Global Warming Concensus Broken

[djolds1]

Humans, being simple creatures, look at recent history and reason from that that because previously the doomsayers were wrong now they must also be wrong.

I will say with confidence that the apocalypticians are wrong >= 95% of the time. Within the bounds of scientific certainty.

The same arguments apply to humanities ability to continue population growth and resource use.

Club of Rome resource hysteria was put paid in the '80s. Population growth is going negative, and world population should begin declining c.2050 or so.

Changing the atmospheric composition significantly and irreverably may not be a problem, but if so it is quite different from previous predicted disasters.

Not a one of which has ever come to pass.

"Honest, we've got it right this time!" does not inspire confidence after the boy has cried wolf n^nth times.

Duane

[djolds1]

There's no need for a conspiracy theory.

No need for Al Gore either.

Take that up with the sperm his father contributed during a horizontal tango.

Edit: forgot the emoticon.

Duane

[djolds1]

2) We are in fact adding CO2 to the atmosphere to the tune of a 50% increase since the industrial revolution. While I agree it cannot suggested with any kind of certainty that the Earth's temperature is outside of a typical range (yet), do you agree it appears very likely that we are outside of a normal range in terms of CO2?


I'd partially agree. There is lots of good evidence that CO2 has increased a great deal in the last 100 years, I have not seen any good evidence attributing it to human causes aside from the timing.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Bad, bad mistake in basic logic.

3) Since the industrial revolution (and I'm just focusing on the last 150 years), the temperature of the Earth has risen a significant amount (in the neighborhood of 1 degree celcius) Agree?


Agreed, but again with the caveat that we don't really know what kind of temperature change over that 150years is natural for lack of high-precision data outside the instrumental record which in climate time frames began with the industrial revolution.

The Little Ice Age ended c.1850. We are surprised that there is an associated warming trend... why???

Duane

[Mike Holmes]

The principle you're thinking of is referred to as "The Tragedy of the Commons." Called so because of the example of an English commons for grazing where each individual has an incentive to use it as much as possible (gotta use it up before somebody else does!), until it is destroyed by over-use, at which point nobody benefits.

The Mayans are my favorite example of a civilization that basically ate it's way out of existence in a very classically Malthusian way. Slash and burn agriculture is great for getting started, and growing. But once you get to a certain size, you no longer can rotate back to used fields after long enough intervals, and you have a rather rapid collapse back to a much lower population level.

Now... this is a far cry different from the problems we're discussing today, of course. But the general principle, that we can potentially overuse our resources until the lack destroys us, is why we're having this discussion at all. We're all innately aware that irresponsibility is dangerous.

Mike

[djolds1]

I know a few scientists. Sure there are many who do groupthink But the good ones never do so. Maybe climate modelling is such a weird field that it only gets mediocre scientists invloved? Maybe scientific careers are so structured that good scientsists in this area never get promoted so are invisible?

Groupthink captures the good as frequently as the mediocre.

(Actually weird gravity theories do get aired and discussed, and GR may in the end be modifies at non-quantum scales, though so far it looks unlikely).

IMO the Loop Quantum Gravity family is most promising for merging QM and GR.

But this is just one climate model against another. If the data is so doctored, or the models so tunable, there must be responsible people who will argue this, with their own model. Why do we not find this? In fact any one of the "out of the community" scientists picking holes could, if clever enough, do climate modelling themselves and make transparent in detail where are the dicey assumptions.

And yet until recently the principal climate scientists refused to release their algorithms and procedures for parsing the data for input. Transparency happened only when they were forced to release that data. And Santer still plays that game. Sort of hard to verify the intentionally obscured.

This encourages confidence and credibility?

Duane

[djolds1]

So you would tell your great grandchildren that you supported ignoring the issue because no one could prove the recent temperature rise was due to humans? Shouldn't the impetus be on the anti-AGW crowd to assure us there's nothing to worry about before we just ignore the issue?

No. There is no duty to prove a negative. Pro-AGW proponents are trying to prove a positive, the burden is on them, and review of their work has been incestuous to the point of Egyptian nobility.

[djolds1]

Have you seen any sunspots lately? Hasn't the new solar cycle already started? Where are the spots. The lack of spots is unprecedented. Don't you agree? I sure hope it is not a Dalton minimum. Or worse a Maunder. That would be bad. Don't you agree?

http://spaceweather.com/

Its a certain indicator of doom. We must begin burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, and artificially force the temperature higher.

Duane

[Aero]

NO! NO! We must use space mirrors and heat the oceans to form more energy absorbing water vapor! And melt some snow while we're at it!

[tomclarke]

Simon,

Here is a lot of discussion of how big an effect solar forcing has on climate. The consensus seems to be that the MM was coincidentally at the same time as other forcing effects. The detail is worth reading (all the posts) to get some idea of whether this stuff is part of a global green conspiracy.

This is from 2005 - but seems to be covering the same ground that you do?

Best wishes, Tom

[seedload]

"Author, you"? Please provide a source for the data-- you can't expect me to consider it otherwise.

I don't read? You don't read. I explained it exactly. Cyan comes from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomal ... 0S.90N.dat. The other three plots are from a model that I created and provide a complete description of. Get it? My model is RANDOM DATA based on mean annual temperature changes. Using the temperature record is equivelent to quoting random data.

As to whether you will consider it, I think that you probably won't one way or the other. I can, however, say that I will definitely consider all sides. And I can prove it. When I first posted on this board, I was on the other side. I was a Gore man. Now I am not.

You, on the other hand, ignor valid points brought up. You ignor the comments I made on the century long spikes in temperature in the data YOU presented. You ignor valid comments I make regarding the validity of temperature proxies you quote. You present the debunked Mann hockey stick over and over as evidence without even knowing that it has been debunked.

It is unusual if the change that is happening now is not because of natural forces, but instead because of anthropologic forces.

Redefining unusual?

1) It has long been "known" that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should, in theory raise temperatures.

Seriously? You are saying that it is "known" that "in theory". Sorry, I might fail most logic tests, but I can still identify this statement as bogus.

There is a theory. I will agree with that.

2) We have added 50% more CO2 to the air than was there at the start of the industrial revolution.

Less but I basically agreed. Mona Loa record. Isotopic measurments pretty much prove man made additions too.

3) The temperature has been rising over the same period.

I disagree with this statement.

Temperatures increased for forty years, decreased for forty years and then increased for thirty more. They are pretty flat or a little down for the last ten.

I will only agree that they are higher now then at the start, for what it is worth.

4) Scientists have not agreen on any other factors that correlate as well to this long-term trend.

Temperatures don't track very well to CO2 increases.

There were forty years of temperature decrease right there in the middle. FORTY YEARS of CO2 going up and temperature going down. And, a lot of the increase of the last 120 years happened in the first forty, when CO2 was being added the slowest. In fact, that increase is comperable to the increase of the last forty when CO2 was being added at the highest rate.

All in all, temperature doesn't track well... IMHO. As to all of these scientists who claim temperature increase track well to CO2 during the last 120 years, I ask you to provide a reference to them making that statement.

So you would tell your great grandchildren that you supported ignoring the issue because no one could prove the recent temperature rise was due to humans? Shouldn't the impetus be on the anti-AGW crowd to assure us there's nothing to worry about before we just ignore the issue?

Ever see those disaster movies where a crazy scientist predicts a natural disaster of unpresidented proportions and his superiors don't listen to him. Eventually those stupid non-supportive bosses get what is coming to them.

It was just a movie.

No, it is not societies responsibility to apply the cautionary principle to theories without proof. It would be very bad to do so.

If we know there's a very likely possibility that we are causing the Earth's temperature to rise and that it appears possible that over the course of a another 100 years or more this will cause large problems, why not start developing possible solutions (that will solve our energy problems to boot) and keep investigating AGW in the meantime?

What is so wrong about that?

Because if we aren't causing temperatures to go up and we aren't causing large problems and we don't have an energy problem then we are likely to find the wrong solutions and waste a lot of money.

[djolds1]

Now... this is a far cry different from the problems we're discussing today, of course. But the general principle, that we can potentially overuse our resources until the lack destroys us, is why we're having this discussion at all. We're all innately aware that irresponsibility is dangerous.

Our technology has finally put the resources of the solar system at our disposal, if we want them. With that resource base, check back on resource depletion in 25 million years.

At which point we move onto the next solar system and munch on it for 20 My or so.

Duane

[MSimon]

Ya. Fur Da Grater Gud Du Val.

Do you see the deeper meaning when it is spelled out that way?

Who decides?

Me?

Send me all your money. And sign over to me 99% of your future possibilities.

Fur Da Grater Gud Du Val.

Why me ?

Because only I in consultation with the masses and globul warming am aware of the true nature of Da Grater Gud Du Val.

Not only is it scientific it is mathematical. 2 + 2 = 4. QED.

[tomclarke]

I have some sympathy with the view that people should not be coerced. After all, there is disagreement about global warming, who is to be the arbiter.

some, but not much.

Consider.

You live peacefuly on your own land, with a stream. You catch (and eat) fish from the stream. You get your water from the stream as well. Someone you don't know comes and pours an industrial mix of mercury, cadmium and other nasties into the stream. Low level, but enough to kill the fish. The nasties come from a chemical plant upstream, which is expanding, increasing the nasties level.

What should you do? Go blow up the plant (because that is the only way you can stop them from destroying your life)? Invoke EPA regulations which help to keep rivers clean?

OK. Now suppose it is mercury and cadmium in the sea and makes the fish your community lives by catching poisonous. It also greatly reduces the number of fish. There is argument about who is to blame. Should it be regulated, and enforced? Who decides what is a safe level? If rights to fish the sea are auctioned off is it OK for the winner of this auction to give permission for this pollution (at a cost)? And does your little village get any money from the auction of rights?

Now finally you live in a city. You and your family, and millions of others, suffer asthma and other problems as the result of air pollution. Should it be regulated? Should rights to clean air be auctioned?

The CO2 issue is similar in that it may affect health, there is a clear possibility of harm, but there is no agreement about how much harm or whether the risk is acceptable. The 50 year timescale makes the whole thing difficult, because many of the people making decisions will be dead in 50 years anyway!

I think your answer to most of these hypothetical cases is auction the commons, don't regulate. But I am not sure. And there are difficulties about auctioning the global atmosphere. Who gets the proceeds? Does a tribe in Papua New Guinea get any of this money to compensate for the p(possible) changes in temperature and destruction of their environment. etc. Is the money held in a trust fund for our grandchildren (who are the ones who will suffer)?

I understand if you say that in principle you would regulate, but in this case your judgement is that the risk is not worth it. But if you say no-one has the right to regulate unless there is complete agreement this will never happen. If not, who decides when the risk is small? Your question...

Best wishes, Tom

[tomclarke]

I will say with confidence that the apocalypticians are wrong >= 95% of the time. Within the bounds of scientific certainty.

tomclarke wrote:
The same arguments apply to humanities ability to continue population growth and resource use.

Club of Rome resource hysteria was put paid in the '80s. Population growth is going negative, and world population should begin declining c.2050 or so.

Let us play chance. You say there s a 5% chance my scientific experiment will set off a quantum inversion which destroys the whole world. I say: its OK 95% probability nothing will happen. I guess you want to stop me.

The greater the cost of a problem, the more worthwhile it is to prevent it even if the chances are low. Everyone has a different risk tolerance but to be fair you multiply the cost of the problem by its likelihood.

As for population growth. If all in the world had US average standard of living there would be no growth - also there would be no food, no water, etc. The resources are not there. China & India are moving rapidly towards greater wealth and the planet will struggle to support all. US is much better off than many, you have large land mass, borders relatively easy to enforce. Maybe you can stay an island of low population density, as long as the Central Plains stay fertile and provide enough food for you (I guess there may be climate change and soil degradation issues there).

But the world as a whole cannot achieve that. And so perhaps population will not stop rising. History does not give us much cause for optimism.

Club of Rome was wrong because of agricultural advances made possible by intensive agriculture enabled by fossil fuels. Maybe there will be more advances. I hope so. (Maybe Polywell will be one But if you were a policy maker now in China seing how bad are the pollution problems caused by rapid industrialisation, and how loud the demand of a largely impoverished peasant class is for development and more money, you would not feel that overpopulation is an issue that ha gone away!

Best wishes, Tom

[MSimon]

The greater the cost of a problem, the more worthwhile it is to prevent it even if the chances are low. Everyone has a different risk tolerance but to be fair you multiply the cost of the problem by its likelihood.

All depends on the cost of the solution. If we have to kill 2 billion to save 1 billion it might be a bad idea.

If rushing a solution by 20 years kills 100 million and waiting for better technology kills no one I think the solution is obvious.

And no one has yet proposed a mechanism to get the Chinese to cut back on building coal fired plants except to make the alternatives cheaper. Which is exactly my proposal. Got a better idea? If the alternatives are cheaper all it will cost is the research. The market will take care of the rest.

BTW no one is working on a solution for the next New Madrid earthquake. The next very large asteroid hit. Or the next Yellowstone Caldera blow up. Or the next Ice Age. An interglacial as long and as warm as our current one is an unprecedented event. Why the focus on warm when cold has a higher probability?

Given the 300 year solar cycle and the fact that warming started in 1850 what are the chances that the trend indicated in this graph is a good predictor of what is in store?