We're In Serious Trouble on Climate

[Oleg Bach]

Keep it simple - when you see the sky become green over a city and the grass become brown - Then you know that we are burying oursleves alive in our own waste. The green is supposed to be on the bottom where the grass is and the sky is to be blue - not earth tones...It's a huge grave we are digging and eventually we will gasp our last breath in the confines of a filthy coffin ---It is not maybe - It's just a matter of time. Just like death comes to all - now we are attempting take it with us - the whole world? NOW that's very greedy.

[Oleg Bach]

Keep it simple - when you see the sky become green over a city and the grass become brown - Then you know that we are burying oursleves alive in our own waste. The green is supposed to be on the bottom where the grass is and the sky is to be blue - not earth tones...It's a huge grave we are digging and eventually we will gasp our last breath in the confines of a filthy coffin ---It is not maybe - It's just a matter of time. Just like death comes to all - now we are attempting take it with us - the whole world? NOW that's very greedy.

As we walk we avoid the eyes of children, knowing that we betray them by stealing their future throught the mindless selfishness. Yet we greet dogs with respect - those carion eaters that will consume our rotten corpses when it come to the end....Really folks - we hate children and love dogs more because we can not bare to look our young in the eye because we have robbed them.

[WIP]

Absolute nonsense for two reasons:

1) Solar scientists now believe that the sun's output has been constant over the last 1000 years or more and *cannot* be used to explain any variations in temperature.

Which solar scientists? And how are they so certain when the ones cited in the article mentioning solar forcing as a possibility, not an absolute fact. Some people claiming to be experts seem to be absolutely sure they know all the answers.

2) Volcanos contributed to the little ice age but they occurred *after* the temperature already dropped. Natural variability is the only explaination for the initial drop.

So, you don't even thing all of the dust and noxious gases pumped into the atmosphere during a volcano have any effect on the climate! I recall that when Mount Pinatubo erupted, the cloud of ash circled the globe several times; it seems hard to believe that so much could be dumped into the atmosphere all at once without having any effects! I do know that after several years of mild winters, we had a couple of cool, rainy summers and bone-chilling cold winters immediately after the Pinatubo eruption. I had the unfortunate opportunity to discover that the contractor who built the house where I used to live, buried the watermains between three and four feet deep when during the winter of 93/94, every home in the neighbourhood had their pipes burst. It was the first time in years that the frost line went below three feet and the City Manager had changed the rules on new construction allowing for shallower placement....so that winter really stands out in my memory.

The fact is the warming trend until 1940, the cooling trend until 1970 and the cooling trend now *cannot* be explained by the climate models without adding unverifiable aerosol fudge factors to models. These fudge factors mean it is impossible to know whether the models have any connection to reality or if they were simply tuned to produce the expected results. In fact, the most recent cooling trend which has gone on too long to be dismissed as weather provides strong evidence that the models do not accurately model the climate system and do not provide useful predictions.

There are number of peer reviewed papers (e.g. Tsonis) that look at the evidence and conclude that the climate system is chaotic and can under go significant internal variations even if there is no change in external forcing and that it would take 1000s of years of realiable data to properly characterize the behavoir of the system (i.e. 30 years of satellite data is not enough to draw any conclusions about the nature of the climate system).

The bottom line is we know next to nothing about why the climate does what it does and people who claim otherwise are simple self-serving snake oil salemen.

I don't think I have ever referred to climate models in any posts I have made on the subject, but the questions I want answers for include: if the climate is really getting colder, why are the majority of glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic still melting, some at an increased rate: http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/ and do climate change deniers believe that CO2 levels are increasing? Do they claim the increase is just natural causes or do they acknowledge the contributions of 6.7 billion people? Is there any evidence that manmade CO2 increase will be reduced on its own without some concerted international effort? Can CO2 be continually increased without raising global temperatures and increasing the amount of energy in the weather systems? If a claim is going to be made that the global temperatures can continue to increase without detrimental effects here on land, what about the oceans, which are absorbing half of the carbon dioxide that's pumped into the atmosphere. Can the amount of CO2 in ocean water keep increasing without decreasing oxygen levels or leading to acidification of the oceans?

From everything I've read about this subject, I still can't figure out how climate change deniers square the circle! The arguments against taking action on climate change resemble creationist arguments against evolution -- they are based on picking apart claims they disagree with, without acknowledging that a claim that a climate model is wrong does not automatically make them right about their claims that we can go on pumping oil and digging coal and burning down forests without worrying about what effects we'll have on the earth's biosphere.

[Riverwind]

Which solar scientists? And how are they so certain when the ones cited in the article mentioning solar forcing as a possibility, not an absolute fact. Some people claiming to be experts seem to be absolutely sure they know all the answers.

Leif Svaalgard: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...nstructions.png

The problem is you have alarmists trying to convince us that they "know" that CO2 has caused the most recent rise in temperatures when they can't explain why similar changes occurred in the past. If they cannot provide a explaination for past changes then they cannot claim that the recent changes are not natural.

So, you don't even thing all of the dust and noxious gases pumped into the atmosphere during a volcano have any effect on the climate!

Sure they have an effect that lasts about 5 years. But more importantly, they can only have an effect *AFTER* they erupt. The planet went into the LIA long before the big eruptions in the 1800s so the attempt to blame the LIA on volcanoes makes no sense. The planet cooled and we don't know why. If we don't why it cooled in the 1600s we cannot say why it warmed in the 1900s. Edited March 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

Remember how blue and clean the skys were the day of 9 11 ? There was not a plane in the air over north america - It was the first real blue sky I had seen since childhood - This economic collapse is the only hope for re-newal of the planet. There was no talk about global warming 30 years ago - It was simplier than that - If the air was dirty we called it POLLUTION....this is a case of dirty air and humans are shitting into the sky - we are no longer toilet trained and the house stinks.

Except for the military and FAA authorized flights......pretty hard to fly a CAP mission on the ground.

[WIP]

I knew I left a climate change comment hanging somewhere! I wish this board had a feature to track more than the past 10 posts.

Leif Svaalgard: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...nstructions.png

Off the top, my spidey senses activate when I see charts like these. How exactly was total solar irradiance measured back in the year 1600?

The problem is you have alarmists trying to convince us that they "know" that CO2 has caused the most recent rise in temperatures when they can't explain why similar changes occurred in the past. If they cannot provide a explaination for past changes then they cannot claim that the recent changes are not natural.

From what I've heard, there are many factors that could force temperatures up or down, it doesn't have to start with rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but since a growing population is using more energy every year, and as a result, carbon dioxide levels keep increasing -- I'd like to know if those denying a human capability to change the Earth's climate, believe that we can just keep adding to atmospheric CO2 levels year after year without tipping the balance and causing a positive feedback cycle that can't be stopped.

Sure they have an effect that lasts about 5 years. But more importantly, they can only have an effect *AFTER* they erupt. The planet went into the LIA long before the big eruptions in the 1800s so the attempt to blame the LIA on volcanoes makes no sense. The planet cooled and we don't know why. If we don't why it cooled in the 1600s we cannot say why it warmed in the 1900s.

The period of cooling referred to as the Little Ice Age is not recognized as a real ice age period by climatologists, and they don't even agree on when the cooling period began and when it ended, partly because available historical records indicate a lot of variation around the world. The only consensus according to the wikipedia article is that there were three very cold intervals in 1650, 1770, and 1850. As for the volcanoes, do you have any records of vulcanism data that would back a claim that there were no major active volcanoes preceeding the coolest years?

[Riverwind]

Off the top, my spidey senses activate when I see charts like these. How exactly was total solar irradiance measured back in the year 1600?

Berylium proxies and detailed sunspot records from the time of Galileo. Svalgaard is a respected solar scientist and is an equal opportunity debunker who spends time telling alarmists and skeptics why they can't use the sun to bolster their respective cases. His opinion is as unbiased as it comes and you would be wasting your time trying to debunk him.

believe that we can just keep adding to atmospheric CO2 levels year after year without tipping the balance and causing a positive feedback cycle that can't be stopped.

Simple: the earths CO2 levels have varied by much more in the past and there is no consistent relationship between CO2 and temperature:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/g..._op_927x695.jpg

Note the anti-correlation during the jurrasic.

As for the volcanoes, do you have any records of vulcanism data that would back a claim that there were no major active volcanoes preceeding the coolest years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

To be climatically significant the volcanoes have to be large and be in the right location (usually near the equator).

We also know from the 20th century record that effect of a climatically significant volcano is pretty much gone after 5-8 years (i.e. temps have returned to where they were before the eruption). So you would need to have continuous eruptions to produced a sustained cooling.

Mount Tambora in 1815 was a huge eruption that likely caused a big part of the early 19th century cooling.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[WIP]

Berylium proxies and detailed sunspot records from the time of Galileo. Svalgaard is a respected solar scientist and is an equal opportunity debunker who spends time telling alarmists and skeptics why they can't use the sun to bolster their respective cases. His opinion is as unbiased as it comes and you would be wasting your time trying to debunk him.

I didn't say I was debunking him. I just wanted to know where the graphs came from and how they could provide detailed information on solar irradiance 400 years ago. I'm still looking for the graphs that show how well beryllium-10 matches up with radiometers and other direct methods of measuring electromagnetic radiation.

Simple: the earths CO2 levels have varied by much more in the past and there is no consistent relationship between CO2 and temperature:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/g..._op_927x695.jpg

I shouldn't have to point this out yet again, but there are many unknowns in trying to compare paleoclimate with modern climate conditions. For one thing, your chart covers an entire span of Earth's history when the continents were spread apart, moved together into one supercontinent, and then broke up again. The record of extinctions surrounding the formation and breakup of supercontinent Pangea should be enough indication that you can't just compare rough geologic estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels, with equally sketchy temperature estimates to determine what relationship CO2 has with average temperatures....there are other factors to consider in analyzing climate change.

I wish I could have found a better resource for giving an overview of some of the limitations of paleoclimatology, not that this one isn't good, but I had to copy a few paragraphs from the Googlebooks excerpt since there are no pages online:

Tectonic Boundary Conditions for Climate Reconstructions By Thomas J. Crowley, Kevin Burke

Page 22

Atmospheric CO2 variations over the last glacial cycle are recorded in deep ice cores retrieved from Antarctica (Barnola et al., 1987) and range from 200 ppmv to 280 ppmv (preindustrial). The longterm variability of atmospheric CO2 is much more uncertain because we are unable to measure paleo-concentrations directly.

In other words, the more recent ice core data are the only ones that give direct measurement of actual atmospheric CO2 levels. The geologic methods used in your chart are rough proxy estimates at best, since they are trying to get a read on what the CO2 levels were by using the results of boron and carbon isotope data. Another important factor mentioned in this book that can skew the results is that weathering has to be accounted for, and that's another factor that can't be determined exactly.

Limitations to This Study p.32 to 34

A variety of factors contribute to uncertainties in the model experiments described here. These include uncertainties in the boundary conditions specified; land-sea distribution, topography, and the amount of CO2 for individual time slices. Although variations in these factors alone produce significant climatic variation that qualitatively match the geologic record, a limitation to this study is that we have not considered other potentially important factors including ocean heat transport, land-surface characteristics, and variations in solar output. Uncertainties in the specified atmospheric CO2 values are relatively high because there are no direct methods of measuring ancient CO2 levels for these older time periods.

The model's climate sensitivity to changes in boundary conditions is also a source of uncertainty in this study. The coarse resolution of the model requires parameterization of sub-grid-scale processes such as precpitation, which are physically based on present-day relationships. We assume that the same parameterizations are valid for other time periods although there is no way to be certain of this. Ocean processes are represented very crudely in the model and their potential role in change not be underestimated.......

Conclusions

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the relative sensitivity of climate to realistic changes in paleogeography and atmospheric CO2 over a geologically long time span. The major conclusions arising from this work are as follows:

1. The model results suggest large and well-defined changes as a function of changing geography and atmospheric CO2 which can be compared with the geologic record.

2. Globally averaged parameters including surface temperature and precipitation are relatively insensitive to changes in geography alone.

3. Globally averaged surface temperature is much more sensitive to variations in atmospheric CO2, as defined by the Berner (1991) geochemical model. The predicted temperature trend through time captures the major features of the reconstructed temperature trend, although it does not explain all feautres of the paleoclimatic record.

4. Continental average surface temperature is very sensitive to changes in geography alone, and the Late Permian control experiment is warmer than the mid-Cretaceous control experiment.. The geologic record shows that the mid_Cretaceous was much warmer than the Late Permian, therefore, additional climate forcing factors are required to explain these climat differences.

5. Continental surface temperature is also sensitive to changes in CO2, and its predicted trend through time is the result of complex interplay between geography and atmospheric CO2 levels.

6. Global temperature is a primary control on the intensity of the hydrologic cycle, but geopraphy significantly modifies this relationship by influencing the amount of moisture available to the atmosphere. The amount of land in the tropics is the key to this relationship.

7. Continental precipitationand runoff are both very sensitive to changes in geography: the Pangean geographies are the driest and the Tethyan geographies are the wettest. These parameters are also sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2; however geography (supercontinent vs. distributed continent) controls the precipitation trends through time.

Note the anti-correlation during the jurrasic.

Yes, and consider the fact that the Jurassic Era was not long after the breakup of Pangea; so the close proximity of land masses would have limited the hydrologic effect that increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which is an important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Again, periods when continental drift were causing breakup of landmasses and building new mountain ranges (like the Jurassic Era) have to be considered as contributors to climate change:

Starting in the Middle Jurassic, several rifting events began to split apart the Pangean supercontinent. Rifting between Africa and Laurassia opened the central Atlantic seaway. Further rifting of the Pangean remnants during the Jurassic and Cretaceous opened the northern South Atlantic Ocean. India separated from Antarctica in the Early Creaceous and began its rapid northward movement across the Tethy's Sea. ...........these widespread increases in topography may have contributed to climate change over this interval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

To be climatically significant the volcanoes have to be large and be in the right location (usually near the equator).

We also know from the 20th century record that effect of a climatically significant volcano is pretty much gone after 5-8 years (i.e. temps have returned to where they were before the eruption). So you would need to have continuous eruptions to produced a sustained cooling.

Mount Tambora in 1815 was a huge eruption that likely caused a big part of the early 19th century cooling.

Yes, and the Wikipedia page emphasizes the problem of analyzing volcanic data before 1800 by the sparse record before that time, many of which are accompanied by question marks. The world was still largely unknown territory, so a volcano going off in Krakatoa in 1600 would be an unknown event to European record-keepers.

When it's all said and done, claiming that past warm climates were not caused by atmospheric CO2 levels (may be true, who knows?) does not answer the question of whether we can tip the balance this time by artificially forcing CO2 to levels not reached in several thousand or million years (depending where we end up).

And it's one thing to point out that there have been times in the past when CO2 levels may have been ten times what they are today, but we weren't living during those times! At least a few of them can be closely correlated with mass extinctions like the Permian-Triassic.

Today, our overpopulated planet is so dependent on a delicate balance to maintain the mechanized agriculture started during the Green Revolution, that a climate swing that is either significantly warmer or colder, would be a disaster -- we would end up with mass starvations, accompanied by mass migrations, likely resource wars and fights for desirable land by countries that now have nuclear weapons.

The climate change skeptics that I've watched on Youtube clips seem to have a detached, uninvolved perspective when making their arguments. It is like they are evaluating two different laboratory experiments. The problem with this uninvolved attitude is that we are inside the test-tube, so if the skeptics are right, nothing happens; but if they're wrong, we are all cooked!

[Riverwind]

I didn't say I was debunking him. I just wanted to know where the graphs came from and how they could provide detailed information on solar irradiance 400 years ago. I'm still looking for the graphs that show how well beryllium-10 matches up with radiometers and other direct methods of measuring electromagnetic radiation.

All the sun related data you can absorb: http://www.leif.org/research/

I shouldn't have to point this out yet again, but there are many unknowns in trying to compare paleoclimate with modern climate conditions.

Could not agree more. The problem is your alarmists buddies keep using this uncertain data in order to bolster their claims.

In other words, the more recent ice core data are the only ones that give direct measurement of actual atmospheric CO2 levels.

So? We know the levels were much much higher in the past. The data is uncertain but it is not that uncertain.

The trouble with the ice age measurements is CO2 lags temp by 800 years and there is little evidence of acceleration in the temperature rise after the CO2 levels start to rise (this should happen if CO2 is a strong amplifier). More importantly, we have no data on what the clouds were doing the ice ages and all of the studies on CO2 presume that they behaved the same as today even though 2/3rds of the planet was cover in mile high sheets. I don't consider this to be a reasonable assumption.

Bottom line is the ice ages do not give useful information about what is likely to happen in the future as we emit CO2.

And it's one thing to point out that there have been times in the past when CO2 levels may have been ten times what they are today, but we weren't living during those times! At least a few of them can be closely correlated with mass extinctions like the Permian-Triassic.

Stop being a hypocrite. If want to use the CO2 levels from this period to bolster you case you must accept that the CO2 levels from the Jurassic refute it.

The climate change skeptics that I've watched on Youtube clips seem to have a detached, uninvolved perspective when making their arguments. It is like they are evaluating two different laboratory experiments. The problem with this uninvolved attitude is that we are inside the test-tube, so if the skeptics are right, nothing happens; but if they're wrong, we are all cooked!

Funny. The problem with alarmists is they live in fantasy world where practical CO2 free technologies exist and the only thing that is stopping their wide spread use are the big bad oil lobby. It is not that simple. If you are right we are toast no matter what because technology required to move to a CO2 free society does not exist nor is it likely to appear anytime soon.

Imagine we are on the titanic and a big hole was ripped in the bow. You are running around telling people that we can fix the hole if we all worked together. I am saying it is a waste of time and the delay will kill people; head for the life boats.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[cybercoma]

Whether or not we know how much people contribute, is it not fair to say that man-made global warming is happening?

Edited March 28, 2009 by cybercoma

[Wild Bill]

Whether or not we know how much people contribute, is it not fair to say that man-made global warming is happening?

No!

Really, that is simply stating that we have no idea how much Man has contributed to the problem yet we can assume that it is all his fault!

Hardly scientific!

[Riverwind]

Whether or not we know how much people contribute, is it not fair to say that man-made global warming is happening?

CO2 is a GHG and causes some warming. Nobody credible debates that. But that does not really tell us much about what is likely to happen in the future and the range of possibilities discussed by the IPCC ranges from insignificant to absolutely catastrophic.

For that reason it is important to look into how the IPCC got its numbers and what assumptions exist.

As far as I can tell the process was something like this:

1) Do the straight mathematical derivation for CO2 sensitivity and come up with 1.2 degC. This means that we are looking forward to no more than 0.5 degC warming over the next 100 years. This should be nothing to worry about since we have already warmed 0.7 degC over the last 100 years. This is not an interesting result for most people so on to step 2).

2) Look at the ice core data which show a relationship between CO2 and Temperatures for one point on the planet. Add up the effect all of the things that could cause warming and subtract them out. Blame any warming from 'unknown' factors on CO2. This results in a CO2 sensitivity in th 2-4 degC which translates into 3 degC of warming over the next 100 years.

Of course, we have no way to know if:

- CO2 sensitivity going from 180ppm to 280ppm is the same as going from 280ppm to 560ppm.

- The clouds on a planet covered in 1 mile high ice sheets behave the same as today.

- Whether the relationship between the global temperature and a single point on the pole stays in the same during an ice age.

- The effect of trees and other vegetation.

- Whether unknown factors such a cosmic rays played any role.

3) Build some climate models which make various assumptions for cloud and water vapour feedback. Pick values for aerosol estimates that provide enough cooling to produce a model that can sort of match the trend over the last 100 years. See what the CO2 sensitivity works out to be. If the sensitivity is less than the 2-4 range guesstimates from the ice age data then go back and tune the model until CO2 sensitivity falls in the expected range. If the sensitivity is greater than those guesstimates then publish paper pointing out the danger and that more funding is needed.

It is important to note that all models that do not match CO2 sensitivity range guesstimated in step 2) are presumed to be wrong unless the scientist can prove that there was something wrong with the guesstimates. Since there is no new data scientists can't prove anything so they are forced to either give up and find something else to research or accept that assumption as fact. It is these kinds of self re-enforcing assumptions that can lead to big mistakes.

4) Use these models to predict future trends and treat these predictions as "fact" because they came from a computer model.

5) Throw in a few hypothetical scenarios such as melting permafrost which provide massive positive feedback. Use those to claim that billions of people could die in the next 50 years if we don't stop driving and using electricity.

You probably think I am over simplifying what was done. Unfortunately I am not.

That is why I think we need to base our decisions on ability of the models to predict temperatures changes that occur after the the model is run (i.e. go back to the tried and true scientific method of verification by experiment). Unfortunately, the models have consistently predicted more warming than has actually occurred - even if we go back 30 years. The alarmists wave their hands and insist that the cooling is temporary. However, anyone who takes a look at the very shaky theoretical foundation for the model claims should have reasonable doubts.

These reasonable doubts make it difficult to commit to radical changes to the economic foundations of society which will cause a lot of harm to a lot of people. This harm can only be justified if we are reasonably certain that the alternative is worse. We don't have that necessary certainty at this point in time.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[noahbody]

Whether or not we know how much people contribute, is it not fair to say that man-made global warming is happening?

In marketing terms, what they've done is created a new sub-category called 'manmade global warming.' It's something that can be easily sold. It implies we are in control of climate. It even gives us a benchmark to measure our environmental performance against. When we do something to cut manmade CO2, there's an emotional reward.

However, the reality is humans cannot control the larger category of global warming/cooling. CO2 may be one of the contributing variables, but it is not the controlling variable and manmade CO2, which represents a fraction of CO2 levels, definitely doesn't drive the bus.

The most ironic thing in this debate is that skeptics have been branded as "deniers" though they believe in the science of global warming/cooling. For manmade global warming to exist as a category, there has to be a denial of global cooling.

Do you think the small fraction of CO2 man contributes is going to stop global cooling?

[eyeball]

You probably think I am over simplifying what was done. Unfortunately I am not.

I think you're probably close enough to the mark. Unfortunately though, you dismiss any need to take any sort of precautionary approach based on the simplistic premise that doing anything at all will destroy the economy. This is as knee jerk a reaction as any you're accusing the vast majority of scientists of having.

I'm sorry but, simply put, the vast number of scientists who agree we're in serious trouble trumps the tiny number who don't. This is now a matter for democracy to settle. There's simply no other rational alternative.

[Riverwind]

I think you're probably close enough to the mark. Unfortunately though, you dismiss any need to take any sort of precautionary approach based on the simplistic premise that doing anything at all will destroy the economy.

I am in favour of:

1) Rapid deployment of GHG free technologies with a proven track record (e.g. nuclear, hydro).

2) Large investments in R&D and proof of concepts for GHG free technologies that seem promising (e.g. thermal solar in deserts).

3) Moderate carbon taxes where the proceeds are used to fund 1) & 2) - carbon taxes which double as a social program are ineffective.

I am against:

1) Hard targets that cannot be achieved with existing technologies.

- the 'market' can do a lot but it cannot guarantee that technology X is available by time Y - attempts to force that to happen by legislation will fail.

2) Carbon trading markets.

- encourages scams and market manipulation.

- corrupt third world governments cannot be trusted to ensure the pollution controls are used even if paid for.

- the possibility for profit encourages the creation of high emission infrastracture which can be later cleaned up after selling credits.

Democracy is the only way do resolve this. Unfortunately, the media has taken sides and presents an unbalanced view of the issues. This will lead to bad decisions.

[eyeball]

Democracy is the only way do resolve this. Unfortunately, the media has taken sides and presents an unbalanced view of the issues. This will lead to bad decisions.

I've suggested we let experts at sifting good evidence from bad, like judges decide the matter but you'll have nothing to do with that so...now you're an advocate for democracy eh? Sure you are.

I'll bite...I take it you're a big believer in the idea that an unfetterd economic marketplace is rational but why not the marketplace of opinions? Why not give the latter as much leeway as the former and let it decide? Won't it behave the same way and arrive naturally at the most rational solution?

Edited March 28, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

I've suggested we let experts at sifting good evidence from bad, like judges decide the matter but you'll have nothing to do with that so...now you're an advocate for democracy eh? Sure you are.

What we do on climate change is philosophical/moral decision not a technical one. The input from the experts is useful but when it comes to making philosophical/moral decisions that must be left to the electorate.

[eyeball]

What we do on climate change is philosophical/moral decision not a technical one. The input from the experts is useful but when it comes to making philosophical/moral decisions that must be left to the electorate.

Bull-shitter.

[Riverwind]

Your the advocating the 'precautionary principal'. The decision on when to invoke that is not a technical decision - it is philosphical decision that must trade off the costs vs. benefits. It is dishonest to pretend it is a technical decision that can be made by the experts. What we need is a honest discussion on climate change and the costs of acting vs. the costs of doing nothing. The discussion has been distorted by a media addicted to climate porn and activists who try to bully people in believing there are no choices to be made.

[eyeball]

Your the advocating the 'precautionary principal'. The decision on when to invoke that is not a technical decision - it is philosphical decision that must trade off the costs vs. benefits. It is dishonest to pretend it is a technical decision that can be made by the experts. What we need is a honest discussion on climate change and the costs of acting vs. the costs of doing nothing. The discussion has been distorted by a media addicted to climate porn and activists who try to bully people in believing there are no choices to be made.

And these people do this because they want to wreck the economy right? That's as ridiculous as claiming the world needs to fly off the handle and invest trillions of dollars fighting people who hate freedom.

Hey what a great idea eh? Let's wreck the economy. Who in their right mind would want to do something like that I wonder?

[Riverwind]

And these people do this because they want to wreck the economy right? That's as ridiculous as claiming the world needs to fly off the handle and invest trillions of dollars fighting people who hate freedom.

Fine. I agree that hyperbole is being used on both sides. But we can't get away from the hyperbole until boths sides agree that there are costs and benefits to weigh and decisions to be made. I would say the skeptics are more willing to have that conversation than the alarmists.

[WIP]

So? We know the levels were much much higher in the past. The data is uncertain but it is not that uncertain.

The trouble with the ice age measurements is CO2 lags temp by 800 years and there is little evidence of acceleration in the temperature rise after the CO2 levels start to rise (this should happen if CO2 is a strong amplifier).

Oh really! There seem to be a lot of people disputing that claim! If there is an 800 year lag between the start of a warming period and the CO2 increase, that still doesn't address the question of whether CO2 amplifies the warming trend. Even today, we are being told that melting permafrost is releasing trapped CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, so I suppose that would be an example of warming in the Arctic causing an increase in greenhouse gas levels.

This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2

increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3). The similarity between CO2 and Vostok temperature and the associated short time lag

(30, 33) support the suggestion of Petit et al. (1) that CO2 may be controlled in large part by the climate of the southern ocean. Although there is not yet clear support for this assertion (through models, for example), a delay of about 800 years seems to be a reasonable time period to transform an initial Antarctic temperature increase into a CO2 atmospheric increase through oceanic processes. Indeed, it is not clear whether the link between the southern ocean climate and CO2 is the result of a physical mechanism, such as a change in the vertical ocean mixing (34) or sea-ice cover changes (35), or a biological mechanism, such as atmospheric dust flux and ocean productivity (36, 37). The 800-year lag cannot really rule out any of these mechanisms as having sole control. Any of these mechanisms might plausibly require a finite amount of warming before CO2 outgassing becomes significant. Nevertheless, we think that our results are more consistent with a process that involves the deep ocean, as its mixing time is close to the observed 800-year lag.

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

You see, you want to put all of the attention on what the CO2 levels and best determined average temperatures were during a given period of earth history, and I notice that same narrow focus on one or two variables in every climate skeptic report I find. The mainstream climatologists aren't making grandiose claims other than saying the obvious: you haven't dealt with the claim that CO2 and methane are going to amplify whatever the conditions are at the time, and that is the relevant part of the argument today, since humans are artificially forcing CO2 levels higher at a rate of increase that was not possible before we arrived on the scene.

More importantly, we have no data on what the clouds were doing the ice ages and all of the studies on CO2 presume that they behaved the same as today even though 2/3rds of the planet was cover in mile high sheets. I don't consider this to be a reasonable assumption.

I've read that also, and from what I recall, they say that with the lack of a method to determine historic cloud cover, they have little choice other than to assume present patterns are the default

Bottom line is the ice ages do not give useful information about what is likely to happen in the future as we emit CO2.

Well, ice age or no ice age, is a continued increase in atmospheric CO2 going to increase warming, or be a neutral factor?

Stop being a hypocrite. If want to use the CO2 levels from this period to bolster you case you must accept that the CO2 levels from the Jurassic refute it.

No they don't! For the same reason mentioned before -- you're isolating one factor (CO2) and claiming that the decreased hydrologic effect mentioned in the article I quoted, cannot explain why there are periods when CO2 levels don't track with temperatures. No one is claiming that CO2 is the only factor in climate change.....besides the deniers who are building straw man arguments.

Funny. The problem with alarmists is they live in fantasy world where practical CO2 free technologies exist and the only thing that is stopping their wide spread use are the big bad oil lobby. It is not that simple. If you are right we are toast no matter what because technology required to move to a CO2 free society does not exist nor is it likely to appear anytime soon.

Sounds like you are part of army that wants to give up without firing a shot! I may be a skeptic also on whether it is possible to motivate a short-term thinking species of animals to think ahead a few decades or centuries. So far, the evidence for our survival is not all that promising! As soon as oil prices drop a little, everyone stops thinking about hybrid cars and alternative fuels; and after a couple of promising decades of slowing population growth, population is now accelerating again in India and Latin America.

Modern humans have been around for less than 200,000 years....a blip on the radar compared to other successful species, like dinosaurs.

Imagine we are on the titanic and a big hole was ripped in the bow. You are running around telling people that we can fix the hole if we all worked together. I am saying it is a waste of time and the delay will kill people; head for the life boats.

Great! Now where exactly are the life boats?

[Riverwind]

Oh really! There seem to be a lot of people disputing that claim! If there is an 800 year lag between the start of a warming period and the CO2 increase, that still doesn't address the question of whether CO2 amplifies the warming trend.

The more important question is how much of the trend can be reasonably attributed to 'amplication by CO2'. The method used by alarmists is basically: presume that the CO2 amplication effect causes all warming that cannot be directly explained by something else. This method is fundementally flawed and will result in over estimates of the effect of CO2.

Even today, we are being told that melting permafrost is releasing trapped CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, so I suppose that would be an example of warming in the Arctic causing an increase in greenhouse gas levels.

Most of the arctic was ice free and warmer than today 8000 years ago yet no positive feedback occurred.

You see, you want to put all of the attention on what the CO2 levels and best determined average temperatures were during a given period of earth history, and I notice that same narrow focus on one or two variables in every climate skeptic report I find.

That is exactly what alarmists do when faced with alternate theories like cosmic rays. They look for one or two periods where the relationship breaks down and declare that the relationship cannot possibly exist. If you want to reserve the right to ignore inconsitencies in the records then you must accept that the cosmic ray hypotheses is just as plausible as the CO2 hypothesis.

I've read that also, and from what I recall, they say that with the lack of a method to determine historic cloud cover, they have little choice other than to assume present patterns are the default

Which is my point. It is a huge assumption. This means we cannot treat estimates of CO2 sensitivity from the ice ages as anything other than a wild-a**-guess that could be completely wrong. Making expensive policy descisions based on that number is the scientific equivalent of buying penny mining stocks on the VSX. You might be willing to risk it but not me.

Great! Now where exactly are the life boats?

here, here, here and here

The trouble with your approach is it requires a huge bet on technologies that don't exist. This means that the political will really a secondary issue - even if the political will could be found we will likley find that it is not enough. To make matters worse once we realize that the required technology is not magically appearing we will have made it much much more expensive to adapt because we would have denied ourselves access to the cheapest available energy sources and materials.

This is not about giving up before the fight. This is about realizing that a strategic retreat into a fortified location is smarter than a frontal assualt. We could try to do the frontal assault first but the losses incurred before the inevitable retreat would be much greater than the losses if we started with the strategic retreat.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Fine. I agree that hyperbole is being used on both sides. But we can't get away from the hyperbole until boths sides agree that there are costs and benefits to weigh and decisions to be made. I would say the skeptics are more willing to have that conversation than the alarmists.

I'm all for having lots of conversations about the risks and precautions but we still need to discuss how we democratically arrive at our descisions. I would say the deniers are less willing to have that conversation than the concernists.

[Riverwind]

I'm all for having lots of conversations about the risks and precautions but we still need to discuss how we democratically arrive at our descisions. I would say the deniers are less willing to have that conversation than the concernists.

James Hansen of NASA is running around telling everyone that coal use must be eliminated immediately. He is on the record supporting vandalism in order to pressure governments and called for opponents of action to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity. Al Gore when confronted by Bjorn Lomborg refused to have any debate about alternatives to the mitigation only strategy promoted by the alarmists despite the fact that Lomborg does not dispute the science.

If you think the skeptics are not willing to have a pragamatic discussion of the options then you have not been paying attention to what the alarmists are saying.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Riverwind