Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/0...rms-despite-gratuitous-political-correctness/ "European History: Cooling Bad, Warming Good, Study Confirms, Despite Gratuitous Political Correctness"

This one I had to read, because I do so love the historical interpretations of people with barely a clue.

The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ushered in a good time for the Germans, which arguably extended to the recent past (the "Anglo-Saxon" nations, including the US). One should really keep value-judgements out of historical analysis. Climate change had nothing to do with it (whereas inflation did), and the disruption of the so-called Dark Ages was not as bad as commonly supposed. The "barbarians" weren't out to destroy European prosperity, they wanted in on it.

Charlemagne created his Empire before the Medieval Warm Period, and it fell apart on his death. The MWP then brought Europe the good times of Viking raids, which really were disruptive. William the Bastard screwed England over like the Anglo-Saxons never did, set the place back at least a century. Not such good times.

European decline set in before any cooling (inflation again, it bears watching), and the Black Death was a bad time everywhere. The Little Ice Age brought us modern science, modern democracy, the Industrial Revolution and a greatly increased population, despite the Wars of Religion and recurrent plagues. The common perception of that period is distorted by its prevailing apocalypticism. Everything was yet another sign of the End Times in the 17thCE.

They also make the mistake of associating drier conditions with poor European harvests, which is risible. Drought is not the problem in Europe (beyond the Mediterranean anyway, and that's hardly a bread-basket since Roman times). The problem is too much rain, or rain at the wrong time. There were no industrial-scale grain-driers in those days.

I've no doubt they're fine scientists, but they should stick to their field of expertise.

 

[CapelDodger]

If it is caused mostly by CO2 then it is simply going to go away. Global Warming, that is.

A lot of this stuff is contrary to what I was taught in school. Don't plants simply breathe CO2 snd convert it into oxygen?

And don't animals eat the plants and breathe out CO₂?

 

[CapelDodger]

So you see nothing wrong with measuring surface temperatures, in a state like California, by only taking measurements near the coast and in urban areas?

Do you believe that to be the case? I'd need some persuading.

It's not a question of whether there's been warming but how accurate those measurements have really been. The articles you admit you won't even read demonstrate clearly that they can't be very accurate … not if they are biasing the results by only taking measurements in coastal/urban areas and acting like they apply to high altitude and mountainous areas.

Why would any scientists bias their results? You can see that this would not get an accurate picture, and research depends on getting the best picture you can.

I won't read the articles because I won't waste my time. You believe in them, I understand that. They're saying what you want to hear. They're telling you that the climate data is biased, that the problem is not with the message but with the messenger. And you believe that the people who create these sites are more interested in the truth than scientists.

I get that.

Why even make this statement? You just claimed they aren't biased. Having doubts?

What I said was :-

"Even if the temperature data were biased it would make no difference to the physical effects that are already evident."

Do you have doubts when you consider what's actually happening? Is that why you concentrate on temperatures and the possible bias of scientists to some inscrutable end so you don't have to confront reality?

If you could prove that temperature records have been manipulated and there's actually been less warming, that wouldn't bring back the glaciers. Norr Arctic sea-ice. It wouldn't kill beetle-grubs in British Columbia, nor take all that extra moisture out of the atmosphere. All you would prove is that the planet's systems are more sensitive to temperature than was previously thought. Not as comforting as you might have expected, really.

You don't care about food prices. You're supporting a political faction and policies that will make food prices go through the roof.

What's written above the pigeon-hole you've put me into? I thought we were having a one-to-one conversation here, and I've no interest in policies at all.

Oh yeah … that's right. We're all stupid.

I said "some stupid people". If you want to include yourself that's your choice. That would mean you believe that if you can see snow outside your window the world is really cold, and the whole Northern Hemisphere is covered in the stuff. I've yet to see any limit to what you can believe in but I try to avoid assumptions.

Maybe we should be blown up like those kids in that video?

What would life be without stupid people to laugh at?

And the real measure of global warming (now called climate change) ...

Only now? The CC in IPCC stands for Climate Change.

... is how much of a problem it really causes. A case can be made that some elevation in average temperatures might actually be good for humanity.

I can make a case for almost anything.

As you say (and I said earlier), it's not the temperature that matters it's what the impacts are. Food prices are widely regarded as having an impact already, especially by autocratic regimes (of which there are many) who've been reminded that a hungry population is a dangerous population.

Actually, if you look at that picture, you'll see the correlation with GSR extends to almost 1990 before it seems to lose correlation. Now I wonder … were we to look at every 20 year segment of that 1000 year history which shows a clear correlation with GCR, whether we'd find 20 year segments that are seemingly anti-correlated. I bet we would.

I looked at the picture and wondered where its data was sourced from. I'm still wondering. It's your opinion that it extends to 1990, but I think 1980 is generous. It's a very short graph for such a long period, don't you think?

Of course we're not really interested in the 19thCE, we're interested in what's happening now. With a thirty year lag and GCR data from the 1950's we can correlate GCR's 1950-80 with global warming 1980-2010. How does that work out? Not well, I suspect. No trend in GCR's and a definite warming.

So is your faith in clearly biased temperature data. I'd like for you to present a peer reviewed article proving that those reconstructions of temperatures and GCR flux aren't accurate. Have one?

Hey, I don't ask you to prove your negatives. I've given up on that. I'm more interested in why you're so positive about these reconstructions but so unhappy with modern direct observations ("clearly biased").

Well the mechanism that might cause temperatures to be affected by vulcanism is very clear. What's your mechanism by which GCR proxies are affected? Perhaps a peer reviewed article on that?

So demanding. I don't ask you for the mechanism by which GCR's affect climate.

Well he prompted the IPCC to say they will look closely at GCRs for the first time. I guess they aren't as quick to dismiss him as you are.

Did the IPCC say that? Are you sure? Where did you hear it?

LOL! Wonder whether you feel the same way about dark matter, dark energy, and the hundred other new and mysterious explanations for what telescopes see?

"Same way" as what? AGW hasn't needed new physics for a century.

Well one way or another, both of us will. Perhaps the unemployment and unrest you're seeing now is just a taste of what your *solution* will mean.

You assign a "solution" to me, but I don't see a problem. The disruption we're currently seeing is a result of business-as-usual in all regards. The disruption you're concerned about is purely conceptual, but you clearly believe in it.

So go ahead and offer your peer reviewed sources that challenge the veracity of those proxies … which I suspect do have peer reviewed articles and known physics to support their use.

What I really question is the source of data for the picture you posted, which could simply be made up for all I know.

How do you know? Is dark energy a "real stretch"? Dark matter?

Mysteries of the Universe do not mean that climate is mysterious. Climate is actually rather simple.

Gosh, and all this time Al Gore and his carbon taxing friends have been telling people "it's the CO2 stupid" to prompt immediate and drastic (i.e. read socialist) action. Don't tell me he/they were lying?

Al Gore, and tax, and howcanpeoplebeso stupid and still breed?

It is the CO₂, it will continue to be the CO₂, and you will have to live with that. Al Gore will die one day, and you'll have to live with that too.

 

[Furcifer]

There is nothing legitimate or scientifically relevent in the links and information you posted.

This isn't science, this is denial.

Deny the soucre.

Deny the facts.

Deny the significance.

 

[Furcifer]

There is nothing legitimate or scientifically relevent in the links and information you posted.

Let's see what the scientists say:

"Wu et al.’s paper addresses an interesting question related to the incoming radiation entropy flux. New data extracted from satellite data for both energy and entropy radiative variables are shown and a discussion on the dependence of spectral radiation entropy flux on the distance travelled is included. This is a topic of interest among many scientists since several authors have investigated the implications of the radiation entropy on the global climate system both theoretically and experimentally.

Your response is a typical response from the blogsphere when presented with something that conflicts with their agenda: lies and denial. Especially when it is something they clearly don't understand.

If these equations for total solar flux hold up under scientific scrutiny the models will be retuned and the role of GHG's on climate change will be questioned. As will the questionable methods for which the temperature change is currently being recorded. This is just more evidence of bias in the measurements.

 

[Trakar]

Agriculture marks the actual beginning of the Anthropocene, AGW is merely the 2.0 release.

http://actu.epfl.ch/news/man-has-been-provoking-climate-change-for-thousand/

...Humans didn’t wait for the industrial revolution to provoke environment and climate change. They have been having an influence for at least 8000 years.” Jed Kaplan is putting forward a new interpretation of the history of man and his environment. This SNSF professor at EPFL and his colleague Kristen Krumhardt have developed a model that demonstrates the link between population increase and deforestation. The method enables a fairly precise estimate of human-origin carbon emissions before the advent of industrialization...

 

[Furcifer]

...snip
According to the International Rice Research Institute:
"Coping with Climate Change" - http://beta.irri.org/news/images/stories/ricetoday/6-3/feature_coping with climate change.pdf

It's a good thing plants will have 100 years to adapt to those changes instead of being plunged into them over night.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that crops will be developed to take advantage on the increase in CO2. None.

 

[macdoc]

If these equations for total solar flux hold up under scientific scrutiny the models will be retuned and the role of GHG's on climate change will be questioned.

codwallosp there is NOTHING there even remotely on a scale with GHG - you are trumping up a minor bit of esoterica of interest to solar physicists and trying to pretend it has some bearing on AGW,

It doesn't.

What next "pixie dust" ?

 

[Dancing David]

And yet there's still that curious correlation I noted in those figures between GCR flux and temperature over 980 of the last 1000 years. Hmmmmmm.

And again, what were the error bars of the cosmic ray proxies, and what measures of global temperature did they use?

 

[Dancing David]

The problem with the ocean biomass is that most researchers are looking at teh role of carbon sequestration as opposed to just biomass levels, which is not what I am interested in, this has been a more recent trend in articles, as opposed to just talking about the biomass levels

http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/falkowski1998.pdf

As
glaciation led to a reduction in sea level of ;120 m, denitrification
on continental shelves essentially ceased while the supply of Fe
would have stimulated biological N2 fixation (52), thereby leading
to an increase in the global pool of fixed N in the oceans. The
Fe-based N enrichment would enhance phytoplankton C fixation
until ultimately primary production became limited by phosphate.
Assuming that the average proximate elemental composition of
phytoplankton during glacial epochs conformed to that of the
contemporary ocean (that is, the ratio of inorganic N/P in the ocean
interior increased from 14.7 to 16), simple box model calculations
suggest that the enhanced production would have lowered atmospheric
CO2 from ;275 to 245 parts per million, accounting for
30% of the interglacial-glacial difference in CO2 (72). If strong
deviations in the average elemental composition of phytoplankton
occurred, this effect could be much greater (73).

 

[BenBurch]

And don't animals eat the plants and breathe out CO₂?

And bacteria turn the result of that into CO2 and Methane...

 

[Trakar]

Perhaps you should read this:
http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/milankovitchcycles.html

Figure 3 shows only the whole year-whole earth variation in total solar radiance due to Milankovitch cycles.

I think you are confusing solar variability with total solar radiance. There's a big difference.

You may also want to peruse this paper:http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Interglacials-and-CO2-V2.pdf

I'm sure by this point you understand the significance of change in radiance due to the Milankovitch cycles, so how can you deny the significance of a change suggested in the original paper? Frankly I find it mind boggling the level of denial being expressed here.

To the linguistically/scientifically challenged, I'm sure science terminology is especially confusing.

Radiance -

The luminous flux radiated per unit area.
www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAYRHT7YYC_LPmetop_2.html


Physics. The radiant energy emitted per unit time in a specified direction by a unit area of an emitting surface
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/radiance#ixzz1D9X44T50

Though this may occassionally be used in more common parlance as an assessment of how bright or radiant a distant object seems, the proper scientific term for that manner of radiance is the term "Insolation."

Insolation -

incident solar radiation
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Insolation is a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time. The name comes from a portmanteau of the words incident solar radiation. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation

 

[Trakar]

How is a well documented bias in temperature readings due to placement voodoo?


There's no way to refute this evidence so instead attack the source? That doesn't seem very scientific.

"Woo - Doo"

as in "that mysterious woo, that you doo."

What term do you consider appropriate for pseudo-scientific machinations designed to confuse and delay and distort actual scientific research and understandings in the pursuit financial/political gain?

An accurate description is not an attack, it is simply a statement of fact. When you present science, we will talk science.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
There is nothing legitimate or scientifically relevent in the links and information you posted.

This isn't science, this is denial.

Deny the soucre.

Deny the facts.

Deny the significance.

I thought that's what I said?

 

[Trakar]

Let's see what the scientists say:

"Wu et al.’s paper addresses an interesting question related to the incoming radiation entropy flux. New data extracted from satellite data for both energy and entropy radiative variables are shown and a discussion on the dependence of spectral radiation entropy flux on the distance travelled is included. This is a topic of interest among many scientists since several authors have investigated the implications of the radiation entropy on the global climate system both theoretically and experimentally.

Journal Cite or Reference to this rebuttal along with the "scientists" who are saying such?

If you wish to discuss a particular the science or conclusions of a particular paper. Cite the paper, quote, address and comment upon specific sections and areas that you feel are relevent to the AGW issue, and I'll be happy to join you in the consideration, evaluation and discussion of that paper. But if you are going to link me to some political discussion blog and unqualified "he said" type "common sense" understandings of what they heard some paper said or meant,...then we are no longer talking about, nor apparently interested in issues of science.

If these equations for total solar flux hold up under scientific scrutiny the models will be retuned and the role of GHG's on climate change will be questioned. As will the questionable methods for which the temperature change is currently being recorded. This is just more evidence of bias in the measurements.

In what manner, do you perceive that such an issue would cast scientific doubt upon the role of GHGs on climate?

 

[Trakar]

It's a good thing plants will have 100 years to adapt to those changes instead of being plunged into them over night.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that crops will be developed to take advantage on the increase in CO2. None.

Your certainty/gullibility is irrelevent to the facts presented. In general, species require more than centuries to adapt to such changes. Changes this fast most often result in extinction, not evolution.

Extinction risk from climate change - http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83/1/thomascd1.pdf

Climate change over the past ,30 years has produced numerous
shifts in the distributions and abundances of species1,2 and has
been implicated in one species-level extinction3. Using projections
of species’ distributions for future climate scenarios, we
assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of
the Earth’s terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in
which the estimated probability of extinction shows a powerlaw
relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on
the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that
15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be
‘committed to extinction’.When the average of the three methods
and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming
scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to
extinction (,18%) than mid-range (,24%) and maximumchange
(,35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance
of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse
gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.

Adaptation, extinction and global change - http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/bell/articles/113.BellCollins_2008_EvolAppl1.pdf

Abstract
We discuss three interlinked issues: the natural pace of environmental change
and adaptation, the likelihood that a population will adapt to a potentially lethal
change, and adaptation to elevated CO2, the prime mover of global change.
1. Environmental variability is governed by power laws showing that ln difference
in conditions increases with ln elapsed time at a rate of 0.3–0.4. This
leads to strong but fluctuating selection in many natural populations.
2. The effect of repeated adverse change on mean fitness depends on its frequency
rather than its severity. If the depression of mean fitness leads to
population decline, however, severe stress may cause extinction. Evolutionary
rescue from extinction requires abundant genetic variation or a
high mutation supply rate, and thus a large population size. Although
natural populations can sustain quite intense selection, they often fail to
adapt to anthropogenic stresses such as pollution and acidification and
instead become extinct.
3. Experimental selection lines of algae show no specific adaptation to elevated
CO2, but instead lose their carbon-concentrating mechanism
through mutational degradation. This is likely to reduce the effectiveness
of the oceanic carbon pump. Elevated CO2 is also likely to lead to
changes in phytoplankton community composition, although it is not yet
clear what these will be.
We emphasize the importance of experimental evolution in understanding and
predicting the biological response to global change. This will be one of the
main tasks of evolutionary biologists in the coming decade.

 

[Furcifer]

"Woo - Doo"

as in "that mysterious woo, that you doo."

What term do you consider appropriate for pseudo-scientific machinations designed to confuse and delay and distort actual scientific research and understandings in the pursuit financial/political gain?

An accurate description is not an attack, it is simply a statement of fact. When you present science, we will talk science.

You've been presented the science, you just deny it. I'm not sure what the purpose of lying is serving?

The change in flux is only part of the significance. What's the other?

 

[Furcifer]

Your certainty/gullibility is irrelevent to the facts presented. In general, species require more than centuries to adapt to such changes. Changes this fast most often result in extinction, not evolution.

Nonsense, nobody expects the change in atmosphere to happen overnight. It has no bearing on reality. Everyone knows CO2 increases plant growth. It's just garbage science looking for a piece of the Global Warming pie.

 

[Furcifer]

Journal Cite or Reference to this rebuttal along with the "scientists" who are saying such?

Climate scientists of course. The journal has already been cited several times.

If you wish to discuss a particular the science or conclusions of a particular paper. Cite the paper, quote, address and comment upon specific sections and areas that you feel are relevent to the AGW issue, and I'll be happy to join you in the consideration, evaluation and discussion of that paper.

Why is the greybody's radiation temperature depend on the frequency?

The review discussion questions the hemispheric isotropic radiation approach because it leads to an overestimate of the entropy flux. Do you think that's significant? Isn't the conversion to long wave from short wave isotropic anyways?

In what manner, do you perceive that such an issue would cast scientific doubt upon the role of GHGs on climate?

It says why in the paper: "Because solar radiation is the primary driving force for all the activities within the Earth’s climate system and radiation at different wavelengths reaches and warms different atmospheric layers"

 

[BadBoy]

Your certainty/gullibility is irrelevent to the facts presented. In general, species require more than centuries to adapt to such changes. Changes this fast most often result in extinction, not evolution.

Extinction risk from climate change - http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83/1/thomascd1.pdf



Adaptation, extinction and global change - http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/bell/articles/113.BellCollins_2008_EvolAppl1.pdf

TShaitanaku, Capel Dodger et al.

A lurker appreciates your contributions and is learning a lot.

Regards