Conservatives and climate change

[Trakar]

What is needed is another graph showing the global warming papers authored by those receiving govt. research grants.

you mean like the one here?

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/Images/etc_correlation50__01__960.jpg

Yes, it is often instructive to examine the foolish ways some people try to insinuate correlations into causatives.

 

[Travis]

Nonsense, looking at the historical record, it will most likely be bad in some isolated places and very good in others like Canada and Siberia.

But, even if it would be devastatingly awful everywhere and for everyone, why aren't the AGW-devastation-frenzy-bleaters advocating a switchover to nuclear power from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants as soon as possible? And why is paying extortion money to third-world dictators seen as a solution to first-world CO₂ emissions?

Rising sea levels will be bad a great many people.

 

[bit_pattern]

you mean like the one here?

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/Images/etc_correlation50__01__960.jpg

Yes, it is often instructive to examine the foolish ways some people try to insinuate correlations into causatives.

Brilliant! Thanks for the link

 

[Trakar]

I'd dispute that the principle facts were all accepted by the 1930's. While the warming effect of CO2 was certainly known by this point, it was believed that it wasn't possible for humans to significantly impact atmospheric CO2 because it would be absorbed by the oceans...

We are talking about the principle facts.

1) CO2 Greenhouse gas

2) human capability to produce large amounts of CO2

3) Human's emitting amounts of CO2 sufficent to alter climate

4) climate changing largely in response to human actions

If you are saying that there was debate and discussion over processes/mechanisms and interactions, and that especially this last point wasn't the majority opinion among early climate researchers in the 1930s, I would not disagree with those qualifications. It was a decade or so before I was born so I can't say from experience or personal knowledge, but papers like this by Callendar, however, speak in a manner that seems to imply a lot of common knowledge and shared understandings.

"THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEMPERATURE" May 1937
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

SUMMARY
By fuel combustion man has added about 150,000 million tons of carbon dioxide to the air during the past half century. The author estimates from the best available data that approximately three quarters of this has remained in the atmosphere.
The radiation absorption coefficients of carbon dioxide and water vapour are used to show the effect of carbon dioxide on “ sky radiation.” From this the increase in mean temperature, due to the artificial production of carbon dioxide, is estimated to be at the rate of 0.003°C. per year at the present time.
The temperature observations at 2oo meteorological stations are used to show that world temperatures have actually increased at an average rate of o.oo5°C. per year during the past half century...

Likewise, this essay penned by Doctor J. R. Gorrell of Newton Iowa in 1911
"Climatic Changes"
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/vie...J269S6zKM4g#search="climatic changes gorrell"

...We may —they say—be unable to discover any difference from winter to winter, but a comparison of our late winters with the winters of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago, appears to justify the belief that a gradual
change is occurring in our climate...John Tyndall was the first to call the attention of scientists to the fact that carbonic acid—carbon dioxide CO2—was partially opaque to dark heat, and to suggest its potency in producing a milder climate. The proportion of carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere is only about one-thirtieth per cent, but being opaque to dark heat it absorbs the heat of the earth that otherwise would be radiated into space, and thus acts as a blanket to keep the earth warm. The greater the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the thicker becomes the blanket, and the more heat it absorbs...The processes of combustion and respiration consume oxygen and liberate carbon dioxide and aqueous vapor. The incalculable
combustion of coal and oil is gradually restoring to the atmosphere the hitherto confined carbon dioxide which when free produced a mild climate the world over, and will probably again create the same meteorological conditions of heat and moisture that existed during the Tertiary period—a tropical climate from pole to pole.

And literally hundreds (if not more) minor quips and casual mentions of facts in papers published in the decade or three preceding 1940, like:
"A Theory of the Upper Atmosphere and Meteors"
Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers
Issue Date: Feb. 1928
Volume: 16 Issue:2
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1669963

...A slight change in the carbon dioxide of the air would have a tremendous influence on the climate of the earth. If the carbon dioxide content of the air were increased from the present 0.03 per cent to 0.1 per cent tropical plants would probably grow in the polar regions...

These lead me to the understanding that while there was certainly nothing like the informed concensus today, that at the least within the small circle of researchers dedicated to the study of climate (and a bit beyond), these basic facts of climate change were largely known and accepted.

 

[Trakar]

...But, even if it would be devastatingly awful everywhere and for everyone, why aren't the AGW-devastation-frenzy-bleaters advocating a switchover to nuclear power from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants as soon as possible? And why is paying extortion money to third-world dictators seen as a solution to first-world CO₂ emissions?

Most are not opposed to a well regulated, modern nuclear power expansion, many, like myself are even proponent/advocates of that course. As to the boogie-man under your bed, I'd recommend a night-light.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Why do you care more about what happen in 15,000 years than you are what happen in the next 50 - 100 years?



Yes.

Does anyone have the background in chemistry or geology to answer me?

I think global warming should be freaking great.

Sure the water level rises but that is nothing in comparison to getting a whole new untouched continent to use to plant more food to end world hunger.

Try the next 5 years. What I meant by, in the long run was that, sure some species might go extinct. That is nothing new. And lots of people living next to the ocean might have to relocate. So what? Are we all crybabies?

Ice Ages are what we should really fear, not Global warming. And if ice on earth melts we have all of Antarctica and Greenland to use to our wishes. Sounds like a dream come true to me.

So tell me where I am wrong. And tell me if you really have the scientific background to know what you are talking about. Don't protest me for political reasons or that you are just a liberal talking head who can only repeat the script that the other talking heads spoon feed you.

 

[bit_pattern]

I think global warming should be freaking great.

Sure the water level rises but that is nothing in comparison to getting a whole new untouched continent to use to plant more food to end world hunger.

Well, those things won't happen. If that's your idea of the impact climate change is likely to have then you're a very confused individual and I'm not at all surprised you think it would be "freaking great".

Oh, and I have no science background, if that makes a difference to you.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Well, your generalized use of "climate study" and "climate science" is somewhat troublesome, since it didn't exist <1972. So what exactly are you talking about, meterologists? Guys that studied glaciers? Your generalization is sufficiently imprecise to cause any conclusion you draw to be wrong.

Excuse me? Like everything in the world it has advanced more in recent times, but studying climate goes back centuries. What a silly argument. Do you have some kind of special definition for what you call "climate science"?

Maybe we can stop with the calling people wrong to make up for a lack of an argument on your part. But can that be expected from someone who takes a comment of "the math is simple" and spins it into an argument about Climate science being easy.

 

[JihadJane]

Does anyone have the background in chemistry or geology to answer me?

I think global warming should be freaking great.

Sure the water level rises but that is nothing in comparison to getting a whole new untouched continent to use to plant more food to end world hunger.

Try the next 5 years. What I meant by, in the long run was that, sure some species might go extinct. That is nothing new. And lots of people living next to the ocean might have to relocate. So what? Are we all crybabies?

The planet's current, ongoing mass extinction event could dispatch humanity, too.

 

[Francesca R]

The consensus of academia did not know that climate change was coming in 1972.

That you exaggerate the position to unrepresentative certainty corroborates the hypothesis in the linked thread. You just did it again.

Incorrect.

At best they were not convinced about how much it would change or how much atmospheric CO2 would change, but any debate going on in 1972 was about how much change, not if.

You say "incorrect" but then make a comment that agrees with mine. As did the member I challenged on that in the first place

Makes for an easy test doesn't it. Just look at the science, and see which side it favors.

I don't think it does--my suggestion is that many people's position on climate change is not informed by science.

That research conclusions correlate with one of the two positions doesn't mean they caused those with that position to have it. And reasons why one may doubt the causation is the correlation between political alignment and climate change view, coupled with the stridency/certainty observed in expressed views which also appears highly correlated with strength of political alignment. Examples of such stidency include comments in the thread like "chicken little hysteria" (in respect of a reasoned viewpoint for AGW) and "demagoguing shamelessly" or "unseemly bordering on disgusting" (in response to my own assertion challenging the degree of certainty as coming from 1972 academic consensus)

There is no debate going on in the literature, it's all very one sided

Agreed.

 

[DC]

You say "incorrect" but then make a comment that agrees with mine. As did the member I challenged on that in the first place

I don't think it does--my suggestion is that many people's position on climate change is not informed by science.

That research conclusions correlate with one of the two positions doesn't mean they caused those with that position to have it. And reasons why one may doubt the causation is the correlation between political alignment and climate change view, coupled with the stridency/certainty observed in expressed views which also appears highly correlated with strength of political alignment. Examples of such stidency include comments in the thread like "chicken little hysteria" (in respect of a reasoned viewpoint for AGW) and "demagoguing shamelessly" or "unseemly bordering on disgusting" (in response to my own assertion challenging the degree of certainty as coming from 1972 academic consensus)

Agreed.

i provdied a paper shopwing that they knew, why are you rejecting it?

 

[Francesca R]

Your paper said, in your words "up to 1972, 4 predicted cooling, 5 were neutral, 10 predicted warming. (14 predicted climate change while 5 were neutral.". That does not show that (my words) "the consensus of academia knew that climate change was coming in 1972". I am surprised if you think it showed anything so definitive, or why you would want to project such excessive certainty back 40 years.

(Also, saying that the "4 predicted cooling" are in support of the statement that I challenged is kinda nifty Please allow me a mea culpa for not specifying warming in the challenge)

 

[DC]

Your paper said, in your words "up to 1972, 4 predicted cooling, 5 were neutral, 10 predicted warming. (14 predicted climate change while 5 were neutral.". That does not show that (my words) "the consensus of academia knew that climate change was coming in 1972". I am surprised if you think it showed anything so definitive, or why you would want to project such excessive certainty back 40 years.

(Also, saying that the "4 pedicted cooling" are in support of the statement that I challenged is kinda nifty )

14 predicted climate change, only 5 predicted neither.

cooling or warming, you used the word, climate change, and both are a climate change.....

what else do you want?

i start to wonder who is choosing side based on his politics rather than science....

 

[Francesca R]

If I were you I'd argue that all nineteen in the sample predicted climate change, just that five of them predicted a transformation vector that was populated by zero entries. Then I'd concede

 

[DC]

If I were you I'd argue that all nineteen in the sample predicted climate change, just that five of them predicted a transformation vector that was populated by zero entries. Then I'd concede

well i see, while the vast majority of published papers in the field were predicting climate change in 1972, you are still right and they din't know. they just guessed and per accident got it right which just confirms your point that they didn't knew.

and it is also others and not you that picks sides based on politics and not science.

 

[Francesca R]

It's instructive that you think stating that: "The consensus of academia did not know that climate change was coming in 1972" is picking a side. As recently as post 127 you didn't think I was supporting one side.

It is quite irritating when those having polarized and IMO excessive conviction on a subject regard anything less polar as being the opposing side. It comes up a lot on this forum with political opinions. It should not do with evidence-based viewpoints.

You are not exactly dispatching my hypothesis on this matter into oblivion with your recent posts.

 

[Kestrel]

Neither warming nor cooling is inherently bad, but rapid change in either direction is.

At our current rate of CO2 emissions we will see another 2-3 degrees of warming by 2100 for a total of 3-4 degrees C in only 200 years. For comparison sake warming at the end of the last glaciation was ~6 deg C over 5000 years.

Quoting from Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate Future

By the end of this century, without a reduction in emissions, atmospheric CO2 is projected to increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years.

 

[stokes234]

Nonsense, looking at the historical record, it will most likely be bad in some isolated places and very good in others like Canada and Siberia.

It's never happened before this quickly. The climate changes we have experienced have wiped out whole populations, such as the original settlers of britain.

But, even if it would be devastatingly awful everywhere and for everyone, why aren't the AGW-devastation-frenzy-bleaters advocating a switchover to nuclear power from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants as soon as possible?

Some are. For example, George Monbiot.

 

[citizenzen]

... why aren't the AGW-devastation-frenzy-bleaters advocating a switchover to nuclear power from coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants as soon as possible?

I'd push renewables (solar, wind, water, geothermal, et al.) first.

Then nuclear.

 

[lomiller]

If you are saying that there was debate and discussion over processes/mechanisms and interactions, and that especially this last point wasn't the majority opinion among early climate researchers in the 1930s, I would not disagree with those qualifications. It was a decade or so before I was born so I can't say from experience or personal knowledge, but papers like this by Callendar, however, speak in a manner that seems to imply a lot of common knowledge and shared understandings.

I’m not talking about process interactions, at least not within the climate system. Until ~1960 it was understood that CO2 would cause warming but wildly believed that the Oceans capacity to absorb CO2 dwarfed anything humans could ever emit. Of course, we now know that even if the oceans could absorb CO2 rapidly enough to prevent global warming, it would exacerbate ocean acidification, which is in itself a problem that rivals global warming.

I agree that post 1930 there was little or no debate over the fact CO2 would exert a warming influence on the planet, but the notion anthropogenic CO2 could occur in quantities sufficient to do so was not. To me this marks 1960 as the point when global warming became wildly accepted because both pillars were in place, 1) CO2 does warm the planet, which had been known for decades before that, and 2) we are changing atmospheric CO2, which was a relatively new conclusion in 1960, but was made supported by conclusive evidence. Since then the scientific debate has centered on getting better predictions on how much warming and looking at other factors that may mitigate/exacerbate the problem.