Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 4:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The issue is causation, not merely 'change'.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 7:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Round and round you go. About a page ago you said the same exact thing. I said it is up to you to propose a different reason for the rapid rise in CO2 since the 1850's. You didn't respond as you are wont to do. So I posted a link to at least a few studies that showed that as the earth's temperature was known to have increased coming out several ice ages that CO2 rise preceded 90% of the subsequent warming. After a couple days, as you ruminated, your weak response was a blog post from the televangelist Watt's non-scientific and nearly universally discredited website. So there you go again. My answer is the same; look at studies, not blogs. The evidence is right in front of your face for the rise in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial age.

Blinders only work for the blindfolded.

I can post the same studies again, it is easy to do. And the evidence will again be obvious. Education does not work without engagement in the process of education.

Quote:
A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship.  They found that:

The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.  As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls.  This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.
While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

CO2 is the yellow dots, Antarctic temperature is red and global temperature is blue.

Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 8:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Isotopes of CO2 and changes in concentration and decreases in O2 atmospheric concentration proves that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by the burning of fossil fuels primarily. The rest is feedback but these are typically slow responses.

CO2 isotope concentration and origin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 761 | TRs
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 8:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
How do we know the recent dry summers have anything to do with C02?  I can't see how to argue that the increasing temps are unrelated, but the PNW has likely been overdue for some dry spells.

6,000-year climate record suggests longer droughts, drier climate for Pacific Northwest
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 761 | TRs
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 9:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
California's drought is also nothing out of the ordinary.

Quote:
California’s current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state’s recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West’s long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 9:47 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Round and round you go. About a page ago you said the same exact thing. I said it is up to you to propose a different reason for the rapid rise in CO2 since the 1850's. You didn't respond as you are wont to do. So I posted a link to at least a few studies that showed that as the earth's temperature was known to have increased coming out several ice ages that CO2 rise preceded 90% of the subsequent warming. After a couple days, as you ruminated, your weak response was a blog post from the televangelist Watt's non-scientific and nearly universally discredited website. So there you go again. My answer is the same; look at studies, not blogs. The evidence is right in front of your face for the rise in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial age.

Blinders only work for the blindfolded.

I can post the same studies again, it is easy to do. And the evidence will again be obvious. Education does not work without engagement in the process of education.

gb wrote:
CO2 is the yellow dots, Antarctic temperature is red and global temperature is blue.


And I posted links disputing the claim...also from scientists.

You've settled nothing, and this is the problem. You cannot close the deal, and once again, you persist with logical fallacies (the expert fallacy, the consensus fallacy, correlation = causation, the ad hom fallacy, the 'replacement theory' fallacy, etc) a sure sign of a fallacious argument... by definition. All you do is repeat attacks on sources, instead of *showing* them to be falsified, which should be easy to do. Then complaining I don't respond in time to suit you..as if this has any value. I had last week off and did two trips with one day in between. I didn't see you naming names when asked, I didn't see you telling us what facts were being ignored as you claimed.

Science doesn't run on what someone claims is 'discredited' by people who disagree, no matter how many ...it runs on what is *falsified* empirically.

My answer is the same...you're not 'educating' anyone when you must use fallacious methods. Well, actually you are, but not in the way you intend. You're educating us on evasion.

Best of all...even your source admits warming caused the CO2 increase, and you're so invested you don't even seem to notice it..again hanging your hat on correlation = causation just as the study you present attempts to.

Notice that I don't need to attack the sources you present...I deal with their *arguments*. I don't apply a *single* logical fallacy. I don't need to.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 10:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Isotopes of CO2 and changes in concentration and decreases in O2 atmospheric concentration proves that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by the burning of fossil fuels primarily. The rest is feedback but these are typically slow responses.

CO2 isotope concentration and origin

Feedback, huh? Based upon whose theory and what basis?

Hansen's take?

Which excludes the existing temperature input, just as Monckton et al note?

On what basis do you conclude the feedback is slow, and how is slow defined?

Keep in mind that you implied the time to respond, was a metric in the validity of an argument.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 603 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 10:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
It is like insurance.


Quite.  And a good insurance policy would be purchased, after careful calculation of the statistics, at a price approximately equal to value of the asset insured times the odds of occurrence.  So here we have a very very valuable asset but a very low risk... some insurance (increased research spending on fusion and batteries?) is a good idea but a drastic expensive insurance policy is unnecessary, wasteful, and indeed harmful to human civilization.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9113 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Aug 16, 2018 11:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
preparing to beat the dead horse
preparing to beat the dead horse

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 7:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Hansen's take?

Glad you brought up Hansen. This is his position on Global warming:

Quote:
Dr. James E. Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), believes that the world has little time to waste in reversing its current trend toward global warming. In late 2005, however, Dr. Hansen's ability to voice his concerns about global warming was severely compromised by NASA public affairs officials. After he called on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a December 2005 lecture, Dr. Hansen found that NASA officials began reviewing and filtering public statements and press interviews in an effort to limit his ability (as well as that of other government scientists) to publicly express scientific opinions that clashed with the Bush administration’s views on global warming.

While Dr. Hansen's scientific standing is unquestionable—he was described by CBS' 60 Minutes as "arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming"¹—administration officials found some of his conclusions politically inconvenient. In a lecture at the December 2005 meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Dr. Hansen argued that the earth will become "a different planet" without U.S. leadership in cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.² This position conflicted with the Bush administration's policy of opposing mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In January 2006, NASA publicized data showing that 2005 was likely the warmest year in over a century.³

In January 2006, Dr. Hansen told Andrew Revkin of the New York Times that he was warned of "dire consequences" if he continued to make similar statements. Revkin reported that George Deutsch, a public affairs officer appointed by the White House, denied a request from National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, calling NPR the country's "most liberal" media outlet and arguing that his job was "to make the president look good."4 Mr. Deutsch later resigned after it was revealed that he had fabricated his own academic credentials.5

Arguing that his loyalty was to NASA's mission statement, which then read in part "to understand and protect our home planet," Dr. Hansen refused to be silenced. ''Communicating with the public seems to be essential,'' the Times reported him as saying, ''because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."6 

James Hansen today on his website and links to his most recent 2018 articles: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

As to Moncton his work was superseded by more recent studies.

The lag comes from several papers that are summarized and linked to by Skeptical Science. The three studies referred to indicated a lag of about 800 years within statistical limitations.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 7:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jake Neiffer wrote:
California's drought is also nothing out of the ordinary.

Quote:
California’s current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state’s recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West’s long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

Oh, but it is extraordinary, exacerbated by hotter temperatures; the worst in 1200 years, and we are just getting into years where our effect on climate has been noticeable: Article referring to study of Blue Oak tree ring analysis with link
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 8:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
It is like insurance.


Quite.  And a good insurance policy would be purchased, after careful calculation of the statistics, at a price approximately equal to value of the asset insured times the odds of occurrence.  So here we have a very very valuable asset but a very low risk... some insurance (increased research spending on fusion and batteries?) is a good idea but a drastic expensive insurance policy is unnecessary, wasteful, and indeed harmful to human civilization.

You misuse the term risk, here. Risk refers to exposure to danger. In Avalanche work this risk is referred to as consequences. Risk is juxtaposed against the probability of that risk (or of those consequences). In the case of avalanches the worst consequences would be death. In the case of the Earth's and humanity's risk we don't know what that risk could be because we cannot foresee any or all of the things that could happen in a worst case scenario. Politics has made it necessary to put that risk in terms of financial loss. But how does one quantify the loss of lives, damage to health, destruction of certain of Earth's ecosystems, or of the diminishment of quality of life? How can you put a dollar figure on any of those? We also don't really know - how could we? - the probability of these risks or of many of them coming true?

How could this in your statement be true ?,
Quote:
and indeed harmful to human civilization

Prudence lies not on the side of finding out by accident what the consequences of Global Warming might be, not the other way around. We have hints of these risks from historic hurricanes last year or of northward migration of pathogens, or of this
Quote:
Hundreds of thousands face starvation and death in Africa in the growing crisis no one is talking about
'As we enter 2017, over 37 million people across Africa are without food,' warns International Development Secretary Priti Patel

to name just three examples. That is why we should take out an "insurance policy" by making strong efforts to curb our emissions.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 603 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 8:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
of finding out by accident what the consequences

Its hardly by accident.  We have a detailed knowledge of physics and a wide array of data from which we can extrapolate.  We can make relatively accurate predictions based on the climate stats we have now and the trends we are or are not detecting, supplemented by models in places.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 603 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 8:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
by making strong efforts to curb our emissions.

But if you try to force that issue before replacements are ready, you make access to energy too expensive for poor people and countries and you cause harm.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 9:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
of finding out by accident what the consequences

Its hardly by accident.  We have a detailed knowledge of physics and a wide array of data from which we can extrapolate.  We can make relatively accurate predictions based on the climate stats we have now and the trends we are or are not detecting, supplemented by models in places.

We have a variety of GCM's based on physics and correlated back to old data for which we don't have measurements or knowledge of especially feedback loops.

Great on the accurate predictions but all we have to do is look at the CPC discussions to notice the wide range of possible outcomes even for this winters ENSO event.

If we can make relatively accurate predictions then we could predict just how many big hurricanes will not only develop but will make landfall in certain locations this winter. How about ten or thirty years from now? How accurate are our predictions for those?

But I was also referring to the rate and extent of sea level rise, the spread and effect of pathogens, air quality changes in different locations from forest fires, and even the number of starving people in Africa because of a drought we can so accurately predict......and then what impacts those or neighboring peoples will have on political stability not only in Africa but around the globe. What will happen in Bangladesh for instance?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday mtnrider, PetDrAndrea, Quest for Adrenaline, RockShadow, hikejon!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy