Author Topic: Climate Change Catchment Thread  (Read 1728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13657
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2017, 12:03:15 PM »
I love looking at the comments. Someone actually was defending the 51k geologist claim which would be 1% of the Alberta population.

Then there is this...
"Wow. Great article. Especially the part of how millions of years ago the dinosaurs had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and warmer temperatures and yet there was no religious doomsday." Wow, kinda makes ya think, huh?

I would argue that humans are not adapted to the time of the dinosaurs. The Earth and life will survive but there is a significant chance that humans will not survive the change between environments. Even if we do, we are still talking about monumental death and devastation. Don't worry, the bugs will survive though.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2017, 01:09:02 PM »
Doesn't the fingerprint left by the specific isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere indicate that the increase is largely due to "old" carbon i.e. oil, gas, coal?


Yes, it does.

Also here.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 01:12:09 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2017, 01:15:53 PM »
I love looking at the comments. Someone actually was defending the 51k geologist claim which would be 1% of the Alberta population.

Then there is this...
"Wow. Great article. Especially the part of how millions of years ago the dinosaurs had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and warmer temperatures and yet there was no religious doomsday." Wow, kinda makes ya think, huh?

I would argue that humans are not adapted to the time of the dinosaurs. The Earth and life will survive but there is a significant chance that humans will not survive the change between environments. Even if we do, we are still talking about monumental death and devastation. Don't worry, the bugs will survive though.

There's also the faint young sun paradox to consider (the sun is giving off more heat now than it used to), plus the fact that sea levels were several dozens of meters higher than they are today.
Mooohn!

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13657
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #33 on: April 11, 2017, 03:12:56 PM »
There's also the faint young sun paradox to consider (the sun is giving off more heat now than it used to), plus the fact that sea levels were several dozens of meters higher than they are today.

I still think bugs will survive whatever we do
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Online 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2017, 03:54:44 PM »
If life is going to survive the aging Sun, it needs a civilization to do it. There might not be another one, if this one fails.

Offline gmalivuk

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2017, 08:48:54 AM »
While it's obviously true that there may not be another civilization on Earth without humans, the time until the end of life here is about a hundred times longer than the time since the rise of mammals and about a thousand times longer than the time since we diverged from the other apes, so I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the prospects for Earth life in general.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Online 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2017, 10:38:31 AM »
Once the oceans have boiled away, that's it for complex life. Which will probably happen within 1 billion years. So that's the upper limit, without moving the planet or moving off of the planet.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2017, 10:45:20 AM »
Once the oceans have boiled away, that's it for complex life. Which will probably happen within 1 billion years. So that's the upper limit, without moving the planet or moving off of the planet.

Mooohn!

Offline gmalivuk

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2017, 11:27:20 AM »
Once the oceans have boiled away, that's it for complex life. Which will probably happen within 1 billion years. So that's the upper limit, without moving the planet or moving off of the planet.
Okay, so adjust my numbers to 200 and 20 instead of 1000 and 100. It's still more than an order of magnitude to work with.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #39 on: April 14, 2017, 12:24:19 PM »
I have a geologist friend that presented me with the argument that the problem with the man causes climate change hypothesis is that it only looks at a small period , and that most of the change today can be explained by something called milankovitch cycles and presented me this article http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Is there any response to this sort of argument  ??  If so where can  I find articles that talk about this matter ?  Most of the people against the idea of global warming have been cranks, but this friend is a serious geologist  not just random guy on the internet. Thanks in advance =)

So, it took me the entire day, and this may the last time I ever do this, but I went over this denialist wordvomit line by line:

Quote
Climate change: Learning to think like a geologist

Wrong! Any geologist who thinks like this is only a geologist in his own fantasy universe. Kinda like this guy:

Quote
Paul MacRae, June 24, 2008

I think this is the only thing he gets right in the entire article...

Quote
Most geologists aren’t part of Al Gore’s

Who cares about Gore. Stop obsessing about Al Gore. More knowledgeable people have produced massive volumes of work on climate change and you're babbling about a politician.

Quote
“100 per cent consensus” of scientists that humans are the principal cause of global warming and that we have to take drastic steps to deal with it.

Again, who cares? Geologists are not trained to understand the climate system. You wouldn't ask a neurologist about your dental health.

Quote
For example, in March 2008, a poll of Alberta’s 51,000 geologists found that only 26 per cent believe humans are the main cause of global warming. Forty-five per cent believe both humans and nature are causing climate change, and 68 per cent don’t think the debate is “over,” as Gore would like the public to believe.1

Survey here. Only 2% of those surveyed responded. 160 of those were professional geoscientists. A lot of those are likely to be engineers and geologists working in the oil industry. And even then "71% accepted at least some degree of a human role by selecting either “primarily human” (25.7%) or “both human and natural” as causing global warming".

Among geologists, denial of anthropogenic climate change is highest among economic geologists. Among climate scientists, numerous scientific surveys (with a response rate above 2%) and literature studies have come up with percentages between 97-100% consensus that humans are warming the climate.

Quote
The position of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is quite clear:

    The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.2

Note that the AAPG was one of the last (if not the last) major scientific bodies to maintain a wishy-washy position on anthropogenic climate change. Gee, I wonder why? Note that this article was written in 2008. Here is the AAPG's stance on it today:
Quote
In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.

Quote
Why do geologists tend to be skeptics? Is it because they are, as Gore and the “consensus” charge, in the pay of the oil industry? Perhaps, but there may be other, more scientific reasons. As Peter Sciaky, a retired geologist, writes:

    A geologist has a much longer perspective. There are several salient points about our earth that the greenhouse theorists overlook (or are not aware of). The first of these is that the planet has never been this cool. There is abundant fossil evidence to support this — from plants of the monocot order (such as palm trees) in the rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossils in sedimentary rocks of the far north. This is hardly the first warming period in the earth’s history. The present global warming is hardly unique. It is arriving pretty much “on schedule.”
   
This is an outright distortion. First of all, the planet went through several "snowball" earth phases of near complete glaciation in the proterozoic. Second, it was about 8oC colder than it is today only about 20,000 years ago, as the graphs later on in this same blog post show. Third, while the implication is that we shouldn't worry about climate change because the climate has changed in the past, this completely ignores the fact that we are adapted to today's climate and shorelines. Cretaceous sea levels were approximately 250+m above current day. Here's projected sea level rise in the context of the last 2500 years:



Considering a substantial portion of the earth's largest cities are on or near the shore, that might be something of a problem.
Major climatic changes, especially rapid ones, are also associated with several mass extinctions.


Quote
One thing, for sure, is that the environmental community has always spurned any input from geologists (many of whom are employed by the petroleum industry). No environmental conference, such as Kyoto, has ever invited a geologist, a paleontologist, a paleo-climatologist. It would seem beneficial for any scientific investigatory to include such scientific disciplines.

This is just absolute nonsense asserted without basis. Is he suggesting that someone has gone over every environmental conference and has checked the list of attendees to each of them? Preposterous. Kyoto, as it happens, was a conference where policy makers met to sign a treaty on climate change, which had been negotiated on for years (based on expert guidance by a huge variety of geo-  and environmental scientists, in the guise of, among others, the IPCC), so I don't know why you'd even want a paleontologist there.

Quote
Among all my liberal and leftist friends (and I am certainly one of those), I know not a one who does not accept that global warming is an event caused by mankind. I do not know one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon.3 Finally, a retired scientist who emailed me after reading one of my climate columns in the Times Colonist observed: “Most of my geology friends are skeptics — but it has become politically incorrect to voice such views.”

Anecdotal, and irrelevant unless they are experts on climate-related matters. And simply untrue. As pointed out, every major scientific body of international standing now accepts the reality of anthropogenic climate change, including the ones dedicated to geology. Consensus rises with greater expertise on matters related more closely to the issue of climate change.

Quote
Current climate conditions are not unusual

Geologists tend to question the anthropogenic theory because their education tells them that current climate conditions are not unusually warm, based on either the past few thousand years, or the past few hundred thousand years, or the past tens of millions of years, or even the past hundreds of millions of years.

Missing the point. The current warming is one of the fastest changes in the geologic record, occurring at 10 times the speed of any recorded change in the last 65 million years, which includes the extraordinary PETM temperature spike. Here's the current rise in GHG concentration in the context of the past ice ages:



It's at a record high compared to at least the past half a million years (with humans having been around for maybe 150,000 of those).

Quote
Figure 1. Temperatures since 1860. Source: R.M. Carter

Temperatures since 1860. Source: R.M. Carter.

It’s possible to look at a graph of the past century and conclude: “Oh, my God, the planet is burning up!” After all, the temperature has been rising, more or less, since the 1850’s, with a dip from the 1940’s to the mid-1970’s. The chart to the right shows temperature and carbon dioxide levels from 1860 to now.4
Bit of an outdated graph. Here's temperature for several of the most important data sets up to 2013:



Carbon dioxide:



CO2, temperature, and solar activity (sun spots):



Quote
But what if we take a longer view?

OK! Longer range temp+CO2:



Quote
That presents quite a different picture. Only 400 years ago, the planet was quite cold, a period known as the Little Ice Age (roughly 1300-1850). Before that, though, during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 1000-1300), the planet was a degree or two Celsius warmer than today, to the point where Greenland was warm enough for settlement by the Vikings. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly a natural occurrences since industrial carbon emissions weren’t yet a factor. Figure 1 is a graph of the last thousand years based on work by climatologist H.H. Lamb.

Temperatures over the last 1,000 years: H.H. Lamb

Figure 1. Lamb graph of temperature over the past 1,000 years

Lamb's graph is from 1982, plots 50 year averages, and ends in about 1950. Here's the graph with continued trend up until 2007:



Needless to say, temperature reconstructions have advanced since 1982.

Quote
Curiously, the temperature graph preferred by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the famous “hockey stick,” smooths out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to create an impression that twentieth-century warming is “the warmest in 1,000 years” (Figure 2). Faced with the flaws in this graph, the IPCC has since dropped it and now claims the climate is the warmest in 400 years, which isn’t that impressive given that we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age.

IPCC hockey stick graph

Figure 2. IPCC hockey stick graph of the past 1,000 years

Yes, the IPCC preferred to use a state-of-the-art reconstruction instead of a dated one from 1982. Here's what a large number of more recent reconstructions look like after they "dropped" the hockey stick:


It's a hockey team!

Most reconstructions are limited to the northern hemisphere because that is where most of the land mass is, and thus the most coverage; this leaves them somewhat open to internal climate variability. The medieval warm period and little ice age were very likely more pronounced in the northern hemisphere. Also, it's not the little ice age, since the drivers that account for that phenomenon (increased volcanism and reduced solar output) cannot account for the current warming (see below).

Quote
Over the past 4,000 years, the planet has also experienced warm and cool periods, again quite naturally. In fact, warm times seem to recur on a cycle of about 1,000-1,500 years, as Figure 3 shows.5 The 20th century’s warming appeared pretty much in line with this millennial cycle.

Warming every 1,000 years

Figure 3. Warming every 1,000 years or so. Source: R.M. Carter

Going back 8,000 years or so, we encounter the Holocene Optimum, which was 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than today’s temperatures — naturally.

Misleading graph which leaves out the warmest years of the instrumental record (and projections). Here's the projected warming for low, medium and high climate sensitivity in the context of the past 10000 years, smoothed (so, basically, all of human history):



Quote
Let’s expand our view once again, to the past 450,000 years (Figure 4). What do we see? A roller-coaster ride of glacials (cold times) and interglacials (warm times), on a cycle of about 100,000 years.

A glacial cycle every 100,000 years

Figure 4. A glacial cycle every 100,000 years

Here are the high end IPCC projections in the context of the past 800,000 years (which thus includes all of human prehistory):
EDIT: Better graph from here. If someone has one for middle-of-the-range projections, let me know.



(Note that the instrumental record plus projections would appear to shoot straight up if the scale on the x-axis were the same.) This is the worst case scenario, though, so keep that in mind.

To back this up, compare measured CO2 concentrations:



Nothing to see here, move along!

Quote
By the way, this is the chart, based on ice core readings taken in Antarctica, that Gore uses in his film An Inconvenient Truth. Gore doesn’t try to explain why this roller coaster has occurred,

Who cares what Gore says? He's not a climate scientist. And why would he have to explain past climate change if that was not his focus?

Quote
since if changes in carbon dioxide levels were causing the cycle of glaciations and interglaciations, as Gore implies, then the logical question is what caused the changes in carbon dioxide levels?
Wait... Didn't he basically already admit that we are releasing large quantities of CO2 when he posted the Carter graph? But for the explanation, see below.

Quote
Gore doesn’t say, because to do so would destroy his case, but here’s what science says: temperature changes precede carbon dioxide level changes by several hundred years, and temperature changes are caused by changes in solar intensity called the Milankovitch Cycles, not carbon dioxide. The Milankovitch Cycles, based on the earth’s changing position in relation to the sun, appear to be the ultimate drivers of climate over the past few million years.

Yes, they were, however what this jackass doesn't tell you is that based on non-human drivers of climate change alone, we should actually expect a cooling trend:



The Milankovitch cycles are due to changes in the earth's eccentricity and obliquity, shown at the top of the graph above.
During the past glacial/interglacial cycles, CO2 was a feedback mechanism; as ocean temperatures rise, they release more CO2 into the atmosphere. In addition, changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns caused changes in CO2 levels. The extra CO2 then caused more warming to occur, and so on, until a new equilibrium was reached. This is why, in the past, CO2 lagged temperature changes, whereas today it's the other way around. The CO2 feedback is necessary to explain the shifts between glacials and interglacials, as the Milankovitch cycles alone are not strong enough to do so.

Quote
The four previous interglacials were warmer than today’s

Another interesting observation that Gore doesn’t make because it would destroy his case: the four previous interglacials shown on his chart are all warmer than today’s interglacial (the green line in Figure 4 shows how today’s average temperature compares with that of the three previous interglacials).

As shown above, worst case projected warming is well above the temperatures in the last 800,000 years. Also, compare current temperatures with the uncertainty envelope for the past interglacial period(s) in the 800,000 year graph above.

Quote
Also, note that the interglacial peaks are very steep. Before an interglacial becomes a glacial, warming occurs relatively rapidly (if the warming was slow, the curve would be more rounded), and cooling also occurs rapidly.

Again, most rapid warming in 65 million years by an order of magnitude. Also, where does he think the heat trapped by the CO2 we've released is going?

(To be continued in the next post...)
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 03:49:42 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #40 on: April 14, 2017, 12:28:57 PM »
(...continued from the previous post)

Quote
If our planet is near the top of its interglacial cycle,
We aren't, see above.

Quote
then we’d be getting — as part of a natural process — the rapid warming climatologists are so alarmed about.


We wouldn't.

Quote
And, we can expect rapid cooling when the balance tips (the steep downward slope). To worry about global warming at this stage in our planet’s geological history seems silly from the geologist’s perspective.

To worry about anything may seem silly from a geologist's perspective. From a geologist's perspective, the last 150,000 years are a single stroke of a nail file compared to the length of the geological record being the length of your entire arm.

Quote
As further evidence that we may be near the high point of the climate cycle,

It isn't.

Quote
the planet has not warmed since 1998,

It has, though a lot of the heat went into the oceans:



Also, 1998 was a cherry picked year with an exceptionally strong El Niño (ENSO), which shifts heat from the oceans into the atmosphere. Here's what happens when you remove ENSO, volcanic, and solar influences on climate:



Quote
even though carbon dioxide levels have increased steadily. We may well be heading into a new glaciation while spending billions of dollars on reducing carbon emissions on the false premise that the planet is getting too warm.

It's warming because of Milankovitch cycles, but we're heading into an ice age right now! Uhuh.

Quote
During the glacials, much of the northern hemisphere (and Antarctica, of course) is covered with ice two and three kilometres thick. Within our roughly two-million-year-old ice age, the glacials last about 80,000 years. The warmer interglacials, which make global civilization possible, last only 10,000-20,000 years. Our interglacial, the Holocene, began about 13,000 years ago, so we’re well past the half-way point in this cycle of warming and looking at a new glacial in the next few centuries or millennia.

About 10,000 years, actually. A little early to start worrying about that now if climate scientists are predicting dangerous warming in less than 100 years.

Quote
Warming is, therefore, from the geologist’s point of view, the least of our problems.

But not from the point of view of 2500 of the world's top climate and environmental scientists who worry about the next few hundred years.

Quote
Temperatures have been falling for 65 million years

Suppose we take an even longer geological view: the last 65 million years. Here we see a temperature graph that looks like a double-diamond ski slope: the planet has been gradually but steadily cooling during this time (see Figure 5).6) Note how the climate has seesawed in the past two million years, and how close the tips of the warming periods are to the point where glaciations return.

Global temperatures falling

Figure 5. Global temperature falling for 70 million years

These graphs are terrible. 65 million years of temperatures:


with CO2 proxies:

and


(mind the reversed x axis between these)

Again, most rapid warming in 65 million years by an order of magnitude.
Also, why stop there? In the Hadean, surface temperatures were around 230°C. See, we've got nothing to worry about!

Quote
The temperature 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were obliterated by a comet, was about 22 degrees Celsius; today, the planet’s average temperature is about 12 degrees Celsius.

We are not dinosaurs, and we are not adapted to cretaceous temperatures. Also, the sun is slowly getting hotter over geologic time, so
Quote
Carbon dioxide levels have also been falling over this time, but much more rapidly than the temperature (which should, in all but the most die-hard “consensus” climatologists’ minds, destroy the idea that carbon dioxide drives temperature).
is bullshit. It's like a child's understanding of climate change. Of course, the relationship between CO2 and temperature is not linear as many other factors play a role in driving or influencing climate change (such as changes in solar irradiance, other GHGs, the earth's albedo (including ice cover changes due to glaciation, reconfiguration of the continents, and uplift, cloud cover, desertification, ...), changes in the biosphere, and so on).


Quote
For most of this time on our planet there were no polar ice caps and, yes, the sea levels were many metres higher than today. Humanity can deal with higher sea levels; we’ll have a lot more trouble coping with three-kilometre-high walls of glacial ice.

Yes, let's not worry about meters of sea level rise. Ice is coming in 10,000 years!
As I pointed out elsewhere:
Quote
There are certain advantages to living in a coastal area; there's a lot of opportunity for industry and trade, and the climate is generally milder because the ocean is a big heat store. In the U.S. "coastal and ocean activities, such as marine transportation of goods, offshore energy drilling, resource extraction, fish cultivation, recreation, and tourism are integral to the nation's economy, generating 58% of the national gross domestic product (GDP)". Population densities in coastal areas are about three times higher than the global average. In the U.S., approximately 25 million people live in an area vulnerable to coastal flooding. And of course there are more and more people, with more and more money to spend worldwide. So I am not surprised that there would be an increase in coastal development. And I doubt that most wealthy investors are young enough that they are highly concerned about events that will start becoming important decades from now.
In the short run, beach front property (for example) is probably not such a bad investment. People like the beach, and that's unlikely to change any time soon, especially as the climate is getting warmer. In the long run, you might end up with wet feet, but there's plenty of time to sell between now and then.

[...]

I live in the Netherlands, where 2m of sea level rise is a really big deal. We might be able to adapt to one or two meters, because we are relatively rich, but probably not to the next 5 meters that will come from the likely melting of the Greenland ice sheet and parts of Antarctica over the subsequent centuries. The rise in sea level doesn't just stop after a hundred years. At some point, raising your dikes a bit more just doesn't do the trick anymore.
And what about the 200 million people who are predicted to be displaced in Bangladesh, a region of the world that is already overcrowded, with two nuclearized countries that have consistently been on the edge of war for years now? When I was last active in this debate, this was named by top U.S. military officials as one of the biggest threats to long term global stability.
And of course, we've all heard about the "sinking" island nations in the pacific that stand to lose their entire country. Also, keep in mind that the oceans are not flat, and as a result sea level rise can be more dramatic in one place than another.
And it's not just that the sea will encroach on our coasts; rising sea levels can seep into and contaminate freshwater aquifers that contain most of the worlds drinkable water, making them saltier. It'll change soil chemistry.

And sea level rise is not the only danger imposed by meltwater; the inpour of fresh water from the ice shelves (and smaller glaciers, and even the melting of sea ice) will make the Arctic surface water less saline, which will likely weaken the AMOC (which is driven in part by differences between deep ocean and surface salinity, and in part by temperature differences) and disrupt one of earth's major processes of heat redistribution (which is largely responsible for Europe's mild climate), which can have unpredictable effects (a similar disruption of the AMOC is implicated in Dansgaard-Oeschger events, rapid climate swings at the end of the last glacial period - though these are not thought to be likely to repeat themselves).

And that is not even counting the other impacts like more extreme weather events or the 20-30% of species that will be at increased risk of extinction (see the IPCC).

Quote
Finally, let’s look at the very long-range picture: earth over the past 600 million years (Figure 6). Again, we see fluctuations of temperature but, overall, the planet has been much warmer (and with much higher levels of carbon dioxide) than today, and yet life managed to evolve and flourish.

We are not adapted to climates of 600 million years ago.

Quote
CO2 and temperature over 600 million years

Figure 6. Temperature and CO2 levels over 600 million years

Jezus, where do these people find these graphs? It's like a child's scribblings on your floor after it accidentally got hold of a pencil. Oh hey, maybe that's because:
Quote
The ‘temperature’ record is a hand-drawn schematic derived from the work of Chris Scotese, and the CO2 graph is from a model that uses tectonic and chemical weathering histories to estimate CO2 levels (Berner 1994; Berner and Kothavala, 2001). In neither case is there an abundance of measured data.

[...]

Scotese is an expert in reconstructions of continental positions through time and in creating his ‘temperature reconstruction’ he is basically following an old-fashioned idea (best exemplified by Frakes et al’s 1992 textbook) that the planet has two long-term stable equilibria (‘warm’ or ‘cool’) which it has oscillated between over geologic history. This kind of heuristic reconstruction comes from the qualitative geological record which gives indications of glaciations and hothouses, but is not really adequate for quantitative reconstructions of global mean temperatures. Over the last few decades, much better geochemical proxy compilations with better dating have appeared (for instance, Royer et al (2004)) and the idea that there are only two long-term climate states has long fallen by the wayside.

However, since this graphic has long been a favorite of the climate dismissives, many different versions do the rounds, mostly forwarded by people who have no idea of the provenance of the image or the lack of underlying data, or the updates that have occurred. Indeed, the 2004 version is the most common, having been given a boost by Monckton in 2008 and many others. Most recently, Patrick Moore declared that this was his favorite graph.

Here:



Quote
The planet didn’t experience “oblivion,” as the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, suggested at the Bali conference on climate change in 2007.

Ban Ki-Moon: Not a climate scientist.

Quote
It’s curious that not one of the thousands of so-called climate experts at that conference saw fit to educate Ki-Moon on the geological facts before (or, apparently, after) his speech.

Yeah, I mean, the IPCC only had 2500 people working on a (3x)1500 page report citing 30,000 papers that details a large amount of palaeoclimate work. But I guess none of them proofread the U.N. secretary's speech, so that means it's not happening, although it is but it's not humans, although maybe it is but it's fine because look at how hot the dinosaurs were!

Quote
Geologists are fully aware that our planet is not unusually warm at the moment, it is unusually cold.

I mean, yes, but look at the Ordovician:


Or, hell, look at this long term temperature graph from a climate denier website:


Look at those "snowball earth" dips! It was cold back then, so we don't need to worry about the next ice age.... right?

Quote
They also know that carbon dioxide is not the villain when it comes to warming — for most of earth’s history, temperature and carbon dioxide have shown only the most tenuous relationship, as Figure 6 shows.

Yep, totally tenuous:



That's a spurious correlation, I'm sure. But anyway, as pointed out above, eyeballing a graph is not a proper way to do an attribution study for drivers of climate change. If you correct for other factors, such as the changes in solar irradiation and the changing configuration of the continents, the correlation is actually pretty consistent.

Quote
The correlation today of rising carbon dioxide levels and rising temperatures that worries climate scientists so much is likely just coincidence.

Well, no. We have laboratory experiments that have been conducted that tell us that CO2 traps radiation. We have physical models that explain this in great detail based on extremely well known physics. We have satellite spectroscopy that shows directly that more radiation is being trapped in those parts of the spectrum associated with CO2 (and other anthropogenic GHG) absorption:



 At the same time we have ground based spectroscopy studies that show increased longwave radiation coming down from the atmosphere at wavelengths associated with the emission spectra of CO2, because of which the stratosphere is actually cooling (which is inconsistent with solar forcing as per Milankovitch cycles, as the sun would be expected to heat the stratosphere, but consistent with GHG forcing because most of our CO2 is in the troposphere, which lies below the stratosphere, thereby insulating the stratosphere from the longwave radiation being emitted from the earth, because that is increasingly absorbed):



We have models that represent the best knowledge we have of the climate system that can only reproduce the instrumental temperature record (reliably) if CO2 is included as a driver (see below). We have palaeo data that backs all this up in great detail. We know that CO2 is anthropogenic because we can roughly estimate the amount we're expelling, and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, because of isotopic analysis that confirms that the CO2 has the signature found in fossil fuels. We can also track atmospheric oxygen over time to confirm that the CO2 comes from burning something:


Quote
Overall, as Lamb observed,

...in 1982...

Quote
“Seemingly objective statistics may produce a variety of verdicts which are actually arbitrary in that they depend on the choice of observation period.”7 Alarmists like Al Gore have chosen to focus on the past century, and therefore they worry about warming. Geologists take a longer time-frame and know that the planet has been much warmer in the past without “thermageddon,” that we are in an ice age, and that the biggest future problem we face is not warming but cooling.
Yes, and most other climate scientists predicted warming. I think I know why he picked Lamb here (other than his old graph); he died in 1997, so there is no way for him to now speak out against climate change denial. Although:
Quote
He was well acquainted with the pioneering works of Svante Arrhenius in Sweden, and G.S. Callendar in England, and wrote in 1997 that, 'it is now widely thought that the undoubted warming of the world climate in the twentieth century is attributable to the increased concentration in the atmosphere of so-called greenhouse gases' 2. However, he always referred back to the instrumental record, and his attitude to greenhouse warming remained guarded.
Also, I have zero doubt that, if one were to ask any random sample of his present day colleagues at the CRU, they would unanimously accept the consensus that CO2 causes climate change. And they would not be kind to the deniers who stole their private emails and harassed many of them and tried to destroy their careers, to the point where Phil Jones admitted contemplating suicide. Of course, that happened in 2009, after this blog was posted.

Quote
Who’s right, the geologists or the computer-based climate scientists?

False dichotomy and false dilemma; the overwhelming majority of all earth scientists accept climate science, and not all climate science is "computer based".

Quote
There is no certainty in science (a fact that “consensus” climate science seems to have forgotten).

There is no absolute certainty in science. Suggesting that there is no consensus, or no differing levels of confidence is idiotic and absurd.

Quote
However, if we think like a geologist rather than a computer climate specialist, we know that today’s climate is well within past natural variability

So, again, 10 times the highest rate in the past 65 million years.

Quote
— for example, previous interglacials and even previous warm cycles within this interglacial were warmer than today.
See above.

Quote
In other words, the record of past climate history makes it very likely that today’s climate change is based on natural, cyclical factors, not human factors,
No it doesn't.

Quote
and that what we need to worry about is a planet that is colder, not warmer.

No it isn't.

(continued in the following post...)
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 03:56:36 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #41 on: April 14, 2017, 12:30:28 PM »
(...continued from the previous post)

In general, any comparison to prehistoric temperatures misses the point because we didn't have a civilization back then. Today we have cities and industries that rely on a certain amount of stability in the climate and sea levels. It's not like things used to be when we lived in caves and tents. We can't just pack up our skycrapers and factories and move them a few miles up the hill. That costs huge amounts of money and disrupts people's lives (not to mention plant and animal life).

Quote
Notes

1    Gordon Jaremko, “Causes of climate change varied: poll.” Edmonton Journal, March 6, 2008. ?
2    L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson, “Ad hoc committee on global climate issues: Annual report.” AAPG Bulletin, vol. 84, issue 4 (April 2000), pp. 466-471. Available at http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/4/466. ?
3    Quoted in Alexander Cockburn, “Dissidents against dogma.” Counterpunch, June 9/10, 2007. Available at http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html. ?
4    It’s interesting to note that the rise in temperature from about 1900 to 1940 is just as steep as the rise from the 1970’s to now, with much lower carbon dioxide levels, so presumably that rise was “natural,” but, according to Gore et al., the current, similar rise must be human-made. The chart comes from R.M. Carter’s “The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change.” ?

No, it isn't interesting, it's eyeballing a graph for coincidences and saying "Aha! All of climate science is wrong! I have seen beyond the veil!". Who the fuck cares about Gore? Here are the combined statistics of several climate models that together represent the best understanding we have of the climate system, plotted together with the instrumental temperature record:



Top: natural plus anthropogenic forcings. Bottom: natural only (with overlay of measured temperatures for several datasets for comparison purposes). As you can see, natural forcing alone can't explain the variation past about 1960. Here are some more smoothed graphs that also include some other indicators of climate change:



Only when we include anthropogenic influences can we explain the measurements accurately.


Quote
5    Graph comes from R.M. Carter, “The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change.” For details on the millennial cycle, see S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. ?
6    From Brian S. John, editor, The Winters of the World: Earth Under the Ice Ages. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1973, p. 183. ?
7    H.H. Lamb, Climate, History, and the Modern World. New York: Methuen, 1982, p. 16. ?

Notice how few studies this blog post cites to discredit the IPCC's 30,000 peer reviewed citations? Oh yeah, and the first one is a poll.

Give me a fucking break.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 04:03:20 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5298
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #42 on: April 14, 2017, 12:36:05 PM »
Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #43 on: April 14, 2017, 01:01:25 PM »
I'm sure I made a mistake or quoted a bad source in there somewhere for deniers to hold on to.

EDIT: Replaced a graph and added some more details on the different lines of evidence that climate change is anthropogenic. If anything is unclear, or if you find something wrong or misleading, please let me know.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 02:41:42 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2017, 08:03:49 PM »
Hot off the presses, realcimate has set up a model projection/observations comparison page that could be pretty useful for tracking how well the models are doing.

Quote
Model projections and observations comparison page
Filed under:

    Climate modelling Climate Science Instrumental Record

— gavin @ 11 April 2017

We should have done this ages ago, but better late than never!

We have set up a permanent page to host all of the model projection-observation comparisons that we have monitored over the years. This includes comparisons to early predictions for global mean surface temperature from the 1980’s as well as more complete projections from the CMIP3 and CMIP5. The aim is to maintain this annually, or more often if new datasets or versions become relevant.

We are also happy to get advice on stylistic choices or variations that might make the graphs easier to comprehend or be more accurate – feel free to suggest them in the comments below (since the page itself will be updated over time, it doesn’t have comments associated with it).

Mooohn!

 

personate-rain
personate-rain