The real climate change catastrophe

[sandy whitelinger]

Totally different context. You're demanding sources from everybody else to prove they have thought things through and researched the subject. To refuse to meet your own demands is hypocrisy. I DID give you some sources eventually, and you are still waffling. Why is that? Is it because you haven't actually looked into the issue at all, beyond googling up some dodgy websites that appear to support your preconceptions?

You obviously didn't see the sources that I was referencing to in the post I responded to. Pay attention, I'm not your nanny.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't know. I'm sure that if you could create something that would destroy/suck up all the CO2 in the atmosphere, then you will be a very, VERY rich individual, as will be your great, great, great grandchildren.

They are called unprecedented in the last 420,000 years per the Vostok ice cores.
Actually, a recent article suggested that current levels are unprecedented in the last 2.1 million years. Link --> Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition -- Hönisch et al. 324 (5934): 1551 -- Science
Others have suggested ....unprecedented in the last 15 million years.

But the bottom line is two-fold.
1. at those CO2 levels the global temps were very significantly higher than now (and no, that's not a good thing), and the sea levels were also much higher (also NOT a good thing).....and the biosphere of the Earth had millions of years to adapt (evolve) in those conditions, to produce viable plants and animals. We may have only decades or 1-2 centuries (and that is VERY bad).
2. Unlike the right-wing alarmists (Yes. they are the fear-mongers :yes: not the GW advocates) the realists (i.e. left-wing moonbats)tend to be much more fact oriented. We are not talking about a global fire-storm that will burn life from the surface of the Earth.
Even the most extreme of realists will tell you that the worst case scenario is a few to a score degree centigrade alteration. HOWEVER, that will mean subtler yet VERY SIGNIFICANT changes on a global scale.
Consider: The vast majority of the human population of the Earth is currently housed within 20 vertical feet of the current sea-level. - Where are they going to move to?
Crop plants, and therefore farm animals too, lumbar producing forests, etc... are very sensitive to a few degree temperature change carried out over an entire year. As are the populations of plant diseases and insect infestations. -- What will happen when 10%, 20%, or even 50% crop failures start to occur? What will happen when the wheat belt moves from the central U.S. to central Canada? When the optimal growing conditions move from central China up into Siberia?

If you stop thinking like Limbaugh, that GW advocates are predicting flaming death to the whole world. :areyoucra :slap: But instead start seeing the problem in terms of MASSIVE refugee movements. Extensive warfare over decades for optimal living, crop-growing lands. Widespread droughts. Mass extinctions. etc...etc... Then you are starting to grasp the real problems here.


:clap Sorry Sandy. If you are going to make claims, then you have to back them up. Particularly when you are making claims contrary to many scientific papers shown to refute your viewpoint.

Ok, charts are cool.

Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 through the Phanerozoic. Comparison of the predictions of GEOCARB carbon cycle model (dashed line) with a smoothed representation of the proxy record (solid line). Source: Royer 2006.

Now aren't current levels somewhere in the 380ppm range? Am I reading this wrong or were the levels higher than they are now?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

sandy there's a ton of nonsense on the internet and you know it. You can't just post any link to any guy's personal website and expect anyone to waste their time looking at it, no matter how many cool animations or colorful texts litter the page.

FYI it has been well-documented, but it is not yet well-known, that corporations set up false "grassroots" websites. Read the Wall Street Journal article about angryrenter.com (I believe it was 2007).

I'll go back to what I said to Alceste, the charts come from the Goddard Institute. Do you have a problem with their data?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I know it because I looked it up.

you listed these organizations as agreeing with IPCC. Do you know if they also agree with the Global Mean Temperature models that the IPCC uses?

American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization

 

[Daemon Sophic]

....snip....
Now aren't current levels somewhere in the 380ppm range? Am I reading this wrong or were the levels higher than they are now?

No you are reading it correctly. However, keep in mind that life was completely different back then. As in different life forms (not human, not mammals, not birds, not rice, not wheat, not corn, not grass,.....). And again, as you may have breezed over at the end of my last post.....those plants and primative animals that existed back in the days when Earth's atmosphere was so dramatically different: they had MILLIONS of years to evolve and adapt.
When temp/drought/ocean salination/rain acidity/etc...change rapidly [as they are now. In fact faster now than ever known to have changed before (short of the meteor that wiped out the last of the dinosaurs)]. When such changes occur too rapidly, many/most plants and animals cannot survive.
Earth has seen a number of mass extinctions above and beyond the big meteor strike. Do you want to have played a role in the next one approaching? Or do you want to have helped lessen its impact?

I'll go back to what I said to Alceste, the charts come from the Goddard Institute. Do you have a problem with their data?

No. The Goddard Institute does fine work. Here is one of their more recent research papers --> http://yang.gmu.edu/eos754/paper/Lean2008GL034864-marked-attached.pdf
The bottom line of this paper is that even the IPCC's mathematical models seem to be underestimating human (anthropogenic) influence on GW, and that other research suggesting a larger role from natural sources (solar flares, etc...) have overestimated the role of natural processes.

"....None of the natural processes can account for the
overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the
100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends
produce by all three natural influences are at least an order
of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature
trend reported by [FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I]IPCC [/FONT][2007]. According to this analysis,
solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in
the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100
years, not 69% as claimed by [FONT=AdvTTf90d833a.I]Scafetta and West [/FONT][2008]
(who assumed larger solar irradiance changes and enhanced
climate response on longer time scales). ...."​

And here's another research paper based on information from the Goddard Institute again acknowledging the human forcing of the environment, and as I discussed at the start of this post, this paper discusses some of the early physical/biological/chemical changes that are occurring as a result of this anthropogenic warming. ---> http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Environment/Nature_Attributing_Anthropogenic_Climate_Change.pdf​

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No you are reading it correctly. However, keep in mind that life was completely different back then. As in different life forms (not human, not mammals, not birds, not rice, not wheat, not corn, not grass,.....). And again, as you may have breezed over at the end of my last post.....those plants and primative animals that existed back in the days when Earth's atmosphere was so dramatically different: they had MILLIONS of years to evolve and adapt.
When temp/drought/ocean salination/rain acidity/etc...change rapidly [as they are now. In fact faster now than ever known to have changed before (short of the meteor that wiped out the last of the dinosaurs)]. When such changes occur too rapidly, many/most plants and animals cannot survive.
Earth has seen a number of mass extinctions above and beyond the big meteor strike. Do you want to have played a role in the next one approaching? Or do you want to have helped lessen its impact?

All of that is nice for the moment but the core issue of this subthread is whether or not there were ever higher levels of co2 than now. There were. Much higher.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No. The Goddard Institute does fine work. Here is one of their more recent research papers --> http://yang.gmu.edu/eos754/paper/Lean2008GL034864-marked-attached.pdf[URL="http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Environment/Nature_Attributing_Anthropogenic_Climate_Change.pdf"]_Climate_Change.pdf[/URL]

I'll obviously need some more time to digest this, but a quick question,
this is from that paper, "we perform multiple linear regresssion analyses to decompose 118 years worth (11 complete solar cycles) of monthly mean temperature anomolies..." Do you know how they filled in missing data from 118 years ago?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Environment/Nature_Attributing_Anthropogenic_Climate_Change.pdf

Right now I'm focusing on the Global Mean Temperature readings. I'll get to this stuff later.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No. The Goddard Institute does fine work.

Ok, good. Now go back to the same impugned websight and look at the historical records for temperature reading stations in say, Antartica and tell me if you notice anything unusual.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Something I don't see in here is an explanation of why temperatures began to fall while CO2 levels remained higher. The explanation that warming caused a CO2 emmision that then sustained itself due to levels of CO2 seems to contradict this phenomonon. Any explanation?

I don't know.

And you have no curiosity about it?

 

[Alceste]

You obviously didn't see the sources that I was referencing to in the post I responded to. Pay attention, I'm not your nanny.

Yes, I thoroughly addressed your "sources". I am extremely skeptical that you have come to your conclusions by interpreting raw data all by yourself, with no help from any professional climatologist or free market propaganda foundation. When I asked for your sources, I was asking who has been interpreting your climate science data for you. I wasn't asking for randomly googled raw data that may have been referenced by your sources.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, I thoroughly addressed your "sources". I am extremely skeptical that you have come to your conclusions by interpreting raw data all by yourself, with no help from any professional climatologist or free market propaganda foundation. When I asked for your sources, I was asking who has been interpreting your climate science data for you. I wasn't asking for randomly googled raw data that may have been referenced by your sources.

I'm sorry you think I'm too stupid to read a graph. Perhaps you could tell me why when the explaination for co2 rising after temperature rise, ie. co2 warming takes over, doesn't apply to co2 levels falling after temperature drops?

 

[Alceste]

you listed these organizations as agreeing with IPCC.

Baloney. The IPCC doesn't "own" anthropogenic climate change. I listed these organizations as having issued statements in support of the fact that there is consensus in the scientific community that AGW is occurring and has potentially catastrophic implications.

Do you know if they also agree with the Global Mean Temperature models that the IPCC uses?

You can read the statements issued by most of these organisations yourself by looking them up.

I don't read Heritage Foundation op eds when I have questions about science, so I am not harbouring any doubt or uncertainty about scientific consensus on AGW. If I were, I would look up the statements by these foundations myself. Since you are the one who is struggling to come to an informed opinion despite all the free market propaganda weighing you down, it follows that you should do the looking up for yourself.

 

[Alceste]

I'm sorry you think I'm too stupid to read a graph. Perhaps you could tell me why when the explaination for co2 rising after temperature rise, ie. co2 warming takes over, doesn't appl to co2 levels falling after temperature drops?

Yes, you are unqualified to interpret a graph representing a set of collected climate and CO2 data. So am I. So are all of us except those of us who have obtained a degree and embarked on a career in one or more of the disciplines relevant to climate science.

Sorry to wound your ego, but whether or not you are "too stupid" to be a published and peer-reviewed climatologist you do not happen to be one, and you should defer to the judgment of people better qualified to interpret the data than yourself.

Note: Generally speaking, the Op Ed writers for the Heritage Foundation are exactly as qualified as you are. In other words, not at all qualified.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Baloney. The IPCC doesn't "own" anthropogenic climate change. I listed these organizations as having issued statements in support of the fact that there is consensus in the scientific community that AGW is occurring and has potentially catastrophic implications.



You can read the statements issued by most of these organisations yourself by looking them up.

I don't read Heritage Foundation op eds when I have questions about science, so I am not harbouring any doubt or uncertainty about scientific consensus on AGW. If I were, I would look up the statements by these foundations myself. Since you are the one who is struggling to come to an informed opinion despite all the free market propaganda weighing you down, it follows that you should do the looking up for yourself.

Are you always this far in left field. Almost all Global Mean Temperature raw data comes from one source and computer modeling of that raw data boils down to a small number used by the two major agencies that report Global Mean Temperatures. I'm trying to assertain if all of those organizations use that same data pool. All I wanted to know is if you knew anything more about those organizations other than you cut and pasted them from Wikipedia.

By the way, I've never been to the Heritage Foundations' website so try a new tack to impugn me. This, "I'm right and you're an idiot," approach of yours is lame.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, you are unqualified to interpret a graph representing a set of collected climate and CO2 data. So am I. So are all of us except those of us who have obtained a degree and embarked on a career in one or more of the disciplines relevant to climate science.

Sorry to wound your ego, but whether or not you are "too stupid" to be a published and peer-reviewed climatologist you do not happen to be one, and you should defer to the judgment of people better qualified to interpret the data than yourself.

Note: Generally speaking, the Op Ed writers for the Heritage Foundation are exactly as qualified as you are. In other words, not at all qualified.

I'll take that as, "No, I don't know and I don't care."

 

[Alceste]

Are you always this far in left field. Almost all Global Mean Temperature raw data comes from one source and computer modeling of that raw data boils down to a small number used by the two major agencies that report Global Mean Temperatures. I'm trying to assertain if all of those organizations use that same data pool. All I wanted to know is if you knew anything more about those organizations other than you cut and pasted them from Wikipedia.

That's a ridiculous claim. The "raw data" the IPCC uses comes from dendrochronologists, ice core samples, atmospheric measurements, CO2 concentration measurements, sea surface temperature measurements, sea level measurements and published analysis of all kinds of other relevant data from numerous research teams all over the globe.

All these organizations have access to the published research, and many research teams publish their raw data as well. Anyone is free to create a climate modelling program using any of the data they choose, in any way they choose. James Lovelock made one of his own which is discussed in "The Vanishing Face of Gaia", so it can't be that hard.

On the other hand, not all of the professional organizations who have issued statements attempting to dispel the myth of a lack of consensus are directly involved in climate research. So no, they don't all "use the same data pool". They don't all study the same stuff. But they are all comprised of scientists.

By the way, I've never been to the Heritage Foundations' website so try a new tack to impugn me. This, "I'm right and you're an idiot," approach of yours is lame.

You still haven't named your sources. (Your real ones).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's a ridiculous claim. The "raw data" the IPCC uses comes from dendrochronologists, ice core samples, atmospheric measurements, CO2 concentration measurements, sea surface temperature measurements, sea level measurements and published analysis of all kinds of other relevant data from numerous research teams all over the globe.

All these organizations have access to the published research, and many research teams publish their raw data as well. Anyone is free to create a climate modelling program using any of the data they choose, in any way they choose. James Lovelock made one of his own which is discussed in "The Vanishing Face of Gaia", so it can't be that hard.

On the other hand, not all of the professional organizations who have issued statements attempting to dispel the myth of a lack of consensus are directly involved in climate research. So no, they don't all "use the same data pool". They don't all study the same stuff. But they are all comprised of scientists.



You still haven't named your sources. (Your real ones).

My bad, I assumed since we are talking about global warming in the last century that you understood that Global Mean Temperature Computations come from:
"There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month. To obtain consistent changes over time, the main analysis is actually of anomalies (departures from the climatological mean at each site) as these are more robust to changes in data availability. It is now possible to use these measurements from 1850 to the present, although coverage is much less than global in the second half of the 19th century, is much better after 1957 when measurements began in Antarctica, and best after about 1980, when satellite measurements began."

Which I got from here: Real Climate Q and A which you provided.

Now, are you saying that there is a different raw temperature data set that is used by HadCRU or say GHCN to begin their modeling of the last century's global temperature?

 

[Alceste]

My bad, I assumed since we are talking about global warming in the last century that you understood that Global Mean Temperature Computations come from:
"There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month. To obtain consistent changes over time, the main analysis is actually of anomalies (departures from the climatological mean at each site) as these are more robust to changes in data availability. It is now possible to use these measurements from 1850 to the present, although coverage is much less than global in the second half of the 19th century, is much better after 1957 when measurements began in Antarctica, and best after about 1980, when satellite measurements began."

Which I got from here: Real Climate Q and A which you provided.

Now, are you saying that there is a different raw temperature data set that is used by HadCRU or say GHCN to begin their modeling of the last century's global temperature?

Global Mean Temperature data is only one of the many data sets that feed into the models used by the IPCC. I listed many of the others.

In all fairness, you're not very clear on what you want to talk about. First it was just insinuating anyone who accepts the fact of AGW is brainwashed. Now you're apparently casting about looking for a single raw data set that casts doubt on the climate predictions issued by the IPCC. (First Vostock Ice cores, now global mean temperature)

What DO you want to talk about? I'm speaking in general terms here, and have no desire (and lack the qualifications) to sit here and analyze and critique randomly selected raw data sets.

This is why I'm asking for your sources. Somebody somewhere has drawn your attention to these particular data sets for some reason, and it would be helpful to read their claims (and the relevant counter-claims by actual climatologists).

 

[Alceste]

I'll take that as, "No, I don't know and I don't care."

Or you could take it as "your question as written is gibberish".

Seriously: "Perhaps you could tell me why when the explaination for co2 rising after temperature rise, ie. co2 warming takes over, doesn't appl to co2 levels falling after temperature drops?"

Maybe you could rephrase that so it makes sense, then I'll either have a go or refer you to a relevant article.