Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

Yet another reason for shutting down the EPA, or at least
firing Lisa Jackson. She is out of control. CO2 is not a pollutant!

If this insane policy continues for another four years, the US will be under the thumb of the Chinese and Saudis for a generation.

You are mistaken on both counts:

Pollution - pol·lu·tion
1.The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

Any substance emitted in amounts large enough that it causes the disruption of, or imbalance of, necessary natural cycles and systems, especially, but not limited to, those with harmful or poisonous effects on life are pollutants. According to the supreme court, the EPA is mandated to address and deal with CO2 as a pollutant.

It is only by not reacting to the dangers of AGW and human emissions that we are harming our nation's present and future. In a time when rational nations are devoting vast amounts of effort toward transforming their technological and industrial bases to control and reduce carbon emissions and to prepare for and adapt to the damages current and already committed to by previous ignorances and stupidities, further paralyzation of our own nation's response to this growing threat of impending damage and harm is intolerable.

I agree that Obama must go, as he has proven incapable of taking the hard steps of actual change and leadership in committing to the path required to secure our economic future and preserve our individual and national well being into perpetuity. Not that any of his political rivals or opponents have indicated that they would have or will be better at such, but we are at a point where better than the rest is not good enough. There is a minimal standard which will move our nation forward, and none of the current political representatives in DC rise to that standard, that I can see.

"politics" makes for a poor epitaph.
At least the dinosaurs didn't do themselves in.

 

[Mikemcc]

Since I don't subscribe to Nature, I have no idea what the article actually says. But the abstract says plenty. Especially the highlighted part, which practically shouts "confirmation bias ahead!"

You could try looking it up for yourself then rather than being voicing your 'feelings' about it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120325173206.htm

The scientists involved also have a post up at RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/extremely-hot/

 

[Mikemcc]

Yet another reason for shutting down the EPA, or at least
firing Lisa Jackson. She is out of control. CO2 is not a pollutant!

If this insane policy continues for another four years, the US will be under the thumb of the Chinese and Saudis for a generation.

Yes it is by the legal definition. You might also try reading up about it. The limits imposed don't affect presently used power plants or those under construction. Nor are there any plans by any of the utility companies in the US to build new coal plants.

Please try and come up with a a coherent arguement rather than unfounded and unsupported rants.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yet another reason for shutting down the EPA, or at least
firing Lisa Jackson. She is out of control. CO2 is not a pollutant!

If this insane policy continues for another four years, the US will be under the thumb of the Chinese and Saudis for a generation.

The insane GOP assault on the Chevy Volt must be music to Saudi Arabian ears, but even FoxNews seems to have backtracked on that so I don't suppose we'll see another four years of it. Unless the Supreme Court reverses its judgement (as I understand it) that the EPA is required to treat CO₂ as a pollutant within the next four years, which seems unlikely, then we can reconvene to discuss your prediction in 2016.

Personally, I think you're being unduly alarmist.

 

[CapelDodger]

Since I don't subscribe to Nature, I have no idea what the article actually says. But the abstract says plenty.

In the abstract we find :

"Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate."

They review the evidence and make an argument from it. Why do you have a problem with that?

Especially the highlighted part, which practically shouts "confirmation bias ahead!"

Highlighted parts (your highlights, I take it) :

"ostensibly large number"

"Ostensibly" means apparently, as in something might apparently be a large number simply due to a news-media focus. The number of jobs generated by the Keystone XL pipeline, for instance, is ostensibly large if you only go by a particular news-mdeia focus. The authors, sensibly, look at the evidence first - the opposite of confirmation bias.

"intensive discussions"

That isn't just ostensible, is it? There really have been intensive discussions about the attribution of recent weather extremes.

"some types"

The evidence is good, or at least arguable, with regard to some types of weather extreme. Confirmation bias would surely lead to a conclusion closer to "all types", would it not?

FYI, the impact of AGW on storm frequencies and instensities has been a matter of intense scientific debate for decades and there is no consensus. Storms are themselves intense, concentrated and transient events (unlike, for instance, droughts). They are very tricky little beasts.

And so to

" it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase"

What makes you think it's not plausible? The evidence doesn't point that way. It doesn't point any way yet.

Are you quite sure you're not confirming your own bias here? You expect to see confirmation bias and sho' 'nuff you find it, however implausible that really is.

 

[Warmer1]

She is out of control. CO2 is not a pollutant!

A recent video about CO2 by Greenman "What we knew in 1982" featuring Dr. Mike MacCracken, Deputy Leader Atmospheric and Physical Sciences, Livermore Lab, Dr. James Hansen (6:30 "the equivalent heat of 400,000 Hiroshima size bombs per day), Dr. Andrew Dessler on water vapor feed backs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmpiuuBy-4s&list=UU-KTrAqt2784gL_I4JisF1w&index=1&feature=plcp

More information about CO2 from NASA
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/PaleoImplications.pdf

 

[NeilC]

The Little Ice Age

I was discussing (well arguing as usual) climate change with my father who is an AGW skeptic. He's also pretty skeptical about religion, supernature, alt health etc and not a woo/nut.

One point he makes is that there have been a number of theories about the causes of climate change in the past, notably for the Little Ice Age for which the possible causes include volcanic action, solar activity, oceanic current changes, orbital cycles. The most recent evidence seems to point to volcanic after some glacial research in Canada & Iceland. The main point being that whilst some convincing theories exist, there is not scientific consensus. We don't know for sure what caused a pretty major change in the world's climate. And if we don't know that for sure, then how can we possibly be so sure that the current warming isn't natural.

I find it difficult to counter the point. I'm a lazy AGW believer - I can't possibly study all the evidence so I'm just going with the consensus view. I don't know all fine details which is probably why I cannot answer it.

So what is the story with that? Is it a valid argument?

 

[r-j]

I was discussing (well arguing as usual) climate change with my father who is an AGW skeptic. He's also pretty skeptical about religion, supernature, alt health etc and not a woo/nut.

One point he makes is that there have been a number of theories about the causes of climate change in the past, notably for the Little Ice Age for which the possible causes include volcanic action, solar activity, oceanic current changes, orbital cycles. The most recent evidence seems to point to volcanic after some glacial research in Canada & Iceland. The main point being that whilst some convincing theories exist, there is not scientific consensus. We don't know for sure what caused a pretty major change in the world's climate.

I'm probably far more lazy than you, but it wasn't hard to discover (whilst looking for an answer) that there is also a huge controversy over the LIA, in that there is no consensus that it was a climate event. Some experts say it was just Europe, others say it was worldwide.

Little wonder people are skeptical.

 

[uke2se]

So what is the story with that? Is it a valid argument?

In short, no.

I was discussing (well arguing as usual) climate change with my father who is an AGW skeptic. He's also pretty skeptical about religion, supernature, alt health etc and not a woo/nut.

Many AGW "skeptics" are actually quite intelligent and capable of critical thinking. Just not when it comes to climate change. Chris Mooney argues that when it comes to conservatives, the higher educated they are, the more sensitive to AGW "skepticism" they are. The opposite is true for liberals, according to Mooney.

One point he makes is that there have been a number of theories about the causes of climate change in the past, notably for the Little Ice Age for which the possible causes include volcanic action, solar activity, oceanic current changes, orbital cycles. The most recent evidence seems to point to volcanic after some glacial research in Canada & Iceland. The main point being that whilst some convincing theories exist, there is not scientific consensus. We don't know for sure what caused a pretty major change in the world's climate. And if we don't know that for sure, then how can we possibly be so sure that the current warming isn't natural.

Science can rarely if ever be 100% on any subject that isn't mathematics. The "uncertainty" is simply a denier talking point. There is a scientific consensus, in that around 95% of published climate scientists and more or less all of the world's scientific organisations agree that 1) the world is warming, 2) the warming is susbtantially greater than at any point in our near history and 3) humans contribute the primary driving cause. These are just facts, facts that deniers of course deny.

I find it difficult to counter the point. I'm a lazy AGW believer - I can't possibly study all the evidence so I'm just going with the consensus view. I don't know all fine details which is probably why I cannot answer it.

Hope my post helps you answer your father.

 

[lomiller]

Since I don't subscribe to Nature, I have no idea what the article actually says. But the abstract says plenty. Especially the highlighted part, which practically shouts "confirmation bias ahead!"

Nonsense, the sections you highlighted suggest nothing of the sort. In context it’s clear these lines refer to the aforementioned uncertainty surrounding the increase in storms. IOW they say that while the numbers indicate more/larger storms they do not do so at the desired statistical significance.

They are also very clear that heat waves and precipitation events do meet the criteria for statistical significance. Such tests for statistical significance ante the diametric opposite of the “confirmation bias” you are accusing them of (without having even read the paper I should add).

While there is nothing to suggest confirmation bias in the paper, I submit that you post is pure confirmation bias. You went out looking for lines you could highlight to try and advance3 a specific pre-held belief even though the text didn’t even remotely support that belief.

 

[lomiller]

I was discussing (well arguing as usual) climate change with my father who is an AGW skeptic. He's also pretty skeptical about religion, supernature, alt health etc and not a woo/nut.

One point he makes is that there have been a number of theories about the causes of climate change in the past, notably for the Little Ice Age for which the possible causes include volcanic action, solar activity, oceanic current changes, orbital cycles. The most recent evidence seems to point to volcanic after some glacial research in Canada & Iceland. The main point being that whilst some convincing theories exist, there is not scientific consensus. We don't know for sure what caused a pretty major change in the world's climate. And if we don't know that for sure, then how can we possibly be so sure that the current warming isn't natural.

I find it difficult to counter the point. I'm a lazy AGW believer - I can't possibly study all the evidence so I'm just going with the consensus view. I don't know all fine details which is probably why I cannot answer it.

So what is the story with that? Is it a valid argument?

Four issues.

First, the LIA was not a major climate change in comparison to what’s occurring now. It consisted of ~0.5 -0.8 deg C of cooling over a period of ~300 years. In contrast the earth has warmed ~0.5 deg in the last 30 years, so our climate is changing 10X as fast as it did in the LIA.

Second, it’s entirely fallacious to suggest that because you don’t know one thing you don’t know something else. For example, what would you say to someone on trial for murder who argues that because there are other unexplained murders, he could not have committed the one in question. It simply doesn’t follow.

Third is also doesn’t follow that because a single factor dominates current climate change that the LIA was similarly dominated by one single factor. The “competing theories” he’s talking about are not really competing at all they likely all contribute in varying amounts. Because there is less data available, it may never be possible to be 100% sure how much each contributed, but this is much less true for current climate change.

Finally “but they used to think...” is not a sound argument in it’s own right because it has nothing to do with the evidence available now. An analogous argument would be a creationist arguing “scientists used to think dinosaurs were reptiles, now they say they are more closely related to birds, if they keep changing their story like that how can we be sure any of it is right?”

What’s really happening is that science moves on and adapts when the evidence changes. This type of change will always occur, and unless you are willing to reject science outright what you need to do is look at the best evidence available and figure out what it indicates and with how much certainly it indicates this. The current science on greenhouse gasses suggests that doubling atmospheric CO2 warms the planet by 2.0 – 4.5 Deg C with a most likely value of 3.0 deg C. This magnitude of warming is unprecedented outside of the end of an ice age, and is occurring much more rapidly when compared to the 6 Deg C of warming over 5000 years the earth saw at the end of the last ice age.

 

[Buckaroo]

I was discussing (well arguing as usual) climate change with my father who is an AGW skeptic. He's also pretty skeptical about religion, supernature, alt health etc and not a woo/nut.

One point he makes is that there have been a number of theories about the causes of climate change in the past, notably for the Little Ice Age for which the possible causes include volcanic action, solar activity, oceanic current changes, orbital cycles. The most recent evidence seems to point to volcanic after some glacial research in Canada & Iceland. The main point being that whilst some convincing theories exist, there is not scientific consensus. We don't know for sure what caused a pretty major change in the world's climate. And if we don't know that for sure, then how can we possibly be so sure that the current warming isn't natural.

I find it difficult to counter the point. I'm a lazy AGW believer - I can't possibly study all the evidence so I'm just going with the consensus view. I don't know all fine details which is probably why I cannot answer it.

So what is the story with that? Is it a valid argument?

I think the simplest and most direct answer if that the current batch of climate models closely match observed warming only if realistic amounts of anthropogenic CO₂ are added into the runs. Without this CO₂, the models produce historical climate (including the LIA, with appropriate volcanic forcing) up to the moden period, at which point they diverge from observations. There's other evidence, of course, but this seems to me to be the most sound-bitey.

 

[Trakar]

I'm probably far more lazy than you, but it wasn't hard to discover (whilst looking for an answer) that there is also a huge controversy over the LIA, in that there is no consensus that it was a climate event. Some experts say it was just Europe, others say it was worldwide.

Little wonder people are skeptical.

Among mainstream working and publishing climate scientists, there is very little controversy. Global effects and impacts were minimal, barely registering above the noise of normality. Northern hemisphere effects approached significance but with a lot of varience depending upon which region you focus upon, and North Atlantic region effects were of significance. That position covers about two standard deviations (perhaps a bit more) of the population of working and publishing climate scientists.

 

[Warmer1]

I'm a lazy AGW believer

Please continue to be lazy. Get come popcorn or whatever you like to relax with, sit back and watch some internet videos. Relax and enjoy yourself as everything is very nicely laid out.

ule2se provided great links to a 3 part BBC series on climate change in post #4581 of this thread, on page 115

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176635&page=115


Here is James Hansen speaking this year at TED.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8

When you are done with those you might enjoy watching videos posted on YouTube by Greenman3610. You can Google Greenman3610 on YouTube or Climate Denial Crock of the Week at the following link

http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...150l0l34837l45l38l0l1l1l0l186l3721l14j20l37l0.

Sit back and relax, enjoy the information.

If you like to read
http://skepticalscience.com/

It's really becomes fascinating once you get into it. Human extinction may be very near and humans aren't doing much about it do to our greed and barbaric behavior which we have a long history of.

 

[r-j]

Among mainstream working and publishing climate scientists, there is very little controversy.

There's yet another example of what I found. Those who claim there was no global climate change insist there is also no real controversy about it.

 

[Trakar]

There's yet another example of what I found. Those who claim there was no global climate change insist there is also no real controversy about it.

First, please present precisely what I stated that you feel indicates that I am claiming that there was no global climate change during the LIA?

Secondly, which climatologists actively working and publishing in the field support anything other than what I have described?

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm probably far more lazy than you, but it wasn't hard to discover (whilst looking for an answer) that there is also a huge controversy over the LIA, in that there is no consensus that it was a climate event. Some experts say it was just Europe, others say it was worldwide.

Little wonder people are skeptical.

It's not controversial that global climate was cooler between ~1300CE and ~1900CE than in the centuries before and after. The geographical distribution of the change isn't particularly controversial either, with the coolig being much more pronounced around the North Atlantic than in the rest of the world and some warming in the Central Pacific, which suggests that variation in ocean circulation played some part.

It's known that the period around 1000CE was one of low volcanic activity of the type which significantly affects climate, relative to the intervening years; the same can be said for the 20thCE and the 21st so far. There were also the Maunder and Daltom Minimums in solar activity which will presumably have had some climate influence.

The period from the late 18thCE to the early 20thCE was particularly active volcanically, and that was a particularly cold period.

The reason for an apparent controversy over the LIA is that it was one of the first things grasped at by the denial machine when it started up and then had to be defended. It is a confected controversy. It was a subject of historical debate before that, of course, but the deniers were depending on vague memories of The Children's Illustrated Guide to History, not the actual debate.

I was aware of the debate, as it happens, thanks to a rather inspirational History teacher. That was long before climate change became a political issue, of course, let alone historical climate reconstructions or delta-O¹⁸ measurements in sediments and ice-cores. It was all just relative back then.

The great benefit of the "more research is required" policy of recent history is that more research has actually been funded and done. As an excuse for not taking action it has served very well.

 

[CapelDodger]

There's yet another example of what I found. Those who claim there was no global climate change insist there is also no real controversy about it.

The controversy isn't about there being a global climate change. Where there's controversy is about the degree of change. The denier-machine likes to represent it by Frost-Fairs on the Thames, and from that argue that global climate change like we're seeing today is nothing unusual. It's also used in the more mainstream denial furrow of attacking climate science in general and Mann in particular - "they're hiding the Little Ice Age, Frost Fairs on the Thames, yadda yadda".

And, of course, creating controversy to apply to the whole subject, including the basic physics. "AGW is controversial, there's no consensus", and so on.

There is no claim that there's no substance at all to the Little Ice Age. The concept wasn't just conjured out of nowhere back in the 30's. The debate has always been about how the effect was distributed, and the global impact. Multiple independent climate reconstructions show that it wasn't Frost Fairs everywhere, and historical evidence shows exactly the same thing. Even it's impact on North Atlantic history has often been grossly exaggerated.

 

[CapelDodger]

I find it difficult to counter the point. I'm a lazy AGW believer - I can't possibly study all the evidence so I'm just going with the consensus view.

A rational position to take.

In a similar situation I tend to judge by the arguments against the consensus. If they obviously focus on particular details of the big picture, with no attempt to tie all the evidence together, I feel that much more comfortable with the consensus.

Something I noticed early on in the AGW debate was that deniers would attribute almost any historical event to the LIA while simultaneously claiming that climate change in our time is no big issue. The only consistent theme being the argument that no account should be taken of it right now. Or soon. Or perhaps ever ...

 

[Westwall]

"I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name."


That's called Identity Theft, in most states it is a felony.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

Reference?