Environmental disaster in the making

[Artisi]

This is well worth the time spent to review this presentation in full.

Please pass onto all your friends and associates who care about the future.

http://youtu.be/84zIj_EdQdM

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia.)

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> In the past 400,000 years, we have never seen a temperature rise this rapid.
How old is the earth?

What were CO₂ levels and mean temperatures during the Precambrian period?
What were CO₂ levels and mean temperatures during the Cambrian period?
What were CO₂ levels and mean temperatures during the Devonian period?
What were CO₂ levels and mean temperatures during the Carboniferous period?
What were CO₂ levels and mean temperatures during the Carboniferous and Permian periods?
What were CO₂ levels and mean temperatures during the Triassic and Jurassic periods?
What were CO₂ levels and mean temperatures during the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods?

Please don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that the earth is getting warmer, and I acknowledge that man is playing a role. How much of a role is open to debate. My point is simply this, if you're going to reference earth's climate history, then reference earth's climate history, not just the last 1/100 of 1 percent (0.0001) or 400,000 years.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[JJPellin]

My reference to the past 400,000 years was not arbitrary or cherry-picked. We have solid data for that time period. There is no comparable source of hard data for the earlier periods. Perhaps it was hot in the Carboniferous period. Perhaps the cause was solar activity or volcanism. That fact would not be relevant to our current situation. Volcanism or solar activity are not the cause today. The fact that it was hot in the far distant past with a different cause does not suggest that we do not know what is causing the warming currently. It does not suggest that current warming is normal and unavoidable.

I suspect that we are going to have to agree to disagree. The best minds, the smartest experts with the best data are in general agreement. With my limited understanding, I see no reason to dispute their conclusions. It is not appropriate to only apply common sense to something this complex.

Johnny Pellin

 

[ewh]

I tend to get skeptical when so many absolutes are thrown around.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Perhaps it was hot in the Carboniferous period. Perhaps the cause was solar activity or volcanism. That fact would not be relevant to our current situation.
How can you be so unsure of earlier conditions, yet be completely sure that it's not relevant to our current situation?


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[stevenal]

You sure?

Hell no.

 

[TGS4]

The best minds, the smartest experts with the best data are in general agreement.

About that data. You know, it's really too bad that these so-called experts aren't willing to share their data, their methodologies, etc, so that the rest of us can be convinced. Oh right, they don't want to release either,because people will just look for the mistakes in them and want to pick them apart. Good scientific method, there.

We still need to understand the function of the positive and negative feedback processes.

See, the problem that I have is that the Arrhenius, laboratory-based calculations, say that the warming from a doubling of CO2 is ~1°C. Very few of the "deniers" deny that. The catastrophe that is proclaimed is based wholly on these feedbacks. As you say, we don't know much about them - positive or negative. So,tell me again, what's so absolute?

 

[JJPellin]

We have ice cores and mud cores that give us excellent data for the recent past. There are no 100 million year old ice cores to analyze. So, our knowledge of the distant past is not as good.

We can be sure that volcanism and solar intensity are not relevant to current increases because we have data. If there were a few hundred volcanos erupting, we would notice. We count them and measure their output. And we measure the solar intensity. It is decreasing and near a minimum. These are knowns.

This will be my final word on the subject. The peer reviewed scientific method works. There have been theories that have later proven to be false. But, the errors were found by the peer reviewed scientific method. It is self-correcting. It is convergent.

Johnny Pellin

 

[btrueblood]

" The peer reviewed scientific method works. There have been theories that have later proven to be false. But, the errors were found by the peer reviewed scientific method. It is self-correcting. It is convergent."

Agreed. It may take a generation or two, but it does work over time.

After all, about 30-40 years ago, the "best minds, the smartest experts with the best data" were "in general agreement" that the next ice age was imminent.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> We can be sure that volcanism and solar intensity are not relevant to current increases because we have data.
But what you have already admitted to is that you don't know if volcanism and solar intensity are the reasons that the earth was warmer and that CO₂ levels were higher at multiple times in earth's history.

It's fine to claim that volcanism and solar intensity are not relevant to current conditions. I'm not questioning that assertion. But you're saying that you're not sure why the earth was warmer and that CO₂ levels were higher at multiple times in the past. You said perhaps it's volcanism, or perhaps it's solar intensity.

Perhaps it is. But then, perhaps it's not. We don't know. What I'm asking you is given the we don't know, how you can claim that it's not relevant to today's conditions? Where's your scientific objectivity on those points?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[zdas04]

One last time.

It is hard data of C02 levels, temperatures, solar activity, air temperatures, water temperatures, etc.

CO2 data since 1958 seems to be quite high quality (even though 1% of the data has been interpolated, see below). Before 1958 it is kind of spotty and has been subjected to serious manipulation. The time scale on the CO2 data prior to 1958 is +/-100 years or so.

On the [link ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt]NOAA CO2 webpage[/url] there is an interesting insight into the approach to data by this field of investigation

Interpolated values are computed in two steps. First, we compute for each month the average seasonal cycle in a 5-year window around each monthly value. In this way the seasonal cycle is allowed to change slowly over time. We then determine the "trend" value for each month by removing the seasonal cycle; this result is shown in the "trend" column. Trend values are linearly interpolated for missing months. The interpolated monthly mean is then the sum of the average seasonal cycle value and the trend value for the missing month.

Nothing "wrong" with this approach, but it isn't really "raw" data anymore (actually it never really was, it is average data for some number of samples within the month, that number is not visible prior to 1974). In this case, the "raw" data is retained so it is visible to later investigation to allow independent determination of the validity of the manipulation.

Current solar activity data is reasonable quality but definitions and measurement standards are pretty iffy before WWII.

Air temperature data is pure garbage. There is not a single unmanipulated data set anywhere. Researchers apply modifications like the oft described "heat island effect" over top of the raw data. Different researchers have different algorithms to make these "adjustments". There is no way to evaluate the actual data from the stations. Also the number and location of weather stations changes every month. Trying to track a single point over time ain't happening. Huge areas of the earth (Siberia, Gobi Desert, most of the Andes, the oceans) do not have a weather station in every grid block so researchers interpolate--i.e., they use their model results to populate their model, a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Water temperature data is even worse. Grid blocks are so big (roughly the size of the state of Colorado) that little effects like the Japanese Current or the Gulf Stream get homogenized nearly out of existence and researchers have to go back an manipulate the results.

I certainly don't see any support for the idea that the rate of change of CO2, air temperature, or water temperature are accelerating. If I plot the Mona Loa data on a semi-log scale (rather than relying on published graphs that always squash the y-axis to accentuate the increase, an old presenter's ploy but certainly not evidence of spin or cherry picking), I can't see evidence of acceleration. The semi-log trend is entirely within the data. A semi-log linear trend is the definition of a non-accelerating data set in Oil & Gas. Maybe other fields have different interpretations of data trends?

If this field of science was not being used for obscene political goals, I would be very impressed with how far they've come in the last 30-40 years. The problem is that governments are making fiscal and environmental policy based on it so it has to stand up to scrutiny. From where I sit, the "true experts" look like they all have a personal financial stake in the outcome, in any other field they would be required to back off.

David

 

[JJPellin]

I should have stopped when I said I would. But I can't resist.

Blueblood

"After all, about 30-40 years ago, the "best minds, the smartest experts with the best data" were "in general agreement" that the next ice age was imminent. "

That is false. There were articles by a few free thinkers speculating that an ice age could be coming. The scientific consensus, even in the 1970's was that the earth was warming. I challenge you to produce a single peer reviewed article from that time stating otherwise. For each one you produce, I will produce 10 more that support warming.

CanjunCenturion

I don't care if it was warm in the distant past. I don't care if it was warm because of other causes. If we can prove that those causes are not the causes of today’s warming, then they are irrelevant. I care why it is warming now. And the evidence suggests human causes.

zdas04

The best way for a climate scientist to become wealthy is to deny global warming. There are lots of "foundations" that give out generous awards and grants to scientists who will deny. Those foundations are generally not based on the finding of scientific truth. They are funded by the oil companies and the Koch brothers.

Now, I really am done talking on this subject. We will never convince each other. It is pointless.

Johnny Pellin

 

[Artisi]

The simple solution is don't fully believe either side.

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia.)

 

[stanier]

"there are lots of "foundations" that give out generous awards and grants to scientists who will deny."

There are a hella of a lot more government agencies promoting the theory of global warming. Scientists get great dollops of cash to support the theory. Awhole new industry is born that will make Y2K look like a midget.

So uch energy is spent decrying those who question and to advetise their chosen theories.

If you want to impact global warming for every dollar you spend on population control is equal to ten dollars spent trying to stop energy emissions. You wont get the biggest polluters in China and India to do diddly squat about their growth. So wake up and prepare for Bangladesh to go under.

If the Earth warms we will be able to grow more food. Some areas will be drier and some wetter. The Earth WILL evolve. Populations will move. Wars will be fought.

For sure we wont be here to argue who was right.

"Sharing knowledge is the way to immortality"
His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

http://waterhammer.hopout.com.au/

 

[stanier]

Take a moment to take in the conspiracy.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

When you have had enough of that check out Agenda21 from the UN.

"Sharing knowledge is the way to immortality"
His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

http://waterhammer.hopout.com.au/

 

[BigInch]

This apparently is exactly why we need scientists. Engineers don't believe any data is good except their own and while away what available time they might have arguing about how bad it is to make theories from such bad data.

From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."

 

[VEBill]

...wake up and prepare for Bangladesh to go under.

If the long term steady-upward Health and Wealth trends continue (ref. Hans Rosling), Bangladesh would be *significantly* wealthier by the time sea levels actually rise. It seems likely that they'd be fully capable of installing dykes and protective barriers similar to what the Dutch have done. The point is to not assume that they'll still be poverty stricken in 100 years, as that's most likely not going to be the case.

Carry on then...

 

[zdas04]

BigInch,
"Theories from bad data"? I develop theories from bad data all the time. Most of them turn out to be worse than worthless. My problem is folks claiming to "prove" theories using bad data.

Also, I've always been happy to use someone else's data as long as I know the uncertainty of the instrument (and the date of the last calibration) and the configuration of the test apparatus (was it placed to capture data that is representative of the thing we are looking at?). I don't think that it is unreasonable to determine the level of uncertainty that can be attributed to a data set. I once got some tank fluid-level data that really looked good. Then I found out that it was simply the last reported level minus extracts plus assumed inputs--this had been going on without gauging the tank for over a year, none of the tanks were actually within 10 ft of the reported data. Since then I ask for the genealogy of the data. If it is clean I'm happy to use it.

David

 

[BigInch]

Bangladesh gets most of their flooding from upstream. They'll get it from both directions.

Well you guys that don't believe, there's some good property out on Palm Island. Some guy has already bought the right to operate a year-round port on Hudson Bay for 1 buck Canadian. There's a believer.

From "BigInch's Extremely simple theory of everything."

 

[TGS4]

Re Bangladesh - saw an article in National Geographic (has become quite the alarmist rag, but I really like the pictures...) a year or so ago about how the people of Bangladesh are geo-engineering solutions for themselves that increase the amount of land above sea level and can economically work the increasingly large intertidal zones.

Don't worry about Bangladesh - the folks there are pretty resourceful.

Re the port in Hudson Bay - that all nice and everything, but there's nothing connected to it. One road, no railroad, and no pipelines. I might as well open a year round port in Alberta for what its worth...

 

[KENAT]

For what it's worth now, but in a future with no ice caps...

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​