x" ppm CO2 the global temperatures will rise "y" degrees celsius.
Click to expand...

That is called climate sensitivity and there is well estabished physics that will give a range of temperature outcomes for a doubling of CO2.
Yes it can be predicted within that range - was predicted back in 1981 and assessed 30 years later as being quite accurate.

This was published in 1981 projecting the rise in global temperatures given various CO2 level.

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
Filed under: Climate modelling Climate Science Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record — group @ 2 April 2012
124EmailShare
Guest commentary from Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma, KNMI

Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday pressures of research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we stumbled across Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author of this post was in his first year at university and the other just entered the KNMI after finishing his masters. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a very interesting read.

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.

Next they attribute global mean temperature trend 1880-1980 to CO2, volcanic and solar forcing. Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. They assume that no action will be taken before the global warming signal will be significant in the late 1990s, so the different energy-use scenarios only start diverging after that. -

Tglobal_giss_verification.jpg


See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-temperature-projection/#sthash.KCeeX8E9.dpuf
Click to expand...

My contention is you wouldn't understand and/or accept the well established science of AGW ...a very easy conclusion to draw given how you framed your "question". :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should follow the links in my signature and learn something about the only planet you have and our impact on the atmosphere and global temperatures.
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
That is called climate sensitivity and there is well estabished physics that will give a range of temperature outcomes for a doubling of CO2.
Yes it can be predicted within that range - was predicted back in 1981 and assessed 30 years later as being quite accurate.

This was published in 1981 projecting the rise in global temperatures given various CO2 level.



My contention is you wouldn't understand and/or accept the well established science of AGW ...a very easy conclusion to draw given how you framed your "question". :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should follow the links in my signature and learn something about the only planet you have and our impact on the atmosphere and global temperatures.
Click to expand...

Thanks it looks like it predicts a 2 degree rise in temperatures by 2100

By then we should have some mechanism for sequestering the CO2

I'm not worried, thanks for actually posting some real science for once.

I'm more concerned with the economy and our massive debt. We should focus on fixing this problem before we spend trillions fighting climate change with unproven methods that will in the end only give more control to the central government.
 
One other point about models, they say that no model is right but some are useful

You might try to calculate a confidence interval around the 2 degree prediction, those things are important to any scientific theory.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Thanks it looks like it predicts a 2 degree rise in temperatures by 2100
Click to expand...
Wrong, Elf Grinder 3000.
Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection looks at a 1981 prediction. Science has progressed since 1981 as has global warming!
That 1981 prediction is between 1 and 4 degrees depending on the scenario. 1 degree is expensive. 4 degrees is potentially catastrophic.
The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I'm more concerned with the economy and our massive debt.
Click to expand...
Then you should read about the 2 trillion dollars that can be saved by transitioning to a low-carbon energy mix: Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
That report does not include that tens of trillions of dollars saved by reducing he impact of global warming.

The question also is how much money would you put on the human lives that could be saved by mitigating climate change?
 
Reality Check said:
Wrong, Elf Grinder 3000.
Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection looks at a 1981 prediction. Science has progressed since 1981 as has global warming!
That 1981 prediction is between 1 and 4 degrees depending on the scenario. 1 degree is expensive. 4 degrees is potentially catastrophic.
The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.
Click to expand...

again it depends upon the sources, 4-6oC is not an extreme or unreasoned expectation.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php
Based on a range of plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

http://www.climatescience.org.au/content/680-solution-cloud-riddle-reveals-hotter-future
This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide
Click to expand...

http://mitei.mit.edu/news/study-current-efforts-not-enough-prevent-climate-consequences
...They find that generally the polar areas display the most warming, with Northern Canada and Siberia warming between 6 and 12 degrees Celsius by 2100. Meanwhile, North America, Europe and Asia can expect temperatures to warm by as much as 4 to 8 degrees Celsius, and Africa, Australia and South America can expect temperature increases between 3 and 7 degrees Celsius...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks it looks like it predicts a 2 degree rise in temperatures by 2100

By then we should have some mechanism for sequestering the CO2

I'm not worried, thanks for actually posting some real science for once.

I'm more concerned with the economy and our massive debt. We should focus on fixing this problem before we spend trillions fighting climate change with unproven methods that will in the end only give more control to the central government.
Click to expand...

There are people here including scientists well versed in climate science.
You fail to read the thread which contains extensively documented climate science and make a judgement call about posters who spend time and effort educating those that are knowledge poor regarding their planet.
Your ignorance of your planet is appalling and you are in no position to make any judgement call.

From my standpoint you appear not to be an honest inquirer as the information on the effect of burning fossil fuels has been well understood since the 1980s while the theory was been established in the mid 1890s and the risk known and published since the 1950s.

It only began to take on serious consequence aspects when after cleaning up SO2 ( aerosols = Clean Air Act ) the global temperature rise became alarming....far outside any paleoclimate change in a geological instant.

Exxon understood the impact and chose to try and cloud the reality by funding denial sites and only stopped when the Rockefellers threatened a board revolt.

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it ...
www.theguardian.com › Environment › Climate change
Jul 8, 2015 - “What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen's ... “In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns ...
Click to expand...

We do not know how much CO2 will be released by humans over the next century.
We do know enough to act to reduce that and so reduce the alarming rise in global temperatures particularly in the ocean which has far ranging impacts beyond just temperature for it's biomes.
Ocean acidification risks are here and now and are in themselves reason to stop putting fossil CO2 into the atmosphere.

Are you aware of how long CO2 persists in the atmosphere.??As Trakar has mentioned, As Bill Gross and Lord Sterns reports - there are trillions to be made in shifting the economy to carbon neutral.

Lord Stern hits out at claims about cost of climate cuts
There is no conflict between economic growth and action on climate change, ambassadors told in Paris
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...hits-out-at-claims-about-cost-of-climate-cuts

You are the one that is turning this into politics and economics and you have simply no science basis on which to assess the risk or the rewards.
Sweden is a healty and vibrant economy, the second most competitive on the planet and yet has reduced it's carbon emissions almost in half since the turn of the century and intends to be carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner.
Sweden tackles climate change | sweden.se
https://sweden.se/society/sweden-tackles-climate-change/
Aug 6, 2015 - Other official Sweden sites. × .... Today, it is a carbon-neutral neighbourhood. ...
Click to expand...

You appear to simply be someone who has swallowed the climate change denial Koolaid without any basis in science at all and you start with insults to the posters here. :boggled:

At least you are polite in thanking me for something you should already have known.

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
It's going to cost far more to ignore it than attempt to mute the problem.
Even Exxon has acknolwedged AGW ...calls it an engineering problem.

Expecting a "hail mary" carbon sequestration technology to suddenly appear is like standing in front of an approaching tsunami and asking for a Beam me up Scotty tech to suddenly appear.

The climate tsunami is here now...not some distant future....and it may perhaps be too late to avoid strong positive feedbacks coming by way of the Boreal forests and permafrost which are rapidly turning from climate sinks to carbon emitters.
THe same applies to the tropical forest loss.

We risk much .....at the very least we can make the attempt to ameliorate those risks and move to a carbon neutral industrial economy.

We are already moving house in Cairns Australia as vry soon it will be uninsurable due to sea level rise and the increased risk of strong cyclones.

AGW consequences are here now....not 100 years out.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
If we value science, why can't the posters communicate a valid theory with respect to global warming.

I mean an actual theory that passes scientific scrutiny meaning something that can be tested.
Click to expand...

Probably because climate change deniers don't value science.

You were talking about them, right? No? Oops. Well, I find it very ironic that you say that the vast majority of climate scientists and other scientists on the planet agree that AGW is a real thing because they're not interested in science, when not a single opponent has been able to post science contradicting their conclusions here. Including you.

Are you not interested in science and truth?
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I'm not worried
Click to expand...

Presumably, that's because, lacking a scientific understanding, you have no idea what impact a 2-4 degree global increase would have. It's not just "oh, it's a bit hotter now! Yay!" It's more like "Oh, the oceans are higher and weather is more violent and the temperature variations are more extreme and crops fail and insects migrate northward and people get more sick and die more." It's a bit more complex than you think.

But then, you'd know this if you were interested in science and truth. There's still time, however, for you to correct that knowledge gap.
 
Belz... said:
when not a single opponent has been able to post science contradicting their conclusions here.
Click to expand...


That's not true Belz :D


Top 10 Global Warming Lies
Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions to get attention and raise money, but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may have set a new low. The only good thing about EDF’s preposterous mailer is that it can be used to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.

EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook. Each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make! Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmists’ playbook.
Click to expand...


Traveling Through Other Dimensions
The thing I like best about climate science is that I am constantly learning new things. For example, I came across that fascinating fact because against my better judgement I decided to take a look at the recent paper, charmingly yclept “Emergent Model for Predicting the Average Surface Temperature of Rocky Planets with Diverse Atmospheres”, by Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez, paywalled here. It has been gathering attention on some skeptical websites, so I thought I’d take a look even though it is just another in the long string of fitted models purporting to reveal hidden truths. As it turns out, it is a fascinating but fatally flawed paper, full of both interesting and wrong ideas.
Click to expand...


Then there is the politics of AGW ...

An emergency meeting for 40 world leaders to do climate deals? The real “Paris” negotiation?
The bonanza of money and power on offer in Paris is so large that nothing will be left to chance. The industry is worth $1.5 trillion a year already. Laws about energy use cut across every part of the free economy. It’s a bureaucrat’s wet-dream — allowing them to feed dependent corporate friends and sympathetic NGOs at the same time as handing out free passes to pollute to supporters and waving the same passes as leverage over enemies.
Click to expand...


While still trying to ignore the natural cycles of climate change?

 
Haig said:
That's not true Belz :D


Top 10 Global Warming Lies



Traveling Through Other Dimensions



Then there is the politics of AGW ...

An emergency meeting for 40 world leaders to do climate deals? The real “Paris” negotiation?



While still trying to ignore the natural cycles of climate change?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823655e1d41a2a27e.png[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823655e1d4bfc6ef5.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

None of that is science, and you've been called on those links and graphs before, haig. Why do you doubt what most scientists say but swallow whole what those websites say?
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
If we value science, why can't the posters communicate a valid theory with respect to global warming.
Click to expand...
If we value communication we write sentences which convey meaning.

I mean an actual theory that passes scientific scrutiny meaning something that can be tested.
Click to expand...
Warm the globe and the globe gets warmer. That's simple enough for anybody.

None of the babble here really gets to the issue and all the arguments fall flat.
Click to expand...
We call it science, you call it babble. Of course you may be referring to Haig's contributions; that really is babble.

Here is a hypothetical theory...

At "x" ppm CO2 the global temperatures will rise "y" degrees celsius.

We can certainly test this theory.
Click to expand...
How do you propose we do that? Set atmospheric CO2 at "x" and wait for equilibrium? Not really feasible to my mind, but opinions may differ.

My contention is that the quacks on this site can't even muster an argument rooted in science because those arguing in favor of Anthopogenic.. bla bla bla are not really interested in science.
Click to expand...
The contention of an ignoramus, frankly.

Its all political posturing
Click to expand...
Where do you see the political posturing in what little (if any) of the thread you've read? Am I among the guilty?
 
Belz... said:
None of that is science, and you've been called on those links and graphs before, haig. Why do you doubt what most scientists say but swallow whole what those websites say?
Click to expand...
Good question, but I doubt Haig does introspection. Socrates would have thought Haig's life not worth living; Haig would probably agree if he didn't have the likes of Watts and Jo Nova to tickle his tummy.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom