Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Plenty of strawmen in there.

So many you couldn't identify 1. Gotcha.

We've already got to 0.8 deg C with another 0.7C even if we were in trhe (silly) position to stop now. Even if the human race were unanimous in moving toward that goal it would only be physically achiveable in the scale of decades. We are already committed to +2C, by the time we overcome the inertia applied to the politicians than chances are we are committed to a whole lot more than 2C. 10C may be at the high end (as we view it at the moment) but is NOT unrealistic.

"We've got 0.8C in 150 years so 13 times that in 200 years isn't unrealistic"

That alone is ridiculous. The fact that of those 150 years maybe 10 of the saw any effort to curb emissions makes it that much more ridiculous. Then there's the simple fact that technology is improving, and it's finally being directed at reducing emissions specifically.

I honestly can't believe anyone can look at the situation and make outrageous claims like this without falling over on the ground laughing. It's extremely short sighted and suggests the person making such claims knows nothing about history, technology and what's being done right now to solve the problem.

 

[steenkh]

[...]the person making such claims knows nothing about history, technology and what's being done right now to solve the problem.

Excuse me, what is being done right now to solve the problem? We have yet to see a single year of stagnating emissions. There is plenty of political hot air, but every single country is failing to live up to their goals, and the way they attempts to do it is usually by buying fake emission compensations elsewhere.

 

[Furcifer]

The history of resource depletion and environmental degradation shows exactly the opposite, and that is a significant part of history in general.

I suppose that's true as well.

The area around Mt St Helens hasn't returned to the state it was in before the eruption. Certain foundation species have established more quickly than estimated but we are often surprised by such things, whether they go more quickly or more slowly than predicted. Permafrost melt and Arctic sea-ice loss have also surprised scientists by their rapidity. (Both of those are positive feedbacks on AGW, of course.)

None the less the recovery has proceeded much faster than was initially predicted. It's easy to overlook things in a complex system that initially appear to be insignificant, but to out to have profound effects.

During the eruption the system was thrown into a state that was well outside natural variation. A few degrees over a hundred years may have a profound effect but there nothing to suggest the system wouldn't prove equally resilient.

The "nothing going on here, move along" position is already untenable and is going to become more obviously so in the very short term. I'm sure you'll stick with it for a good while yet though.

You probably live in an area that has seen little change over the last 50, 100 years. I on the other hand have seen drastic changes to the landscape so I realize this is what we do as a species. We change the land to suit our needs.
I'm sure if you came to this very spot 200 years ago there was some dodgy old codger claiming that if things kept going this way there would be no more forests to harvest for lumber to build houses and keep warm and everyone will die from exposure. And if you came here 100 years ago there was some dodgy old codger claiming that if they kept building houses there wouldn't be any land to farm and everyone would starve. Now if you come here the crazy old codger is the greeter at Wal Mart claiming that if things keep going this way it will be so hot that everyone will die from exhaustion.
Sufficed to say there will always be some crazy old guy telling you things are untenable and can't possibly keep changing the way they are. But they do and things continue to get better.

 

[Absalon]

The "soundness" isn't an issue but there isn't much that is compelling about it. 700,000 years is a microblip in the geological record, there are many events that occur at frequencies much longer than this, so the fact that it hasn't happened in 700,000 years isn't terribly compelling evidence that the current rise isn't due to a relatively rare natural occurence.

Much better evidences are that we have economic records indicating with great precision the quantity of carbon fuels burned over the last 200 years and it is relatively simple to calculate how much CO2 is released from the open-cycle combustion of that fuel. Moreover, long sequestered carbon (due to being isolated from the atmosphere for tens/hundreds of millions of years has a much different isotopic ratio content from carbon that is involved in the active carbon cycle. Direct analysis of the CO2 in the air demonstrates that the atmospheric ratios are directly reflective of the steadily increasing influx of CO2 from previously sequestered carbon fuels.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_5/16_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

let me know if you have any problems with these papers, I'm sure there are some reputable, more casual discussion of these papers and issues elsewhere on the internet, but I try to stick to the actual science where-ever possible.

Thanks for the reply.

I know that there are multiple lines of evidence that proves that the recent rise in CO2-concentration is mainly caused by us.

However, there are still a lot of people that are sceptical towards this assertion, and I suspect that it is because they don't trust the scientists.

Therefore, I believe that I manage to prove with simple calculus of probability that it is extremely unlikely that the rise is caused by natural variations.

So I'm wondering if the argument I'm using to prove this is valid at all? Can we conclude by my line of reasoning that it is extremely unlikely that the recent rise is caused mainly by natural variations?

 

[Furcifer]

Excuse me, what is being done right now to solve the problem? We have yet to see a single year of stagnating emissions. There is plenty of political hot air, but every single country is failing to live up to their goals, and the way they attempts to do it is usually by buying fake emission compensations elsewhere.

Even at the current 1% increase per year I believe model estimates would put a +10C increase in average temperature somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 years. Extrapolating from the most recent NASA model I saw it's closer to 500 years.

You honestly think we can't figure out how to reduce CO2, and I mean from the atmosphere not from emissions, by the year 2600

I believe it was as little as 150 years ago "the experts" said it was physically impossible for the human body to move in a vehicle faster than a mile per minute (that's 60 mph!). Again, historically, the experts have grossly underestimated what we can achieve as a race. We could if we wanted to have a paradigm shift right now and probably begin to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in 20 years. It wouldn't be easy, but not impossible.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Yes.


No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

[qimg]http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm222/Pixel42/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png[/qimg]


The arrow labelled '2004' on the right axis of the above graph gives some indication of how much.

It does not rise to the level of cute to observe the arbitrary placement of the zero establishes the nature of the "anomaly" but it does establish the warming of the last 17kyr that I mentioned.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Correct for what?

For our civilisation to continue to thrive, an average global temperature similar to the one which has prevailed for about the last 10,000 years - during which it developed, and to which it has therefore adapted - is preferable; anything else and locations of cities, for example, might soon prove to be less than optimal. We can, of course, relocate as our ancestors did in response to climate change, but moving a city of millions of inhabitants is a much more daunting proposition than moving a small collection of mud huts.

The oldest lie I know of in that regard was the declaration that by the year 1995 there would be 50 million climate change refugees. One has to ask, did they flee off planet? as they did not appear on this planet.

That also brings back the fact that all this has been a waste of time since 1998 as in that year it was all to late to do anything about it.

The only thing certain about the global melting is that every year someone will declare there are only ten years left. One would think they would admit they are BSing us after 1998 came and went and still they keep saying the same thing.

 

[lomiller]

What don't you understand? If I spend $2500 on initiatives to reduce CO2 what effect will they have? What happens if I spend the money but you don't? How long can I expect to foot the bill to fix this problem?

This is how you address a problem. Not by making outrageous threats about what might happen. Our local sewer system is in need of repair. It's going to cost X to fix it, take Y years to do so, my taxes will increase Z for the next 10 years. I'm not really prepared to write a blank check because if it isn't fixed a giant sink hole will devour the whole block and hundreds of kids will die.

Goalpost shift noted. You made the claim that climate models are unreliable, and I asked you to tell us in what respect you thought they were unreliable. Since climate models are not economic models they will not give you economic information this should be obvious.

Now, as to the economic models you are taking the approach of a communist style central command economics. I have no interest in bothering with such things. If we want to take a fee market approach we can’t allow anyone to pump stuff into the air and make others absorb the cost of fixing the problem. This means that whoever is spitting CO2 into the atmosphere needs to pay the costs of removing that CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes this means some prices will rise, but that’s what always happens when market distorting subsidies/externalities are removed, but that’s just how free markets work.

 

[Trakar]

Thanks for the reply.

I know that there are multiple lines of evidence that proves that the recent rise in CO2-concentration is mainly caused by us.

However, there are still a lot of people that are sceptical towards this assertion, and I suspect that it is because they don't trust the scientists.

Therefore, I believe that I manage to prove with simple calculus of probability that it is extremely unlikely that the rise is caused by natural variations.

So I'm wondering if the argument I'm using to prove this is valid at all? Can we conclude by my line of reasoning that it is extremely unlikely that the recent rise is caused mainly by natural variations?

My experience of the situation, is that the people capable of objectively examining and analyzing the available scientific information accept and understand AGW. The advocates which reject and deny the science, do so because of ulterior motivations (political beliefs, personal traditions, or arrogant ignorances).

 

[lomiller]

Hi. First post on this forum; tell me if I'm doing anything wrong

I was hoping I could get your opinion on an argument in the AGW debate which I have come up with.
It is about the argument which states that today's rise in CO2-concentration is just natural variations, and has nothing to do with human activity.

We have accurate measurements of the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere for over 700 000 years back. We see that today's concentration is much higher than it has ever been during this period.
If it was true that the rise in CO2 levels is independent from human activity it means that the CO2-concentration could have sky-rocketed any time during this 700 000 year period, and that it is only a coincidence that it happened at the same time as the industrial revolution.
Then we could calculate the probability of these two events correlating to the same century, which would simply be : 100/700 000 = 1/7000.
Thus, the chance of todays CO2-concentration sky-rocketing independently of human activity is 1/7000.

Is this argument sound?

It's a start but there is a better one. CO2 from fossil fuels has a distinct isotope signature. 100% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has this signature and therefore comes from burning fossil fuels.

Also, we have a fairly good idea just how much fossil fuels have been burnt and how much CO2 that has produced. The amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere is only 43% of total human emissions, which means 57% have been *absorbed* the oceans and ecosystems. If these are absorbing atmospheric CO2 they can’t also be responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

[lomiller]

Even at the current 1% increase per year..

Presumably you are trying to convert your numbers to deg K to employ the small/large number fallacy. It’s best you stick to standard notations and conventions rather then trying to invent your own.

The second problem is that if you are going to apply a linear interpolation you need to provide evidence your model is valid. Do you have any evidence to support your use of a linear model of temperature change over the last 150 years and that this model will hold over the next 100? If not then drop your claim.

 

[lomiller]

It does not rise to the level of cute to observe the arbitrary placement of the zero establishes the nature of the "anomaly" but it does establish the warming of the last 17kyr that I mentioned.

Say what? It clearly shows an 8000 year temperature decline ending with the industrial revolution, and it’s nonsensical to say moving the zero line up or down would change anything in the graph.

 

[Trakar]

...During the eruption the system was thrown into a state that was well outside natural variation. A few degrees over a hundred years may have a profound effect but there nothing to suggest the system wouldn't prove equally resilient...

Of course, this is the point. AGW isn't about just a one-off "few degrees over a hundred years" event. That is simply one of the early impacts of antropogenically sourced CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. The full impacts of CO2 being emitted now, won't be realized for many decades to centuries to come, and these impacts include everything from enhanced desertification, increasingly energetic storm systems, increased ranges and spread of pests and pestilence, acidification of the seas, rising sea levels, to the mass extinction of much of the planet's micro and macro, flora and fauna.

In the case of mount St Helens there was an influx of life from outside the impacted areas to drive its biome recovery, this won't happen in a post-AGW world because AGW is a global event. Evolution will eventually replace the biomes, but that doesn't mean "human-friendly" will be one of its characteristics, provided humanity survives its own ignorance to give the label any relevence.

 

[macdoc]

Unsupported rhetoric per usual from the ideologue denier.

got a source for your claim ?

Meanwhile in the real world

Minor Cause, Major Effect: Interactions in Ecosystems Can Intensify Impact of Climate Change

ScienceDaily (May 2, 2011) — In a new study, marine biologists from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR), together with colleagues from six other countries, show that highly complex interactions in ecosystems can intensify the impact of climate change within a relatively short period of time.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110502092324.htm

••

 

[Trakar]

The oldest lie I know of in that regard was the declaration that by the year 1995 there would be 50 million climate change refugees...

First time I've heard it. Can you provide supporting reference to confirm this assertion?

 

[Trakar]

Even at the current 1% increase per year I believe model estimates would put a +10C increase in average temperature somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 years. Extrapolating from the most recent NASA model I saw it's closer to 500 years...

Neither the CO2 increases, nor the temp. increases, are linear affairs. Please link to the NASA (presumably a GISS effort) model you reference, I am well familiar with almost all of their climate models and projections and I have never seen anything close to what you allude to.

 

[Trakar]

You're not familiar with difference between science fiction and fantasy are you? Generally speaking science fiction can happen and fantasy can't...

In science, and the discussion of science topics, the words we use are very important, so perhaps it would provide for a more constructive discussion if there is a focus on the words we are using, they do possess very specific definitions. Try looking at the term "fiction."

This is your fantasy, this +10C world you've been mongering.

"Fantasy?" You seem to be conflating your own misunderstandings and miscomprehensions with reality. Additionally, you seem to be doing some creative mental editting here (or disingenuous backtracking) as your initial response highlighted "... +6º C, +10º C, and 10º+ C..."

Regardless, here are some initial supports for my "fantasy mongering."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/0/m/cop14.pdf

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf

Global mean air-temperature is projected to warm 2°C – 7°C above pre-industrial by 2100. The wide range is mainly due to uncertainty in future emissions.

Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst case projections from the IPCC AR4 set of model simulations.

At the high end of emissions, with business as usual for several
decades to come, global mean warming is estimated to reach
4-7°C by 2100, locking in climate change at a scale that would
profoundly and adversely affect all of human civilization and all
of the world’s major ecosystems.

(if you would like additional support or references,please do not hesitate to request them)

Yes, Land of The Lost is fantasy, not science fiction

irrelevent, offtopic, denigrating and incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_the_Lost_(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_the_Lost_(1974_TV_series)

Niven and Bova might beg to differ with your opinion.

Advocating? What are you talking about? Nobody advocated anything. I'm at a complete loss as to what you're talking about now.

Your bogglement is OT and irrelevent.

If you aren't advocating your position and understanding as considerations important for action (or inaction), then of what possible relevence are your comments in this (and other) threads here?

This is just made up. If you have evidence to prove this this is the thread in which to do so. Right now we are "maintaining" a 1% increase in CO2 levels each year, but this is not "the way it's going". You seem to confuse the past with the future. The times they are a changing.

There is no evidence of change at this point, just a lot of people hoping for it and a few people working toward it. I would be interested in any evidence you can point to that indicates that substantive changes are being made and real reductions are occurring, but I don't see it in the CO2 emission levels. Please provide reference and support for your assertions. Here are evidences that support my statements and remarks:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KQ-cAqwtXs

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth

http://www.citeulike.org/group/13619/article/7673800

What an absurd position. Then again, I suppose when fire was discovered someone said "If we keep burning these trees like this there won't be any left in 200 years" And I'm sure some ship builder in the 1400's said "If we keep building ships like this there won't be any ocean left to fit them in 200 years"...

Sounds like a "fantasy" to me. Regardless, your suppositions and imaginings are irrelevent and OT to this discussion. Pleae stick to what the science is actually telling us, your unsupported suppositions and musings are without significant support and have already been demonstrated to be largely due to confused misunderstandings and/or deliberate distortion.

 

[Matt Giwer]

First time I've heard it. Can you provide supporting reference to confirm this assertion?

It was in New Scientist last week.

 

[CapelDodger]

However, there are still a lot of people that are sceptical towards this assertion, and I suspect that it is because they don't trust the scientists.

It's more to do with them not liking the message so they denounce the messenger . That's people for you, generally speaking.

Therefore, I believe that I manage to prove with simple calculus of probability that it is extremely unlikely that the rise is caused by natural variations.

So I'm wondering if the argument I'm using to prove this is valid at all? Can we conclude by my line of reasoning that it is extremely unlikely that the recent rise is caused mainly by natural variations?

There's no harm in having multiple lines of approach. The likelihood that CO₂ is increasing for some other reason than the burning of fossil fuels just when we've been doing precisely that is vanishingly small, and anyone arguing it is clearly desperate.

(In physical terms it would require an unidentified sink which selectively absorbs the CO₂ from fossil fuels while rejecting the "natural" addition, which is laughable. But again, that's people for you - mostly laughable.)

Equally, the chances of a temperature increase due to unidentified "natural causes" just when AGW was predicted to occur are slim beyond anorexic.

 

[Trakar]

It was in New Scientist last week.

So I take it your response boils down to "no"?

Please present the evidence that supports your claim.