Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Matt Giwer]

In the 80s/90s when the reality of AGW was first established we had ten years to take action which would prevent a significant (at least 1C) rise in global temperatures. Ten years later that ship had sailed, but we still had ten years to take action which would limit the increase in temperature to less than 2C by the end of the 21st century. Now, with at least 2C unavoidable, we have about ten years to take action to prevent it being a much more potentially catastrophic 3-4C by the end of the century.

Pardon but that does not describe the facts. The lies were promoted without the specifics you give. Thus you are treated them as real prophecies in that whatever happens afterwards is what the ambiguous prophecy really meant.

The statements were never associated with specifics in professional publications. However I may have missed something and you can provide a citation to the publications that I missed.

I also have an issue with your expression a 1C as though it were something more interesting than barely 1/3 of 1% increase in temperature. Rather we should be rather amazed that temperature is so remarkably stable despite all that has been done.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Your argumentation has holes much bigger than that. You imply no calculation is needed to test your hypothesis -so you fail to see that nothing real substantiate them-. A very good example of this is your argumentation in post #501, by ignoring fundamental figures like total CO₂ content in atmosphere, total CO₂ produced by human activities and CO₂ ratio. All those values are known with different error margins and your "linkage of atmosphere levels of C02 and temperature being driven primarily by temperature" falls down quickly just by making 3 or 4 arithmetic operations. Your "driving a carbon flux between the ocean carbon reservoir and the atmosphere" is really a net flux that goes from the chimneys to the atmosphere, and from the atmosphere to the oceans. There's no net flux in the opposite direction (you have to dig specific dates and coordinates to find instances of such thing).

Have you found the equation which relates surface temperature as a function of CO2?

Seems without arguing from the equation the exchange is worthless.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Have you found the equation which relates surface temperature as a function of CO2?

Seems without arguing from the equation the exchange is worthless.

At last we're are talking about state of the art it-is-not-happening!

What equation did you mean? The large set of real ones or the depiction that now is common to see in blogs, that is Archibald et al figure 17 or its logarithmic representation or equation? Please, write it down or link it so we can continue on topic.

 

[BenBurch]

If you are a locomotive engineer, and I tell you that the train takes 9500 feet to stop at this speed, and there is a bridge out 13,000 feet ahead of you, do you take action? Or do you continue at present speed and proudly proclaim 4000 feet further on that I was a false prophet of doom because the train has not fallen into a chasm even though it has passed the point I told you that you must take action by?

 

[The True Scotsman]

We both agree they have engaged in a constant stream of lies. You appear to want to narrow it down to a particular set of lies about the existence of these magical tipping points. Fair enough but I do not see how that changes anything. For the record I have
NEVER read any of the false prophecies tied to anything in particular so I have to ask where you found this particular example.

I don't agree with you. I don't think climate scientists are lying. It may be that some predictions are wrong (though generally only with relation to time, not content), but incorrectness and lying differ based on intention. You cannot get to "they were lying" from "they were wrong" without any other intermediate steps.

Secondly, what you call "magic" I call "science". Tipping points are a well documented phenomena and actually the basis of climate science. My example can be found in a number of reports, but as an example, I will include this report:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full.pdf

If you are looking to learn more about climate science, I would suggest going to google scholar and finding the most recent IPCC report. Since you aren't all the read up on the subject, I would suggest doing a bit more research before coming to conclusions.

 

[Trakar]

...Now if there had been a specific scientific basis for the ten years to doom statement had been published in the literature...

Cite and reference for this "literature" and "ten years of doom"?

 

[CapelDodger]

We both agree they have engaged in a constant stream of lies. You appear to want to narrow it down to a particular set of lies about the existence of these magical tipping points. Fair enough but I do not see how that changes anything. For the record I have
NEVER read any of the false prophecies tied to anything in particular so I have to ask where you found this particular example.

So what have been the false prophecies you've read?

 

[CapelDodger]

You are obviously more polite than I. I have a tendency to calls a 25 year string of the same false statements for the lies they are. It is quite clear the people who recite lies are properly identified as liars.

People who keep changing their story are also easily identified as liars. Over the last 25 years there has been an identifiable group who have gone from saying that no warming would occur, to denying that it was occurring, to claiming that it it was caused by something else, to claiming that it had stopped, to claiming who knows what now.

Actually we know quite well what they're claiming : that the other side are all liars so nothing bad has happened like they said it would. As the ice melts and the droughts continue and the deluges become more frequent ... well, what about those lying scientists, eh?

Now if there had been a specific scientific basis for the ten years to doom statement had been published in the literature. And if after ten years the scientific basis had been reassessed and that reassessment published in the literature it would not be a lie but rather an erroneous prediction which was then reassessed and presumably corrected.

But that is not what has happened. There has never been a published scientific basis for these statements thus making them indistinguishable from prophecy and the people saying such things indistinguishable from "the end is neigh" prophets of cartoon fame.

You certainly present a caricature of the case made for action in the 80's. And there was actually action taken : the IPCC was established, the Kyoto Accord was signed up to by a lot of nations, there has been a push towards renewables and efficiencies. Business did not continue quite as usual. It wasn't enough, of course, and we're only starting to see the consequences.

Possibly they are in fact deluded fools who believe themselves to be inspired prophets but that means they are good only to entertain the masses and the subject of public ridicule.

Actually the global public has become very aware of climate change because they're living in it. Global warming and its consequences were rational predictions based on firm science, so it's no surprise that things have turned out this way. There's more to come, because things weren't done ten years ago to prevent it. Nor twenty years ago.

Providence willing, we can maybe meet again in ten years time to discuss the meaning of "doom". I'd like that.

 

[bit_pattern]

Have you found the equation which relates surface temperature as a function of CO2?

where λ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and ΔF is the radiative forcing [4]. A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2.

 

[Pixel42]

Pardon but that does not describe the facts. The lies were promoted without the specifics you give.

You'll have to quote the actual words said at what date by which particular "melters" (by which I assume you mean climatologists) to convince me of that. You can do that, right? I mean, you wouldn't have made the potentially slanderous allegations in your initial post without being able to back them up with the actual quotes you are referring to. You used the word facts, so let's see these facts.

The statements were never associated with specifics in professional publications. However I may have missed something and you can provide a citation to the publications that I missed.

You were the one that made these extremely serious allegations of lying, so the onus is on you to support them with cites. I merely clarified what I believe the people whose warnings you are (mis?)remembering actually meant, using my own memory of the sequence of events.

I also have an issue with your expression a 1C as though it were something more interesting than barely 1/3 of 1% increase in temperature.

The word I used was 'significant'. A rise of 1C in global surface temperature in less than a century is unusual enough to be so described.

 

[BobK]

Royal Society launches new short guide to the science of climate change



The guide, a 19 page PDF document, is downloadable at the link.

Here is a link to a pdf of their old guide if anyone wants to compare.
climate_facts_and_fictions

 

[macdoc]

Have you found the equation which relates surface temperature as a function of CO2?

what has surface temperature got to do with anything?....
are you talking about atmospheric global temperatures? SSTs,??
if so , say so.
The science of C02 heat retention is long and well established.

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

This is a science forum - back your argument with references and verifiable science sources as other participants do.

You are just using a poor understanding of anything to do with climate science as a cover for your conspiracy crap.
There is not one shred of climate science or factual reality in your posts - just shoe pounding rants and innuendos about evil scientists.

You make polemical statements about lies and conspiracies in the climate science community as if they were accepted fact instead of tired Faux News nonsense.

 

[Matt Giwer]

At last we're are talking about state of the art it-is-not-happening!

What equation did you mean? The large set of real ones or the depiction that now is common to see in blogs, that is Archibald et al figure 17 or its logarithmic representation or equation? Please, write it down or link it so we can continue on topic.

I mean one which directly relates temperature to ppm of CO2. It has to exist to talk about CO2 causing a temperature increase. Without that there is nothing to discuss but qualitative factors no different from saying something falls when it is dropped -- truisms of no value in this discussion.

 

[Matt Giwer]

If you are a locomotive engineer, and I tell you that the train takes 9500 feet to stop at this speed, and there is a bridge out 13,000 feet ahead of you, do you take action? Or do you continue at present speed and proudly proclaim 4000 feet further on that I was a false prophet of doom because the train has not fallen into a chasm even though it has passed the point I told you that you must take action by?

The point made is several decades of "prophecies of doom" have all be wrong. You analogy would be better were you to have prophesied if the train goes fast enough it can jump the washed out bridge as that would be a false prophecy.

 

[Matt Giwer]

I don't agree with you. I don't think climate scientists are lying. It may be that some predictions are wrong (though generally only with relation to time, not content), but incorrectness and lying differ based on intention. You cannot get to "they were lying" from "they were wrong" without any other intermediate steps.

You appear to misrepresent the facts of the matter. A prediction by a scientist is firmly grounded in the results of calculations. I have never seen any calculation nor any reference to any paper in which a ten year prediction has been derived. They have not predicted anything as scientists. They have at been issuing doomsday prophecies. If you can provide URLs to any papers I have missed which provide a mathematical basis for the number of years until it is too late please do so.

Secondly, what you call "magic" I call "science". Tipping points are a well documented phenomena and actually the basis of climate science. My example can be found in a number of reports, but as an example, I will include this report:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full.pdf

Let me clarify. There are no climate "tipping points" established as fact until one is correctly predicted using accepted mathematical methods and then in fact it does occur as predicted. Thus they are at best speculation. As I observed the prophesied "or it is too late" points have never been either scientifically predicted nor materialized.

You are correct "magic" is not the proper term. Hypothetical in the sense of tachyons -- lots of looking but never found.

If you are looking to learn more about climate science, I would suggest going to google scholar and finding the most recent IPCC report. Since you aren't all the read up on the subject, I would suggest doing a bit more research before coming to conclusions.

This is not the first place I have discussed the subject and in every previous discussion I have discovered the proponents have no understanding of the science they are talking about. I hope to be pleasantly surprised here.

 

[Matt Giwer]

So what have been the false prophecies you've read?

They have been in the form as I have recited.

"If we do not do something in X years then it will be too late."

The X is usually 10.

 

[Matt Giwer]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/b/0/4b0d65a3fd906060b878e08d35d0f3c9.png[/qimg]
where λ is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and ΔF is the radiative forcing [4]. A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2.

Not what I meant. That is an empirical equation which simply relates measurements. It is not based upon physical principles. An equation based upon physical principles would show the decrease in temperature over the 30+ years beginning around 1940. This empirical equation cannot give that result without demonstrating a decrease in CO2 over those decades.

 

[Matt Giwer]

what has surface temperature got to do with anything?....

What other temperature affects us?

are you talking about atmospheric global temperatures? SSTs,??
if so , say so.
The science of C02 heat retention is long and well established.

Established by what?

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

To quote from the yellow boxed text. "Being much cooler than the Sun, the Earth radiates most of its energy as infrared rays." That is a very sloppy way to put it for an AIP web page. The earth has a net positive radiation because it is warmer than space.

This is a science forum - back your argument with references and verifiable science sources as other participants do.

Then what might be the equation? Science and all as you say.

You are just using a poor understanding of anything to do with climate science as a cover for your conspiracy crap.
There is not one shred of climate science or factual reality in your posts - just shoe pounding rants and innuendos about evil scientists.

You make polemical statements about lies and conspiracies in the climate science community as if they were accepted fact instead of tired Faux News nonsense.

I made a correct observations of the predictions of points of no return or points when it is too late to do anything. You may not remember them but they were made. I have agreed these may be called prophesies if you prefer. Scientific predictions are based upon calculations from physical principles so they have not been predictions. Lies or prophesies or perhaps another term but predictions by scientists they are not.

I have not presented a conspiracy but rather facts and gave them a reasonable name. I do not see your point in attacking things I have not said.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I mean one which directly relates temperature to ppm of CO2. It has to exist to talk about CO2 causing a temperature increase.

Again. Please, write it down or attach it or place a link so we can talk about it.

Without that there is nothing to discuss but qualitative factors no different from saying something falls when it is dropped -- truisms of no value in this discussion.

That's why "Again. Please, write it down or attach it or place a link so we can talk about it."

It was Archibald's, wasn't it?

 

[Trakar]

Once again:

Originally Posted by Matt Giwer
...Now if there had been a specific scientific basis for the ten years to doom statement had been published in the literature...

Cite and reference for this "literature" and "ten years of doom"?