global warming

[Dan74]

As I've repeatedly said to Alex, (1) what happened in the very distant past is totally irrelevant to us now since we didn't have to live in those conditions (and couldn't have)

And as I've said before: The earth doesn't care about us and our preferences are not its natural guiding principle. Climate is what it is. Either species adapt or die out.

and (2) at the time scales of his favourite graphs, our current change is so rapid that it won't even be visible - the width of a vertical line on his millions-of-years charts is a period of maybe one million years, i.e. 10,000 times longer than the AGW change we are talking about.
But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

And for Earth that is 4.5 billion years old (and can theoretically go for another number of billion of years) even 1 million incriments are very small periods of times, nothing to say about mere 1,000 years.

Geological timescales are huge. 1,000 years is insignificant to 4.5 billion years.

In other words you have not engaged or addressed anything put to you, Alex.

Fortunately scientists don't work this way - they need to anticipate and address criticisms.

Unfortunately democracy sometimes does and so we see very little action on this front.

[Alex123]

How about a new angle here, Alex:

I don't know the quality of those 13,950 articles vs 24 .

I would rather have 1 good argument than 100 bad ones, if you know what I mean. Quantity doesn't mean, by itself, quality.

[Alex123]

In other words you have not engaged or addressed anything put to you, Alex.

I've addressed it. I am sorry if I don't buy into flawed arguments. Climate doesn't have to follow OUR desires. It is what it is.

[BlackBird]

But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.


Kim

I've been posting these links myself, and Alex responded in this manner:

Not according to this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

And interestingly relevant to your other number on the Solar argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm

Yes, I've seen that page on solar cycles. Doesn't it contradict their statement that "During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels."?

On first glance it would appear that he might have a point (I'm playing devil's advocate here). But first glances are not always right, so I would like this point to be addressed.

[monkey_brain]

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.


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

[Kim OHara]

On first glance it would appear that he might have a point (I'm playing devil's advocate here). But first glances are not always right, so I would like this point to be addressed.

Even if he is right (which I doubt but can't be bothered checking), he has not got a point because he is not talking about a planet we could live on, far less build a complex civilisation on - nearly everything was different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician ... _sea_level.
To put the timeframe in terms of distance: if the Ordovician ended 450 kilometres away instead of 450 million years ago, each year is one millimetre. If you set out from Wellington for the tip of the North Island (which is about that distance, I think), your own lifetime is less than the length of your shoe and you have gone beyond all recorded human history before you cross the street. The past really is a different country


Kim

[Kim OHara]

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.


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.

Kim

[BlackBird]

On first glance it would appear that he might have a point (I'm playing devil's advocate here). But first glances are not always right, so I would like this point to be addressed.

Even if he is right (which I doubt but can't be bothered checking), he has not got a point because he is not talking about a planet we could live on, far less build a complex civilisation on - nearly everything was different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician ... _sea_level.
To put the timeframe in terms of distance: if the Ordovician ended 450 kilometres away instead of 450 million years ago, each year is one millimetre. If you set out from Wellington for the tip of the North Island (which is about that distance, I think), your own lifetime is less than the length of your shoe and you have gone beyond all recorded human history before you cross the street. The past really is a different country


Kim

Kim you're setting up a straw man here, nobody is suggesting anything about the feasibility of us being able to live during the Ordovician, that's a red herring. What the Ordovician is being brought in here for is the argument that:

"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)"

I.e. Here is a time on earth where temperatures were similar to what we have now, but the Carbon ppm was much much higher, suggesting there are other factors other than carbon at play when it comes to global warming.

and skepticalscience's response that:

"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"
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was ... vician.htm)

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.

Now this is clearly not a full proof argument on Alex's behalf, but the point I want to make clear to you is that your response is a bit of a tangent to what material is on the table here.

metta
Jack

[Kim OHara]

Hi, Jack,
Slightly crossed wires rather than a straw man but sorry anyway.
You weren't very clear about what you thought needed addressing.
Okay: look at the timescale on the chart athttp://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
and take it into account when thinking of walking back to the Ordovician.
Better?


Kim

[Dan74]

But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.


Kim

I've been posting these links myself, and Alex responded in this manner:

Not according to this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

And interestingly relevant to your other number on the Solar argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm

Yes, I've seen that page on solar cycles. Doesn't it contradict their statement that "During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels."?

On first glance it would appear that he might have a point (I'm playing devil's advocate here). But first glances are not always right, so I would like this point to be addressed.

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/2007/07/1 ... 1320070710

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.

[BlackBird]

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/2007/07/1 ... 1320070710

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.

[Buckwheat]

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.

[BlackBird]

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

[Buckwheat]

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


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.

[monkey_brain]

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.


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.

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.