Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[macdoc]

No scientist I know will make a flat statement like - it was the C02 that caused the extinction -

The fact is, C02 levels were very high.
So was the temperature...
and we understand the physics of why those are connected causally

 

[CoolSceptic]

The same to say about the Precambrian extinction because some snowball with a couple of volcanic lagoons ... ditto ... ditto.

Fully agree

 

[BenBurch]

As far as I can tell, there are half a dozen theories behind the Permian mass extinction, and there is scant evidence to convincingly separate the many theories.

Of course, as you have shown, people are likely to preferentially select a particular theory, if it is consistent with the one believed by most people who share your cultural values.

If you mean the cultural value of accepting the truth as determined by the majority of scientists working in the field, no matter what it is, then yes.

 

[BenBurch]

No scientist I know will make a flat statement like - it was the C02 that caused the extinction -

The fact is, C02 levels were very high.
So was the temperature...
and we understand the physics of why those are connected causally

Correct, they say "probably."

 

[bit_pattern]

I was under the mistaken assumption that Copenhagen was all about wealth redistribution to the third world?

Be honest with yourself. These so called advocates are doing nothing short of advocating the destruction of the Wests ability to generate wealth.

And what do they base this upon? Science so precious that the crew at CRU et al not only WOULDNT release their data their studies were based upon (cause all you want to do is pull it apart) but have purposely undermined the very principles that have underpinned Science in the West for centuries.

Crickey, if you are going to spend billions or trillions then the least you can do is be bloody sure your science is rock solid. As it is when ever someone looks at the science behind the alarmism it falls apart (hockey stick anyone). The reality though is that this isnt about the science anymore, if it was these so called climate scientists would be doing everything possible to engage with those who are critical of their work...no this is about the ego's of the scientists who have locked themselves in to believing Mann is the sole cause of global warming!

It wasn't that long ago that a denier was someone who denied the existence of the medieval warm period!

Mailman

It's amazing, you actually believe that the entire GW theory rests on the shoulders of Mike Mann and the Hockey Stick. No one to my knowledge has ever denied the existence of the MWP, rather there was some debate fifteen years ago as to the extent of the event, ie. was it global and was it warmer than today. Since then the evidence has been unequivocal, it is considerably warmer today than at the height of the MWP. But that aside, even if we had zero paleoclimatic data it wouldn't change what we know about the physics of CO2, not one iota, a fact that has been understood since the 19th century and has been confirmed again and again from direct experiments both on the ground and in space - anyone denying that a near 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 would cause exactly the sort of warming trend currently being observed needs to explain how that could possibly be, would fundamental physical characteristic of CO2 has been missed over the last 150 years that changes the way it interacts with different wavelengths of energy. Answer that and you will have rewritten the laws of physics!

 

[CoolSceptic]

If you mean the cultural value of accepting the truth as determined by the majority of scientists working in the field, no matter what it is, then yes.

Can you just clarify then Ben: are you arguing that the "majority of the scientists working in the field" are claiming that the Permian mass extinction was caused by CO2-induced climate change?

I don't know for sure (I've not spent much time on this topic), but I would guess the best answer that you could get the "majority of scientists in the field" to agree on would be that there are many different ideas about the Permian mass extinction and that there is insufficient evidence at this time to determine with any reasonable confidence which is correct.

Of course individual scientists are likely to promote their personally preferred theories, which is reasonable, but (I hope) that most would have the integrity to acknowledge that there are other contenders.

Further to that, whilst your quote from ScienceDaily is interesting in terms of interaction between science and the broader public - who largely are not equipped with the analytical skills to assess many scientific questions - it is not relevant to those who do have the requisite skills and who have invested time and effort into a particular area. Such individuals should be following the evidence, not the opinion of the "majority of scientists". And re-reading your quote above, the words "no matter what it is" are quite disturbing in this context - even before addressing the problem of determining what a group of experts in a field actually agree on in the first place.

As such, I would be willing to accept your claim about the Permian mass extinction if you can bring compelling evidence to the table that it was a CO2-induced climate change that caused extinction, even if there is not a consensus amongst those studying it. Your evidence must not only be consistent with your own claim, it must credibly falsify the other popular theories.

 

[a_unique_person]

I was under the mistaken assumption that Copenhagen was all about wealth redistribution to the third world?

Be honest with yourself. These so called advocates are doing nothing short of advocating the destruction of the Wests ability to generate wealth.
Mailman

Not at all, they are trying to protect it's ability to generate wealth. The cost of moving from a carbon based economy is going to have to be met before too long anyway. If we prevent AGW and save a reserve of hydrocarbons, good for us. If we don't we will have a world that will first be hit by AGW, then the depletion of hydrocarbons.

 

[macdoc]

Crickey, if you are going to spend billions or trillions then the least you can do is be bloody sure your science is rock solid.

It is, just because you don't understand or choose not to in no way alters the reality.
The fossil fuel company's own scientists made them aware of it in 1995.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

The world already spends $7 trillion on energy so he money is already there, but I guess you prefer to send it to unstable regimes....

It is inevitable that industrial civilization will move away from increasingly scarce cheap fossil fuels and the environmental cost of the likes of coal be factored into the power generated from it.
This is not new - it is in progress....not as fast as ideal with the elimination of coal sources but still moving forward as greater acceptance of nuclear in the US in particular occurs.

The Green tech boom will be the largest wealth producing boom in history dwarfing all others....

The Mother Lode

By: Fred KruppApril 1, 2008 VC god John Doerr explains what it will take to score the untold treasures of the green-tech boom.


If you ask venture capitalist John Doerr how the boom in green tech compares with the infotech boom -- and bust -- that preceded it, he'll grab pen and paper and draw this chart:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/the-mother-lode.html

I think Doerr is in a far better position to judge these things than you.....or I.

or you can stay in denial....

 

[BenBurch]

Can you just clarify then Ben: are you arguing that the "majority of the scientists working in the field" are claiming that the Permian mass extinction was caused by CO2-induced climate change?

My reading is that the dominant theories all contain climate excursions caused by increased CO2 and Methane, and also an Anoxic event coincident with that. Isotope ratios suggest that. Diatom disappearance suggests that. The surviving terrestrial mammals almost all had larger lungs. Changes in river meander patterns suggest high temperatures. So, I believe a carbon event factored into this, as do almost all of the paleontologists I have read. Clearly it is impossible now to say even in what order the effects layered on top of each other, even identifying whether you are looking at end-Permian rocks is difficult. But based on what I have read, I believe that we had massive vulcanism caused by plate tectonics. This initially cooled the planet, and caused a diminution in plant activity, but the long-term effects were to heat the planet with emitted CO2. The heat, and lowered water levels, caused methane hydrates to volatilize, and the process snowballed. It was a perfect storm of crap.

However, I do not plan to discuss this matter further here; I have about 80 hours work to get done by next week this time.

 

[CapelDodger]

Further to that, whilst your quote from ScienceDaily is interesting in terms of interaction between science and the broader public - who largely are not equipped with the analytical skills to assess many scientific questions - it is not relevant to those who do have the requisite skills and who have invested time and effort into a particular area. Such individuals should be following the evidence, not the opinion of the "majority of scientists".

The people who do have the requisite skills are scientists, and its the maority of them who have concluded that AGW is causing the current warming, and that the current warming is going to cause significant problems in a global society that is not used to global climate change at anything like this pace.

The maority of scientists actvie in relevant fields continue to do productive work on this majority basis, while a tiny (and ageing) minority of scientists make absolutely no progress in trying to find some way to undermine it. From Lindzen's Ever-Closed Iris through Svensmark's clouds to last year's "ongoing cooling-trend", nothing has worked.

And re-reading your quote above ...

Re-read what I quoted and ask yourself how this "majority of scientists" is somehow distinct from actual scientists.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see what you are saying. Some of the responses to my post have left me bewildered. Someone posted "there is no evidence that an ice age is coming again". Several Ice Ages occurred over Earth's existence. The idea that magically it is something not to worry about strikes me as very strange.

Glaciation thousands of years in the future is not something to worry about. Nor is it something for your children or grandchildren to worry about. Heck, the Sun will become a Red Giant someday and that's not something to worry about. There are much more pressing issues.

That is, until I read your opinion and analysis.

Yours haven't surprised me in the slightest.

 

[CapelDodger]

Correct, they say "probably."

Or "to the best of our current knowledge ..."

Which has done well for us as an inquiring species in the last few centuries.

 

[BeAChooser]

Say Goodbye to Sunspots? (… And Global Warming?)

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html

14 September 2010

Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun's face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.

… snip …

The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.

… snip …

The phenomenon has happened before. Sunspots disappeared almost entirely between 1645 and 1715 during a period called the Maunder Minimum, which coincided with decades of lower-than-normal temperatures in Europe nicknamed the Little Ice Age. But Livingston cautions that the zero-sunspot prediction could be premature. "It may not happen," he says. "Only the passage of time will tell whether the solar cycle will pick up." Still, he adds, there's no doubt that sunspots "are not very healthy right now." Instead of the robust spots surrounded by halolike zones called penumbrae, as seen during the last solar maximum (photo), most of the current crop looks "rather peaked," with few or no penumbrae.

 

[Pixel42]

Say Goodbye to Sunspots?

Au revoir, possibly.

(… And Global Warming?)

Sadly not.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/11/2843111.htm

Solar minimum won't slow warming: study

A dimming of the Sun to match conditions in the 'Little Ice Age' of the 17th century would only slightly slow global warming, according to new research.

The study, which appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, reveals a weakening of solar activity in recent years, linked to fewer sunspots, would cut at most 0.3°C from a projected rise in temperatures by 2100 if it becomes a long-lasting 'Grand Minimum' of brightness.

"The notion that we are heading for a new Little Ice Age if the Sun actually entered a Grand Minimum is wrong," says study lead author Dr Georg Feulner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

World temperatures are likely to rise by between 3.7°C and 4.5°C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions keep building up - far more than the impact of known shifts in solar output, the study shows.

The Sun has gone through four Grand Minima since the 13th century, including the Maunder Minimum from 1645-1715 that overlapped with the Little Ice Age.

 

[macdoc]

Say Goodbye to Sunspots? (… And Global Warming?)

The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century.

seeing the hottest global temps since record keeping began occurred this year....

sunspots may contribute to climate shifts but notice the term "coincide" in the article

In the current case the hottest global temps are "coinciding" with the longest solar minimum.

y Nancy Atkinson, UniverseToday / July 19, 2010 Was last month warm where you live? If so, you weren't alone. According measurements taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) June 2010 was the hottest June on record worldwide. But this is not a new trend, at least for this year. March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record. This was also the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.

and the first 6 months of 2010 the hottest yet recorded.

The impact of a weakening sun spot structure might ameliorate our folly to some small degree......in no way shape or form will we say goodbye global warming. AGW is here to stay.....carbon is forever ( in human scale )

 

[BeAChooser]

Sadly not.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/11/2843111.htm

Your ABC article makes this claim:

World temperatures are likely to rise by between 3.7°C and 4.5°C by 2100

Whether the calculations and formulae that give that result are believable or not (and that's in my opinion quite debateable), in the near term (over the next 20 years or so), the rise in temperatures will be nowhere near those values. So by 2020 or 2030, even if we believe those long term estimates, the median expected rise in global temperature is only predicted to be a few tenths of °C over what it was in 2000. In fact, as I understand it, the model used to predict those temperatures even overestimates the rise over the near term.

Thus a quiet sun in the next 20 years would indeed *likely* lead to lower global temperatures. Prematurely acting in a draconian fashion over CO2 would not only seriously harm the economy (causing potential discord), but perhaps keep us from doing something technologically smarter down the road to actually address the larger problem. We may waste vast resources that we could have applied with better technology down the road (a lot can change technologically in 2 decades) that would have produced a MUCH better solution.

And besides, a little extra CO2 now might be a good thing to have during a time when the sun, left unchecked, would create another little ice age. In treating a problem that is decades and decades in the future with the urgency that far-left democrats, environmentalists and socialists now want to impose, one may only be creating conditions ripe for famine and war on a major scale over the next several decades. Lower temperatures will harm global food production. Beware of unintended consequences. And keep in mind that the IPCC has stated that a 2 °C rise in global temperatures would actually increase global food production. So more CO2 or temperature rise isn't necessary bad. Not in the near term.

 

[BenBurch]

It's not "a little" CO2.

 

[lomiller]

Thus a quiet sun in the next 20 years would indeed *likely* lead to lower global temperatures.

No, not even close. The “cooler” Sun from this would be on the order of 0.2% less solar energy. This translates into 0.4 - 0.5W/m^2 equivalent greenhouse forcing.

Current forcing from greenhouse gasses is between 3 an 4 W/m^2 so your cooler Sun is an order of magnitude smaller then the effect of greenhouse gasses. Even if you look at net anthropogenic forcing, which also includes cooling effects from aerosols you are looking at 2.0-2.5 W/m^2 much of which has yet to be felt. IOW even a grand minimum would barely register because anthropogenic forcing are simply much larger.

 

[Trakar]

Whether the calculations and formulae that give that result are believable or not (and that's in my opinion quite debateable), in the near term (over the next 20 years or so), the rise in temperatures will be nowhere near those values. So by 2020 or 2030, even if we believe those long term estimates, the median expected rise in global temperature is only predicted to be a few tenths of °C over what it was in 2000. In fact, as I understand it, the model used to predict those temperatures even overestimates the rise over the near term.

Please support your contentions and the implications that these values are insignificant with regards to impacts upon the economy, lives and property.

 

[BeAChooser]

Please support your contentions and the implications that these values are insignificant with regards to impacts upon the economy, lives and property.

Better yet, why don't you prove that a few tenths of a degree rise in temperature over the next 20 years (assuming that would happen even with a cooling sun, which I find doubtful given that we already have a post from your side claiming the effect of cooling would be a few tenths of a degree downward movement) cases significant impacts on economy, lives and property. After all, you are the ones who wish to IMPOSE draconian legislation on the rest of us. Seems to me that the obligation to prove anything is in YOUR court.