Global Warming and all that stuff.

[Schneibster]

Epirical evidence, the current drought in Australia.

I'm sorry, but I just can't resist pointing out that that's just the tip of the iceberg. Heh.

 

[Schneibster]

you could address the point made that the belief that rises in greenhouse gases causes temperature rise in the Earth's atmosphere is not supported by empirical evidence even if, on a simplistic theoretic level of an equilibrium system, such a result would be expected.

S/he didn't have to. I did. It's false. See the link in my post above.

Speaking of empirical evidence, it looks as if what happens is, the orbital anomaly finishes, it starts to warm up, the CO2 count goes up because a bunch of animals survive that weren't before, and then the warming accelerates. At least according to the archeological record, of which the ice cores are a part. But silly me, I guess that's NOT REALLY empirical evidence, is it, because YOU SAY SO.

I must admit when I discovered this assumption was not supported by any empirical evidence I was surprised as well. But who do I trust, people who claim confidence or the empirical evidence?

Well, it appears you are trusting people, because it doesn't appear that you are trusting the empirical evidence; just cherry picking parts of it that agree with you, and ignoring the rest.

Its a toughie but I'll go with the evidence. I've been burned too many times by people's expressions of confidence based on supposed authority.

Fine, given this performance I'll believe that when I see it. I'm not holding my breath.

You know, you made a real mistake putting me on ignore. What's going to happen is that people are going to notice that I rip everything you say to shreds and you never respond. Fine by me. I don't care what people think of you.

 

[Schneibster]

Oh, and by the way, Diamond, are you going to respond to what Earthborn said, or cherry pick some more? Because I don't intend that anyone should miss that you didn't actually respond to his first statement.

 

[robinson]

I guess thats the excuse to not answer any of the other points made. Typical

You didn't make any points, nor ask any questions that you didn't answer. I could be wrong, but when somebody says dumb stuff, its hard to take anything they say seriously after that.

Well I'm impressed.

Try this link.
www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/rich2952/rich2952.pdf

A quick Google showed that you are trolling. Polyakov et al (2004) was quoted correctly - an Arctic warming but nothing unusual or any evidence of a polar amplification. The 1930s were a little warmer than today.

The bulk of Antartica is cooling apart from the Antarctic Peninsula which has warmed rather impressively. That the focus of news items is on the Peninsula shows how well the media reports climate change.

Can you please show where you get that from? If there is data that shows this, I want to see it. I don't blindly accept everything I hear about climate change or global warming.

 

[robinson]

Sadly, in recent years we have become accustomed to a ritual in which the publication of each new result on anthropogenic climate change is greeted by a flurry of activity from industry-funded lobby groups, think tanks and PR professionals, who try to discredit the science and confuse the public about global warming.

An example of this is the article “Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice” by industry lobbyist Steven Milloy , featured on Fox News. Milloy claims in his polemic that the ACIA “debunks itself” based on one graph of the 1,200-page study. This graph shows the evolution of Arctic temperatures over the past century, and the fact (well-known to climatologists) that in the 1930s similarly warm temperatures where reached in the high Arctic as at present. Milloy concludes from this that both warmings are due to a natural cycle.

Scientifically, this argument holds no water: it is simply not possible to draw conclusions about the causes of climate variations by just looking at one time series. Only considering the time series of Arctic temperature, it is impossible to tell what the cause of the 1930s warming was, what the cause of the recent warming is, and whether both have the same cause or not. Milloy’s specious argument is a characteristic example for a method frequently employed by “climate skeptics”: from a host of scientific data, they cherry-pick one result out of context and present unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=22

"they cherry-pick one result out of context and present unwarranted conclusions"

 

[Schneibster]

Keep it coming, robinson. That (cherry picking) is precisely what is happening here, and it's a nasty skeptoid habit. The more you point it out, the less of it we'll have to listen to.

 

[Verde]

If so, the most draconian measures conceivable to reduce CO2 emissions and other man-made contributors to global warming may do little to halt the global warming trend and its impact on humans. However, it's hard to argue that they wouldn't have a significant impact on economic growth.

So if those measures don't halt global warming, we may need to find some other means.

So, are you you advocating something more than the most draconian measures conceivable ?

 

[Schneibster]

Let me make a point.

What we might do to deal with the situation is aside from the point, and is in fact a political and economic conversation, not a scientific one. Whether it is happening and how it might progress in the future is the proper scientific discussion. Skeptoids always want to talk about the conclusion, before the premises have been established; that's because they've allowed their perception of the solutions to the problem to overwhelm their judgment of whether there is actually a problem in the first place or not. It scares them so much to think, in other words, of what solutions we might need to pursue if we're actually going to do something about the problem, that they ignore whether there's actually evidence that there's a problem or not.

Who cares what the Chinese do? Who cares whether the measures are draconian? CAN WE PLEASE ALL BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A PROBLEM BEFORE WE DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS?

Maybe it's just me. But I really hate to see people who might otherwise be reasonable be driven to acting like jeebus freaks or audiophools because they're scared. The worst of this is, that they wind up abandoning true skepticism because of their fear. If there's anything I hate about global warming denial, this has to top the list.

 

[politas]

So, are you you advocating something more than the most draconian measures conceivable ?

No, I am suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions may not be the only means to halt global warming.

 

[Dave1001]

Let me make a point.

What we might do to deal with the situation is aside from the point, and is in fact a political and economic conversation, not a scientific one. Whether it is happening and how it might progress in the future is the proper scientific discussion. Skeptoids always want to talk about the conclusion, before the premises have been established; that's because they've allowed their perception of the solutions to the problem to overwhelm their judgment of whether there is actually a problem in the first place or not. It scares them so much to think, in other words, of what solutions we might need to pursue if we're actually going to do something about the problem, that they ignore whether there's actually evidence that there's a problem or not.

Who cares what the Chinese do? Who cares whether the measures are draconian? CAN WE PLEASE ALL BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A PROBLEM BEFORE WE DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS?

Maybe it's just me. But I really hate to see people who might otherwise be reasonable be driven to acting like jeebus freaks or audiophools because they're scared. The worst of this is, that they wind up abandoning true skepticism because of their fear. If there's anything I hate about global warming denial, this has to top the list.

That seems to be a response to me, since I used the word "draconian" in my post. If you read all my posts in this thread, you'll see that

(1) I am interested in talking about and learning about the science, although I'm also interested (for the most survivalist self-interested of reasons) in what policy we should promote as a result of what the best science is telling us is going on.

(2) I am completely open to the possibility that current global warming is substantially (even predominantly) man-made, and that the best policy solution may be to restrict CO2 production and any other manmade contributors to global warming.

There does seem to be some reasonable debate among the experts (and I don't count industry hacks here) about whether current global warming is substantially AGW, which I think should effect our policy decisions too, depending on what scientific consensus is reached on this question. Am I mistaken? Is the scientific consensus that current global warming is subsantially AGW? If so, that's good news of sorts, because it implies, among other things, that we as a species have become technologically powerful enough to influence macro global temperature trends. What's left is for us to use that power in more rational ways, and to transition with minimal negative economic impact towards energy systems that don't arbitrarily raise global temperatures regardless of what's in our interest.

Yes, I enjoy discussing policy in tandem with the science. I don't see anything wrong with it -and in my case it's not a backdoor way to obfuscate the scientific consensus on global warming.

 

[lenny]

There does seem to be some reasonable debate among the experts (and I don't count industry hacks here) about whether current global warming is substantially AGW, which I think should effect our policy decisions too, depending on what scientific consensus is reached on this question. Am I mistaken? .

yes. there is strong consensus (perhaps too strong) on the specific question of whether or not man-made contributions are "influence macro global temperature trends." there is very little debate on this,currently; there is significant debate (inside operational centres) on the interpretation model projections for the future.

If so, that's good news of sorts, because it implies, among other things, that we as a species have become technologically powerful enough to influence macro global temperature trends.

not sure we get much "intelligence credit" here, inasmuch as plants did something similar a long time ago. (by pumping their waste gas oxygen into the atmosphere.

and in my case it's not a backdoor way to obfuscate the scientific consensus on global warming.

evidence on this is in your posts.

the argument is just too hot, and those who do wish to obfuscate quote rational snippets out of context, even those who jsut want to increase sales make headlines that mis-represent potential impacts; those authors get accused of being contrarian-sceptics... all this makes it harder to have reasoned discussions outside (and to some extent inside) operational centres. bad for science and for policy makers.

one would hope that you (Dave1001) could get a fair hearing on a skeptic forum...

 

[lenny]

But I really hate to see people who might otherwise be reasonable be driven to acting like jeebus freaks or audiophools because they're scared. The worst of this is, that they wind up abandoning true skepticism because of their fear. If there's anything I hate about global warming denial, this has to top the list.

agreed. note that it cuts both ways: some deny without thinking, some defend without thinking,

some think a good deal, and then actively limit what they say not because of its relevance but because they are certain it will be abused (by one side or the other, sometimes selectively by both). should they limit what they say or not?

one example is tuning: we need to learn how to "tune" large physical simulation models. large = 10^7 state variables and many thousands of parameters. zero (quality) out of sample data.

there is a real hesitation to discuss issues like this frankly.

i see no easy way out.

 

[BobK]

You keep on digging up amateur pundits, like this one. Why not spend as much time going through the published papers of professional scientists?

Are you implying that what I posted about icebergs in the 19th century is wrong? On what basis? Have you read the books and logs? I think not. So why the snide remark? I only posted it to show bergs have been farther north in the past when temps were lower.

As long as you brought up the subject of reading what scientists have written, here's something by a guy named Gray expounding on hurricanes and computer models. Don't bother to read it. I'm sure you'll consider him an amateur also. I'm posting the link for the open-minded only.

I see you posted another news item about Aussie drought conditions. Well, here's one you conveniently missed posting. I've been telling you this stuff for a while now. You can't keep increasing population without increasing your country's always marginal water supply and infrastructure. Either you're content to blame it on AGW or too cheap to pay more taxes to upgrade. What kind of a water supply do you want to leave for your children? The time for population culling will eventually arrive if you Aussies don't spread some funds around to improve your infrastructure.

After a post-war boom in developing new dams and water storage, investment in new dams has fallen sharply in the past decade, with little investment in alternative technologies such as recycling and desalination -- with the exception of Perth.

The water spokesman for the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development, Graham Dooley, said Australia had enough water but was unable to manage it because of chronic infrastructure failures.

"We have a supply crisis and we have an infrastructure crisis. We don't actually have a water crisis," he said.

 

[CapelDodger]

Speaking of empirical evidence, it looks as if what happens is, the orbital anomaly finishes, it starts to warm up, the CO2 count goes up because a bunch of animals survive that weren't before, and then the warming accelerates.

A (perhaps the) major factor in CO2 increase at that time is the warming of the oceans, which drives out CO2 into the atmosphere. There's also melting of permafrost (that's familiar ) as the ice-edge moves north (there's not much permafrost in the South, of course). Weathering of newly-exposed rock can also contribute, but I'm not sure of the details (there's a difference between weathering of silicious and carbonate rocks).

Fine by me. I don't care what people think of you.

Neither does Diamond. He has the benefit of knowing he's right, even if he can't explain why. When the ice-caps are lapping around his ankles he'll still be wittering on about bristlecones. For such as Diamond, greenhouse denial is a cult.

 

[CapelDodger]

Maybe it's just me. But I really hate to see people who might otherwise be reasonable be driven to acting like jeebus freaks or audiophools because they're scared. The worst of this is, that they wind up abandoning true skepticism because of their fear. If there's anything I hate about global warming denial, this has to top the list.

What really gets my goat are the frequent accusations that scientists are dishonest, incompetent and/or corrupt because they're not saying what denialists want to hear. That said, I share your irritation at the fake scepticism of "nothing can be proved if I don't want it to be true".

 

[CapelDodger]

As long as you brought up the subject of reading what scientists have written, here's something by a guy named Gray expounding on hurricanes and computer models. Don't bother to read it. I'm sure you'll consider him an amateur also. I'm posting the link for the open-minded only.

Here's some info on Gray from RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

For years prior to the publication of evidence that the THC was slowing down, Gray was testifying in Congress and writing widely that hurricane increases were due to Atlantic warming arising from a speed-up of the THC (see our article for some typical quotes). Confronted with evidence that the THC was in fact behaving in the opposite way to what he had been assuming, Gray did a flip-flop and came up with a new story that yields the same conclusions. There's no shame in a scientist changing his or her mind, or in seeking new theories in the face of new observations. However, if Gray's old theory was really testable, where were the tests to show that it was wrong in the years he was touting it? How is one to put any confidence in the new theory? The fact is that neither of Gray's story lines about the THC is sufficiently well formulated to allow any clear-cut test. Nonetheless, insofar as it can be understood at all, some aspects of Gray's new story line about the THC are demonstrably wrong.

At the last count Gray had 15 different motivations behind the Global Warming Conspiracy. Which is a lot. He's still something of a poster-boy for denialists but they don't have a lot to choose from - when it's between the guy with the aluminium hat and the one with three wives and a thing about Prince Philip I guess you go with the shiny-hat chap.

 

[shanek]

Yep...even after a year and a half, it seems that some things--and people--never change...

 

[rockoon]

Confronted with evidence that the THC was in fact behaving in the opposite way to what he had been assuming, Gray did a flip-flop and came up with a new story that yields the same conclusions.

Sounds like the doomsday pundits when they were confronted with a warming trend instead of the global cooling they were going on about.

Their solution remained exactly the same: strict control on fossil fuels.

Agenda's are great, huh?

 

[CapelDodger]

Sounds like the doomsday pundits when they were confronted with a warming trend instead of the global cooling they were going on about.

Their solution remained exactly the same: strict control on fossil fuels.

Agenda's are great, huh?

Some hoary old myths never die. Who was going on about global cooling when?

The actual problem talked about in the 70's was acid rain, and the solution proposed was to reduce sulphur emissions from fuel, which has subsequently been done. Not exactly "the same", is it?

 

[CapelDodger]

Agenda's are great, huh?

Thinking of which, what is this agenda you've dreamt up?