Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[lomiller]

A classical case of argument from popularity, and it is being used precisely to avoid arguing the argument.

No, it’s just science. Papers are either convincing or they fall by the wayside.

BTW If you think a paper says something important it’s up to you to convince us of that, I have zero responsibility to disprove every crackpot idea someone has picked up on the internet.

 

[a_unique_person]

A classical case of argument from popularity, and it is being used precisely to avoid arguing the argument.

I have never heard an actual scientist say anything like this.

I have. They don't waste time on garbage.

 

[refamat]

Volcanoes cool the planet due to the aerosols they spew into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gassed they emit is negligible.



What you are really saying that because temperature of the earth was warmer before long before humans existed, we don’t need to worry about it getting that warm again. This view is problematic for those of us who wish to see humans continue to exist…



At one time people were not sure the Earth orbited the Sun, and saying it “may not” could have been a valid argument. Now, of course we know better, just as we know humans are causing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise and that is causing the planet to warm.

The point I am trying to make is that humans have, over geological time, going to have a very small effect upon the planet climate wise. The planet will eventually correct itself after humans are gone, and exhibit climates controlled by physical processes. The planet has had average temperatures which were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are today.
We are still in an ice age, technically speaking. Ice ages end, temps go up. There is not enough data in yet to describe how long the end of an ice age might last (we are about 12,000 years into the start of the last ice age's decline and do not know when it might end) or how fast temperatures rise.
Making the statement that man is the cause of global warming is not scientific, even when there is evidence for some things being true when they always exclude any data on ice ages.

It's the same for the extinction of dinosaurs, there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line (this represents as much as 12 million years), the paleontologists argue this point, the astrophysicists say without any evidence, that an impactor killed the dinosaurs because of when it happened and some micro-fossils in the Caribbean show a mass die off of SOME microscopic lifeforms in that area at that time.

Until people (scientists) can put all the data together and without a doubt, rule out all but one item, pointing a finger at any one cause is bad science.

 

[Trakar]

No, it’s just science. Papers are either convincing or they fall by the wayside.

BTW If you think a paper says something important it’s up to you to convince us of that, I have zero responsibility to disprove every crackpot idea someone has picked up on the internet.

Excellent point.

Scientific standing within a field of study isn't granted or recognized arbitrarily.

 

[Trakar]

NOT attributing perpetuates the myth of these events being within the range of natural cycles -

Until a statistically significant trend can be established demonstrating that such is definitively and qualitatively unusual, then it isn't myth, but simply a statement of what is. In climate, that trend establishment period is measured in multiple decades at a minimum (for a reason).

I would certainly agree, that these anomalous conditions are most likely the early impacts of accelerating climate change, and certainly of the form and type that we are expecting to become more the norm in a warming climate, but calling them this at this time is "jumping the gun" and leaves us in the situation of being perceived as doing the same thing others are properly lambasted for, namely conflating weather with climate.

 

[a_unique_person]

I was hoping you had your own critique, but we can discuss this one.

First they seem to fall victim to the same mistakes they claim the authors did.

"This error is not relevant for the paper itself, and this paragraph is unnecessary, but it does tell me a few things: the authors did not consult with any climatologist"

The similar claim would be that the climatologists don't consult with statisticians. Tit for tat.

That was what the paper says, the climatologists didn't consult statisticians, that is why they wrote this paper. In writing it, they didn't consult with any climatologists, made fundamental mistakes, and so the paper is a waste of time.

 

[bit_pattern]

... And they STILL found an "80% chance that (1997-2006 rolling decade) was the warmest in the past thousand years". Go figure

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

It's the same for the extinction of dinosaurs, there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line (this represents as much as 12 million years), the paleontologists argue this point, the astrophysicists say without any evidence, that an impactor killed the dinosaurs because of when it happened and some micro-fossils in the Caribbean show a mass die off of SOME microscopic lifeforms in that area at that time.

Until people (scientists) can put all the data together and without a doubt, rule out all but one item, pointing a finger at any one cause is bad science.

Your point is made: You suggest a completely new epistemology for science, regarding GW and other matters. I'm interested in your point and I want to know more about some aspects: the role of unanimity and the definition of scientist if such an unanimity is needed. For example, you said "there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line" AND "(this represents as much as 12 million years)". I disagree with both assertions. Have you incurred in "bad science" according to the epistemology proposed? or am I not a scientist? Are you?

 

[CapelDodger]

The point I am trying to make is that humans have, over geological time, going to have a very small effect upon the planet climate wise. The planet will eventually correct itself after humans are gone, and exhibit climates controlled by physical processes. The planet has had average temperatures which were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are today.

This is entirely true. In a few million years there'll still be a world with life, even if we humans do go ballistic with our nuclear stockpile.

We will leave a mark to enquiring minds (such as ours own) simply through AGW. If modern geologists had something like this to look back on we would definitely detect an industrial society. The almost (but not quite) empty oil-reservoirs and coal-fields would be the first giveaway, but that would be initially controversial and so lead us deeper into the geography.

It might even answer an earlier question: why did the current series of Ice Ages stop for four or five hundred thousand years before kicking in again? ... but that's to get very speculative.

Until people (scientists) can put all the data together and without a doubt, rule out all but one item, pointing a finger at any one cause is bad science.

The problem with Science (as opposed to obvious good sense) is that it's an absolute with cannot discard doubt. Scientists of good sense will take many things as proven simply in order to get some productive work done (and that scheme has worked remarkably well over the last few centuries), but in principle nothing is beyond doubt in Science.

None of us lives that way, of course. There are such things as the bleedin' obvious, beyond reasonable doubt, obective reality, and the ever-popular "Yeah, right, let us know how that works out for you ... ".

 

[CapelDodger]

... And they STILL found an "80% chance that (1997-2006 rolling decade) was the warmest in the past thousand years". Go figure

Be very wary of that. They found that such estimates cannot be determined from proxy data - in fact, that nothing can be found from proxy data. This "80%" quote is a trap. Buy that and you buy the "Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today" with it.

What they have done is kill that idea. The ditto-heads won't care, they'll ditch the MWP as casually as they've ditched every other fashion. Without noticing, even.

 

[a_unique_person]

The point I am trying to make is that humans have, over geological time, going to have a very small effect upon the planet climate wise. The planet will eventually correct itself after humans are gone, and exhibit climates controlled by physical processes. The planet has had average temperatures which were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are today.
We are still in an ice age, technically speaking. Ice ages end, temps go up. There is not enough data in yet to describe how long the end of an ice age might last (we are about 12,000 years into the start of the last ice age's decline and do not know when it might end) or how fast temperatures rise.
Making the statement that man is the cause of global warming is not scientific, even when there is evidence for some things being true when they always exclude any data on ice ages.

It's the same for the extinction of dinosaurs, there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line (this represents as much as 12 million years), the paleontologists argue this point, the astrophysicists say without any evidence, that an impactor killed the dinosaurs because of when it happened and some micro-fossils in the Caribbean show a mass die off of SOME microscopic lifeforms in that area at that time.

Until people (scientists) can put all the data together and without a doubt, rule out all but one item, pointing a finger at any one cause is bad science.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. The planet doesn't 'correct itself'. Physical forces act, the result is a climate will be the end result of those forces. If it is conducive to life, and what kind of life that is, will be a result of evolution adapting to those conditions.

 

[refamat]

Your point is made: You suggest a completely new epistemology for science, regarding GW and other matters. I'm interested in your point and I want to know more about some aspects: the role of unanimity and the definition of scientist if such an unanimity is needed. For example, you said "there are no DINOSAUR fossils in the last 9-12 feet of rock BEFORE that KT boundary line" AND "(this represents as much as 12 million years)". I disagree with both assertions. Have you incurred in "bad science" according to the epistemology proposed? or am I not a scientist? Are you?

well, the data I have is purely from paleontologists and their publications.
also, maybe you could explain this chart:

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

I never said I was a scientist, but, since fossil of dinosaurs (much less any other fossil either) is found immediately below [9-12 feet of rock is a lot of time) the K-T boundary, this suggests that the impactor was not the cause of the mass extinction.


the chart referenced above looks at CO2 levels up to today, the amounts are impressive..seems industrialization lags in amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere

 

[BenBurch]

Ummm, deposition rates over geologic time are not constant. Also, yes, there are fossils right up to the KT boundary in many places.

 

[a_unique_person]

Biocab has visited here in the past.

There is no direct link between CO2 and global temperature. There are other significant forcings as well, but these are not active at present. That is why the scientists have analysed the forcings and attributed the components accordingly as they now operate. It's all in the IPCC report. "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change".

 

[uke2se]

well, the data I have is purely from paleontologists and their publications.
also, maybe you could explain this chart:

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

I never said I was a scientist, but, since fossil of dinosaurs (much less any other fossil either) is found immediately below [9-12 feet of rock is a lot of time) the K-T boundary, this suggests that the impactor was not the cause of the mass extinction.


the chart referenced above looks at CO2 levels up to today, the amounts are impressive..seems industrialization lags in amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere

Yes, it was hotter in the past. Yes, it was due to CO2. No, we don't want to go back to higher CO2 levels with higher temperatures. Yes, we can do something about it, if we act now.

 

[CapelDodger]

I never said I was a scientist, but, since fossil of dinosaurs (much less any other fossil either) is found immediately below [9-12 feet of rock is a lot of time) the K-T boundary, this suggests that the impactor was not the cause of the mass extinction.

Where exactly was this 9-12 feet of rock? Deposition rates vary by place as well as time.

There are, in fact, dinosaur fossils extant right up to the KT boundary. You can easily find reams of stuff about "What killed off the dinosaurs?", much of it very accessible to the non-expert. It's an interesting subject.

the chart referenced above looks at CO2 levels up to today, the amounts are impressive..seems industrialization lags in amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere

Lags what, changes that occurred over millions of years? Industrial society has only had a couple of centuries to get its steam up (so to speak). It's had a pretty impressive impact in that time - over 30% increase in atmospheric CO2, and still rising, doesn't strike me as "laggardly".

 

[Trakar]

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

Pseudoscience nonsense, a bit more tepid than some, but definitely not in accord with legitimate mainstream climate science data, evidences and understandings


http://biocab.org/Index.html

http://biocab.org/Holocene.html

http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

http://biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

 

[Trakar]

Ummm, deposition rates over geologic time are not constant. Also, yes, there are fossils right up to the KT boundary in many places.

In some places even above K-T boundary, though that is generally due to uplift and folding episodes that have disrupted the undisturbed sedimentary timeline.

 

[refamat]

Ummm, deposition rates over geologic time are not constant. Also, yes, there are fossils right up to the KT boundary in many places.

no they are not. 9-12 feet could be 100,000 years or millions, but, you will have to provide proof that there are dinosaur fossil right up to the ky boundary because none of the books I've read say that.

 

[BenBurch]

no they are not. 9-12 feet could be 100,000 years or millions, but, you will have to provide proof that there are dinosaur fossil right up to the ky boundary because none of the books I've read say that.

I've cut fossils (leafs) out of the two inches beneath the KT boundary myself.