Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[mhaze]

If you think they're claiming the earth will "almost collapse" then you haven't read the article.

Have you? I think not. You've skimmed selective quotes from a predigested already skimmed set of quotes.Easy, quick, wrong.

 

[Piggy]

Thanks for the pointer, I guess.

If there was any invective it was richly deserved for your failure to be able to follow a citation.

Now we can do a first analysis of the usefulness of this paper...

From the abstract: "The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity."

So this paper don't actually purports to prove the 2.4 degree change, but takes it "for granted" (from IPCC). (It also takes a lot of other things from IPCC). I guess the conclusion of the paper is summarized best as "if IPCC is right we have tough times ahead" ?

I guess for anyone that agrees that IPCC:s report is an accurate description in these areas this might be interesting, but for anyone finding IPCC lacking in the validation department this paper offers nothing.

Wrong. The paper uses the most recent and best estimates of greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity. They do not merely rip off their results.

If you believe the IPCC is wrong about the most recent and best estimates of greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity, perhaps you can show your research. It will likely win you a lot of grant money and some prestigious publications.

(This is from a reading of the abstract, anyone who has read the whole article may want to comment on if there is more to it than that, and whether a "read in full" is recommended).

Not only do y'all not read the science, you don't even know how to read it.

 

[Piggy]

If you think they're claiming the earth will "almost collapse" then you haven't read the article.

Have you? I think not. You've skimmed selective quotes from a predigested already skimmed set of quotes.Easy, quick, wrong.

Hill of beans.

 

[Piggy]

Exactly my complaint about "Science Daily". Plus you have to dig, hunt and guess at the source citation - not always, but much of the time.

I'm not at all convinced it renders science into pop science accurately. Reminds one of "New Scientist".

You complain that SD is too "pop" for you, but you can't even follow a citation to find the source when you've been given the researcher, institution, and publication?

What's next? Are Stephen Hawking's books just too dumbed down?

 

[Spud1k]

Exactly my complaint about "Science Daily". Plus you have to dig, hunt and guess at the source citation - not always, but much of the time.

Frequently, press releases are made on the day of publishing, meaning the content has to be written before an exact citation exists. But all the reader has to do is take the first author and the journal and the rest should be pretty straightforward. This is meat and potatoes stuff in research.

Besides, Ramanathan happens to be a huge figure in this field, so finding his work isn't exactly difficult.

 

[mhaze]

Frequently, press releases are made on the day of publishing, meaning the content has to be written before an exact citation exists. But all the reader has to do is take the first author and the journal and the rest should be pretty straightforward. This is meat and potatoes stuff in research....

That sounds like at least 23 extra mouse clicks.

No evidence Pig read the actual article, of course. ...

 

[TrueSceptic]

That sounds like at least 23 extra mouse clicks.

No evidence Pig read the actual article, of course. ...

Hmmm. Frequent proven liar casts doubt on someone else.

It's so hard to tell who the good guys are.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

If by "actual research" you mean "picking a model and feed it with no mention of it's predictive value" and by "model verified in the field over decades of constant observation" you mean the ....... oooops there is no such model.

Unless you prove the contrary.

If by "pick a model" you mean "choose a model that has been verified in the field over decades of constant observation" and if by "feed it assumptions" you mean "use the most conservative assumptions you can", then I guess technically you're correct.

If you think they're claiming the earth will "almost collapse" then you haven't read the article. They are indeed predicting some dire consequences for humans and other species, but this is based on actual research.

Your denial of the possibility of dire consequences is based merely on your own ignorance.

I'll take the research, thank you.

 

[CapelDodger]

... feeded it ...

"Feeded"?

 

[CapelDodger]

If you think they're claiming the earth will "almost collapse" then you haven't read the article.

Have you?

Where do you think Piggy cut-and-pasted the quotes from?

I think not.

A true word from mhaze, if only accidentally.

You've skimmed selective quotes from a predigested already skimmed set of quotes.Easy, quick, wrong.

What does "the Earth will almost collapse" even mean? Once you've worked that out (and don't expect help from that other guy, he has no more clue than you what he means) tell us where it occurs. This will involve reading the whole thing, but steel yourself to the task. Don't just wimp out again (people are starting to notice. Freindly advice).

 

[CapelDodger]

That sounds like at least 23 extra mouse clicks.

Most people are only six clicks from Kevin Bacon; just how deeply burrowed into the sand are you?

No evidence Pig read the actual article, of course. ...

Don't you read an entire article before you cut-and-paste from it? Cut-and-paste is very good evidence that someone has read what they're doing it from.

 

[CapelDodger]

LOL It looks like a fundamentalist muslim saw a picture of allah!

Well, anyway, what your "analysts" did was exactly what I said.

What does "the Earth will almost collapse" actually mean?

Are there black holes involved?

 

[CapelDodger]

Now we can do a first analysis of the usefulness of this paper...

Your strtegic problem is that you're having to put so much effort into one paper. Piggy and ScienceDaily have any number to throw at you, with all the work already done.

I think I've hit on something new to amuse me through the long dark nights. I check out ScienceDaily routinely anyway (after Dilbert in the morning, and again around tea-time). It's not all about climate, you know, it's about cool stuff generally.

Let's see if you can keep up with the climate-related stuff.

 

[Piggy]

I think mhaze is saying -- for some reason -- that he believes I haven't bothered to read the PNAS article which the SD article is summarizing.

Well, I have -- note that mhaze has not bothered -- and it's very well researched and sourced, and I'm afraid it reaches some conclusions that will require the ignorazzi to apply more duct tape to their heads so they may comfortably ignore it. (No doubt, they are already whetting their arguments from ignorance against it, without having read it themselves.)

Informed by the World Meteorological
Organization, the International
Council of Scientific Union, and
the United Nations Environment Program
recommended (1) 2°C global mean
surface warming from preindustrial levels
as the threshold for dangerous anthropogenic
interference (DAI). This
recommendation has now been accepted
by the German Advisory Council on
Global Change (2) and the European
Council (3), among other national and
international bodies.

Sorry, it's not a number they pulled out of a hat.

Cooleristas, got any accepted science to back up a different conclusion?

Such a distributed DAI threshold is
also consistent with the findings reported
by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fourth
assessment report (9, 10), referred to as
IPCC-AR4. IPCC-AR4 (see tables TS.3
and TS.4 in ref. 10) specifies 1°C to 3°C
global warming as the range when we
commit the planet to widespread loss of
biodiversity, widespread deglaciation of
the Greenland Ice Sheet, and a major
reduction of area and volume of Hindu-
Kush-Himalaya-Tibetan (HKHT) glaciers,
which provide the head-waters for
most major river systems of Asia.

Consistent with subsequent findings. In other words, a model verified by what we've seen, so we have greater confidence in its predictions for the future.

Cooleristas, what verified science do you have on this point?

Furthermore,
northern polar temperatures
are increasing at twice the rate of global
mean trends, and the larger polar trend
is likely to continue, thus enhancing the
vulnerability of the arctic sea ice and
the Greenland Ice Sheet (10).

That's right -- the globe is warming, and the north pole is warming twice as fast as the global average.

This article uses the greenhouse gases
(GHGs) forcing of 3 (2.6 to 3.5) Wm2
estimated by the IPCC-AR4 (11) for the
preindustrial to present (year 2005) period
and the IPCC-AR4 (12) climate
sensitivity of 3°C (2°C to 4.5°C range)
for a doubling of CO2. Using these data,
this study infers that we have already
committed the planet to a global warming
of 2.4°C (1.4–4.3°C), as detailed below.
This value is the global mean equilibrium
(also referred to as steady state)
warming above the preindustrial temperatures,
caused solely by the increase in
GHGs from preindustrial to now (the
year 2005), i.e., the committed equilibrium
warming caused by GHGs,
CEW
G, is the warming (above preindustrial
values) that the planet will witness,
if the concentrations of GHGs
were held constant at their 2005 values,
but without any other anthropogenic
forcing (e.g., aerosol forcing or land surface
albedo changes).

That's right, gang -- they're using the most conservative assumptions they possibly can. They are not being alarmist.

Box 1: GHGs and ABCs: A Metaphorical Description. GHGs act like the blanket
that keeps us (the planet) warm on a cold night by trapping the body heat (the
heat radiation from the planet). This heat (heat radiation) would have otherwise
escaped to the surrounding room (outer space). The build-up of GHGs caused
by human activities has thickened this blanket by
2% (17).... [T]he blanket will remain at least 2% thicker (if not much more because
of future additions of GHGs) for a century or longer, even if their emissions
remain constant at current levels (for CH4, halocarbons, and ozone) or decrease
substantially (for CO2 and N2O).

The greenhouse gas problem is real, and long-term.

Cooleristas, do you have valid science that disputes this?

Or do you think -- for no good reason -- that these Scripps guys are just making it up, and the folks over at PNAS decided to publish it anyway because they couldn't fill up the current issue?

[T]he concentration
of most GHGs and their positive
forcing will linger for a decade or more
(for methane and many halocarbons) to
more than a century (for CO2, nitrous
oxide, and some halocarbons) even after
their emissions are eliminated.

We could stop all man-made CO2 emissions today, and we'd still have a problem.

Cooleristas... got science?

Proposed future reductions in emissions
of CO2 and other long-lived GHGs
(e.g., see figure 10.22 of ref. 15) will
have no impact on the 1.6°C warming.
If, however, CO2 emissions are eliminated
completely in 2005 (an unrealistic
scenario), CO2 concentrations will decrease
by 40 ppm from its 2005 value of
379 ppm (see figure 10.3 of ref. 15), and
the committed warming will decrease by

0.5°C. This extreme example illustrates
the formidable challenges in mitigating
the committed warming.

That's right. We have formidable challenges on our hands just from what we've already got in the atmosphere. And we're spewing out more every day. And the ignorazzi are helping us dig ourselves in deeper.

The high probability that the DAI
threshold is already in our rearview mirror
highlights the urgency issue raised
by several studies recently (2–4, 35). But
as noted above, CO2 emission reduction
actions and proposals are aimed at containing
CO2 concentrations at
450 to
550 ppm (9, 12, 35), but this will help
neither the 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) warming
commitment from the accumulated
GHGs that are already in the atmosphere,
nor the projected commitment
of 3.1°C (1.8–5.4°C) as of 2030.

Sound scary? You better believe it's scary. But it's based on sound science that's been field tested and refined for decades.

Sticking our heads in the sand because we just can't believe it, and turning instead to cranks and bloggers who tell us what we want to hear, is not going to help.

[A]ny mitigation step must
undergo field trials to permit cost-benefit
analysis and, more importantly, to
identify possible inadvertent climate effects
as in the case of biofuels (20).
Field studies that replace solid fuel
cooking with soot-free cooking in rural
India and China with scientific data collection
on the impact on ABCs have
been proposed to assess the efficacy
of the black carbon-free cooking
proposal (37).

These guys are not flying off the handle. They recommend field-testing for proposed mitigation technologies to make sure they're effective and not inadvertently harmful. And they have some positive recommendations to make.

Oh, and they don't cite Al Gore anywhere in the paper.

 

[Dancing David]

Beware ManBearPig! I'm cereal guys...

 

[Piggy]

If by "actual research" you mean "picking a model and feed it with no mention of it's predictive value" and by "model verified in the field over decades of constant observation" you mean the ....... oooops there is no such model.

Unless you prove the contrary.

Go read the article. Check their sources. Then come back and talk.

Til then... hill o' beans.

 

[Piggy]

That sounds like at least 23 extra mouse clicks.

Option A:

Step 1: Read SD article, note researchers and publication.

Step 2: Navigate to publication site.

Step 3: Enter researchers' last names into search bar, browse results that are found.

Step 4: Click on article summarized in SD article.

Step 5: Choose abstract or full PDF.

Option B:

Step 1: Read SD article, note researchers and publication.

Step 2: Go to your library and read it.

NOTE: If it did require 23 mouse clicks, would that really be too much of a burden?

"Oh, wow, sorry. Gotta move my finger a couple dozen times? No way! Instead, I think I'll type a response post that hits 23 characters by the time I reach 'That sounds like at least 23' and then snipe at an article I'm too lazy to read, accusing it of not knowing what it's talking about because I don't know what it's talking about."

No evidence Pig read the actual article, of course. ...

Ahem!

 

[Spud1k]

That sounds like at least 23 extra mouse clicks.

Go to www.pnas.org, type 'Ramanathan' into the search box and order the results by date. That was what, less than a minute of your life? If you can't be bothered to put that amount of effort in, you are obviously not in the slightest bit interested in the details of what they have to say.

Real research (as opposed to bloggosphere skimming) takes effort and following up on press releases like that is peanuts. Think what it would have been like before the luxury of online publication.

 

[a_unique_person]

If by "actual research" you mean "picking a model and feed it with no mention of it's predictive value" and by "model verified in the field over decades of constant observation" you mean the ....... oooops there is no such model.

Models are tested against the existing temperature record, which goes back over a century now.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Who are you trying to convince that your famous "analysis" is simply a run of a model?????? Yourself?

I think mhaze is saying -- for some reason -- that he believes I haven't bothered to read the PNAS article which the SD article is summarizing.

Well, I have -- note that mhaze has not bothered -- and it's very well researched and sourced, and I'm afraid it reaches some conclusions that will require the ignorazzi to apply more duct tape to their heads so they may comfortably ignore it. (No doubt, they are already whetting their arguments from ignorance against it, without having read it themselves.)



Sorry, it's not a number they pulled out of a hat.

Cooleristas, got any accepted science to back up a different conclusion?



Consistent with subsequent findings. In other words, a model verified by what we've seen, so we have greater confidence in its predictions for the future.

Cooleristas, what verified science do you have on this point?



That's right -- the globe is warming, and the north pole is warming twice as fast as the global average.



That's right, gang -- they're using the most conservative assumptions they possibly can. They are not being alarmist.



The greenhouse gas problem is real, and long-term.

Cooleristas, do you have valid science that disputes this?

Or do you think -- for no good reason -- that these Scripps guys are just making it up, and the folks over at PNAS decided to publish it anyway because they couldn't fill up the current issue?



We could stop all man-made CO2 emissions today, and we'd still have a problem.

Cooleristas... got science?



That's right. We have formidable challenges on our hands just from what we've already got in the atmosphere. And we're spewing out more every day. And the ignorazzi are helping us dig ourselves in deeper.



Sound scary? You better believe it's scary. But it's based on sound science that's been field tested and refined for decades.

Sticking our heads in the sand because we just can't believe it, and turning instead to cranks and bloggers who tell us what we want to hear, is not going to help.



These guys are not flying off the handle. They recommend field-testing for proposed mitigation technologies to make sure they're effective and not inadvertently harmful. And they have some positive recommendations to make.

Oh, and they don't cite Al Gore anywhere in the paper.