global warming

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Postby BlackBird » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:01 am

Dan74 wrote:
I am not sure what the point is. On one hand we have a statement of the lower sun activity in the Ordovician 480 million years ago compared to now and on the other a statement that over the last 30 years sun activity has been getting slightly slower.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/07/10/environment-climate-sun-dc-idUKL101501320070710

I am not a believer in man-made global warming. I think it is a very serious hypothesis with a lot of evidence on its side. And when there are serious indications that we are moving towards an environmental catastrophy with unprecedented effects on our civilization, it would be foolish to do nothing about it, especially when doing something also brings about benefits like decreased air pollution and cleaner ecosystem.

Another point for me as an academic is the mind-boggling hubris by part-time amateurs who believe themselves capable of out-thinking thousands of talented scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject. Critical thinking is great, but some humility and realism would go a long way. We don't have to just accept things but if you are inclined to question, don't jump to conclusions - this is bad science.



Well said.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Buckwheat
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:12 am

Hi Blackbird,
Regarding Ordovician, I believe what you are looking for is right here. http://skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-hig ... vician.htm

It seems that there was a fairly decent equilibrium with CO2 ~7000 ppm and low solar output. Then, for some reason, CO2 levels quickly droped to 4000 ppm. That sudden drop in CO2 levels reduced the greenhouse effect and an ice age ensued.

During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Postby BlackBird » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:18 am

Buckwheat wrote:Hi Blackbird,
Regarding Ordovician, I believe what you are looking for is right here. http://skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-hig ... vician.htm

It seems that there was a fairly decent equilibrium with CO2 ~7000 ppm and low solar output. Then, for some reason, CO2 levels quickly droped to 4000 ppm. That sudden drop in CO2 levels reduced the greenhouse effect and an ice age ensued.

During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.


Hi Buckwheat

I was quoting from that exact article in my previous post.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Buckwheat
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:22 am

BlackBird wrote:Alex is suggesting that they're contradicting themselves when they say in http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
That since the sun's output and temperatures have been going in opposite directions, the sun is not responsible for global warming.

Hi Jack,
Of course solar out put is a HUGE factor in global warming. However, it does not account for recent warming. This article addresses exactly that point
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activ ... arming.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Image

Historically, climate changes seem to correlate to either changes in solar output or greenhouse gasses. The correlation to solar output, historically, seems to be rather stong.

The "decoupling" of global temperatures from solar output in just one of many pieces of evidence suggesting that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the changes over the last 30 years.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

monkey_brain
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:53 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: global warming

Postby monkey_brain » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:23 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
monkey_brain wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Alex,
I would be really happy if you could finish by saying either
(1) why you think your own knowledge, your own research and your own "found it on the internet" factoids outweigh the combined research of thousands of fully trained, hardworking and conscientious climatologists;
or
(2) that you have been wrong all along and now accept that AGW is real and is a significant threat to life on this planet.

:namaste:
Kim


Are there really thousands of climatologist working on the issue of AGW? It seems surprising to me that there should be so many working on a single issue in climatology, which is just a small part of earth science. How many thousand are there?

Paul J

Just about every aspect of modern climatology is affected by AGW.
Numbers will depend on your definition of "climatologist". 1200 volunteered to contribute to the latest IPCC report (see http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ar5.html) and they would have been among the most highly qualified ... give each of them a half a dozen junior staff and half a dozen post-grad students and a dozen undergrad students and you're in the right ballpark.
:reading:
Kim


Hold on. Looking at the chapter summaries of the working groups, the vast majority of the work is not concerned with the crux of the issue--what are the cause(s) of recent warming, and will it continue in the future, and to what extent. Impacts on Agriculture in Africa, say, doesn't call on quite the same expertise, nor need it be controversial in the way the main issue is. And if a research team that projects warming into the future relies on the work of a research team that worked on the methodology of using tree ring cores to generate historical temperatures, or whatnot, it is still the first team that gets counted as relevant climatologists for our purposes.

It looks like just parts of working group I fits the bill here.

Paul J.

Buckwheat
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:36 am

Hi Jack,
Sorry, I hadn't read all your posts before responding to an earlier one. Hopefully, I've got a satisfactory response by now. If you still have questions, let me know.

I am not closed to the idea that AGW is false. There have been episodes where science got it wrong in the past, such as the very, very slow acceptance of plate techtonics. However, the evidence presented so far seems compelling. I'd love further inquiries from people who want to look more deeply into the issue, such as Jack, but most of this thread was not inquiry, but posturing. It still got me to dig deeper into the data for a bit, but I want to spend more time digging into the issue and less time hearing an AGW denialist say over and over that it's all wrong due to his back of the napkin calculations. As an engineer, we have a term for that: WAG (Wild Ass Guess)

Thanks,
Scott
:anjali:
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Postby BlackBird » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:55 am

I more or less agree now Buckwheat. It was not a contradiction because they were never denying Solar activity has an important effect on temperature, simply asserting that the current warming is evidently not caused by solar output, since that has in fact been dropping.

Thanks for clearing that up

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:36 am

monkey_brain wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
monkey_brain wrote:Are there really thousands of climatologist working on the issue of AGW? It seems surprising to me that there should be so many working on a single issue in climatology, which is just a small part of earth science. How many thousand are there?

Paul J

Just about every aspect of modern climatology is affected by AGW.
Numbers will depend on your definition of "climatologist". 1200 volunteered to contribute to the latest IPCC report (see http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ar5.html) and they would have been among the most highly qualified ... give each of them a half a dozen junior staff and half a dozen post-grad students and a dozen undergrad students and you're in the right ballpark.
:reading:
Kim


Hold on. Looking at the chapter summaries of the working groups, the vast majority of the work is not concerned with the crux of the issue--what are the cause(s) of recent warming, and will it continue in the future, and to what extent. Impacts on Agriculture in Africa, say, doesn't call on quite the same expertise, nor need it be controversial in the way the main issue is. And if a research team that projects warming into the future relies on the work of a research team that worked on the methodology of using tree ring cores to generate historical temperatures, or whatnot, it is still the first team that gets counted as relevant climatologists for our purposes.

It looks like just parts of working group I fits the bill here.

Paul J.

Don't like that? Try this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart.
Anther back-of-the-envelope calculation - simply because I don't know where you would find the number you want - but ...
14 000 scientific papers in 20 years (rounding off a bit since we're not going to be very accurate anyway).
That's 3500 per year.
Assume each researcher publishes 5 papers per year (which I think is fairly reasonable), and you get 700 researchers.
But 2 - 5 authors per paper is pretty normal. Call the average 2 to be on the low side and you have 1400 researchers getting published; call it three and you have 2100. Then add in the postgrad students, the undergrads if you like ...
:shrug:
I'm happy to let my "thousands" stand. If you want to disagree, show me some evidence for your position and I will happily defer to the truth.

:coffee:
Kim

P.S. I scrolled down that (linked) page after hitting "submit" and found, "The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors." It looks like my estimate of papers per researcher was way too high.
:reading:

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:18 pm

Hello Kim, Buckwheat, all,

Lets agree that we need to take care of environment, reduce our excess usage, conserve energy, develop better greener technologies.

Lets agree to disagree about human role in global warming. I am not in principle against it, I just don't find arguments presented to me here for it compelling.
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:26 pm

Buckwheat wrote:Hi Blackbird,
Regarding Ordovician, I believe what you are looking for is right here. http://skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-hig ... vician.htm

It seems that there was a fairly decent equilibrium with CO2 ~7000 ppm and low solar output. Then, for some reason, CO2 levels quickly droped to 4000 ppm. That sudden drop in CO2 levels reduced the greenhouse effect and an ice age ensued.



But these reduced CO2 levels are 3,000-4,400ppm range vs current 396.80ppm. What I am saying is that the data shows that even with CO2 levels 7.5x-11x current amount, there can be ice age. So the threat of growing CO2 levels is over-exaggerated. Solar activity, and other astronomical events are other important factors.

Of course we need to conserve energy and environment. But not because of AGW belief, but because it is nice humane thing to do.
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:29 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:Don't like that? Try this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart.
Anther back-of-the-envelope calculation - simply because I don't know where you would find the number you want - but ...
14 000 scientific papers in 20 years (rounding off a bit since we're not going to be very accurate anyway).


And in middle ages most people believed that Earth was flat and it felt right. Just because millions believe in wrong idea, it doesn't make it right.

Quantity is NOT quality.

Also, using "climate deniers" label is very misleading AND OFFENSIVE. Nobody denies climate change. And if someone is skeptical of human's role in it, one has no right to call them "denier" which sounds like holocaust denier. I am close to being offended by being implied of being a nazi.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3188
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: global warming

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:33 pm

Alex123 wrote:Lets agree that we need to take care of environment, reduce our excess usage, conserve energy, develop better greener technologies.


Absolutely, it's worth doing anyway, and I'm often struck by how wasteful we are in the developed world.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

Buckwheat
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:13 pm

Alex123 wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Don't like that? Try this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart.
Anther back-of-the-envelope calculation - simply because I don't know where you would find the number you want - but ...
14 000 scientific papers in 20 years (rounding off a bit since we're not going to be very accurate anyway).


And in middle ages most people believed that Earth was flat and it felt right. Just because millions believe in wrong idea, it doesn't make it right.

Quantity is NOT quality.

Also, using "climate deniers" label is very misleading AND OFFENSIVE. Nobody denies climate change. And if someone is skeptical of human's role in it, one has no right to call them "denier" which sounds like holocaust denier. I am close to being offended by being implied of being a nazi.

Nobody thinks your a Nazi, Alex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.[5][6][7][8] The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as the Myth of the Flat Earth.[9] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[10]
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:24 pm

Buckwheat wrote:Nobody thinks your a Nazi, Alex.



Thank you, Buckwheat.

In any case, just because many people believe in a certain idea - that alone doesn't make it right. I hope we agree about it.
"dust to dust...."

Buckwheat
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:26 pm

Where is the evidence that papers rejecting AGW are more rigorous or higher quality than those supporting AGW? Or are you just going on a hunch?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:28 pm

Buckwheat wrote:Where is the evidence that papers rejecting AGW are more rigorous or higher quality than those supporting AGW? Or are you just going on a hunch?



You know my reasons. Do I need to repost them again? I find certain arguments that take wider perspective to be more compelling than others.

Considering that I am pro-environment, don't you think that it is strange that I don't believe in AGW? Because their arguments are flawed, I don't accept their conclusion.

Why I doubt AGW:
1) Cherry pick the data. Compare current temperature rise with unusually and rare cold point in earth's history.
2) CO2 lags behind temperature changes by 400-1200 years. So much for CO2 causing or amplifying warming.
3) During late Ordovician period it was as cold as today, yet CO2 was above 3000ppm (vs 396.80ppm today). So much for current catastrophic levels of CO2. Solar activity is said to be lower during that Ordovician period, so solar activity was a factor. CO2 didn't play its alleged role and couldn't, see my point #2.

If it comes to solar activity being a factor of warming or cooling, then humans can't be blamed for warming.

4) During 70's there was a scare of global cooling. I wonder why... Because Earth was not warming up. And during recent times, past decade, the temperature rise appeared to have stalled. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/16 ... e_figures/

5) The average Earth's temperature within past 600 million years never seems to never go higher than ~24C (today it is 14.51C) even if CO2 goes from 4,400 to 7,000 or stays at 3,000ppm. What is the mechanism behind holding temperature no higher than 24? Why can't this mechanism work today or in near future?

6) Is there even long term causal correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?
During first half of Cambrian, CO2 rose from 4,400 to 7,000ppm yet average global temperature remained steady at ~23C.
During 2nd half of Cambrian, CO2 fell from 7,000ppm to ~4,400ppm yet average global temperature remained steady at ~23C.
During Siluriun, CO2 fell from ~4,400 to 3,000 yet average global temperature was flat at ~23C.
During Cretaceous as CO2 was falling from 2,000 to ~900, yet temperature increased and then stayed at ~21C.

Obviously there is something much more than CO2 that drives temperature which doesn't seem to go above ~24C average. So no worry about Earth becoming too hot for life. There seems to be mechanism (in the past 600 million years) that doesn't allow temperature to go above ~24C.

Image
Last edited by Alex123 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:08 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"dust to dust...."

Coyote
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Wales - UK

Re: global warming

Postby Coyote » Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:33 pm

Have any of you heard the term "global weirding". Horizon did a programme about it a while ago. What do you guys think of the idea?
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26

Buckwheat
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:10 pm

Sorry, Alex. My question was not clear. I understand that you have a different interpretation of the data than climate scientists. I am asking why you think these intepretations, which go against the intepretations of climate scientists, actually hold more weight? Why would I trust your interpretations over those of the climate science community?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:50 pm

Buckwheat wrote:Sorry, Alex. My question was not clear. I understand that you have a different interpretation of the data than climate scientists. I am asking why you think these intepretations, which go against the intepretations of climate scientists, actually hold more weight? Why would I trust your interpretations over those of the climate science community?


Hello Buckwheat,

I could be wrong as I am not special. But I have my interpretation of data. To me Ice Core data (assuming it is not fraud by oil & gas industry) seems to strongly suggest that CO2 is an effect rather than the cause of warming, and that CO2 does not significantly, if any, amplifies temperature (at least above some point such as 24C) because it is effect not a cause. Maybe I give more weight to Ice Core data than I should.

I can't buy the notion that today's temperature or CO2 levels are catastrophically high compared to what it was for many millions of years. Maybe something wrong is with me.

I could be wrong about presence of temperature holding mechanism today due to human factor vs what was before. What I mean is that something kept average global temperature at about 24C even if CO2 levels fluctuate up and down from 3,000 and 7,000 levels.

What would make me believer in AGW would be:
1) to prove that today's rise in CO2 is significantly higher (not due to random and natural fluctuations) than it has ever been such as during Cambrian (for example).
2) to prove that there will not be negative temperature mechanism (lack of sun activity, for example) today to keep temperature no higher than usual 24C even if CO2 reaches 7,000 or above mark.
3) somehow to refute Ice Core data that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature by 400-1200 years.

I can in principle accept AGW if above are well explained. I don't reject that I could be wrong. But you know my questions.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:51 pm

Alex123 wrote:Image

By my count this is the twelfth time you have posted this graph, Alex.
As you're so fond of saying, quantity is not quality. I have told you repeatedly why it it not useful or relevant and you can't or won't answer those points but you ... still keep posting it as though it is Holy Writ and the Pali Canon rolled into one.
This time I tracked it down to its source instead - a franklydenialist blog by one Paul MacRae, who introduces himself thus:
My name is Paul MacRae. I’m an ex-journalist who has worked as an editor, editorial writer and columnist for several newspapers over the past 40 years, including The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Bangkok Post, and Victoria Times Colonist. In 2002 I switched to academia and now teach English and professional writing at the University of Victoria and University Canada West.
On this site you will find excerpts from and notes for my book on climate change entitled False Alarm: Global Warming—Facts Versus Fears.  You can read more about the book and why I decided to take on this topic on the About My Book page on this site. In addition, I’ve put in links to other sites that deal intelligently with the question of climate change from a skeptical perspective.[Links start with the Heartland Insituts and get worse ... K O'H]
I can’t claim to be an expert on climate science. But, as a former journalist, I do claim an ability to know when the public is being told partial truths or falsehoods. Everything I have read since I began my research in 2007 convinces me more and more that most of what we, the public, have been told about global warming is misleading, exaggerated, or plain wrong, including the claim that the planet is warming (it hasn’t since at least 1998).

And this is the guy you trust above all others?
For goodness' sake, get real.
:jedi:
Kim


Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dhammarelax, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests