Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Westwall]

It isn't a "bad" or "good" thing, it's change. How you interpret change is a matter of perspective.



Historically periods of warmth are better for life on this planet than periods of cold. To this day cold presents a much more challenging obstacle for life on this planet than warmth or heat.

Very, very true. The paleo record is abundantly clear on that. When it has been warm the planet has thrived. Look at any time you choose and when it is warm virtually every living thing does well.

Even the PETM which is trotted out ad nauseum as a mass extinction event when looked at critically reveals itself as the time when the terrestrial species that populate the world now were actually evolving. Terrestrial life bloomed during the PETM.

The only mass extinction that occured were to a few species of foraminefera.
Additionally those were in a very localised area.

Mass extinction it most definately was not.

 

[bit_pattern]

It isn't a "bad" or "good" thing, it's change. How you interpret change is a matter of perspective.

Yes, if you have a human perspective then it's bad, if you have a dinosaurs perspective then it's good.

But, no, the big problem here is the rate of change. It's fair to say that the planet has never undergone such rapid and fundamental change to the chemistry of it atmosphere.

Historically periods of warmth are better for life on this planet than periods of cold. To this day cold presents a much more challenging obstacle for life on this planet than warmth or heat.

Yes but historically humans have evolved their civilisations within the remarkably stable, warm period of the Holocene. There is no reason why it would thrive and prosper in the sort of conditions that the planet hasn't seen for 7 million years.

 

[Furcifer]

But, no, the big problem here is the rate of change. It's fair to say that the planet has never undergone such rapid and fundamental change to the chemistry of it atmosphere.

I believe there were periods of high volcanic activity where the change was even greater, but the period was longer. Certainly what we've done with burning fossil fuels ranks up there.

Yes but historically humans have evolved their civilisations within the remarkably stable, warm period of the Holocene. There is no reason why it would thrive and prosper in the sort of conditions that the planet hasn't seen for 7 million years.

Yes, but we've evolved to deal with the weather, which changes faster and has more extreme swings than the climate.
There are certainly organisms on this planet however that have evolved to take advantage of niches provided by a stable climate. They will probably not survive a 3 degree increase in temperature.
But historically when something moves out, something else moves in. Sometimes it's fast, I've mentioned the recovery on Mt. St.Helens that surprised scientists. Sometimes it's not as fast. With Global Warming I suspect it won't be, but in the grand scheme of things it hardly matters. The Earth will keep sputtering along and not even notice this "extremely rapid change".

 

[AlBell]

...

I'm honestly surprised that on a skeptical web forum , more people aren't skeptical of global warming and all of the "sky is falling" stuff surrounding it.

Most here pride themselves for being too smart to be a denier (or skeptic) of a scientific consensus.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswo...-the-warmists-dont-believe-in-global-warming/

The most any computer model can be is a useful tool. As it happens, all of the computer models that have been developed over the years by climate change proponents have already been invalidated by events that they did not accurately predict. For example, given the fast rising CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere, global temperatures should have gone up much faster than they have over the past ten years. (And, it is not even clear that they have risen at all,)

So, we don’t know what is really happening to the earth’s “climate”. Even if we did, we could not be sure why it was happening. And, we have no way of knowing whether the change was good or bad for mankind as a whole.

It is obvious that even if “climate change” is happening, and even if it is a bad thing, it is not going to be reversed by reducing CO2 emissions. Despite decades of climate change conferences, protocols, and agreements, fossil fuel use has been rising rapidly as people all over the world have adopted free market economics as a way of escaping poverty. So, if anything at all is going to be done about climate change, it will have to be done by “geoengineering”.

Geoengineering is a far more logical response to “global warming” than are efforts to curb CO2 emissions. First of all, geoengineering does not require that our assumption that it is man-made CO2 emissions that are causing the problem be correct. It would work regardless of what was “really” causing global temperatures to rise. Second, there are geoengineering approaches that could cool the earth at a cost of a few billion dollars per year, rather than tens of trillions of dollars per year. And, third, geoengineering does not require that the people of the world surrender their personal and economic freedom.

Given that geoengineering has the potential to actually do something about the climate change “problem”, the reaction of the climate change crowd to it has been illuminating. They have gone all-out to stop geoengineering experiments from being conducted, and they are doing everything they can to prevent geoengineering from even being discussed.

Climate change proponents recently mounted a desperate effort to stop an experiment in Britain designed to spray 40 gallons of pure water into the upper atmosphere (the so-called SPICE project). Thus far, they have managed to delay the test, and they are arguing that even if the experiment goes ahead, the results should not be made public.

The Progressives are well aware that their opposition to geoengineering experiments exposes their entire game, which is all about money, power, and central-planning control of people’s lives, and has nothing to do with concern about the earth. Unfortunately (for them), they have no choice. Geoengineering solutions might actually work, but they do not require that Progressives be given taxpayer money to hold lavish conferences in lovely places like Durban, South Africa.

 

[lomiller]

Nonsense. I'm not suggesting anything is wrong

You certainly did state that natural variation climate scientists have calculated and routinely use is wrong and insisted that a much larger value should be used. This is no correct; you should admit your error.

I don't know what you mean by "confirmed"? Nothing is "confirmed", it's all an educated guess, even in the modern era of temperature recording.

So now you are saying the mountain of peer reviewed research on this subject is an “educated guess”? Pretty typical of the way crackpots view peer reviewed science IME.

pseudoscience is pseudoscience. It's probably worse coming from "scientists".

Shrug if you think peer reviewed science is “pseudoscience” and the people who public in journals like Science, Nature, PNAS, etc are “scientists” in quotes, there really is no reaching you with fact.

Nonsense. He's reiterated scientific opinion on global warming

We’ve been through this before and you could not find any published science to give your position any credibility. The opinions you and he are presenting simply isn’t supported in the literature.

Science is the great equivocator. It doesn't matter who you are or who you know, so long as the science is sound.

Pretty typical statement for someone unable to find any published science that supports his beliefs but is unwilling to accept the science that is published IME.

 

[lomiller]

The paleo record is abundantly clear on that. When it has been warm the planet has thrived. Look at any time you choose and when it is warm virtually every living thing does well.

I see no evidence for this. Rather, what you see is when it’s warm some organisms do well, when it cool other organism do well.


The relevant question is what temperatures have the organisms that are around today evolved to do well under.

 

[Trakar]

Very, very true. The paleo record is abundantly clear on that. When it has been warm the planet has thrived. Look at any time you choose and when it is warm virtually every living thing does well.

Even the PETM which is trotted out ad nauseum as a mass extinction event when looked at critically reveals itself as the time when the terrestrial species that populate the world now were actually evolving. Terrestrial life bloomed during the PETM.

The only mass extinction that occured were to a few species of foraminefera.
Additionally those were in a very localised area.

Mass extinction it most definately was not.

Mainly due to the fact that widespread mass extinctions had (geologically speaking) just occurred. The PETM event (48-58mya) occurred when much of the existent life on the planet consisted of the hardened, niche-specific survivors of the then recent late Paleocene extinction events (most then-current, the K-T event - 65mya). The primary mammals existent were the small shrew and lemur-like survivors who persisted through the climatic turmoil of the last several million years in isolated enclave pockets. These survivors then radiated and expanded into largely, empty of effective competition, niche-rich environments as the planetary climate moderated and recovered in the eocene. Facts should always be considered and understood in context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenozoic

World Without Ice
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/10/hothouse-earth/kunzig-text

 

[Trakar]

Yes, if you have a human perspective then it's bad, if you have a dinosaurs perspective then it's good.

But, no, the big problem here is the rate of change. It's fair to say that the planet has never undergone such rapid and fundamental change to the chemistry of it atmosphere...

and consequently, of its oceans,...

Yes but historically humans have evolved their civilisations within the remarkably stable, warm period of the Holocene. There is no reason why it would thrive and prosper in the sort of conditions that the planet hasn't seen for 7 million years.

I wonder what the carrying capacity of a hot-house Earth will be?

 

[BenBurch]

i don't buy into the "peer reviewed science" becauser i am of the opinion that most of it is consensus science nonsense.

...

I invite you to abstain from medical care, then, as all of it is based on consensus science.

You better stop using your computer, too. All of that solid-state physics happening in all of those sub-micron integrated circuits; Who knew that it was all nonsense! Of course, since it doesn't really work, you aren't reading this.

And I'd suggest you not travel anywhere except by walking; Everything else involves that nonsense "science" stuff.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, but we've evolved to deal with the weather, which changes faster and has more extreme swings than the climate.

We evolved in Africa near the Equator, where weather does not vary greatly. We expanded into higher latitudes by use of technology, such as fire and clothing.

There are certainly organisms on this planet however that have evolved to take advantage of niches provided by a stable climate. They will probably not survive a 3 degree increase in temperature.

Most organisms won't survive that. It's not just the temperature which will change, it's regional climates, and at the rate climate is changing there won't be time for ecological webs to adjust.

But historically when something moves out, something else moves in.

Historically, climate has not changed this quickly, so history is not a very good guide. I think the best we can predict is that generalists (cockroaches, rats, canids and the like) will survive while specialists won't, and once things stabilise the generalists will give rise to new specialists.

Sometimes it's fast, I've mentioned the recovery on Mt. St.Helens that surprised scientists.

Scientists are a conservative bunch.

Sometimes it's not as fast. With Global Warming I suspect it won't be, but in the grand scheme of things it hardly matters. The Earth will keep sputtering along and not even notice this "extremely rapid change".

Indeed. Future geologists and palaeontologists will notice though, and perhaps learn some lessons from our experience.

 

[CapelDodger]

i don't buy into the "peer reviewed science" becauser i am of the opinion that most of it is consensus science nonsense. I think the "approval" is based on an agenda of liberal minded proffs. pushing environmental crap science . There has been much dissension in regards to this. (and if you want me to cite it, I'm not i dont have time and Im not getting a grade on this so find it yourself)

Where's the non-peer-reviewed science that you'd prefer? It should be all over the internet if it exists, and I'm pretty sure I'd have heard of it. I've come across plenty of crap, like all the "we've entered a long-term cooling period" that's been around for five years or more, but nothing that stands up to examination.

The reason there's a consensus on the laws of physics is that they are the laws of physics. Climate obeys the laws of physics. Cause leads to effect.

I have seen agenda driven science with my own eyes down here after the BP oil disaster. I have seen "proof" by real scientists about how the entire coast was going to be ravaged by oil and all of our wildlife destroyed and the beaches unusable fo 25 years.. blah blah blah. It all turned out to be rubbish , and much of it was paid for by environmental groups pushing their state of fear at the public. So pardon me if i think it's horse crap.

Could you point us to some of that science? I'm always partial to seeing people make fools of themselves. "Beaches unusable for 25 years" sounds like a classic shot in the foot, I'd love to see real scientists predicting that. And I'm glad everything's fine down there now and the fishermen are all back to work with their bank-balances brimming over with compensation from BP. Fishermen can always use a break. Ask any of them and they'll tell you so, at great length.

Climate science isn't paid for by environmental groups. It comes from universities and research groups and is not driven by politics. (That would be a sure way to end scientific careers, given how quickly political environments change.) With luck and a sensible lifestyle you'll live to see its predictions pan out over the next few decades, just as they have done over the last few. Maybe then you'll be convinced. Or not, whatever.

 

[Trakar]

I believe there were periods of high volcanic activity where the change was even greater, but the period was longer. Certainly what we've done with burning fossil fuels ranks up there.

Actually, current human emissions and emissions-induced change significantly exceed in rate any previous vulcanism rates (at the least, both of the great major balsatic trap eruptions). Currently and since the late 1800s, we have directly added ~300 Billion tons of fossil fuel carbon to the active carbon cycle of the planet (land-use changes and environmental warming contributions that indirectly move carbon from temporary reserves into the active carbon cycle are not included in this consideration) and are continuing to add it at an increasing rate that is currently in excess of 9 billion tons per year.

The Deccan traps total was about 1,600 Billion tons of Carbon total with a couple of major eruption emissions every millenium of so and estimated average emission level around 2-3 billion tons of carbon a millenium.

The Siberian trap total was about twice the amount of the Deccan traps, by most estimates, at somewhere around 3,000 billion tons of Carbon total, with similar emission rates to the Deccan event over a longer period. There is some debate over this with some sources suggesting that the Siberian trap eruptions may have occurred over much shorter timeframes. On the order of a few hundred thousand years. This would raise the average emission rate significantly but still would not be anything close to our current anthropogenic emission rate levels by several orders of magnitude.

 

[Furcifer]

You certainly did state that natural variation climate scientists have calculated and routinely use is wrong and insisted that a much larger value should be used. This is no correct; you should admit your error.

I most certainly did not. There's a quote feature, feel free to use it to substantiate your claim.

So now you are saying the mountain of peer reviewed research on this subject is an “educated guess”? Pretty typical of the way crackpots view peer reviewed science IME.

Yes, it's a statistical approximation or what we would colloquially refer to as an "educated guess".

Shrug if you think peer reviewed science is “pseudoscience” and the people who public in journals like Science, Nature, PNAS, etc are “scientists” in quotes, there really is no reaching you with fact.

Complete strawman. I said RealCrapClimate.com, socalledskepticalscience.com and Wattsupwithwhat.com are pseudoscience sites. They're politically motivated and biased websites that filter scientific studies to the willing and ignorant masses.

We’ve been through this before and you could not find any published science to give your position any credibility. The opinions you and he are presenting simply isn’t supported in the literature.

Nonsense. I only present peer reviewed literature from reputable journals and publications, the fact that it doesn't grace the pages of the pseudoscience sites usually cited here is in my opinion a very good thing.

Pretty typical statement for someone unable to find any published science that supports his beliefs but is unwilling to accept the science that is published IME.

Nonsense. I've never refused to accept any peer reviewed published science. That's an outright lie.

 

[Furcifer]

Most organisms won't survive that. It's not just the temperature which will change, it's regional climates, and at the rate climate is changing there won't be time for ecological webs to adjust.

Nonsense.They've already begun to adjust. The adaptation to a changing environment is a continuous process.

Historically, climate has not changed this quickly, so history is not a very good guide. I think the best we can predict is that generalists (cockroaches, rats, canids and the like) will survive while specialists won't, and once things stabilise the generalists will give rise to new specialists.

History is an excellent guide. The fact that the climate may not have changed as fast in the past says absolutely nothing about the ability of organisms within that environment to adapt to the change.

Just because something has never been done does not mean it can't be done.

 

[Furcifer]

The Deccan traps total was about 1,600 Billion tons of Carbon total with a couple of major eruption emissions every millenium of so and estimated average emission level around 2-3 billion tons of carbon a millenium.

The quaternary eruptions like Toba didn't happen over a millennium though. I seem to recall estimates of a 4 or 5C drop in temperature after that eruption. That represents a significant change to the atmosphere in a very short period of time.

 

[BravesFan]

My whole point is that real tenured environmental scientists came down here and held town meetings where they worked the crowds up into a froth with tales of complete devastation of the local ecosystem and seafood economy (with trips paid for by environmental orgs like The Sierra club) only to have the results of the oil spill be pretty much a drop in the bucket.

I was at the damn meetings!! I don't remember their names,(just as I don't remember the names of all the people i dealt with after Katrina). But this was stated and I know that their trips were paid for by environmental groups cuz I have a friend who works as a marine biologist down here who hung out with them during their stay here. She was told flat out that they were brought in to increase the public fury and put pressure on BP. They did it by making crap up.

Frankly, I don't care enough about this issue to even argue. I'm not a denier that climate is changing (it's always changing and it will always change) nor am I a denier that people have had an impact on it. I am very skeptical,however, of the sky is falling claims made by groups based on the climatological data presented. I don't like state of fear propaganda.

Not to mention that I will be dead by the time any of this matters.

 

[lomiller]

Yes, it's a statistical approximation or what we would colloquially refer to as an "educated guess".

No “we” don’t.

I most certainly did not. There's a quote feature, feel free to use it to substantiate your claim.

Your post 4090 4088

That purports to “refute” my post on climate trend calculations. Are you are going to disavow your own post and admit that climate science can and do calculate trends, yes or no?

Complete strawman. I said RealCrapClimate.com, socalledskepticalscience.com and Wattsupwithwhat.com are pseudoscience sites. They're politically motivated and biased websites that filter scientific studies to the willing and ignorant masses.

And I pointed out that you accusation that Realclimate is run by actively publishing climate scientists reporting on their own peer reviewed work and other peer reviewed literature.


Skepticalscience isn’t run by publishing climate scientists, but like Realclimate they cite peer reviewed literature for every claim they make.


Your comments about these sites mark you as someone who cannot distinguish science from pseudoscience, though I guess perhaps you could simply be trying to poison the well.

Nonsense. I've never refused to accept any peer reviewed published science. That's an outright lie.

Please desist with the personal attacks.

You refuse to accept that climate scientists can and do calculate trends, I had to discuss that AGAIN in this very post. (The door is still open for you to recant and accept that)

You refuse to accept that current warming is rapid.

You insist that the extensive peer reviewed reconstructions of the Earths climate are nothing more that “educated guesses”

 

[lomiller]

The quaternary eruptions like Toba didn't happen over a millennium though. I seem to recall estimates of a 4 or 5C drop in temperature after that eruption. That represents a significant change to the atmosphere in a very short period of time.

It’s also hypothesize that eruption nearly caused the human race to go extinct.


The latest work I’ve seen suggests Toba could not have induced a period of glaciation but could cause 5-10 year of sever volcanic winter which could have devastated many species in the short term, but would not have had any prolonged consequences.

 

[bit_pattern]

but in the grand scheme of things it hardly matters. The Earth will keep sputtering along and not even notice this "extremely rapid change".

Yes but I don't live in the grand scheme of things, I live from a humans perspective. And from that perspective then launching a vast, uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere and unnecessarily altering the climate from that in which we are evolved to thrive is not a good idea.

 

[aleCcowaN]

My whole point is that real tenured environmental scientists came down here and held town meetings where they worked the crowds up into a froth with tales of complete devastation of the local ecosystem and seafood economy (with trips paid for by environmental orgs like The Sierra club) only to have the results of the oil spill be pretty much a drop in the bucket.

If that was your whole point, why didn't you say it in the first time?

You also had to provide evidence about the agendas you mentioned in your first post in this thread. You are not prevented here from saying "this is the way I feel", but it's pretty obvious that is not the purpose of threads like this one.

Frankly, I don't care enough about this issue to even argue. I'm not a denier that climate is changing (it's always changing and it will always change) nor am I a denier that people have had an impact on it. I am very skeptical,however, of the sky is falling claims made by groups based on the climatological data presented. I don't like state of fear propaganda.

Not to mention that I will be dead by the time any of this matters.

Yes. We know the drill: Après moi le déluge!

I insist you should learn quickly why these forae about skepticism have such a few members challenging it -vociferous and tenacious, but a few-. Not only some conclusions can be drawn from that fact: the way they challenge 'the real way' also provides a clue. A little hint: how do you evaluate the evidencial content of the sum of your posts in this thread?