Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? Part 2.0 29

[TGS4]

moltenmetal - hopefully we can come full circle on this discussion here. You choose "appeal to authority". Fine. That's your choice.

Now, if I presented you with evidence of unethical behaviour and malfeasance by said "authority", would your opinion change? I'm not talking about conspiracies or anything like that. Just simple evidence of unethical behaviour, would you consider changing your opinion?

(Note that this is a hypothetical question - I may or may not have such evidence.)

 

[cranky108]

Forget weather or not it is true. Can we reasonably expect to change anything, without anything really drastic?

It really dosen't matter if it is human caused or not. What are the possible solutions, and are most of the people willing to live under those solutions?

If the answer is to ruin our life style for almost no gain, then the answer is likely no.

But for someone to yell that we must give up on driving our cars, and heating our homes right now or else. I need some proof.

 

[moltenmetal]

It would take a whole lot more than a few e-mails showing that a few important people were fudging the data for me to believe that the scientific consensus is a fraud.

Again, I don't care about the data attempting to show the warming which may or may not have already occurred. There are plenty of unsteady-state factors which can retard or accelerate that warming. What matters to me is that the overhwelming majority of people who actually study the underlying science see enough of a probability of essentially irreversible harm that it is worth warning us about. Yes, that matters to me, big time!

As to cranky's "Who cares, if doing something about it will cost too much or might not be effective", I've already given you all my answer to that chestnut. Few have disagreed with it- though I suspect that most of the dissent with the scientific opinion on the matter is actually based far more on the fear that underlies that statement than it is on any sincere concern over fraud amongst the climate scientists.

Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is something we need to do anyway because they are FINITE. Starting now, in earnest, will make it easier for everyone because we'll at least have these fossil materials as feedstocks to help us through the transition. As I said, I do believe that this renders questionable at best a reliance on carbon sequestration and storage as a means to deal with this threat. No- instead we need to use energy FAR more wisely than we do now- in everything we do- and we'd better get on with it.

Fundamentally, people don't like paying for energy- but they're very willing to pay for what energy PROVIDES them- comfort, ease, transport etc. We engineers can, if we're compensated properly by an economics which truly values this effort, find ways to provide all those things far more efficiently than we do now. Though change will be necessary for everyone, the only people who might suffer out of this will be the ones who won the geological lottery in the first place. Even they won't suffer much, as the demand for fossil material as feedstocks will be increased rather than decreased. Their riches will simply last longer.

 

[TGS4]

It would take a whole lot more than a few e-mails showing that a few important people were fudging the data for me to believe that the scientific consensus is a fraud.

Fair enough. What would it take? What makes your take on this hypothesis falsifiable? How much unethical behaviour would need to be demonstrated before your faith in the experts is shaken? Would 10 e-mails do it? 100? 1000? What?

And just so you don't answer with a rhetorical question, here's what it would take for me to have confidence that the science behind the claim that the changes that we are experiencing are human-induced, unprecedented, and irreversible (ethics and all aside):
1) Demonstration that the magnitude and rate of change of temperature is unlike anything that has ever been experienced on this planet.
2) Demonstration that temperature change follows lock-step with CO2 concentration throughout geologically-comparable time, excluding the natural cycles (AMO, PDO, ENSO, Milancovich, etc) with CO2 being the leading and temperature being the lagging indicator.
3) Demonstration that we understand how the above-noted natural cycles work and influence the surface temperature.
4) Demonstration of all of the above without resorting to computer simulations.
5) Use of air enthalpy (including humidity effects) when measuring the energy of the atmosphere, and not temperature.
6) Experiments (not computer simulations) that demonstrate the feedback effects of clouds - at least the first and second derivatives of temperature with respect to cloud cover.

A couple of things that, are in my opinion, sufficiently demonstrated already:
a) That the CO2 concentration increase has an anthropogenic component.
b) That we don't know enough about all of the influences that our sun has on our climate. The recent CLOUD experiments at CERN throw significant doubt about the claim that TSI is the only variable from the sun.

 

[beej67]

Hey guys.

Just because the globe is warming does not prove that CO2 is the culprit.

There's this thing called "correlation," and there's this other thing called "causality," and they're not necessarily the same thing.

Funny thing about anthropogenic carbon, it scales upward with human population. Funny thing about the human population, it scales upward with a whole slew of things that warm the planet, not just carbon. If you plotted Miles of Roads vs Global Temperature, it'd be just as strong a correlation, because Miles of Roads increase with human population too.

What else scales with human population? Ever noticed how a Wal Mart parking lot is hotter than a forest? That's "albedo," and it's almost never modeled properly by the climate scientists, because their best interests are served by downplaying its effects, even though the Urban Heat Island effect is so big you can see it from space.

What else does the expansion of human population cause? Major changes in the hydrologic cycle. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, clouds trap heat at night, and reflect sunlight during the day. Changes in cloud cover are another thing that's never modeled properly by atmospheric chemists.

I read the UN's report on global warming. They had the gall to say that a corn field was cooler than a forest, and therefore the effects of albedo due to human population expansion were to cool the planet instead of warm it. I'm no genius, but I've walked through a corn field, and those guys are full of what's in the next pasture down the road. Bull turds.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[dawei87]

1) Demonstration that the magnitude and rate of change of temperature is unlike anything that has ever been experienced on this planet.

That it may have happened before naturally without man’s hand doesn’t mean that it can’t happen with it. To argue that it does mean this is to argue that since deer died naturally before humans were around, humans are not capable of killing deer.

Maybe what you mean is "demonstration that the magnitude and rate of temperature change is not explicable through known natural means"; in that case I would fully agree that this is a critical demonstration to make. But to demand that a similar magnitude and rate should never have happened before does not make sense to me.

2) Demonstration that temperature change follows lock-step with CO2 concentration throughout geologically-comparable time, excluding the natural cycles (AMO, PDO, ENSO, Milancovich, etc) with CO2 being the leading and temperature being the lagging indicator.

This was already shown LONG ago to not be the case, at least over the past ~500K years—it is accepted by every climatologist out there that CO2 lagged temperature rises by about 800 years, and this point is not in any way inconsistent with AGW.

CO2 acts as both a feedback and a forcing. In the past it was a feedback, because the only natural means by which CO2 could possibly increase at regular geological intervals was through a temperature increase. Temperatures began to rise, and 800 years later CO2 followed. The temperature rise lasted for about 5,000 years, which mean CO2 was a factor for 5/6 of the temperature rise; it was just the beginning 1/6 that was caused by something else.

CO2 was a feedback because it is a proven greenhouse gas, and because it is naturally released during a warming climate due to Henry's Law. To demand that the Earth should have had some mechanism of releasing CO2 at regular intervals independent of temperature changes is to demand a mechanism currently totally unknown to geology—and therefore, probably doesn’t exist. But I really don’t understand why it needs to exist.

Not to mention that “Demonstration that temperature change follows lock-step with CO2 concentration throughout geologically-comparable time, excluding the natural cycles” is a rather odd statement. If you are talking about geological timescales before human intervention, how the heck could they be anything but “natural”? Are you saying there should be geological evidence of AGW before AGW ever existed?

3) Demonstration that we understand how the above-noted natural cycles work and influence the surface temperature.

ENSO, PDO, Milankovic, and solar cycles are all included in calculations of warming. They have all been ruled out. A long time ago. That’s why climatologists are convinced there is a non-natural cause to the recent warming.

4) Demonstration of all of the above without resorting to computer simulations.

All we have is empirical data through proxy records and (relatively) recent observations, and theoretical calculations based on concise laws of physics. Unless you are demanding these calculations be done with slide rule and chalk board, I don’t understand what your aversion is to using computers for the latter piece.

5) Use of air enthalpy (including humidity effects) when measuring the energy of the atmosphere, and not temperature.

Specific humidity is measured on the long term global scale. Temperature is measured too. You have everything you need to calculate total enthalpy through time over the past couple of decades. Knock yourself out.

But as I already pointed out, total energy change of the atmosphere is over an order of magnitude less than the total energy change of the ocean. That’s why it’s not talked about as much as you would like: because if you’re going to talk about total energy, it’s oceanic energy that dominates the discussion.

6) Experiments (not computer simulations) that demonstrate the feedback effects of clouds - at least the first and second derivatives of temperature with respect to cloud cover.

Terrific idea (really!) How might such an experiment work?

Really, I would love to see more experiments. I’m just inclined to think that there is some difficulty with carrying them out in a meaningful way, and THAT is why they are not more common.

I mean it’s hard to control something as big and open as the atmosphere, so designing something that is beyond the class of mere observation and more of a controlled “experiment” seems quite difficult. But, again, it sincerely sounds interesting and I would love to hear your thoughts of how it could be done. I would even be interested in personally contributing my free time to help the experiment (really).

Perhaps we and others here can put our minds together and find a truly unique way to contribute to the field of climatology.

 

[dawei87]

I'm no genius, but I've walked through a corn field, and those guys are full of what's in the next pasture down the road. Bull turds.

On the left is a field. On the right is a forest. Which one is darker? What do darker colors mean with respect to the amount of visible radiative energy that they absorb?

 

[cranky108]

Given we at some point will need to ween ourself of FF's. At what rate is the proper rate to do this?

Should we enslave ourselves to do this? Or is it better to allow the natural progress of technology to develop new solutions. Why not nuculer power, or thermal solar, or renuable natural gas? Why has photo electric, and wind power been chosen?

The question I think I have is why has this route been picked, and not others? It sure looks from my perspective that there is an agenda, because of the limited number of solutions allowed to move forward.

 

[dawei87]

Should we enslave ourselves to do this? Or is it better to allow the natural progress of technology to develop new solutions.

False dichotomy. Obviously.

Why not nuculer power, or thermal solar, or renuable natural gas? Why has photo electric, and wind power been chosen?

Been chosen by whom? Who is the specific party that you are complaining about? Because nuclear, thermal solar, and renewable natural gas (assuming you mean landfill and other bio-methane production) are all being used today, and considered by many people to be a valuable part of the solution.

 

[owg]

"Why has photo electric, and wind power been chosen?" - cranky108
"Been chosen by whom?" - dawei87

I can't answer many questions posed on this subject but I will have a shot at these two.

WHY-

In Ontario, Canada, photo electric and wind power have been chosen because hydro opportunities are scarce, nuclear scares people, and coal is a dirty word because of all that carbon.

BY WHOM-

By the Ontario Provincial Government.

ARE THESE GOOD CHOICES-

I suspect the Ontario Government in the past chose hydro power and that worked out quite well. I doubt that these two choices will do as well.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[cranky108]

Correct in that goverment and the media choose what they want and proceed to enforce them on the other 99% of us.

Why- I have no idea, except they don't know all the facts.
My guess is it is a cycle like fashion, and we now have these flavors of the decade. When the bad things of these come out the fashion will change to something they don't know all the facts about.

 

[beej67]

On the left is a field. On the right is a forest. Which one is darker? What do darker colors mean with respect to the amount of visible radiative energy that they absorb?  

And what happens to that absorbed energy? Any analysis that looks solely at color and not a full energy cycle of the biological processes involved is short sighted. Any analysis that ignores the blatant fact that human civilization creates deserts by permanently changing the hydrologic cycle is short sighted. Any analysis that attempts to deliberately cover up or disregard orbital imaging of the urban heat island phenomena, to try and funnel all the research money towards CO2 is at best only half science and half political.

There is a lot going on with anthropomorphic climate change other than atmospheric chemistry. The most obvious evidence of this is how climate change tracks better with anthropomorphic carbon than total carbon. If you have to come up with excuses to ignore the effect of volcanic CO2 then chances are your actual correlation is actually with "anthropomorphic something-else."



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[zdas04]

I read an article last week (sorry I didn't keep a link, I'd thought this thread was dead) that said that the amount of organic material that was frozen in place at the start of the last ice age is truly staggering (hundreds of trillions of tons). This organic material has been preserved in the permafrost for millennia. Now, if the earth is warming for whatever reason, some amount of this freeze-dried organic material in Alaska, Northern Territories, and Siberia will thaw out and be subject to biological processes--all of which produce CO2. The thesis of the article was that CO2 was a lagging indicator instead of a leading indicator, and that the increased atmospheric CO2 (about 10% since 1955 at Mona Loa) could easily be a result of warming instead of a cause of warming.

Orders of magnitude more CO2 comes from biological (or "natural") processes than comes from smoke stacks and car tail pipes. AGW is political, not scientific.

David

 

[josephv]

High risk of permafrost thaw

"Arctic temperatures are rising fast, and permafrost is thawing. Carbon released into the atmosphere from permafrost soils will accelerate climate change, but the magnitude of this effect remains highly uncertain. Our collective estimate is that carbon will be released more quickly than models suggest, and at levels that are cause for serious concern.
We calculate that permafrost thaw will release the same order of magnitude of carbon as deforestation if current rates of deforestation continue. But because these emissions include significant quantities of methane, the overall effect on climate could be 2.5 times larger."

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18383638/1525161196/name/480032a.pdf

 

[cranky108]

current rates of deforestation continue?

What links this to carbon taxes in the US? Unless you are wanting to reforrest what are currently cities in the US.

However in the Western US that is different. The cities were not carved out of forrests, and the natural rain may not support trees.

 

[TGS4]

josephv - so what's the cause and what's the effect? Did the warming cause the release of CO2, or did CO2 release the warming? Correlation does not equal causation...

 

[josephv]

"Climate scientists have played a significant role in investigating global climate change. In the USA, a debate has swirled about whether a consensus on climate change exists among reputable scientists and this has entered the policy process. In order to better understand the views of US climate scientists, we conducted an empirical survey of US climate scientists (N = 468) in 2005, and compared the results with the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical science
report and policy summaries. Our results reveal that survey respondents generally agree about the nature, causes, and consequences of climate change, and are in agreement with IPCC findings. We also found that there is strong support for a variety of policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

http://climatequotes.com/wp-content...tal2010_ClimChange_ScientistsPerspectives.pdf

 

[ronbert]

For a different perspective see the attachment.

 

[zdas04]

ronbert,
How is that a different perspective? I read a similar report about Mexico City nearly 20 years ago, and a somewhat similar report about the Los Angeles Basin nearly 30 years ago.

David

 

[ronbert]

David,
The study was done on the second worst polluted city in the world using the same methods the US EPA uses to study air quality.
The study shows that dispite the poor air quality the number of deaths from the poor air quality is not significant.
The US EPA study (2009) of US cities shows "hundreds of thousands" of deaths in the US due to poor air quality in the US.
Bear in mind that the study in China is supported by the US EPA.
In effect the study in China negates the study in the US.