The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: OrneryMod on December 12, 2015, 12:15:35 AM

Title: here comes the next ice age
Post by: OrneryMod on December 12, 2015, 12:15:35 AM
Link to Topic on Old Forums (http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/11340.html)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 22, 2016, 05:20:05 PM
Seriati said:
Quote
quote:
---------------------------------------------------
No, this is something I read that Lord Monckton, a famous AGW denier, said about a conference he attended. That all of the deniers in the conference agreed that CO2 was trapping heat...and that anyone saying they did not believe it was just trying to slander the denier movement. :) I had a link to it on another thread, but I can't find my link right now (too many AGW links to choose from  :-[ ).
---------------------------------------------------
Feel free to link it, I'd be happy to take a look.

Seriati, I finally found it. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/)

Quote
Shock news from the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference: among the 600 delegates, the consensus that Man contributes to global warming was not 97%. It was 100%...

At a conference of 600 “climate change deniers”, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.

The article makes other points, which I don't necessarily agree with, but I think it is pretty clear that even AGW deniers don't deny that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on February 23, 2016, 12:02:37 AM
Thanks.  What are the key issues in dispute, then?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 23, 2016, 10:17:34 AM
Thanks Wayward, you should look at my response to you on that point in the old thread.  I would answer yes to those questions as well.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 23, 2016, 11:41:18 AM
I did note your answers in the old thread, and am not surprised that you would agree.

But it does illustrate my point, too.

We all know, and all agree, that CO2 is trapping heat.  And this trapped heat will cause the Earth to warm unless something else somehow counteracts it.

So my questions are:

If that something else exists, what is it?

How does it work?

How long and well will it work, or will it stop working sometime in the future, perhaps the near future?

And how confident are you that you are right?

Until these questions are settled, it is stupid to assume that there is such a something that will prevent global warming from occurring.

Because there may not be anything to counteract the rise in CO2.  Or it may only last a few decades.  Or it may only counteract a fraction of the warming.

This is why denialists should be working like mad on creating good climate models, to prove that something is counteracting the CO2 rise.  They are the ones that have to prove that global warming is not occurring because of CO2 rise.

Because we all know and agree that CO2 is trapping more heat.

That heat has to go somewhere or else temperatures will rise.  And temperatures have been measurably rising.

So, if it is not CO2, what is preventing the CO2 from doing it?

Deniers need to answer these questions before we should start listening to them.  Because without those answers, they are engaging in "just so" stories.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 23, 2016, 12:34:31 PM
Wayward, you're not using logic there.  Can you explain why we have had periods of higher atmospheric carbon and lower temperatures?

Do you understand that while everyone can agree that atmospheric carbon has a warming effect, that whether the Earth is warming or cooling is controlled by far more factors than atmospheric carbon?  If for instance the Earth is heading towards a cooler climate phase all atmospheric carbon would be doing is reducing the rate of decline?  No one has to argue the specifics you want them to, because you haven't demonstrated that the observed effect with respect to carbon can be generalized to the atmosphere as a whole.  What's interesting about the six questions, is the one question that did not get asked (deliberately) on which the divergence occurs:  Has it been conclusively shown that human caused atmospheric carbon increases are the direct cause of significant warming?   The answer to which is, no.

I get you want to flip the burden of proof to make the other side responsible for "proving" it, but that's not how it works when the solutions you potentially want would represent radical and expensive shifts in everyone's way of life.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: scifibum on February 23, 2016, 02:25:49 PM
"Has it been conclusively shown..."

Well, if you listen only to the denialists, then I guess you would have to say that we shouldn't do anything until they all agree that the proof is conclusive.  Or we could listen to the incredibly large majority of the scientists who agree that the evidence is compelling.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 23, 2016, 02:47:36 PM
Scifibum, can you show anywhere that I argued against listening to the scientists?  I've questioned the quality of the conclusions being drawn and certainly the common lay understanding that has been misderived therefrom, but I've always acknowledged its the best we have (at the current date).

That said, I've hammered the proposed solutions as they are generally counterproductive and virtually always drawn on political concerns rather than environmental science.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: scifibum on February 23, 2016, 02:59:08 PM
I think your position amounts to "there's not enough proof to justify any difficult or expensive efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of slowing AGW".  I think you arrive at that position by exaggerating the uncertainty and giving too much credence to deniers and doubters.  So my impression is that what you mean by "listening to the scientists" doesn't amount to "trusting their interpretation of the data". 

Although we definitely need to carefully weigh the pros and cons of any given remediation strategy, I think in general we're stuck upstream from that on the question of whether there's a problem to fix - and that wouldn't be the case if we were listening to the scientists.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: D.W. on February 23, 2016, 02:59:51 PM
We need to quit wasting time and nail down eco-friendly, non warming, global cooling solutions.

Then we can sort out controlled global warming solutions which don't rely on fossil fuels.  It's not like we can bank on terraforming to work by exporting our remaining oil reserve to other planets. 

So much wasted time...  :P
So many other environments to exploit for their treasures!
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on February 23, 2016, 03:05:39 PM
I did note your answers in the old thread, and am not surprised that you would agree.

But it does illustrate my point, too.

We all know, and all agree, that CO2 is trapping heat.  And this trapped heat will cause the Earth to warm unless something else somehow counteracts it.

So my questions are:

If that something else exists, what is it?

How does it work?

How long and well will it work, or will it stop working sometime in the future, perhaps the near future?

And how confident are you that you are right?

Until these questions are settled, it is stupid to assume that there is such a something that will prevent global warming from occurring.

Because there may not be anything to counteract the rise in CO2.  Or it may only last a few decades.  Or it may only counteract a fraction of the warming.

This is why denialists should be working like mad on creating good climate models, to prove that something is counteracting the CO2 rise.  They are the ones that have to prove that global warming is not occurring because of CO2 rise.

Because we all know and agree that CO2 is trapping more heat.

That heat has to go somewhere or else temperatures will rise.  And temperatures have been measurably rising.

So, if it is not CO2, what is preventing the CO2 from doing it?

Deniers need to answer these questions before we should start listening to them.  Because without those answers, they are engaging in "just so" stories.

If we presume that the C02 is trapping heat (and all reasonable persons do make such a presumption), there's still the question of whether human CO2 emissions are driving climate change.  (There are other human-driven emissions that we should consider, e.g. methane from cattle ranching and other human activities.)

I suspect that the main human activity that's leading to climate change is not carbon emissions, but rather the destruction of carbon sinks in the forests and the oceans.  Massive scale reforestation and limits on ocean-destroying enterprises, protection of reefs and research on assisting the formation of reefs (what we failed to do in Florida with that ghastly failure of a rubber tire experiment), may give us more climate protection for our buck than measures that raise unemployment by crippling industry.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 23, 2016, 03:08:35 PM
Wayward, you're not using logic there.

Oh, no, I very much am.  ;D 

Quote
Can you explain why we have had periods of higher atmospheric carbon and lower temperatures?

Because there are other factors than greenhouse gases that control the temperature of the Earth.

If you review the old thread, I have never denied that.  In fact, I listed a few such factors (such as solar intensity and distance from the sun).

But so what?  So in the past, other factors have overcome higher levels of CO2.  The question you have to answer is is something doing that now.

Because we all agree that CO2 is trapping more heat, and trapped heat can raise temperatures.

Quote
Do you understand that while everyone can agree that atmospheric carbon has a warming effect, that whether the Earth is warming or cooling is controlled by far more factors than atmospheric carbon?  If for instance the Earth is heading towards a cooler climate phase all atmospheric carbon would be doing is reducing the rate of decline?

And if you can prove this, then we won't need to worry very much, will we?  But you first need to prove it...

Quote
No one has to argue the specifics you want them to, because you haven't demonstrated that the observed effect with respect to carbon can be generalized to the atmosphere as a whole.
 

Wait a minute.  You've already agreed that CO2 is trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.  What more do I have to demonstrate?

Quote
What's interesting about the six questions, is the one question that did not get asked (deliberately) on which the divergence occurs:  Has it been conclusively shown that human caused atmospheric carbon increases are the direct cause of significant warming?   The answer to which is, no.

Eh?  We have already agreed that CO2 is trapping heat.  Trapped heat causes warming unless something else absorbs or emits the heat.

CO2 concentrations are increasing yearly in our atmosphere and our oceans.  We emit gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.  We have found no other major source of CO2 that would account for this much increase.  Plus, some other studies that I won't mention now.  So we are the source of the CO2.

And, of course, the question implies that there has been significant warming.  Do you agree?

Still, even if there has been no "significant" warming so far, what happens when the concentrations reaches 450 ppm?  500 ppm?  800 ppm?

Even if it has not been "conclusively" shown that the observed warming is primarily due to humans, how about the future warming?  Because we have already agreed CO2 traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere.  So more CO2 will trap more heat.  Unless something else counteracts that.

So while the answers so far may not seem "conclusive" to you, you need to consider that the answer you are advocating is even less "conclusive."  And over time, increased CO2 will increase Earth's temperature if nothing else counteracts it.

Quote
I get you want to flip the burden of proof to make the other side responsible for "proving" it, but that's not how it works when the solutions you potentially want would represent radical and expensive shifts in everyone's way of life.

What makes you think the atmosphere and the thermodynamics inherent in it care about the expense of our lives? ;)

And if you are so concerned about radical and expensive shifts, consider how much it will cost to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere in the future.  Controlling CO2 and bringing it back to levels we've experienced for the last 400,000 years will be far more expensive, and require more radical shifts in our lifestyle, than we would need to do now.  Remember, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years or more before being reabsorbed by natural processes.

So consider if you want to pay now, or pay more later.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on February 23, 2016, 03:19:19 PM
Is there any way of knowing whether the current melting of glaciers and raising of sea level is more due to human CO2 emissions, versus the volcanoes under the Antarctica glaciers?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 23, 2016, 03:42:00 PM
Quote
What's interesting about the six questions, is the one question that did not get asked (deliberately) on which the divergence occurs:  Has it been conclusively shown that human caused atmospheric carbon increases are the direct cause of significant warming?   The answer to which is, no.
Eh?  We have already agreed that CO2 is trapping heat.  Trapped heat causes warming unless something else absorbs or emits the heat.
Wayward, this right here is where you're misapplying the logic.  Your conclusion does not lead from your axiom, which was the point of the question I highlighted.  The fact that man generated carbon has contributed to warming, does not speak to whether it has caused significant warming.  All the rest of your lengthy response falls apart in my view without bridging this gap.
Quote
Originally posted by Scifibum:

I think your position amounts to "there's not enough proof to justify any difficult or expensive efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of slowing AGW".
That's a compound sentence with hidden assumptions.  It assumes that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would slow AGW, which assumes that AGW is occurring, that the impact of AGW vs GW is significant and that GW would not otherwise be occurring (which avoids even addressing the question of whether we've correctly identified the vector of warming, and whether the trend line has existed long enough to be conclusive).

But I take your meaning.  What I object to is difficult and expensive efforts that we try to implement that have no chance of reducing net greenhouse emissions.  It's my view that the primary purpose of inter-governmental climate accords is wealth redistribution not environmental benefit, and that every one of them to date has resulted in a net negative environmental impact by reducing the cleanest first world industry in favor of the dirtiest third world industry.  I'm flat out saying that the "cures" proposed are environmentally worse than the disease, and economically they are expensive and demanding on first world persons.  I see them as having no redeeming value.

Would I be onboard for positive environmental changes?  Absolutely, don't even need them to be expressly about GW control, they are an end in and of themselves.  How about ending agricultural subsidies that lead to deforestation, and encouraging reforestation?  How about subsidizing first world industry to putting tariffs on third world polluters to put them out of business for good? 
Quote
I think you arrive at that position by exaggerating the uncertainty and giving too much credence to deniers and doubters.  So my impression is that what you mean by "listening to the scientists" doesn't amount to "trusting their interpretation of the data".
I think I've answered this, but I'd like to add that trusting an interpretation of data is far different than endorsing the policies that have come out of those who use the data to support themselves.  It certainly does not mean being blind to the problems with the data (which are enormous) or misunderstanding the certainty of the conclusions that can be drawn from it (which is endemic in this debate).

Frankly, I give zero credence to deniers, they have the hardest case to prove.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 23, 2016, 04:50:08 PM
Quote
Wayward, this right here is where you're misapplying the logic.  Your conclusion does not lead from your axiom, which was the point of the question I highlighted.  The fact that man generated carbon has contributed to warming, does not speak to whether it has caused significant warming.  All the rest of your lengthy response falls apart in my view without bridging this gap.

OK, then answer me a couple of questions.

CO2 produces warming in the atmosphere.  How do you know it doesn't procedure "significant warming?"  And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then?  What is your conclusive evidence of this?

Remember, it does produce warming.  How can you know it is not "significant," or won't be in the future?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 23, 2016, 05:15:23 PM
CO2 produces warming in the atmosphere.  How do you know it doesn't procedure "significant warming?"
I don't.
Quote
And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then?
I don't.
Quote
What is your conclusive evidence of this?
There is none.
Quote
Remember, it does produce warming.  How can you know it is not "significant," or won't be in the future?
Only by additional study.  It's important to remember though, climate science is observational science not susceptible to experimental confirmation.  It takes a lot of time to be certain in a non-experimental science about your conclusions.  Which of course, is exactly why climate scientists are so keen on models, they generate the appearance of experimental validity without the reality.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 23, 2016, 06:36:06 PM
So, IOW, Seriati, there is no reason not to believe that some level of AGW is occurring, and no reason not to believe it may be as bad as the computer models indicate.

But it is not conclusive with the information we currently have.

Am I correct in believing that is your position?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 24, 2016, 09:03:08 AM
So, IOW, Seriati, there is no reason not to believe that some level of AGW is occurring, and no reason not to believe it may be as bad as the computer models indicate.
What does belief have to do with this?  This is a scientific question, not a matter of belief.  Proof is what is and should be persuasive.  There are indicators that AGW is occurring, they are just not at the level of proof.  I went into detail on the models to show why they are particularly misleading and often used to convince people that we have more scientific certainty than is possible.
Quote
Am I correct in believing that is your position?
If you're describing the "position" free from intent, reasoning or meaning you could describe it simply like that.  It's misleading to do so.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 11:58:20 AM
Quote
Wayward, this right here is where you're misapplying the logic.  Your conclusion does not lead from your axiom, which was the point of the question I highlighted.  The fact that man generated carbon has contributed to warming, does not speak to whether it has caused significant warming.  All the rest of your lengthy response falls apart in my view without bridging this gap.

OK, then answer me a couple of questions.

CO2 produces warming in the atmosphere.  How do you know it doesn't procedure "significant warming?"  And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then?  What is your conclusive evidence of this?

Remember, it does produce warming.  How can you know it is not "significant," or won't be in the future?

CO2 does produce warming, and historically, HAS often produced significant warming.

How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere was produced by human activities?

How much of the current warming changes were produced by CO2?

Actually, there are much more powerful greenhouse gasses that are overwhelmingly produced by human activities, such as SF6
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 24, 2016, 03:39:05 PM
What does belief have to do with this?  This is a scientific question, not a matter of belief.  Proof is what is and should be persuasive.  There are indicators that AGW is occurring, they are just not at the level of proof.  I went into detail on the models to show why they are particularly misleading and often used to convince people that we have more scientific certainty than is possible.

Ah, I see, you want scientific proof.  Absolute proof that practically eliminates all other possibilities.  Proof that is so certain, so precise that we can predict with a great deal of certainty exactly what the outcome will be for any given change.

I believe your thinking of mathematics, not science. :)

Science is more about different levels of certainty.  You never have absolute certainty, absolute proof.  You have more or less certainty.  Some explanation reach a high level that they are labeled theories, but even the most hallowed theory is not considered immutable if new facts dispute it.

So asking for "proof" is unachievable.  Science doesn't "prove" anything.

But what we can do is ascertain and compare the levels of certainty.

For instance, we are very certain that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere trap more heat.  So certain that practically everyone agrees with that theory.

That the Earth's atmosphere has been warming over the past century and half is also fairly certain, when you consider not only temperature readings but climate-related changes in plant species locations, animal (especially insect) ranges, glacial melting, etc.  There are far more indications of warming than of not.

And we have reliable measurements of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  So that is very certain, too.

But you dispute how certain we are that CO2 is the main cause of increased temperatures.  And here is where comparing levels of certainty is useful.

We are certain that CO2 is trapping heat, which, unless the heat is dissipated, will increase temperatures.  So we are pretty much certain that some increase in the temperature is from the higher CO2 concentrations.

We very, very uncertain that increased solar insolance is causing temperature increases.  This is because there has not been a consistent increase in solar insolance for the past few decades--the measured insolance has gone up and down, without a marked trend in either direction--while temperatures have been tracking up.

So in comparing certainties, we would say that our certainty of CO2 being a cause of temperature increase is much greater than from solar variances.  In fact, we would say that we are more certain that the temperature trend is NOT caused by solar variance and that it is.

This can be applied to almost every objection by denialists to AGW.

This is why I say that denialists need to "prove" their contention that AGW is NOT happening.  Because when we look at the various levels of certainty, we are far more certain that CO2 is part of the warming than it is not.  We are far more certain that CO2 is probably the major cause of the warming than we are not.  We are far more certain that increased concentrations of CO2 will increase temperature than we are not.  Relatively, we are more certain of AGW than we are of the objections.

Have we reached a level of absolute certainty about AGW?  No, I'll agree with you there.  But the preponderance of evidence is pointing toward AGW.  So it must be taken seriously.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 24, 2016, 04:02:32 PM
CO2 does produce warming, and historically, HAS often produced significant warming.

How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere was produced by human activities?

You might want to look here for starters. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm)

Quote
How much of the current warming changes were produced by CO2?

As far as I know, the only way to make a reasonable estimate of how much warming has been caused by CO2 is using the various computer models.

This article may provide more information and directions for further information. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate-intermediate.htm)

Quote
Actually, there are much more powerful greenhouse gasses that are overwhelmingly produced by human activities, such as SF6.

True, including good old H2O.  But CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long, long time (at least a century), so it will affect our climate for the foreseeable future.  Most of these others gases stay for much shorter periods, so their affects are shorter lived.

Skeptical science is a good source for answers to a lot of the basic questions. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 24, 2016, 04:55:04 PM
Ah, I see, you want scientific proof.  Absolute proof that practically eliminates all other possibilities.  Proof that is so certain, so precise that we can predict with a great deal of certainty exactly what the outcome will be for any given change.
No.  That's an absolutely incorrect and insane summary of what I asked for. 
Quote
For instance, we are very certain that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere trap more heat.  So certain that practically everyone agrees with that theory.
Which is a relative concept, unfortunately AGW is theory about an absolute (not relative) value.
Quote
That the Earth's atmosphere has been warming over the past century and half is also fairly certain, when you consider not only temperature readings but climate-related changes in plant species locations, animal (especially insect) ranges, glacial melting, etc.
Overstatement based on the actual quality of the record.
Quote
There are far more indications of warming than of not.
This part is true though.
Quote
And we have reliable measurements of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  So that is very certain, too.
Yes, which I've explained previously is another source of bias.  We over-weight in our analysis things that we find easy to measure.
Quote
But you dispute how certain we are that CO2 is the main cause of increased temperatures.  And here is where comparing levels of certainty is useful.
You're using "certainty" in a mixed up way, not in a real scientific way, I'm guessing you pulled this from the Union of Concerned Scientist's piece that is talking down to people to try and explain the controversy.  Normally "certainty," would be expressed as uncertainty, with respect to a result.  Without the ability to run experiments on the climate (the problem of n=1) you're stuck with needing a phenomenal amount of data to generate anything approximating a reasonable level of uncertainty. 

That's why climate scientists are so keen on modeling.  They use computer algorithms to generate "experimental" results and generate very low levels of uncertainty.  The problem is that the apparent uncertainty is false.
Quote
We are certain that CO2 is trapping heat, which, unless the heat is dissipated, will increase temperatures.  So we are pretty much certain that some increase in the temperature is from the higher CO2 concentrations.
I'll go with close enough.
Quote
We very, very uncertain that increased solar insolance is causing temperature increases.  This is because there has not been a consistent increase in solar insolance for the past few decades--the measured insolance has gone up and down, without a marked trend in either direction--while temperatures have been tracking up.
I'll go with wrong because of a misinterpretation (there is no question at all that solar radiance is responsible for the majority of the temperature "increase" on Earth - pretty much all 250+ degrees Kelvin that we enjoy are directly coming from the sun.  Even the mechanism for Carbon that you posited is nothing more than trapping more energy from sunlight).

What you seem to mean is that there appears to be a temperature trend that doesn't correlate to the variation in solar radiation.  I'll note, you seem to what to jump from there to a carbon vector, based on correlation, notwithstanding the lack of demonstrable causation or the fact that there are a multitude of factors that also correlate to the trend.
Quote
So in comparing certainties, we would say that our certainty of CO2 being a cause of temperature increase is much greater than from solar variances.
I don't think anyone would actually say that.  In fact, this is what happens when someone looks at a correlation and decides that they don't need to show a causation.  The best you could say is that the increase in carbon correlates to the increase in temperature (of course even there you have problems with actually showing the data demonstrate that fact).
Quote
In fact, we would say that we are more certain that the temperature trend is NOT caused by solar variance and that it is.
We wouldn't actually say it that way. 
Quote
This can be applied to almost every objection by denialists to AGW.
Yes, you are correct, mislabeling correlation as causation and overstating the case can in fact be applied to every objection by denialists.  Not sure that's something to be proud of though.
Quote
This is why I say that denialists need to "prove" their contention that AGW is NOT happening.
It's also why I say they don't.
Quote
Have we reached a level of absolute certainty about AGW?  No, I'll agree with you there.  But the preponderance of evidence is pointing toward AGW.  So it must be taken seriously.
I have never said not to take it seriously.  I've said at every stage its the best science we have on the topic.  But I've also said that its way less certain than its presented.

So take it seriously, but don't panic.  And most of all, don't let you need for a solution let you be duped into supporting actions that are actually worse for the environment.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 29, 2016, 03:58:35 PM
Seriati are you aware of the studies showing that outgoing radiation (from the planet) has dropped in the specific wavelength bands at which CO2 and methane absorb energy, and that this drop is consistent with theoretical expectations?

Are you also aware of the studies showing an increasing trend of infrared energy at the surface of the planet, and that spectral analyses of that radiation show that the increase was again quantitatively linked to wavelength bands associated to greenhouse gases?

I know these studies weren't mentioned above, so I wonder whether this new information does anything to change your position with regards to the link between CO2 and the energy imbalance / temperature increases being simply a correlation.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 29, 2016, 04:18:36 PM
Zombie!
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 29, 2016, 05:52:24 PM
Seriati are you aware of the studies showing that outgoing radiation (from the planet) has dropped in the specific wavelength bands at which CO2 and methane absorb energy, and that this drop is consistent with theoretical expectations?

I'd find it interesting of course.  Not sure why it would surprise you (or anyone) that when we have more atmospheric carbon, we'd see less energy escaping in that wavelength?  That's basic logic.  For it to be a greenhouse effect though, it would have to result in the total escaping energy decreasing, or if it were a run away green house effect in a knock on that increases the energy capture by atmospheric H2).  Why also reference methane and carbon collectively?

Quote
Are you also aware of the studies showing an increasing trend of infrared energy at the surface of the planet, and that spectral analyses of that radiation show that the increase was again quantitatively linked to wavelength bands associated to greenhouse gases?

I think I found the site you were looking at, do you have a link to the studies themselves?  The page I found filtered out H20, which too me, limits the utility of the analysis.  I get why they did it, because if you include H2O everything else looks like it's completely insignificant.  However, isn't that the point?  You have to show a total change to make the case. 

Quote
I know these studies weren't mentioned above, so I wonder whether this new information does anything to change your position with regards to the link between CO2 and the energy imbalance / temperature increases being simply a correlation.

Not sure what you think my position actually is.  It's a good start, but it's not evidence of causation, nor is it evidence that just reducing atmospheric carbon would have any kind of positive impact.  Keep in mind, I'm pro-controlling pollution for its own sake, there are an enormous amount of health consequences to allowing rampant carbon production.  However, making this exact argument to me is not going to be easy.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 29, 2016, 09:27:27 PM
Just to be clear - I was discussing CO2, not "atmospheric carbon" which might be confused with particulate molecular carbon, and doesn't have the same effects at all in the atmosphere.

So, if you accept that increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane are blocking increasing amounts of long wave radiation (in specific wavelength bands) from escaping the atmosphere, what more would you require to be convinced that those compounds are responsible for recent global warming, and that the position is not supported primarily by some assumption of "correlation"?

Would it be sufficient to show that there is now an imbalance between energy coming into Earth's atmosphere and being radiated out of Earth's atmosphere? Your response seems to suggest you think there might be other wavelengths where energy is being radiated at higher levels, offsetting the shortfall mentioned in my previous post.

Earlier, you wrote:
Quote
I'll note, you seem to what to jump from there to a carbon vector, based on correlation, notwithstanding the lack of demonstrable causation or the fact that there are a multitude of factors that also correlate to the trend.
This suggests that you think/thought that the theory of AGW is based on simply calculating correlations between CO2 levels and temperature readings; I wanted to point out that there is actual experimental data underpinning the theory, and that data is consistent with observations.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 07, 2017, 07:03:02 PM
Another "climate change denier", but I thought it was an interesting article.

I didn't agree with his position against wind turbines and solar panels but I particularly liked one statement he made:

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

That's pretty funny. The Earth's temperature and climate have changed radically for billions of years but the temperature and climate that we have right now happens to be exactly where it is supposed to stay from now on. Not only that but if it wasn't for humans our climate would stay static. I guess I can see why we'd like to keep things as they are since we've got our systems all set up for it but I'm not so sure I see why the climate wouldn't change, or even why it wouldn't change so quickly, if it wasn't for human interference. I suppose that point has been made before but I just found the way he put it to be entertaining.

I thought I read somewhere that oxygen levels during human evolution may have been much higher than what they are today and biologically we would perform better with greater oxygen in the atmosphere although there may be a trade off with more free radicals in our systems.

https://www.google.com/search?q=oxygen+levels+50,000+years+ago&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl8rPRnLHRAhXBPCYKHSChDaMQsAQILw&biw=1360&bih=659#imgrc=eoFHCGmh2BCNOM%3A

Just a chart I came across and it shows the oxygen levels significantly higher about 15,000 years ago at around 23% vs 21% today and spiking at what looks like about 26% around 70,000 years ago when we were really starting to break out as a species. So we talk about climate change and how it affects the Earth but what about how it affects us biologically if the oxygen levels continue to decline?

That happens naturally though and there are periods where it's been down to 16%. I wonder what would happen if it got down to 20% or 19% within the next few decades, if the difference in our mental faculties and physical abilities would be noticeably different.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 07, 2017, 07:03:52 PM
Another "climate change denier", but I thought it was an interesting article.

I didn't agree with his position against wind turbines and solar panels but I particularly liked one statement he made:

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

That's pretty funny. The Earth's temperature and climate have changed radically for billions of years but the temperature and climate that we have right now happens to be exactly where it is supposed to stay from now on. Not only that but if it wasn't for humans our climate would stay static. I guess I can see why we'd like to keep things as they are since we've got our systems all set up for it but I'm not so sure I see why the climate wouldn't change, or even why it wouldn't change so quickly, if it wasn't for human interference. I suppose that point has been made before but I just found the way he put it to be entertaining.

I thought I read somewhere that oxygen levels during human evolution may have been much higher than what they are today and biologically we would perform better with greater oxygen in the atmosphere although there may be a trade off with more free radicals in our systems.

https://www.google.com/search?q=oxygen+levels+50,000+years+ago&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl8rPRnLHRAhXBPCYKHSChDaMQsAQILw&biw=1360&bih=659#imgrc=eoFHCGmh2BCNOM%3A

Just a chart I came across and it shows the oxygen levels significantly higher about 15,000 years ago at around 23% vs 21% today and spiking at what looks like about 26% around 70,000 years ago when we were really starting to break out as a species. So we talk about climate change and how it affects the Earth but what about how it affects us biologically if the oxygen levels continue to decline?

That happens naturally though and there are periods where it's been down to 16%. I wonder what would happen if it got down to 20% or 19% within the next few decades, if the difference in our mental faculties and physical abilities would be noticeable.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 07, 2017, 07:48:12 PM
http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.5dPCVrnY.dpbs

Was pretty funny to make note of, but then, I'm a skeptic. So I should be amused by such things.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 09, 2017, 10:40:10 AM
Just to be clear - I was discussing CO2, not "atmospheric carbon" which might be confused with particulate molecular carbon, and doesn't have the same effects at all in the atmosphere.

So, if you accept that increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane are blocking increasing amounts of long wave radiation (in specific wavelength bands) from escaping the atmosphere, what more would you require to be convinced that those compounds are responsible for recent global warming, and that the position is not supported primarily by some assumption of "correlation"?

Evidence.  As I've pointed out repeatedly our models are based on collections of small scale studies about components that we can understand in a very narrow test range.  To get to a study of the climate as a whole though is not just the same thing as adding up the small studies that we have done.  If we could be sure that we have actually picked all the correct elements to study, have correctly identified the entire trend line of their interactions with all the other elements involved, and have not accidentally included erroneous elements or over or under-weighted correct elements, we could generate a model that may have predictive success.  Even then though it would predict for, potentially, a broad range of outcomes.  What we have now, may be as accurate as asking 3 people at random in a town about a traffic accident that occurred that they may not have even seen.

So while this piece of evidence is very good stuff, it's almost purely just a definitional argument.  Honestly, it's as insightful as a study showing that if you put a red colored filter in front of a flash light, you get much less blue and yellow light coming out the other side.  Could there be any other result?  You want to move from there to an implication that because there is this single effect, hundreds, thousands, millions? of other effects are also moving on a correlated line (ie causation) then you have to show that this single change in fact forces the others.

Quote
Would it be sufficient to show that there is now an imbalance between energy coming into Earth's atmosphere and being radiated out of Earth's atmosphere? Your response seems to suggest you think there might be other wavelengths where energy is being radiated at higher levels, offsetting the shortfall mentioned in my previous post.

The total output is a usefull data point over time, as reductions would imply that this is a material point.  However, without understanding other interactive elements its very difficult to be sure that the trend you are seeing is actually linked to the element you want - which is why we typically run controlled experiments (to remove confounding influences), which is the exact thing we can't do on the climate.  We don't have a control group to compare against.

Quote
Earlier, you wrote:
Quote
I'll note, you seem to what to jump from there to a carbon vector, based on correlation, notwithstanding the lack of demonstrable causation or the fact that there are a multitude of factors that also correlate to the trend.
This suggests that you think/thought that the theory of AGW is based on simply calculating correlations between CO2 levels and temperature readings; I wanted to point out that there is actual experimental data underpinning the theory, and that data is consistent with observations.

I'm constantly baffled by how I must come across that you guys, where you think I under less about or a more simplistic version of AGW than you do.  My criticisms are not from ignorance, they are directly from understanding how much a modeled result can not tell you, from understanding the deficiencies of observational rather than experimental science.  I still say, the modeled results are the best we have, maybe the best we could make, and should be taken seriously and refined, but I also am aware that the margin for error on them is grossly understated because of the forgoing limitations.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 09, 2017, 11:15:47 AM
Quote
“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

Dr. Ivar Giaever is a silly physicist who is speaking about a subject he is not an expert in and denies the facts his fellow scientists have come up with.

How he can say the climate is "amazingly stable" is beyond me (unless he simply denies that temperatures have risen dramatically over the last century and a half--i.e. simply denies the facts).  Any reasonable person who accepts the temperature data has to come to the conclusion that something incredibly unusual is happening.  And that fact that no other known variable (solar input, change in Earth's orbit, etc.) has changed that radically puts CO2 as the prime suspect.  Anyone who denies that is simply denying the facts.

Cherry, look at this chart from xkcl. (https://xkcd.com/1732/)  You'll need to scroll for a while.  Look at how temperatures have varied since the last ice age.  Look at the dates.  Finally, look at the bottom of the chart to see how much temps have varied recently.

Climate has been amazingly stable--until now.

Even a Noble prize for quantum physics doesn't make you an expert in everything.  And even some experts in a field make mistakes.  But when over 90 percent of the experts in a field agree on something, the best bet is that there is something to it, and we had best take it seriously.

Sorry, Cherry, but Giaever is commenting on things outside of his field of expertise and is obviously, terribly wrong.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 09, 2017, 12:13:38 PM
The thing that was interesting to me though is we hear about CO2 all the time but we don't really hear much about Oxygen. Even people who don't think higher CO2 levels are a grave concern might feel differently if it was put in terms of lower O2 levels.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 09, 2017, 03:38:44 PM
Cherry, look at this chart from xkcl. (https://xkcd.com/1732/)  You'll need to scroll for a while.  Look at how temperatures have varied since the last ice age.  Look at the dates.  Finally, look at the bottom of the chart to see how much temps have varied recently.

Depends on whose chart you're looking at, I'm going to say I doubt his hockey stick. He's also missing a cooling phase that happened in the middle of the 20th century, as he shows warming instead. 2015's numbers as well as much of 2016 are also skewed due to a strong El Nino cycle which always causes temps to demonstrate a warming bias. If you compare the average for 2016, we're within instrumentation error on temperature difference between 2016 and 1999(another post-El Nino year), you end up with 2016 only slightly ahead of 1999 based on satellite data.

That's hardly a runaway greenhouse effect. Or a pronounced warming trend.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 09, 2017, 05:21:04 PM
I believe he was using averaged temperatures over a multiyear period, so the fact that it is curving up would be an indication that the years after the 1999 El Ninos were much hotter than after previous El Ninos, without as much cooling in the intervening years, rather than an absolute temperature.

But, of course, that wasn't the point of the chart.

It was to show that, compared to the temperature changes over the last 20,000 years, the temperature change in the last 150 years is unprecedented.  Compared to 150 years ago, it's either a hockey stick, or a steep slope, or something.  But one way or another, you got to have a line skewering upward to connect those two points.  And no where in the past 20,000 years did we see a change like that.  :o

So averaged temperatures have been remarkable stable for the last 20,000 years--until now!  Why temperatures have changed so (relatively) suddenly is the big question.  And it ain't solar input, or orbits, or lack of cloud cover, or anything else we have verified.  The best theory is that it is CO2, which has climbed precipitously during that time, too.  And it has the theoretical basis, and the models which are fairly accurate (within error bars), to back it up.

It is a pronounced warming trend.  You just have to look back a bit farther than a couple of decades.  Try 20,000 years. :)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on January 10, 2017, 10:57:15 AM
One thing I'd like to know about the xkcd chart is do we have the resolution to see the current kinds of changes in the pre-historic record? If you can only distinguish temperatures for a 100-year period, the current trend might look like an outlier than can be discarded from the model, assuming it reverts to something closer to the mean before too long. There may very well have been similar spikes but our data is too coarse to see them properly.

Not that it'll help much. The thing about the "optimal climate" argument is that almost all of our infrastructure was built to the current condition. Turning Siberia and Northern Canada into arable land isn't going to help much if the great prairies and the Mediterranean coast get baked into sand. Might as well argue that rising sea levels create wonderful new sea-side properties in upstate New York. Climate change is going to wreck the stuff we have now and by stuff I mean the foundation of civilization (food and land).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 10, 2017, 11:50:43 AM
One thing I'd like to know about the xkcd chart is do we have the resolution to see the current kinds of changes in the pre-historic record? If you can only distinguish temperatures for a 100-year period, the current trend might look like an outlier than can be discarded from the model, assuming it reverts to something closer to the mean before too long. There may very well have been similar spikes but our data is too coarse to see them properly.

This is a big thing. They'll handwave away data that suggests comparable spikes in the past, even though we have data showing such year-over-year spikes happening in the modern record(El Nino anyone?) so seeing some longer lived ones happen at times over the last several thousand years. But no, man couldn't have caused that, and because they've decided man is causing this, the environment must be playing by new rules now.

Quote
Not that it'll help much. The thing about the "optimal climate" argument is that almost all of our infrastructure was built to the current condition. Turning Siberia and Northern Canada into arable land isn't going to help much if the great prairies and the Mediterranean coast get baked into sand. Might as well argue that rising sea levels create wonderful new sea-side properties in upstate New York. Climate change is going to wreck the stuff we have now and by stuff I mean the foundation of civilization (food and land).

Climate does not, and has not, shifted that quickly in the past. That being said, climate shifts wrecking regional civilizations isn't unheard of within natural variation. The Vikings farming in the same Greenland that scientists are freaking out over melting ice caps anyone? Ancient Egypt? The Roman Empire? The Mayans? The Anasazi Indians? The list goes on and on. Don't underestimate our ability to adapt to the situation, even being able to engineer solutions in some cases so we can keep certain activities in place rather than set up operations somewhere else.

Which is part of the thing where the Climate Science isn't settled. Most of those polls where they come up with the very high numbers supporting the idea of "Global Warming"/Climate Change is because they do agree there is evidence of a warming trend, although the severity of the warming so far, and warming projected forward is disputed(the flaws in the models being used are many, and the accuracy is lacking for most of them). 

What also remains disputed is the degree to which mankind has contributed to the current trend, and in what ways. Is it CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" or is it land use change? It is a combination of both? Are (poorly understood) "natural systems" more involved in what's happening than many have considered?

The Multi-Decade Oscillations are one such example. Particularly where most of the observed warming has happened in NA, Europe, and Asia. Well gee, we just had the Atlantic go through a decades long warm phase that happened to coincide with one in the Pacific, so they were feeding each other. But they're both believed to be shifting into a cold phase, the North Atlantic expected to do so for the next couple decades, if so things are going to be cooling down now that El Nino has done it's thing and its residual energy has now been bled off.  Probably not an ice age, but certainly cooler than what's been seen in recent decades.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on January 10, 2017, 12:07:18 PM
So were there similar century-plus spikes? If so, how are they accounted for? Saying that "they" would is just handwave them is just speculation.

There are (attempted?) explanations for previous climate shifts. The only explanation we have for the current change is CO2. As far as I know, no other explanation has held up.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 10, 2017, 01:09:16 PM
One thing I'd like to know about the xkcd chart is do we have the resolution to see the current kinds of changes in the pre-historic record? If you can only distinguish temperatures for a 100-year period, the current trend might look like an outlier than can be discarded from the model, assuming it reverts to something closer to the mean before too long. There may very well have been similar spikes but our data is too coarse to see them properly.

Randall does address this in his comic, between 16000 BCE and 15500 BCE. :)  Of course, he doesn't show the scale, although it looks like the spikes are limited to less than 1C unless they are very brief.  You may have to go the sources to find out (if they even directly address it).  I'm sure there is a mathematical way that shows how big and long the spikes can be to have the average temperature be what is shown (not just "hand waving"), but I wouldn't know what that is off-hand.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 10, 2017, 01:16:46 PM
Randall does address this in his comic, between 16000 BCE and 15500 BCE. :)  Of course, he doesn't show the scale, although it looks like the spikes are limited to less than 1C unless they are very brief.

Take a closer look, what he's showing is what he believes the range the spikes could encompass (generally calculated using standard deviations), what you are assuming (incorrectly) is that there is precise data that covers those time periods.  Everything in that range is inferential (i.e., there are no direct measurements), even modern scientific measurements are largely inferential historical ones are in the realm of "best guess."  That's why I didn't really respond to the chart in the first place, it's deliberately smoothed in the past to emphasize the current trend.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 10, 2017, 01:39:37 PM
Quote
This is a big thing. They'll handwave away data that suggests comparable spikes in the past, even though we have data showing such year-over-year spikes happening in the modern record(El Nino anyone?) so seeing some longer lived ones happen at times over the last several thousand years. But no, man couldn't have caused that, and because they've decided man is causing this, the environment must be playing by new rules now.

Daemon, you are ignoring the average temperatures of the past decades.  Sure, there are spikes in El Ninos years, but what happens between those spikes?  When the temperature drops between spikes, it keeps rising.  We are seeing it go up between spikes.  The last decade was the hottest decade since we've started measuring.  The decade before that, too.  There is a discernible trend.  If you don't believe it, take out the El Nino spikes and see how the non-El Nino years are trending.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 10, 2017, 01:46:06 PM
Randall does address this in his comic, between 16000 BCE and 15500 BCE. :)  Of course, he doesn't show the scale, although it looks like the spikes are limited to less than 1C unless they are very brief.

Take a closer look, what he's showing is what he believes the range the spikes could encompass (generally calculated using standard deviations), what you are assuming (incorrectly) is that there is precise data that covers those time periods.  Everything in that range is inferential (i.e., there are no direct measurements), even modern scientific measurements are largely inferential historical ones are in the realm of "best guess."  That's why I didn't really respond to the chart in the first place, it's deliberately smoothed in the past to emphasize the current trend.

Thinking about it, you're right, Seriati.  I was assuming there was more precise data than what is doubtlessly used.

However, that doesn't mean that the charts are wildly inaccurate.  While it has been smoothed, the chart does reflect the average temperatures.  They did not have large, long-lasting spikes because those would affect the average.

But you and NobleHunter are right.  It would be very useful to know what the resolution of the prehistoric data.  There may have been similar spikes in the past as the one we see now that could have reverted back to the mean.  But we've been looking for that reversion for over 50 years now and haven't seen it yet. :(
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 10, 2017, 02:03:54 PM
I didn't say they are "wildly inaccurate," I would characterize them as misleading.  If they were financial charts for instance, somebody might be going to jail over them.

The data that far back is not able to show accurate annual temperatures, let alone intra-year information, nor can it show accurate year to year trends, all they can really show is an average over a period (and even that is again a best guess).  That line could have looked like an EKG hooked up to five different people having simultaneous heart attacks and we'd have no way to know it.

It's inherently flawed to compare precise data to imprecise data and then argue that the volatility is what you're showing.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 10, 2017, 03:15:16 PM
I didn't say they are "wildly inaccurate," I would characterize them as misleading.  If they were financial charts for instance, somebody might be going to jail over them.

The data that far back is not able to show accurate annual temperatures, let alone intra-year information, nor can it show accurate year to year trends, all they can really show is an average over a period (and even that is again a best guess).  That line could have looked like an EKG hooked up to five different people having simultaneous heart attacks and we'd have no way to know it.

It's inherently flawed to compare precise data to imprecise data and then argue that the volatility is what you're showing.

Far more likely the imprecise data from the "historical reconstruction" going back thousands of years has a "resolution" that often spans decades rather than specific years. IE they're unable to say the average global temperature in 1965 BCE was __ degrees. What they could say is that evidence suggests the average global temps between 2000 to 1950 BCE was __.

Which still goes back to "The spike" going on over the past 30 years. If we were in a paired MDO that had an unusual warm spike, and we're running into the trough of the following cold spike, then once that trough completes, much of that "warming" may suddenly balance out to "average" or close to it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 08, 2017, 05:07:18 PM
While I can't for life of me understand why there would be a global conspiracy to overstate the impact of warming, anyone have any interesting thoughts on the whistleblower reports that the "pausebuster" paper may not be supportable?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Kasandra on February 08, 2017, 05:23:12 PM
Except that that's not what Bates said (http://www.popsci.com/regardless-house-science-committee-claims-noaa-scientists-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 08, 2017, 05:31:28 PM
Not sure you read both accurately if you cite to it with a "not what Bates said" header, since it doesn't appear to be contradictory on that point.  It's definitely still an issue of data adjustment and whether the appropriate adjustments were made, as both links discuss.  In any event I was really asking for the opinions of some of the posters who seem to have researched this topic in the past.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on February 08, 2017, 09:22:46 PM
Oh, speaking of "adjustments" that news headline a couple weeks back where they were harping about the past three years being the warmest on record?

Well, not quite. At least according to the actual instrument record. How they generated the claim was by means interpolating the data from various reporting stations to "fill in the holes" which mostly happened in the Arctic and Antarctic for obvious reasons(and satellites don't reliably observe those areas either).

Where in many respects they performed the equivalent of declaring that Salt Lake City, Utah has had some of its warmest years on record.... Based on weather station data recorded in Phoenix, Arizona and Calgary, Alberta. But because they've declared their interpolated data to be authoritative, you need to take their word for it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Kasandra on February 09, 2017, 09:27:59 AM
Not sure you read both accurately if you cite to it with a "not what Bates said" header, since it doesn't appear to be contradictory on that point.  It's definitely still an issue of data adjustment and whether the appropriate adjustments were made, as both links discuss.  In any event I was really asking for the opinions of some of the posters who seem to have researched this topic in the past.
Well, you'll have my opinion, too.  Bates did not complain that the data was manipulated to emphasize the lack of a hiatus.  He only said the analysis hadn't been completed, but he didn't challenge the results.  You'll have to wait for someone who doesn't believe that climate change is occurring for additional backup for the DM article.  Maybe Trump can be the decider.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on February 09, 2017, 10:41:20 AM
Not sure you read both accurately if you cite to it with a "not what Bates said" header, since it doesn't appear to be contradictory on that point.  It's definitely still an issue of data adjustment and whether the appropriate adjustments were made, as both links discuss.  In any event I was really asking for the opinions of some of the posters who seem to have researched this topic in the past.
Well, you'll have my opinion, too.  Bates did not complain that the data was manipulated to emphasize the lack of a hiatus.  He only said the analysis hadn't been completed, but he didn't challenge the results.  You'll have to wait for someone who doesn't believe that climate change is occurring for additional backup for the DM article.  Maybe Trump can be the decider.

He did say the data wasn't properly vetted. It also wasn't properly archived. There were a few other steps skipped as well. But hey, their findings with sketchy data could make headlines (and did) in advance of a major international conference on that specific subject. But we're supposed to shrug it off and believe it's just an "unfortunate coincidence."
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Kasandra on February 09, 2017, 11:06:41 AM
He's also been denounced by other scientists who actually worked on the data and report that he challenges, and others familiar with both the data and the report's conclusions.  What this kerfuffle says to me is that climate change deniers are always happy to leap onto any hint of disagreement or inconclusiveness backing up the steady release of information that confirms that it is happening.  Look at the House Science Committee members' comments if you want to see people otherwise disinterested in the topic dancing on their desks in response to the DM article.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Mynnion on February 09, 2017, 02:17:44 PM
Snopes carried this if anyone is interested.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/ (http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2017, 02:31:02 PM
Snopes is interesting, they seem to not quite understand how the adjustments were done between the buoys and ship based data.  Unless I'm misunderstanding, they hang their hat on the buoys being given "greater" weight, but skip over the fact that temperatures from the buoys were adjusted upwards before given than weight (rather than the temperatures from the ships being adjusted downwards).  Unless I'm misreading all of this, I'm hard pressed to understand the direction of that adjustment when it appears universally agreed that ship based temperatures are warmer because of the heat generated by the ships themselves.

They also seem to be relying more on opinion here than fact.  For example concluding that the paper had little impact on the conference because a single state department source made that claim.  They could just as easily have reviewed news accounts at the time, or other references that implied it did have an impact.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on February 09, 2017, 02:53:11 PM
I debated this on Facebook a bit,

1) He made some pretty basic science errors in his accusations (the adjusting the bouy data - the adjusting the buoy date vs adjusting the ship data didn't matter - either was perfectly valid - the buoy data adjustment was simply to make it easeier to compare to previous research - basically adding buoys over time created an artificial cooling trend)

2) His claims about the need for extensive verification only applied to datasets that were not being updated (satellite data needs extensive vetting because there are lots of places for errors to creep in, the buoy and ship data could be vetted far faster)

3) He had been demoted before retiring and thus appeared to have a grudge

4) There appears to be confusion between using different model versions (there were claims about things being 'redone entirely' but basically there are new versions of model and datasets published each year).

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on February 09, 2017, 03:06:49 PM
Seriati,

the adjusting direction doesn't matter since we are only interested in the trend.

Say you have a group of 16 thermometers in a 3x3 grid (each corner and crossing point) and you are measuring temperature changes over time.  Then you want increased coverage so you decided to add a thermometer at the center of each grid cell, but you don't have access to the same thermometers, you only have a new batch that has a 2 degree lower temperature (say the original thermometers were all miscalibrated by 2 degrees).

Each time you add a thermometer, if you directly average without calibrating to the same standard, you will reduce the average temperature each time you add a thermometer.

Say it has a constant 100 F reading at all points with the original thermometers - 16*100/16 = 100.  Then add 1 thermomenter and you get (16*100 + 1*98)/17 = 99.88
add 9 (16*100 + 9*98)/25 = 99.28

So our water appears to have cooled over time, even though the temperature is actually constant, we have just used thermomenters that are calibrated differently.

We can either calibrate the new thermometers so that 98 is read as 100, or we can retroactively calibrate the original thermometers so that 100 is adjusted to 98.

Since we are only interested in the trend over time, the direction of calibration is irrelevant.  The trend (in our case staying exactly the same) is present regardless of which choice you make.  An important consideration is comparison with past analysis, which would lead you to keep the data with the longest history as the baseline.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2017, 03:30:30 PM
I understand how adjustments work guys.  There's also a basic premise that you should adjust the less reliable data to the more reliable data, not the other way.

I also get the point about trend, but again, unless I'm mistaken they were also interested in the temperatures themselves, and were using that data in connection with land-based data.  I don't think it's as harmless a directional error as you imply.

I've also spoken multiple times about instrumentation deficiencies.  The hard fact is, we don't have 100 years of direct data with reliable instrumentation for a global temperature.  We don't even have 60 years.  Adjustments and tweaks have occurred repeatedly throughout the data sets and the cumulative impact of the decisions made in those adjustments is enough to show any result we want to see.   I agree that there is no good reason to believe that anyone is creating a deliberate misleading trend, but if you understand what they're doing, you have to understand that it's well within the realm of possibility that they could do so accidentally. 

These kind of choices do matter, and this one seems harder to justify that you imply (at least if you really understand the science).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on February 09, 2017, 03:59:22 PM
Seriati,

Quote
Adjustments and tweaks have occurred repeatedly throughout the data sets and the cumulative impact of the decisions made in those adjustments is enough to show any result we want to see.

That is most definitely not the case.  The majority of the adjustments have had a cooling impact on data (ie the elimination of heat island effects) and the adjustments have all had to be extremely clear errors in the data with extensive statistical justification in both the determination that an error exists and in the method of accounting for the error.

Quote
The hard fact is, we don't have 100 years of direct data with reliable instrumentation for a global temperature.

Due to the huge number of data points the random errors should average out, only systematic errors should introduce trends and those can be spotted via statistical analysis.  It is actually difficult to introduce errors that will introduce a trend (asside from bugs in analysis software).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2017, 04:55:44 PM
Seriati,

Quote
Adjustments and tweaks have occurred repeatedly throughout the data sets and the cumulative impact of the decisions made in those adjustments is enough to show any result we want to see.

That is most definitely not the case.  The majority of the adjustments have had a cooling impact on data (ie the elimination of heat island effects) and the adjustments have all had to be extremely clear errors in the data with extensive statistical justification in both the determination that an error exists and in the method of accounting for the error.

LR seriously, you realize that for large parts of the globe we have no direct current measurements, and if you go back even 30 years that percentage is so high its laughable.  The official data is constantly being adjusted and massaged to appear to present complete coverage.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that adjustments have a bias towards cooling, not sure where you'd even get that idea. 

And I agree, the intent behind the adjustments is a good faith desire to get to an accurate picture.  Nonetheless there's no legitimate way not to acknowledge that the entire trend is potentially within the adjustment factor (not that I'm saying it actually is).

Quote
Quote
The hard fact is, we don't have 100 years of direct data with reliable instrumentation for a global temperature.

Due to the huge number of data points the random errors should average out, only systematic errors should introduce trends and those can be spotted via statistical analysis.  It is actually difficult to introduce errors that will introduce a trend (asside from bugs in analysis software).

Yep statistical analysis should be able to spot a trend (like say a global warming trend or a global warming pause) that is the direct result of non-random or systematic error.  One would expect truly random error to average out as you say, but no amount of error in adjustment is actually random in that sense.  It's like if you were flipping coins and marked every 50th one tails to correct for the extra weight on the heads side.  Could such an adjustment have merit? 

Are you honestly unaware of the level of fudge in the data, or are you making a different argument about whether its still reliable?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 16, 2017, 11:53:52 AM
Here's another reason we don't trust Trump to be able to do the right thing.

One of the people Trump has mentioned as a Science Advisor is physicist Will Happer.

Happer does not believe in AGW.

Why? (https://www.propublica.org/article/a-physicist-and-possible-adviser-to-trump-describes-his-love-of-science-co2)

Quote
Q: So you really do see global warming as a non-problem, not as something worth investing in?

A. Absolutely. Not only a non-problem. I see the CO2 as good, you know. Let me be clear. I don’t think it’s a problem at all, I think it’s a good thing. It’s just incredible when people keep talking about carbon pollution when you and I are sitting here breathing out, you know, 40,000 parts per million of CO2 with every exhalation. So I mean it’s shameful to do all of this propaganda on what’s a beneficial natural part of the atmosphere that has never been stable but most of the time much higher than now.

This statement, from a scientist, is like a government expert saying that assault rifles should be banned because they are automatic weapons.  ::)

Even with my basic understanding of climate change, I can see that this man is completely ignorant of the science, and apparently science in general.  But in his own mind, he's smarter than all other climate scientists put together.  Ignorant and arrogant.

With advisors like him, Trump will have no choice but to mess things up. :(
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on February 16, 2017, 02:10:47 PM
A. Absolutely. Not only a non-problem. I see the CO2 as good, you know. Let me be clear. I don’t think it’s a problem at all, I think it’s a good thing. It’s just incredible when people keep talking about carbon pollution when you and I are sitting here breathing out, you know, 40,000 parts per million of CO2 with every exhalation. So I mean it’s shameful to do all of this propaganda on what’s a beneficial natural part of the atmosphere that has never been stable but most of the time much higher than now.

This statement, from a scientist, is like a government expert saying that assault rifles should be banned because they are automatic weapons.  ::)

Even with my basic understanding of climate change, I can see that this man is completely ignorant of the science, and apparently science in general.  But in his own mind, he's smarter than all other climate scientists put together.  Ignorant and arrogant.[/quote]

Yes and no, I'm inclined to say CO2 is beneficial as well, but probably not for the reasons you'd think. Have you seen the studies and examples of plant growth under varying levels of CO2 exposure?

The plants exposed to levels that are claimed for "historic normal" levels of CO2 are positively anemic, nearly "starvation level" for many/most plants. Even without factoring in other things, it would certainly account for issues with wide spread famine in much of the world by that "forcing" alone. (The plants had to work that much harder for every little bit of hydrocarbon it obtained; incidentally, this probably also accounts for issues with "tree ring data" that skeptics also like to point towards, because of the observed (high) growth rates in trees during "the modern era")

So yes, CO2 is an inherent "super food" for plants even before any of its other side effects come into play. Within that specific context, CO2 is beneficial. Now if you want to claim that AGW completely offets the observable faster tree/plant growth benefits those elevated levels present, that's entirely up to you.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on February 16, 2017, 02:29:40 PM
Did they use modern plants or ones contemporary to the levels of CO2 in question? While it's an interesting experiment, I think it would be difficult to get valid data.

The real point is that the effects of CO2 on plant growth is largely irrelevant to the AGW question. We're still screwed if plants can grow really well in Siberia but the Great Plains are a desert and the coasts have receded by 5 miles due to rising sea-levels.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on February 16, 2017, 02:52:53 PM
The real point is that the effects of CO2 on plant growth is largely irrelevant to the AGW question. We're still screwed if plants can grow really well in Siberia but the Great Plains are a desert and the coasts have receded by 5 miles due to rising sea-levels.

Not necessarily, of course, this gets into geo-engineering solutions. Algae is a thing that engages in photosynthesis, it also is a very effective as both a carbon sink and feedstuff for fisheries. There are tens of thousands of square miles of "iron depleted" ocean out there. We could start seeding the oceans with iron, and thus trigger a significant increase in the amount of photosynthesis happening on/near the surface of the ocean, and use that to suck out a lot of the CO2 in the atmosphere where it then either enters the food chain, or finds it way to bottom of the ocean for longer term storage and sequestration.

Except we've currently banned the practice under international law, outside of some exceedingly narrow carve outs for "further scientific study" that virtually nobody is actually bothering to pursue, and for that ones that are trying, they're getting stymied by environmental activist groups every step along the way.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on February 16, 2017, 03:30:03 PM
What TheDaemon points out is the fundamental difficulty with trying to solve this problem - and I do think it is a problem.

Many environmentalists rule out any option that doesn't involve the privation of humanity. Significant numbers oppose tidal power, wind power, sometimes even solar power. Obviously opposing any massive seeding to the ocean, but also pipelines (which would result in a decrease of emissions used to transport fuel by other means).

I'd say they want us to live like the Amish, but I'm sure they would be horrified by the number of trees that would be burned as firewood, fertilizer runoff, etc.

I'm well aware that there are environmentalists who also support nuclear and other energies, and who act the opposite of what I am describing. But the most vocal members of those groups oppose the very concept of humans having energy, when you get right down to it.
Short of encasing the planet in biodomed cities that they wouldn't want us to build (cuts off migration paths), I'm not really sure how one would please all of them.

IF global warming / climate change is in fact a crisis, then we should be throwing out all other concerns to handle that one threat.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on February 16, 2017, 04:11:52 PM
What TheDaemon points out is the fundamental difficulty with trying to solve this problem - and I do think it is a problem.

Many environmentalists rule out any option that doesn't involve the privation of humanity. Significant numbers oppose tidal power, wind power, sometimes even solar power. Obviously opposing any massive seeding to the ocean, but also pipelines (which would result in a decrease of emissions used to transport fuel by other means).

The iron seeding opposition baffles me in a number of ways, most of what I've seen on it is almost pure scare mongering, and minimal science based on an extreme worst case("over fertilization") scenario where you instead end up with red algae everywhere. Knowing where that tipping point is, and how to avoid reaching it would be highly, and insanely helpful. But no, because that tipping point simply exists, we shouldn't play in that domain at all in their book.

In many respects, I'd think it would be something many environmental groups would want to investigate seriously given how concerned they are over "ocean acidification" due to increasing levels of CO2 in those warmer ocean waters. Seems to me that significantly increasing the population of algae would rather directly address that issue, so long as it is done in an effective manner... Which admittedly does warrant further study so we know what form that would take.

As those ocean going algae and plankton consumes the CO2 that is already dissolved in the water, and thus directly lowers it's CO2 content(acidity) until the much slower atmospheric exchange soaks more CO2 back in, which it should in turn immediately address once more.

It also has a knock-on effect of helping trigger larger marine life populations, which would help with the multitude of endangered marine animal species that are out there as you increase their food supply. It also provides a boon to the national fisheries of the regions where this could be done, potentially making it much easier to feed hundreds of millions of people.

But no, we can't do it because "it's not natural, and we don't understand it." So we shouldn't do anything to help understand it?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on February 16, 2017, 04:44:10 PM
I'm well aware that there are environmentalists who also support nuclear and other energies, and who act the opposite of what I am describing. But the most vocal members of those groups oppose the very concept of humans having energy, when you get right down to it.
Short of encasing the planet in biodomed cities that they wouldn't want us to build (cuts off migration paths), I'm not really sure how one would please all of them.

IF global warming / climate change is in fact a crisis, then we should be throwing out all other concerns to handle that one threat.

I pretty much agree with Rush Limbaugh on his declaration back in the 1990's, and there has been little to dissuade me from it since. While I don't think the particular brush he used should have been as broad as it was, it still shines a light on a truth many people don't want to really acknowledge.

That being: That the AGW Global Warming "community" is the preferred refuge of communists thw world over after the fall of the Soviet Union. It provides them with a great cover under which they can pursue socialistic and communistic "solutions to the problem of Climate Change." Likewise, it provides them with a means to further "put the brakes on" further "capitalistic expansion" into the world, or even to simply expand within its own existing sphere.

"Enviromentalist groups" and lobbies are the single largest obstacle for governments and corporations alike to overcome when it comes to doing anything which might improve the lives of people in any particular area. That isn't to say everything that a (local) government or any given business was actually pursuing anything that was in the (environmental) "best interest" of the communities involved, as that often isn't the case.

A good example recently would be the Oroville Dam in California, where environmental groups had (correctly) identified a deficiency in the construction of the Dam, and pursued a legal recourse in getting it corrected. Where, surprise surprise, they wanted more concrete, not less. So environmental groups can be "responsible" in the exercise of their role as watchdogs.

The problem is when they go overboard, and when/how to draw that line, currently the line is a crazy zig-zag of them sometimes holding far too much power where they can easily more than triple the cost of projects for completely trivial reasons(often resulting in their abandonment), and other times not enough(Oroville).

And a big tell in the (international) Climate Change (mitigation) crowd, in particular the louder/loudest ones, is looking at what their "solutions" are. Or more particularly, what they aren't. Although they seem to be really effective at shuffling money around, and claiming a lot of income redistribution is necessary("to help the poor"), as well as expansions of government powers. Huh, I wonder where they might have picked up that idea from?

Meanwhile, any serious pursuit of technologies or techniques that might have more immediate and significant impacts? Forbidden, and likely to result in your getting called all kinds of nasty things.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on February 16, 2017, 04:52:13 PM
What TheDaemon points out is the fundamental difficulty with trying to solve this problem - and I do think it is a problem.

Many environmentalists rule out any option that doesn't involve the privation of humanity. Significant numbers oppose tidal power, wind power, sometimes even solar power. Obviously opposing any massive seeding to the ocean, but also pipelines (which would result in a decrease of emissions used to transport fuel by other means).

I'd say they want us to live like the Amish, but I'm sure they would be horrified by the number of trees that would be burned as firewood, fertilizer runoff, etc.

I'm well aware that there are environmentalists who also support nuclear and other energies, and who act the opposite of what I am describing. But the most vocal members of those groups oppose the very concept of humans having energy, when you get right down to it.
Short of encasing the planet in biodomed cities that they wouldn't want us to build (cuts off migration paths), I'm not really sure how one would please all of them.

IF global warming / climate change is in fact a crisis, then we should be throwing out all other concerns to handle that one threat.

Extreme environmentalists are a problem, along with AGW denialists like Will Happer, who are the most vocal members of the skeptics.  Such denialists refuse to acknowledge the likelihood of AGW and oppose any ideas that would address it, and many times any studies that might confirm it, lest it makes their position weaker. :(

The obvious answer is David Brin's TWODA--Things We Ought To Do Anyway.  Cut down on fossil fuels use, because we'll cut down on pollution and dependence on foreign oil anyway.  Conserve and use less resources, because it'll be cheaper and help preserve the environment anyway.  Prevent methane escapes because it's dangerous and wasteful, anyway.  Things that have benefits beyond just cutting down on greenhouse gases.  No one should be fighting against stuff like that.  Those are things we can all agree upon.

Then we can negotiate the rest.  Allow more nuclear plants if we can close X-number of dirty coal plants.  Temporary gasoline tax to fund iron seeding of the oceans.

Sure, there will be people on both sides who will refuse to negotiate.  But we've always had to ignore the fringes to get anything done in this country.  We can do it again.  We just have to decide to, and start.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on February 16, 2017, 06:07:35 PM
Allow more nuclear plants if we can close X-number of dirty coal plants.  Temporary gasoline tax to fund iron seeding of the oceans.

On the iron seeding thing, I do think there is a legitimate "too much of a good thing" point on it, so the eco groups are right to be cautious on it. The outright ban at the international level was overkill.

As to funding it if/when legalized, I don't think it would need much "extra help" as fishery managers would be eager financers for it, as well as Dam operators in the US and elsewhere no doubt. Improved feeding grounds to their salmon runs means a greater chance of improving the size of those runs moving forward as bigger/stonger/more viable fish return from the ocean to make their way through all of the slackwater reservoirs those dams have created. If proven a viable strategy, dumping tons of iron into the ocean every year is potentially a much cheaper option than some of the other alternatives they're looking at.

Heck, if proven viable, it'd probably be a popular target for charitable donations. Of course, that throws a wrench in the whole concept of "cap and trade" because a CO2 sink isn't supposed to be popular and potentially provide a bevy of other follow-on benefits(in this case, to fisheries). You're supposed to be finance efforts to plant trees in random places, or undoubtedly, plant trees that they'll then likely try to discretely sell to the lumber industry decades later in order to then get someone else to pay them plant new trees in the same place.

You're not supposed to donate it to something that could have a more immediate pay out, and could benefit you directly when you next visit the grocery store looking for some fish.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on March 16, 2017, 11:37:57 AM
Apologies because this is only related to the macro topic.  It does not relate at all to the underlying science just to the economic balance that has been completely lacking in the formation of policies in the area of the environment. 

It's obviously an opinion piece and I have not independently verified any of the claims, but these kind of factors really go a long way to explaining why people who are pro-environment may generally oppose the types of policies that our governments want to and actually implement. 

https://www.creators.com/read/stephen-moore (https://www.creators.com/read/stephen-moore)

I found the claim that the UK is burning wood pellets, with a worse carbon result that fossil fuels, to generate power "renewably" particularly interesting and emblematic of the complaint I have with existing regulations and policies pursued by governments resulting in worse overall results in the pursuit of supposed goods.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on March 16, 2017, 01:03:58 PM
Actually burning wood is better than coal in terms of emissisions and worse than NG.  However, because wood is created from recent carbon in the air, whereas NG and coal are based on using ancient stores of carbon - using wood is carbon neutral and shouldn't contribute to global warming.

So your article was mistaken.

Australia saw prices surge - due to the increase in the price of NG (there was a cheap source in Queensland that started liquifying and exporting which doubled prices) and coal plant closures.  The coal plants were closed due to falling electricity demand, they were aging (40+ years old) and maintenance was expensive, and there were relatively small.  Although it was the most 'emission intensive' plants that were closed.  A large component of the price increase was due to delayed maintenance and infrastructure - the same issue that happened in the Us when energy production was privatized - short term profits were driving by not doing infrastructure buildout and maintenance - causing sharp price increases down the road when the maintenance and buildout turned critical.

The 'institute for energy research' used as a 'source' is created, owned and ran by the Koches - you might be familiar with their extensive coal holdings.

Basically your article is full of BS.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on March 16, 2017, 02:09:04 PM
Actually burning wood is better than coal in terms of emissisions and worse than NG.  However, because wood is created from recent carbon in the air, whereas NG and coal are based on using ancient stores of carbon - using wood is carbon neutral and shouldn't contribute to global warming.

So your article was mistaken.

I take your point, but your own analysis is also flawed.  Burning wood is not in fact carbon neutral - you should look at the scientific dispute on that "fact."  If burning wood results in deforestation it is actually a double negative as the wood burned is very carbon polluting (more than coal based on energy produced, not clear why you think otherwise), and removal of forests removes a giant sink.  Even if replanted, you've exchanged older growth, which is much more efficient at carbon sequestration with new growth, leading to a net loss.  You've also ignored that there's no guarantee that any of the burned fuel will end up in trees.

I agree though you are correct that with proper management, the impact could be mitigated for wood in a way that its difficult to match with coal.

Quote
Australia saw prices surge - due to the increase in the price of NG (there was a cheap source in Queensland that started liquifying and exporting which doubled prices) and coal plant closures.  The coal plants were closed due to falling electricity demand, they were aging (40+ years old) and maintenance was expensive, and there were relatively small.  Although it was the most 'emission intensive' plants that were closed.  A large component of the price increase was due to delayed maintenance and infrastructure - the same issue that happened in the Us when energy production was privatized - short term profits were driving by not doing infrastructure buildout and maintenance - causing sharp price increases down the road when the maintenance and buildout turned critical.

Calling BS on that.  The biggest difficulty faced in updating and modernizing those plants is not "private greed" is the radicalization of environmental regulations that force extreme costs on those plants, which are often grandfathered in part but would face completely uneconomical requirements to modernize and become cleaner.  You don't get credit for solving a problem that the environmental lobby created in the first place.

And by the way, your sources themselves are most likely relying on a report that ignored the subsidies provided to the wind industry in S. Australia (which is where the references to the increase from $100 to over $10,000 a mwh are based).  The actual bills for consumers about doubled after they closed their Coal plants because they had wind shortages, which forced more NG to be purchased - a known risk -  but they deliberately ignored the impact of the costs of the subsidies in setting those bills (which makes them a fake price, rather than a measure of cost).  I grant it is tough to get clean reporting on this, so there's no way to be sure about what the real numbers are.

Quote
The 'institute for energy research' used as a 'source' is created, owned and ran by the Koches - you might be familiar with their extensive coal holdings.

And?  Really, and?   Why engage in a poisoning the well fallacy argument?

Quote
Basically your article is full of BS.

Well you showed one example where there was more to the story than implied (though the opinion piece was accurate in what it actually said) where you did not include the full story either.  Does that mean you looked at a BS source?

And on the second, you did what you accuse me of and relied uncritically on an biased source yourself, when its apparent that a major part of their problem was that Wind power (which they got essentially for "free" on their bills) did not live up to its promises and received very costly subsidies - which if they had been charged through to the consumers would have made for a really gross cost expansion rather than just a doubling.

That brings up a consistent issue with policies established by the left, they uniformly act to hide the real costs from consumers.  People rarely realize that their too high power bills for of couple thousand dollars a year, are actually much higher because you have a couple of thousand in your taxes that's "subsidizing" that bill.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on March 16, 2017, 04:10:42 PM
The articles is all well-and-good about pointing out the expense of going "green."  And we should be careful to make sure burning wood doesn't increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But the obvious question is, "So what?"

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Increased levels in the atmosphere will trap more heat.  Unless something else counteracts that (and so far no one has shown anything that will, AFAIK), it will warm our planet.  The CO2 is also being absorbed by the oceans, causing ocean acidification.  And increased heat is being absorbed by the oceans, causing bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef among other things (as reported again just today).  Not to mention the increased heat is melting the polar ice caps, which will raise the levels of the oceans.  And that increased heat in the atmosphere is expected to increase the size of deserts and increase flooding in wetter areas.  All which means that food production will become harder and more expensive, even as population increases, which means more civil unrest internationally.

You have to balance all of that against increased energy costs.

And you may not even have to do that.  According to this article talking with ex-Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/not-even-trump-can-easily-reverse-our-progress-on-climate-change/2017/01/16/3d719356-dc25-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.c45ae76211a7), the trend is toward lower carbon energy production simply from market forces.

Quote
Since 2008, costs have fallen 41 percent for land-based wind power and 64 percent for utility-scale solar power. The cost of efficient LED light bulbs has fallen 94 percent since 2008. The cost of battery storage has declined 70 percent over that period, making electric vehicles more affordable.

Certainly costs should be a major faction in considering what we should do to address AGW (along with making sure what we do actually accomplishes the goal).  But simply saying that it will cost too much--well, you also have to consider the cost of not doing it. :(
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on March 16, 2017, 04:34:15 PM
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Increased levels in the atmosphere will trap more heat.  Unless something else counteracts that (and so far no one has shown anything that will, AFAIK), it will warm our planet.

There are a number of options that rather directly impact and offset such things. But they fall broadly under the aegis of "geo-engineering" and a short list of other things which have largely been declared to be illegal under international laws and treaties.

edit: Also In regards to some of the glacial events occuring in Antartica, some recent studies suggest that part of what is being seen in one region in particular may very well be geothermal in nature rather than Global Warming.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on March 16, 2017, 04:51:01 PM
Australia saw prices surge - due to the increase in the price of NG (there was a cheap source in Queensland that started liquifying and exporting which doubled prices) and coal plant closures.  The coal plants were closed due to falling electricity demand, they were aging (40+ years old) and maintenance was expensive, and there were relatively small.  Although it was the most 'emission intensive' plants that were closed.

Australia also has "other issues" hitting their power grid in various regions. IIRC there was an article a few years back talking about entire cities becoming energy exporters at certain times of the day because of wide spread adoption of home solar power and a mandate for the power companies to buy any excess energy those home owners produce.

Problem is, that since that production is solar in nature, it isn't a good baseline power source. But as they're mandated to buy/use it, and they need to match the load, that means the baseline power plants then have to shed production capacity in order to match demand.

In this case, it is a particularly bad problem for coal fired plants because they're almost universally boiler plants. (As are Nuclear power plants, and geothermal to a large extent) You can't just make boiling water suddenly not boil. It doesn't work that way. Newer natural gas, petroleum, and other such plants don't use boilers anymore, they use turbines. So when they get told to reduce production, they just slow the turbine(reduces its supply) or turn it off. Once demand picks up, they increase the fuel supply, or simply turn it back on.

Meanwhile that boiler plant is trying to bring things back to a nice rolling boil that generates lots of steam. Turning those boilers "on and off" is where the baseline grid operators are getting hammered, and those types of plants are the ones that are going away because of the emphasis on Solar/Wind and "renewable" intermittent power.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on March 16, 2017, 06:26:23 PM
Quote
Also In regards to some of the glacial events occuring in Antartica, some recent studies suggest that part of what is being seen in one region in particular may very well be geothermal in nature rather than Global Warming.

While interesting, it does not address the similar melting in the Arctic, nor the rising of water temperatures.  So that would just be adding to the problem of Antarctic melting.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 13, 2017, 08:52:33 AM
Quote
OK, then answer me a couple of questions.

CO2 produces warming in the atmosphere.  How do you know it doesn't procedure "significant warming?"  And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then?  What is your conclusive evidence of this?

Remember, it does produce warming.  How can you know it is not "significant," or won't be in the future?
I just read an article about warming, recalled this and thought I'd provide some answers.

How do I know CO2 doesn't provide "significant warming"? Depends on what significanct is. But,  do know that current CO2 level are about 400 ppm. Human activity accounts for about 3.5% of it - or 14 ppm.  The other 386 ppm comes from natural sources. Whatever warming is created is by CO2, 96.5% of it comes from sources we cannot control and the goal of AGW would be to eliminate that very minimal amount of human activity. While CO2 in general provides warming, the 3.5% from human is not a significant impact.

And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then? Because the impact of CO2 is logarithmic where the  (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png) the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect we get from CO2. The entire effect that CO2 provides on warming is essentially done as more than 90% of all possible warming from CO2 has already been delivered.  (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png). Doubling, or even quadrupling, CO2 will increase the warming effect less than 10%. This is not climate science or computer modeling, its math and repeatable, verifiable,  experimentation that's irrefutable. Future CO2 won't produce significant warming because its mathematically impossible.

Now the article that promoted me to recall:
Quote
Research shows a natural cooling cycle that occurs every 230 years began in 2014 and will send temperatures plummeting even further by 2019.

Quote
As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.


Quote
Scientists are also expecting a “huge reduction” in solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 that will cause thermometers to crash.

Both cycles suggest Earth is entering a global cooling cycle that could have devastating consequences for global economy, human life and society as we know it.

If predictions of the world-wide big freeze come true, the plot to 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow would not be far from reality during winter. ...

David Dilley, CEO of Global Weather Oscillations, told Daily Star Online global warming and cooling cycles are determined by the gravitational forces of the Earth, moon and sun.

Each cycle lasts around 120,000 years, with sub-cycles of around 230 years.

He said: “We have had five warming cycles since about 900AD, each followed by a dramatic cooling cycle.

“The last global warming cycle ended in 1790 and the year 2020 is 230 following this – thus I have been talking about rapid cooling beginning in 2019.”

He said the oncoming cooling will send temperatures plummeting to lows last seen in the 1940s – when the mercury bottomed out at -21C during winter in the UK.

He said: “Cooling from 2019 into about 2020 to 2021 will bring world temperatures back to where they were in the 1940s through the 1960s.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 13, 2017, 11:22:30 AM
Quote
Since 2008, costs have fallen 41 percent for land-based wind power and 64 percent for utility-scale solar power. The cost of efficient LED light bulbs has fallen 94 percent since 2008. The cost of battery storage has declined 70 percent over that period, making electric vehicles more affordable.

Certainly costs should be a major faction in considering what we should do to address AGW (along with making sure what we do actually accomplishes the goal).  But simply saying that it will cost too much--well, you also have to consider the cost of not doing it. :(

Now for a time-traveling response. :)

Well, some of this cycles into adaptation vs mitigation vs geoengineering. Some of the more extreme mitigation measures are acknowledged by nearly everyone as being VERY expensive(costing well into the Trillions of Dollars over the next century). What they don't like to talk about, or even want anybody to fund studies in, is cost estimates for adaptation, or to even speak of Geo-Engineering(which they've essentially made illegal to even research under international law). Because they're afraid those options "distract from the conversation" even if they're very relevant.

A several billion dollar budget for civil engineering research into adapting skyscrapers for continued use after their lowest levels are flooded out(in a Venice like scenario) could achieve a lot. (Which isn't to mention other potential applications for such knowledge, such as deliberately building such structures in areas that already are under water)

Which isn't to mention that going the route of the Netherlands is an option for many areas as well. For that matter, funding such efforts for third world nations is reasonably viable too.  Except many/most environmental groups aren't big fans of what the Netherlands has done and is doing, so that's largely verboten as well. On the smaller scale, we already have historical precedents of other avenues that could be pursued for other smaller structures. Galveston, Texas in the early 20th Century is a poster child for this as I recall, and wiki also concurs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galveston,_Texas#Hurricane_of_1900_and_recovery

Quote
Following the storm, a 10-mile (16 km) long, 17 foot (5.2 m) high seawall was built to protect the city from floods and hurricane storm surges. A team of engineers including Henry Martyn Robert (Robert's Rules of Order) designed the plan to raise much of the existing city to a sufficient elevation behind a seawall so that confidence in the city could be maintained.

Which basically boils down to "put the town on jacks/rollers" move the building off their existing foundations, "build up" the underlying land to increase the elevation of the structure to a designated height, rebuild the foundation for the relevant structure, then return structure to it's initial location, just at a higher elevation then it enjoyed previously. No need to build a dike, although a seawall of some kind might be in order to account for the elevation changes created. This is stuff we could do 100 years ago, and stuff that is still being done today(relocation of buildings that were never built with being moved in mind). Is it expensive? Yes. But it is something that definitely can be done with existing tech, but discussion of doing such things isn't to be placed on the table for serious discussion, at least not on a state or national level in the US because well, environmental groups will get unhappy.

Which is particularly baffling at this point considering some of those same groups are already saying that even if we cut our emissions to 0 today, there still is going to be several feet of sea level rise before things turn around and head the other way. So it seems to me that there are probably at least a few communities that need to be pursuing an adaptation strategy already, either with dikes and levees, or by raising the land level of their community to get out of the anticipated flood plain.

Likewise, if people were being serious "true believers" on this matter,  they'd be pushing communities in such threatened areas to mandate that any new construction (development level) activity for buildings will have their "ground level" at __ elevation above a given baseline. Precisely so they don't have need to take such extra measures later for those structures. But nope, Environmental groups don't like it because of it's disruptive environment impact, and everyone else doesn't like it because it'll make new construction in those areas more expensive--they'd rather risk being permanently flooded out in 50 years or less.

Besides, they probably also anticipate that if flooding does actually become a serious concern, Uncle Sam will helpfully show up with a check to help finance the mass relocation effort a decade or so before it's "too late" to do anything. Talk about your Moral Hazards.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 15, 2017, 03:38:37 PM
Quote
How do I know CO2 doesn't provide "significant warming"? Depends on what significant is. But,  do know that current CO2 level are about 400 ppm. Human activity accounts for about 3.5% of it - or 14 ppm.  The other 386 ppm comes from natural sources. Whatever warming is created is by CO2, 96.5% of it comes from sources we cannot control and the goal of AGW would be to eliminate that very minimal amount of human activity. While CO2 in general provides warming, the 3.5% from human is not a significant impact.

Reminds me of an argument from an old member of this board, G2.  He also missed a significant point about this.

Sure, we have only added 3.5% of the total CO2 level in the atmosphere.  But greenhouse gases do a lot of work.  Greenhouse gases warm our planet an average of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. (https://energy.mo.gov/energy/stay-informed/publications-reports/global-climate-change-the-greenhouse-effect)  So as far as total warming, it isn't significant.  But that is not what everyone talks about when they talk about warming of our planet.

For purposes of human habitation, 3 degrees centigrade is "significant" (about 5 degrees Fahrenheit).  At that temperature, 90 percent of summers would be warmer than 95 percent of the summers in the 20th century.  IOW, imagine the hottest summer a decade ago being considered a remarkable "cool" summer. :)

In graphic terms, consider what the world would be like just 4.5 degrees C cooler. (https://xkcd.com/1379/)  Got your skis waxed-up? :)

So a relatively small effect on the total temperature increase from greenhouse gases can have a major effect on our climate.

Quote
And if the concentration doubles, how do you know it won't produce significant warming then? Because the impact of CO2 is logarithmic where the  the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect we get from CO2. The entire effect that CO2 provides on warming is essentially done as more than 90% of all possible warming from CO2 has already been delivered. . Doubling, or even quadrupling, CO2 will increase the warming effect less than 10%. This is not climate science or computer modeling, its math and repeatable, verifiable,  experimentation that's irrefutable. Future CO2 won't produce significant warming because its mathematically impossible.

And if our climate was a nice, linear system, that would be true.

But it ain't.  Not by a long shot.

Our climate system is what is called in mathematics a chaotic system, which has two significant properties.  One if that the precise path a chaotic system takes is dependent on the initial conditions.  IOW, if you start the system at, say, x=1, it will have different values over time than if you started it at x=2.  At, say, t=5, the first one might have a value of x=5, while the second one might have a value of x=2.  It's weird, but that's the way it is.  Climate does not follow a straight, predictable line.

The second property is that it is non-linear.  A linear system increases proportionally to the input.  So if you double the input, you double the output.  In non-linear systems, that is not true.  You can double the input, and half the output.  Or quadruple the output.  It all depends on the system and where it is at when you changed the input.

What this all comes down to is you can't know exactly how our climate will react to the increase of CO2.  The added heat may melt polar ice, which will increase the area of dark rocks that was under the ice, which will absorb more heat, which will increase the overall temperature.  Increased temperature could increase evaporation, which could increase cloud cover, which would reflect more sunlight back into space, cooling the Earth.  It would also increase the amount of radiation reflected back to the Earth, increasing the temperature.

So when you calculate how much effect the increased CO2 will have, you also have to calculate how these feedback mechanisms will be affected.  So, no, it's not a mathematical impossibility.  In fact, it is a mathematical certainty that Earth's climate does not work the way your simplistic model works.  It is much more complicated than that, and you have to take that complexity into account before you can be certain that CO2 won't continue to increase the Earth's temperature, as all the sophisticated climate models show.

Quote
As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years.

I call B.S. :)  This is just a recycling of the specious argument used back in 1998.  Because of a very simple, very obvious observation.

The new records are higher than the old ones.  ::)

You don't have stable cycles that keep getting higher each time.  Look at the charts.  The average temperature between 1998 and 2016 was higher than the 20 years before that.  The last 3 years were all record-breaking.  And the records are higher than in the last 180 years.  So where is this "cycle" that is going to drop temperatures?  I don't see it.

Yes, we will have a reduction in temperatures in the next decade.  We always have a reduction from the high of an El Nino year.  There is that cycle.  But the trend is still up.  The Earth is still warming.  Don't think a reduction from the previous high means a downward trend.

And even if there will be a "huge reduction" in solar activity in the next few decades, what happens after that?  When solar activity returns to normal, and we have all this CO2 in the atmosphere to capture more of it's heat?  It is ludicrous to argue that we shouldn't worry about increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere because there will be a temporary decrease in heat from the sun.  Because in a decade or so it will return to normal, but it will take 100 to 1000 years, or more, for the Earth to return CO2 levels to the ones we are used to--the ones we have based our agriculture on.

It would be nice to get a short reprieve, but that's all it would be.  Short.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on May 15, 2017, 03:48:06 PM
I can't contribute materially to this conversation, but I will note that I'll laugh my a** off if, one day, we learn that the planet is destined for massive cooling and everyone begins discussing ways to warm the planet. It's sort of a joke scenario I imagine happening, which has nothing to do with what our focus should be right now.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on May 15, 2017, 04:39:51 PM
Fenring,

Quote
I can't contribute materially to this conversation, but I will note that I'll laugh my a** off if, one day, we learn that the planet is destined for massive cooling and everyone begins discussing ways to warm the planet. It's sort of a joke scenario I imagine happening, which has nothing to do with what our focus should be right now.

There is a reasonable chance that will happen.  Our global society is tuned to a fairly narrow range of temperatures due to how and where our technology developed.  It will be quite easy to warm the planet a modest amount - burning forests; releasing methane and other potent GHGs - it is far easier to create than to pull it out of the air.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 15, 2017, 06:16:00 PM
Reminds me of an argument from an old member of this board, G2.  He also missed a significant point about this.

Sure, we have only added 3.5% of the total CO2 level in the atmosphere.  But greenhouse gases do a lot of work.  Greenhouse gases warm our planet an average of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. (https://energy.mo.gov/energy/stay-informed/publications-reports/global-climate-change-the-greenhouse-effect)  So as far as total warming, it isn't significant.  But that is not what everyone talks about when they talk about warming of our planet.

You literally just hand waived over what could be a completely valid objection.  If an increase/decrease in the human caused portion is not likely to have a dramatic impact on the end results because the vast majority of the impact has already occured (and keep in mind, we're talking about carbon, when water vapor is the greenhouse gas that contributes most of the impact) is it worthwhile?  If your model is premised on the complete elimination of human contributed carbon its improbable, if you are asking for say a 20% total reduction in carbon emissions (which by the way, none of the proposals made to date would even come close to that), would it really do anything but cause a slight slow in the trend?

Quote
For purposes of human habitation, 3 degrees centigrade is "significant" (about 5 degrees Fahrenheit).  At that temperature, 90 percent of summers would be warmer than 95 percent of the summers in the 20th century.  IOW, imagine the hottest summer a decade ago being considered a remarkable "cool" summer. :)

Except you don't get to 3 degrees centigrade just from carbon emissions you have to have a runaway feedback loop to get there.

Quote
And if our climate was a nice, linear system, that would be true.

But it ain't.  Not by a long shot.

Our climate system is what is called in mathematics a chaotic system, which has two significant properties.

What's funny is trying to use the rules of a model as if they applied to that which is being modeled.  Our climate appears to be chaotic, and thus you can attempt to use certain techniques approximate possible results, but that doesn't mean it is the same thing as the model.  This is just a pure speculation on your part.

Quote
What this all comes down to is you can't know exactly how our climate will react to the increase of CO2.

This I agree with.  It's literally been my thesis for as long as we've been having this discussion.
Quote
It is much more complicated than that, and you have to take that complexity into account before you can be certain that CO2 won't continue to increase the Earth's temperature, as all the sophisticated climate models show.

Lol, "all" sophisticated climate models show that because they were designed to show that result.  It's literally pre-programed into them.  It's begging the question when your model spits out the assumptions as a result.  In fact, it would be a sign of a gross error in a model (given our limited understanding of the interactions involved) for it not to show that result, which by the way, notwithstanding your claims, is solely a linearly driven (and not chaotic) result.

Quote
The new records are higher than the old ones.  ::)

Last year (and recalculations of several other past years) make it look that way.  But the orthodoxy and actual manipulations certainly leave room for doubt.

Which leaves us where we began.  What can reasonably and cost effectively be done?  It looks to me like you could completely tank the global economy and still not have a meaningful impact on the carbon rates or the green house gas rates, but kill millions or tens of millions of people with poverty.  Is that the goal?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 15, 2017, 06:35:40 PM
You don't have stable cycles that keep getting higher each time.  Look at the charts.  The average temperature between 1998 and 2016 was higher than the 20 years before that.  The last 3 years were all record-breaking.  And the records are higher than in the last 180 years.  So where is this "cycle" that is going to drop temperatures?  I don't see it.

Actually, this data point can be subjected to argumentation, it's been a few months since I looked at the data relevant, but IIRC. When you look at the raw data there last 3 years aren't so spectacular. It's when you look at the interpolated data, you know, where they make calculations about what what conditions were like in a given location based on observations from other areas, rather than anything actually measured, that results in the "warmest years on record" claims.

So that isn't to sat there is no credible basis for the assertion, but there is also a credible basis for asserting that the claim may also be much ado about nothing.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 15, 2017, 07:25:15 PM
I can't contribute materially to this conversation, but I will note that I'll laugh my a** off if, one day, we learn that the planet is destined for massive cooling and everyone begins discussing ways to warm the planet. It's sort of a joke scenario I imagine happening, which has nothing to do with what our focus should be right now.


It's not only possible, but in the long run, inevitable, and it's also a key question of teraforming on Mars, for example.  Terraforming Mars would obviously require use of heavy greenhouse gasses.  I would recommend Sulphur Hexafloride, since it's heaviness would make it slow to leave the atmosphere, plus it's non-toxic, and an extreme greenhouse gas.  Dumping a few megatons of sulphur hexafloride into the Earth's atmosphere would push us towards Venus temperatures.

But obviously, humanity's greatest effect on climate is not by our puny release of CO2, but rather because we have mostly exterminated the carbon sinks in the biosphere and make no signs of stopping.  In that light, Kyoto is just another flavor of climate change denial, since it focuses on emissions and does so little on deforestation.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 16, 2017, 12:16:49 AM
But obviously, humanity's greatest effect on climate is not by our puny release of CO2, but rather because we have mostly exterminated the carbon sinks in the biosphere and make no signs of stopping.  In that light, Kyoto is just another flavor of climate change denial, since it focuses on emissions and does so little on deforestation.

Oh, we did one better on our "carbon sinks." Forest Managers, in their desire to plant trees which provide better yields for lumber/paper mills upon harvest, have replanted most forests with trees that have darker leaves/needles than the trees that were there previously. Thus making the forests darker(and thus heat absorbent) than they would have been had Mankind not intervened. Of course, this also ignores a number of other land-use changes that would cause areas to retain more heat from solar radiation than would have happened otherwise. Like turning thousands of square miles of high plain grassland into verdant fields of irrigated (And very green) crops instead of the pale yellows and golds they would have been otherwise(or that such crops, in particular Corn, are notorious for being water intensive because corn releases a lot of moisture into the surrounding atmosphere... Which then creates lots of ambient humidity, which becomes fuel for local "garden variety thunderstorms" which can then become supercells and spawn massive tornados. Thank you Corn Ethanol).

Then of course we have Urban heat islands, and so on and so forth.

It isn't just CO2 that's warming us up and screwing with the weather.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 16, 2017, 10:25:08 AM
It is much more complicated than that, and you have to take that complexity into account before you can be certain that CO2 won't continue to increase the Earth's temperature, as all the sophisticated climate models show.
Your argument boils down to claiming that the system is so complex that basic chemistry and mathematics don't apply.  I'm sorry but not only is that not right, it's not even wrong. It's just nonsense.

The effect of CO2 is strongly logarithmic, you need to understand what that means.  Going from 0 ppm - 20 ppm accounts for over half of all potential warming in a system and over 90% at 100 ppm. By the time we hit the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, the effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere was flat (you can see the graph of it here (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png)).  Looking at the chart, you can clearly see that going from 400 ppm to 1100 ppm has an extremely low impact.  This is pretty basic science and mathematics that applies no matter what.  Due to this strong logarithmic effect, the few ppm we added in the last 100 years are of minimal impact, that's just the science of it and that won't change no matter how much we might wish it so.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 16, 2017, 11:50:39 AM
Reminds me of an argument from an old member of this board, G2.  He also missed a significant point about this.

Sure, we have only added 3.5% of the total CO2 level in the atmosphere.  But greenhouse gases do a lot of work.  Greenhouse gases warm our planet an average of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. (https://energy.mo.gov/energy/stay-informed/publications-reports/global-climate-change-the-greenhouse-effect)  So as far as total warming, it isn't significant.  But that is not what everyone talks about when they talk about warming of our planet.

You literally just hand waived over what could be a completely valid objection.  If an increase/decrease in the human caused portion is not likely to have a dramatic impact on the end results because the vast majority of the impact has already occured (and keep in mind, we're talking about carbon, when water vapor is the greenhouse gas that contributes most of the impact) is it worthwhile?  If your model is premised on the complete elimination of human contributed carbon its improbable, if you are asking for say a 20% total reduction in carbon emissions (which by the way, none of the proposals made to date would even come close to that), would it really do anything but cause a slight slow in the trend?

What I was saying is that the greenhouse gases contribute a huge amount of warming to our world, so a minor increase would seem to have a negligible impact on our climate.  But that relatively "negligible impact" actually is a huge impact on the environment that humans, and most life on Earth, are used to and depend on.

A 4 degree C decrease out of 15.5 degree C doesn't look that large, but it is large enough to cause glaciers to cover NYC.  Another 4 degrees C is enough to make Earth a snowball.  How dramatic would 4 degrees C higher look like?

And if the proposals we have now won't make much of a difference, perhaps we need better proposals? ;)  Or do you want to have higher sea levels, acidic oceans, hotter summers, larger deserts, and more flooding, and all the other problems that go with a warming world?  Because that is what our best estimate is for what will happen.

Quote
Quote
For purposes of human habitation, 3 degrees centigrade is "significant" (about 5 degrees Fahrenheit).  At that temperature, 90 percent of summers would be warmer than 95 percent of the summers in the 20th century.  IOW, imagine the hottest summer a decade ago being considered a remarkable "cool" summer. :)

Except you don't get to 3 degrees centigrade just from carbon emissions you have to have a runaway feedback loop to get there.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  These are the estimates without a "runaway feedback loop." Here is a chart from a class on climate change that I took*:

CO2 (ppm)       Average Temp Increase (Equilibrium)
340 (320-380)                 1 degree C
540 (440-760)                 3 degree C
840 (620-1490)               5 degree C

No runaway feedback loop.

Quote
Quote
And if our climate was a nice, linear system, that would be true.

But it ain't.  Not by a long shot.

Our climate system is what is called in mathematics a chaotic system, which has two significant properties.

What's funny is trying to use the rules of a model as if they applied to that which is being modeled.  Our climate appears to be chaotic, and thus you can attempt to use certain techniques approximate possible results, but that doesn't mean it is the same thing as the model.  This is just a pure speculation on your part.

Quote
What this all comes down to is you can't know exactly how our climate will react to the increase of CO2.

This I agree with.  It's literally been my thesis for as long as we've been having this discussion.

But just because you can't know exactly how the climate will react doesn't mean you can't know generally.  And from all the models, generally it ain't good.

Quote
Quote
It is much more complicated than that, and you have to take that complexity into account before you can be certain that CO2 won't continue to increase the Earth's temperature, as all the sophisticated climate models show.

Lol, "all" sophisticated climate models show that because they were designed to show that result.  It's literally pre-programed into them.  It's begging the question when your model spits out the assumptions as a result.  In fact, it would be a sign of a gross error in a model (given our limited understanding of the interactions involved) for it not to show that result, which by the way, notwithstanding your claims, is solely a linearly driven (and not chaotic) result.

"Literally pre-programmed?"  Where are you getting this B.S.?  How would you do that, with a program that is designed to evaluate the entire surface of the Earth in 110 km square portions and calculate the interactions between these portions?  One which doesn't give exactly the same result each time it is run, so that they have to average the results together?  And which is based on the thermal interactions in the atmosphere, on equations that were the first example of a chaotic system?

And what do you mean by "solely a linearly driven...result?"  The results wiggle all around.  Sure, they to show a linear trend.  But linear regression is hardly a "linear result."

Quote
Quote
The new records are higher than the old ones.  ::)

Last year (and recalculations of several other past years) make it look that way.  But the orthodoxy and actual manipulations certainly leave room for doubt.

Which leaves us where we began.  What can reasonably and cost effectively be done?  It looks to me like you could completely tank the global economy and still not have a meaningful impact on the carbon rates or the green house gas rates, but kill millions or tens of millions of people with poverty.  Is that the goal?

Our climate doesn't give a damn about its economic impact.  It is going to do what it will do.  Our best estimates of what it will do with higher levels of CO2 are spelled out: increased desertification, sea level rise, flooding in the wetter areas, lower crop yields due to higher temperatures, etc.  The picture is not pretty.

But that has nothing to do with how we respond to it.  We have plenty of options.  We can try to live in more hostile conditions.  We can spend lots of money trying to remove the CO2 after it is in the atmosphere.  Or we can try to find ways to prevent more CO2 from getting into the atmosphere.  Doubtlessly, we will have to do all three.  But there is not just one answer to this problem.  If you don't like the answers that are proposed, why not try to find something else that will work?  Why not do things that will slow the process, so we have time to find other solutions?  But to do nothing because it "costs too much"--that's like looking at a hole in a sinking ship and saying, "well, it's too costly to fix, so let's just ignore it."  ::)

Let's start by doing whatever we can that won't bankrupt the world economy, and then continue to look for solutions.  Because we, and our children, are going to be dealing with the results whether it's economical or not.

*Climate Change in Four Dimensions, from U.C. San Diego.  Available on-line on Coursera.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 16, 2017, 12:21:07 PM
It is much more complicated than that, and you have to take that complexity into account before you can be certain that CO2 won't continue to increase the Earth's temperature, as all the sophisticated climate models show.
Your argument boils down to claiming that the system is so complex that basic chemistry and mathematics don't apply.  I'm sorry but not only is that not right, it's not even wrong. It's just nonsense.

The effect of CO2 is strongly logarithmic, you need to understand what that means.  Going from 0 ppm - 20 ppm accounts for over half of all potential warming in a system and over 90% at 100 ppm. By the time we hit the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, the effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere was flat (you can see the graph of it here (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png)).  Looking at the chart, you can clearly see that going from 400 ppm to 1100 ppm has an extremely low impact.  This is pretty basic science and mathematics that applies no matter what.  Due to this strong logarithmic effect, the few ppm we added in the last 100 years are of minimal impact, that's just the science of it and that won't change no matter how much we might wish it so.

Crunch, do you seriously believe that climatologist, who program supercomputers to make climate models, can't do mathematics?  That if you came to one of them and told them this, that they'd say, "OMG, I didn't think of that!  I need to redo all my calculations right now!"?  That none of the grad students they have working with them, who do most of the grunt work, didn't notice this little thing?

Have you ever actually looked to see what the answer might be? ;)

Here's one to start with. (https://skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html)

Quote
Because exponential growth of CO2 concentration causes only linear raise in temperature, people sometimes think that subsequent emissions will result in ever slower temperature increases. Well, the most persistent myths are based on technically true statements - that’s true also in this case.

It is true, that for each doubling of CO2 concentration, temperature increases by a constant value. However, at the current level of CO2 content in the atmosphere a good approximate relation is that for each 500 GtC (1833 bn tons of CO2) we can expect equilibrium temperature increase by approximately 1°C. Moreover, because of the continuing exponential growth of CO2 emissions the temperature increase will also accelerate.

So, yes, the temperature effects of CO2 are no longer growing exponentially.  But they are still growing linearly.  And this linear growth, while almost flat compared to the effects at the beginning (0 - 20 ppm), are still significant enough to increase the average temperature by 3 degrees C if the concentration doubles.

Just because it is relatively flat doesn't mean it is actually flat, and that if it makes only a relatively small changes doesn't mean it is a small change to us.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 16, 2017, 02:11:42 PM
Quote
A 4 degree C decrease out of 15.5 degree C doesn't look that large, but it is large enough to cause glaciers to cover NYC.

Oops.  Bad conversion.  :-[  60 degrees F converts to 33.33 degrees C, not 15.5.  The sentence should read "A 4 degree C decrease out of 33.33 degrees C doesn't look that large..."
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 16, 2017, 02:15:38 PM
Crunch, do you seriously believe that climatologist, who program supercomputers to make climate models, can't do mathematics?  That if you came to one of them and told them this, that they'd say, "OMG, I didn't think of that!  I need to redo all my calculations right now!"?  That none of the grad students they have working with them, who do most of the grunt work, didn't notice this little thing?
I know about something called "appeal to authority":
Quote
An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, is a form of logical and persuasive argument using expert opinion to defend the likelihood of the reliability of a claim. It is well-known as a fallacy...
So using that argument is decidedly unpersuasive.  I can just as easily trot out contradictory authority. You can engage in the "dueling authorities" all you want but as it's merely a logical fallacy and nothing but a distraction, I'd prefer not.

From the chart here (http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide_19.html), you can see that by the time we hit 500 ppm the effect of increasing CO2 will be barely incremental.  This is basic science, verified and still verifiable via experimentation.  It does not change no matter how complex a framework we devise for it or at the whim of ideological desires and nothing will change that.

At 400 ppm, CO2 has reached ~87+% of its potential warming effect (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/clip_image0082.jpg) in the earth's atmosphere. Going from 400 ppm to 1000 ppm will essentially consume the remaining 13% of the potential effect.   Because the vast majority of CO2 is from natural sources (96.5%), it is scientifically and mathematically impossible for man-made sources (only 3.5% of CO2) to have a large potential impact and not even a significant one as we are approaching saturation.  Again, that is just basic science and math and should be obvious to the lay person.

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 16, 2017, 03:46:38 PM
You literally just hand waived over what could be a completely valid objection.  If an increase/decrease in the human caused portion is not likely to have a dramatic impact on the end results because the vast majority of the impact has already occured (and keep in mind, we're talking about carbon, when water vapor is the greenhouse gas that contributes most of the impact) is it worthwhile?  If your model is premised on the complete elimination of human contributed carbon its improbable, if you are asking for say a 20% total reduction in carbon emissions (which by the way, none of the proposals made to date would even come close to that), would it really do anything but cause a slight slow in the trend?

What I was saying is that the greenhouse gases contribute a huge amount of warming to our world, so a minor increase would seem to have a negligible impact on our climate.  But that relatively "negligible impact" actually is a huge impact on the environment that humans, and most life on Earth, are used to and depend on.

Which is exactly why I said that you were hand-waving away a valid objection.  There's a logic fail in using "greenhouse gases contribute a huge amount" to a give a heavy weight to the "minor increase" that has a "huge impact" as you put it.

You can't assume that a tiny contribution to greater whole (like a single vote to an election) has any real impact on its own.  And you're ignoring that this is a direct criticism of how many "votes" are really at stake.  If Crunch is correct on the impact then the actual reductions in carbon (most policies don't even result in a net carbon reduction, let alone anything that would materially reduce carbon production by humanity) are unlikely to be material.  Even if you could eliminate all human caused carbon emissions (literally impossible), you may not see a material impact on climate, but it's certainly questionable whether the percentage decreases contemplated would have any impact, particularly if you don't also include population controls (heck, just increased food production, with irrigation (and evaporation) and methane producing meat sources are probably of greater impact than any potential carbon savings discussed).

Quote
A 4 degree C decrease out of 15.5 degree C doesn't look that large, but it is large enough to cause glaciers to cover NYC.  Another 4 degrees C is enough to make Earth a snowball.  How dramatic would 4 degrees C higher look like?

And?  I don't agree that you've shown any reason to believe that a 4 degree C change (what is that almost 7 F) is even on the table.   Certainly, I see no possibility that any now existing or currently proposed environmental legislation could even in theory cause that large of an impact.

Quote
And if the proposals we have now won't make much of a difference, perhaps we need better proposals? ;)  Or do you want to have higher sea levels, acidic oceans, hotter summers, larger deserts, and more flooding, and all the other problems that go with a warming world?  Because that is what our best estimate is for what will happen.

What I want is proposals that are balanced and have a real meaningful impact.  Environmental legislation that doesn't help the environment but rewards bad environmental actors like China is a complete waste of time.  Rules that impose massive costs for marginal benefits are just stupid.

Quote
Quote
Except you don't get to 3 degrees centigrade just from carbon emissions you have to have a runaway feedback loop to get there.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  These are the estimates without a "runaway feedback loop." Here is a chart from a class on climate change that I took*:

CO2 (ppm)       Average Temp Increase (Equilibrium)
340 (320-380)                 1 degree C
540 (440-760)                 3 degree C
840 (620-1490)               5 degree C

No runaway feedback loop.

Lol.  If you have a chart that lays it out for you like that, at best it was written for grade school consumers, and is more propaganda than science.  Why don't you go back and find the source and then we can discuss it.

Quote
But just because you can't know exactly how the climate will react doesn't mean you can't know generally.  And from all the models, generally it ain't good.

You missed the point on that.  The evidence that we accurately know on a general basis isn't all that great, we definitely don't know on a specific basis.

Quote
Quote
Quote
It is much more complicated than that, and you have to take that complexity into account before you can be certain that CO2 won't continue to increase the Earth's temperature, as all the sophisticated climate models show.

Lol, "all" sophisticated climate models show that because they were designed to show that result.  It's literally pre-programed into them.  It's begging the question when your model spits out the assumptions as a result.  In fact, it would be a sign of a gross error in a model (given our limited understanding of the interactions involved) for it not to show that result, which by the way, notwithstanding your claims, is solely a linearly driven (and not chaotic) result.

"Literally pre-programmed?"  Where are you getting this B.S.?

From understanding how models are constructed.  We've been over this a number of times.  Models are not magically created, they don't come out of the ether as black boxes, all they are is literally assumptions layered on one another.  One of the assumptions HAS to be that CO2 causes increases in global temperature.  There is no legitimate way to exclude that, which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system from our observations of it in a closed system. 

A computer model can not generate a surprise result, everything in it is a forced conclusion.  That means that over enough iterations a pre-programmed pressure will always appear in the results.  That's not a conclusion of the model though it's an ASSUMPTION.

Quote
How would you do that, with a program that is designed to evaluate the entire surface of the Earth in 110 km square portions and calculate the interactions between these portions?

What program do you think could do that?  We don't have data in those packets.  If you have generated data for them, you've effected played make believe.

Quote
One which doesn't give exactly the same result each time it is run, so that they have to average the results together?

Lol.  That's exactly the point of a model.  It appears to create significance by running multiple iterations, but all it will ever do is regress to the mean of the pre-programmed results.

All models are logical constructs.  It's a basic premise that they can not create new information, they can only reveal results that flow of a necessity from their assumptions.  If you assume x=1, then no matter how many iterations you run, the "conclusion" that the model puts out that x=1 is not a conclusion.

Quote
And what do you mean by "solely a linearly driven...result?"  The results wiggle all around.  Sure, they to show a linear trend.  But linear regression is hardly a "linear result."

Exactly what I said.  The impact of carbon is programmed into the models.  Therefore increasing or decreasing carbon inputs will cause the model to move in the same direction, you may not see it any single run, but over enough runs that assumption will always cause the same impact.  Pretty much the model adds nothing to the debate.

Quote
Our climate doesn't give a damn about its economic impact.

But you should.  Spending billions on something that won't help the environment, starves programs that could help of any resources.  Banning people from doing things in reasonably polluting ways, opens the door to them doing it in excessively polluting ways (every time a first world factory is closed in favor of a third world one the environmental picture gets worse, yet this is the intended result of existing "climate" accords).

Quote
If you don't like the answers that are proposed, why not try to find something else that will work?  Why not do things that will slow the process, so we have time to find other solutions?  But to do nothing because it "costs too much"--that's like looking at a hole in a sinking ship and saying, "well, it's too costly to fix, so let's just ignore it."  ::)

Guy one, "Hey did you hear about the new accounting report?  Hey why did you jump off the bridge?"

Guy two, " I had to do something."

I never proposed doing nothing.  I reject doing the wrong thing.  You want to make a real impact, increase the first world carbon allowances and engage in aggressively putting the 3rd world out of business.  You could use military force on polluters.  You could invade subsistence croppers who slash and burn.  Don't like those options?  Why not support aggressive carbon sequestration technologies?  You could make healthcare illegal, less people, less power used, less toxic drug research, less net impact on the environment.  You could institute a global one child policy.   Lots of end results if you don't care about the costs, but I think you do care about the costs, you just don't care about other peoples' money.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 16, 2017, 04:01:08 PM

Quote
Quote
Except you don't get to 3 degrees centigrade just from carbon emissions you have to have a runaway feedback loop to get there.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  These are the estimates without a "runaway feedback loop." Here is a chart from a class on climate change that I took*:

CO2 (ppm)       Average Temp Increase (Equilibrium)
340 (320-380)                 1 degree C
540 (440-760)                 3 degree C
840 (620-1490)               5 degree C

No runaway feedback loop.

Lol.  If you have a chart that lays it out for you like that, at best it was written for grade school consumers, and is more propaganda than science.  Why don't you go back and find the source and then we can discuss it.
So that you know, the data being presented in that chart is demonstrably false.  There have been many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher (over 4000 ppm even) and temperatures did not increase at all much less as much as the above.  In one period when the Earth was above 5000 ppm. it was actually vastly colder than now and the planet was heavily glaciated. 

Also, it completely contradicts the logarithmic nature of CO2's effect.  It cannot possibly be accurate.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 16, 2017, 06:13:46 PM
Crunch, do you seriously believe that climatologist, who program supercomputers to make climate models, can't do mathematics?  That if you came to one of them and told them this, that they'd say, "OMG, I didn't think of that!  I need to redo all my calculations right now!"?  That none of the grad students they have working with them, who do most of the grunt work, didn't notice this little thing?

Actually, while they haven't found any "magic bullets" the reliability of the underlying code(and its assumptions--in particular the "forcings" they attribute to CO2 and other factors), as well as the efficacy of the models themselves is regularly called into question by the very community that is doing the modeling.

The regional models work "reasonably well" on short time frames, but as you progress further, it becomes reliant on outside influences (from neighboring regions/"global models")  to continue to progress the simulation. Global models also have their own range of issues, in particular when it comes to making accurate predictions in regards to specific regions(where regional forecasts by global models have absolutely horrid track records). And even at the meta-level, the Global models have issues with simply forecasting either the global mean or average temperature.

There is a reason why a lot of the "doom and gloom" prognostications have shifted back to the meta-level after initially trying to use those vaunted computer models to "show" what the world was going to look like in ___ years, like they were inclined to do 20-some years ago. They know the models have issues, and they're not opening that avenue for generating further skepticism about their abilities to project things into the future.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 16, 2017, 06:21:54 PM
Which leaves us where we began.  What can reasonably and cost effectively be done?  It looks to me like you could completely tank the global economy and still not have a meaningful impact on the carbon rates or the green house gas rates, but kill millions or tens of millions of people with poverty.  Is that the goal?

Our climate doesn't give a damn about its economic impact.  It is going to do what it will do.  Our best estimates of what it will do with higher levels of CO2 are spelled out: increased desertification, sea level rise, flooding in the wetter areas, lower crop yields due to higher temperatures, etc.  The picture is not pretty.

But that has nothing to do with how we respond to it.  We have plenty of options.  We can try to live in more hostile conditions.  We can spend lots of money trying to remove the CO2 after it is in the atmosphere.  Or we can try to find ways to prevent more CO2 from getting into the atmosphere.  Doubtlessly, we will have to do all three.  But there is not just one answer to this problem.  If you don't like the answers that are proposed, why not try to find something else that will work?  Why not do things that will slow the process, so we have time to find other solutions?  But to do nothing because it "costs too much"--that's like looking at a hole in a sinking ship and saying, "well, it's too costly to fix, so let's just ignore it."  ::)

Let's start by doing whatever we can that won't bankrupt the world economy, and then continue to look for solutions.  Because we, and our children, are going to be dealing with the results whether it's economical or not.

*Climate Change in Four Dimensions, from U.C. San Diego.  Available on-line on Coursera.

Might want to pay a visit to  this site here to start getting your feet wet:
http://www.lomborg.com/

I could quote page after page of his stuff, but I'll just link to him instead.

For the record, he is NOT a skeptic, although many in the AGW crowd want to label him as such. He openly says AGW is real, and that its happening. His "thing" however, is that the many of the approaches being pursued which are sucking up all of the money, while well intentioned,  are misguided and very highly inefficient, and by extension, ineffective.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 16, 2017, 06:45:42 PM
Quote
What can reasonably and cost effectively be done?  It looks to me like you could completely tank the global economy and still not have a meaningful impact on the carbon rates or the green house gas rates, but kill millions or tens of millions of people with poverty.  Is that the goal?

It's an error to ascribe a single "goal" to those who advocate that we pay attention to the havoc that humans are wreaking on the ecology.

I think it's obvious that Kyoto's primary goal was to create a global pretext for redistributing assets to the third world.  That the secondary goal was to enrich certain sectors of the economy (ethanol) on the pretense or reducing "carbon footprint", without regard for the fact that as Deamon pointed out, the bastards were exchanging carbon sinks for heat sinks.  ::)  Nevertheless, there remain a few diehards like Greenpeace who actually give a damn about reducing deforestation and destruction of the oceans.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on May 16, 2017, 06:50:48 PM
Lomborg did an awful job, every page he wrote was filled with errors of interpretation or fact.  His understanding of the material was atrocious and either deliberate deception or gross incompetence.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 17, 2017, 01:51:25 PM
Crunch, do you seriously believe that climatologist, who program supercomputers to make climate models, can't do mathematics?  That if you came to one of them and told them this, that they'd say, "OMG, I didn't think of that!  I need to redo all my calculations right now!"?  That none of the grad students they have working with them, who do most of the grunt work, didn't notice this little thing?
I know about something called "appeal to authority":
Quote
An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, is a form of logical and persuasive argument using expert opinion to defend the likelihood of the reliability of a claim. It is well-known as a fallacy...
So using that argument is decidedly unpersuasive.  I can just as easily trot out contradictory authority. You can engage in the "dueling authorities" all you want but as it's merely a logical fallacy and nothing but a distraction, I'd prefer not.

From the chart here (http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide_19.html), you can see that by the time we hit 500 ppm the effect of increasing CO2 will be barely incremental.  This is basic science, verified and still verifiable via experimentation.  It does not change no matter how complex a framework we devise for it or at the whim of ideological desires and nothing will change that.

At 400 ppm, CO2 has reached ~87+% of its potential warming effect (https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/clip_image0082.jpg) in the earth's atmosphere. Going from 400 ppm to 1000 ppm will essentially consume the remaining 13% of the potential effect.   Because the vast majority of CO2 is from natural sources (96.5%), it is scientifically and mathematically impossible for man-made sources (only 3.5% of CO2) to have a large potential impact and not even a significant one as we are approaching saturation.  Again, that is just basic science and math and should be obvious to the lay person.

While "appeal to authority" is a fallacy for logical proofs, it is not as absolute as you make it.

Consider if your family car is overheating.  You take it to 10 repair shops, and the 9 of the factory-trained technicians, working with the best testing equipment, determined that your car had a cracked engine block.  The tenth did not think that was the problem, but didn't know what it was.

Or if your daughter had a persistent fever, lasting over two weeks.  You take her to 10 doctors, who make various tests, and 9 of them determine that she has leukemia.  The tenth doesn't think it's leukemia, but doesn't know what it is.

Would you say it is an "appeal to authority" to say that your car has a cracked block and your daughter has leukemia?

If you thought that the overheating was due to a leaking hose line, and the fever was due to a cold, would it be an "appeal to authority" to say that you are most likely wrong, because the technicians would have checked for leaking hose lines, and the doctors would know if it was merely a minor virus?

Of course, in both cases, they could be wrong.  But the good money would be that it is you who are wrong. :)

Because experts actually have more experience and more knowledge than most laymen.  And so they are right more often than most laymen.

Given that, the correct way to prove that something is wrong is to examine the argument itself.  Why the auto techs believe you have a cracked block.  Why the doctors believe your daughter has leukemia.  And, since this is a fairly simple issue, I could probably find an explanation of why you are wrong.

But before I go through the trouble, I just need one small thing from you.

I need you to acknowledge that you probably are wrong. :)

Because there are some people who will believe they have a leaky hose no matter what their car mechanic says.  And others who will believe that their daughter doesn't have cancer, because they know better.

In climate debates, these people are called "deniers."

So, if you will admit that you could be wrong, I will try to find a good explanation of why.

But if not--if you think you've found a proof that no climatologist with a PhD has ever come across that proves they are wrong, and you have absolutely no doubt about it--then it would just be a waste of time for both of us.

Because while an "appeal to authority" is not absolute proof of a contention, it is a good indication in the real world.  Because in reality, there are people who are more informed and knowledgeable than all of us.  And we all have to listen to them to function in this world of ours.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 17, 2017, 03:47:59 PM
Quote
Which is exactly why I said that you were hand-waving away a valid objection.  There's a logic fail in using "greenhouse gases contribute a huge amount" to a give a heavy weight to the "minor increase" that has a "huge impact" as you put it.

You can't assume that a tiny contribution to greater whole (like a single vote to an election) has any real impact on its own.  And you're ignoring that this is a direct criticism of how many "votes" are really at stake.  If Crunch is correct on the impact then the actual reductions in carbon (most policies don't even result in a net carbon reduction, let alone anything that would materially reduce carbon production by humanity) are unlikely to be material.  Even if you could eliminate all human caused carbon emissions (literally impossible), you may not see a material impact on climate, but it's certainly questionable whether the percentage decreases contemplated would have any impact, particularly if you don't also include population controls (heck, just increased food production, with irrigation (and evaporation) and methane producing meat sources are probably of greater impact than any potential carbon savings discussed).

OK, let me define my term here.

When I say "huge impact," I mean that the CO2 level itself leads to a change in temperature that impacts our ability to live, such as sea level rises, desertification, acidification of the oceans, etc.  I don't care how big a temperature change it is nor how big a percentage it is to the total effect.  If that change leads to a significant reduction in my, and the rest of humanity's, ability to survive, then it is a "huge impact."

Everything else is just hand-waving.

Quote
I don't agree that you've shown any reason to believe that a 4 degree C change (what is that almost 7 F) is even on the table.   Certainly, I see no possibility that any now existing or currently proposed environmental legislation could even in theory cause that large of an impact.

Credible sources say it is an extremely likely outcome.  Why don't you see it as a possibility?

Quote
What I want is proposals that are balanced and have a real meaningful impact.  Environmental legislation that doesn't help the environment but rewards bad environmental actors like China is a complete waste of time.  Rules that impose massive costs for marginal benefits are just stupid.

Great.  So does everyone else.  But we can't agree to start looking at them until we agree that there is an actual problem for them to address.  Work with those who acknowledge the problem to come up with such proposals, and oppose those who say that the problem doesn't even exist.

Quote
Lol.  If you have a chart that lays it out for you like that, at best it was written for grade school consumers, and is more propaganda than science.  Why don't you go back and find the source and then we can discuss it.

I'll see if I can find it.  My copies of the course are buried somewhere...  :-[

Quote
The evidence that we accurately know on a general basis isn't all that great, we definitely don't know on a specific basis.

Again, credible sources say that we have a pretty good general accuracy.

Quote
One of the assumptions HAS to be that CO2 causes increases in global temperature.  There is no legitimate way to exclude that, which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system from our observations of it in a closed system.

How would you program that?  I mean, with dozens of systems being modeled, from solar input to convection currents to ocean absorption to cloud cover to methane levels, how to you program that the main cause HAS to be CO2?  Yes, you have to include the basic amount of energy absorption by CO2 into the model.  But if something else is causing the warming that we are seeing, how do you make sure that the CO2 is THE culprit?  Couldn't you tweek the methane variables, or the HFC variables, or one of the many other variables to account for it, too?  If those models are just as good, why hasn't someone done so already?

The group that comes up with a superior climate model gets the accolades and distinction.  In Trump words, they are "the winners." :)  I don't see why they would all play to the same assumption unless it didn't, or more likely couldn't, work without it.

Quote
A computer model can not generate a surprise result, everything in it is a forced conclusion.

I still don't know what that means.  I am sure most of the early models gave results that were far off the historical record.  Some probably predicted that the Earth had a runaway greenhouse effect back in 1970. :)  Those would be "surprise results."  They will work with the program until it conforms to reality, of course, but that is hardly a "forced conclusion."  It is goal of the project; to make a model that reflect reality.  Once you've done that, then you can analyze what factors created this conclusion, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion.  It's just too complex for that.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be using supercomputers to run the models.

Quote

Quote
How would you do that, with a program that is designed to evaluate the entire surface of the Earth in 110 km square portions and calculate the interactions between these portions?

What program do you think could do that?  We don't have data in those packets.  If you have generated data for them, you've effected played make believe.

According to my notes, that is the computational resolution of T106 L56 Atmospheric GCM, created by Center for Climate System Research (CCSR), National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and Frontier Research Center for Global Change (FRCGC).  Certainly they do not have unique measurement for every one of those grids, but they are not complete unknowns, either.  (You can't have hurricane-force winds in one grid and calm in the adjacent grid, for instance.)  Estimates are far from "make believe."

Quote
It appears to create significance by running multiple iterations, but all it will ever do is regress to the mean of the pre-programmed results.

Sure, but the results may be wildly different than what you expected.  Just ask any beginning programmer. ;)

From what I understand, the different iterations don't "regress" in any way.  They run independent of the other iteration.  One might follow the average of the runs, the next might be wildly different.  If there is a path, yes, it is a result of the programming.  But the idea is to make a program that works the same way the climate does.

Quote
The impact of carbon is programmed into the models.  Therefore increasing or decreasing carbon inputs will cause the model to move in the same direction, you may not see it any single run, but over enough runs that assumption will always cause the same impact.  Pretty much the model adds nothing to the debate.

But we know that CO2 impacts the climate.  We know it traps heat.  We know how much it should reflect back onto the planet.  What we don't know is exactly how that interacts with the rest of the climate, because it is a chaotic system.  A small change could cause a large change in another part of the system.  Which it could do consistently.  And chaotic systems do have "tipping points," where the whole system switches to a new equilibrium.  This is why we should worry about a "runaway greenhouse effect."  There could a point where everything changes, pretty much permanently.

The models you are familiar with, how many were for chaotic systems?

Quote
Quote
Our climate doesn't give a damn about its economic impact.

But you should.

I do.  If you've noticed, I haven't advocated any particular plan for addressing climate change.  I don't think there is only one way to do so.  And considering the world's political state, I suspect the solution is going to be more complex than the climate itself. :)

But, unless we want to deal with the consequences, we must do something.  The solution will not be ideal.  But neither will not finding a solution.

Quote
I never proposed doing nothing.  I reject doing the wrong thing.

Agreed.

But doing nothing is also the wrong thing.

So let's so something, even if it is less than ideal, even if it won't completely solve the problem but may only postpone it.  Let's do the reasonable things, the Things We Ought To Do Anyway as David Brin says.  Let's cut down coal burning for power.  Let's use more PV.  Let's increase gas mileage on cars.  Yes, they will cost us some, but not that much, and they will cut air pollution and decrease our use of foreign oil.  And then we can find other ways to address the problem.

But prevention of a problem is always cheaper than mitigation.

And, as AA will tell you, before you can address a problem, you have to admit that it exists.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 17, 2017, 03:53:38 PM

Quote
Quote
Except you don't get to 3 degrees centigrade just from carbon emissions you have to have a runaway feedback loop to get there.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  These are the estimates without a "runaway feedback loop." Here is a chart from a class on climate change that I took*:

CO2 (ppm)       Average Temp Increase (Equilibrium)
340 (320-380)                 1 degree C
540 (440-760)                 3 degree C
840 (620-1490)               5 degree C

No runaway feedback loop.

Lol.  If you have a chart that lays it out for you like that, at best it was written for grade school consumers, and is more propaganda than science.  Why don't you go back and find the source and then we can discuss it.
So that you know, the data being presented in that chart is demonstrably false.  There have been many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher (over 4000 ppm even) and temperatures did not increase at all much less as much as the above.  In one period when the Earth was above 5000 ppm. it was actually vastly colder than now and the planet was heavily glaciated. 

Also, it completely contradicts the logarithmic nature of CO2's effect.  It cannot possibly be accurate.

Tell me, Crunch, what was the solar input at those times?  How far was the Earth from the sun?  What was the cloud cover like?  Particular matter in the atmosphere?  Reflectivity of the surface?

There are many factors that affect the average temperature of the Earth.  The current models incorporate as many as we know.  But with all those other factors, how can you say definitively that one or more of those other factors didn't overcome the heat trapping of CO2?  And, therefore, the models must be wrong?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 17, 2017, 06:09:05 PM
Tell me, Crunch, what was the solar input at those times?  How far was the Earth from the sun?  What was the cloud cover like?  Particular matter in the atmosphere?  Reflectivity of the surface?
We're not talking about those factors, we may presently, I don't know, but we've been specifically talking about CO2.  Trying to throw up this smoke screen and create distractions is not a viable point.
There are many factors that affect the average temperature of the Earth.  The current models incorporate as many as we know.  But with all those other factors, how can you say definitively that one or more of those other factors didn't overcome the heat trapping of CO2?  And, therefore, the models must be wrong?
We're talking about CO2 and the effect it has.  You agree it's logarithmic, then claim it's actually linear, and then put up a chart trying to make the case it's exponential. That's not even doublespeak, it's triplespeak and, frankly, non-nonsensical (i.e. it's not only not right, it's not even wrong). 

CO2 has a linear effect on heat.  That is an immutable scientific fact, we've known it for decades.  Cloud cover, atmospheric dust, whatever else is conjured up to make it appear so complex only scientists that dedicate their lives to it can understand it, doesn't matter.  CO2 is logarithmic and over 87% of all possible effect from it has already been realized.  Nothing changes that.  We have experimental data to prove it, we have the empirical data that proves it. We can test it any time we want and see that it's logarithmic. The only time we get any other result, is when the experiment is fraudulently performed (https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/).

I'm sorry but there really are only 4 lights (https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/12050/why-four-lights) and 2+2 will never equal 5.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on May 17, 2017, 06:57:28 PM
If you bring up "many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher" and then ignore the other factors that were different during those other times... you aren't doing it right.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 17, 2017, 07:46:45 PM
I'll just point to those "many highly regarded" tables and computer models that the IPCC referred to, where all but the most conservative (outlier) models are even close to what we've actually experienced as validation that the computer models are rather significantly flawed, and that their CO2 curve probably needs adjusted, downward.

Of course, also evidence that the economy is "decarbonizing," mostly on its own, is also mounting. Economic growth(or lack thereof) no longer tracks closely with CO2 outside of very exteme cases. (as obviously,  a strong enough downturn would lower CO2, and a strong enough upswing would increase it) by the size of the swing is becoming more pronounced now, to the point where positive economic growth is happening alongside decreasing or flat CO2 emissions.

Technology is catching up/has caught up to the 1st world in CO2 use. Now if only we could get the third world to stop using highly CO2 inefficient fuel stocks, and I'm not talking about coal. I'm talking about biomass for home heat/home cooking. Getting them hooked up to a coal fired power plant(with sufficient emission controls) would be an improvement in that regard.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 17, 2017, 09:44:46 PM
OK, let me define my term here.

When I say "huge impact," I mean that the CO2 level itself leads to a change in temperature that impacts our ability to live, such as sea level rises, desertification, acidification of the oceans, etc.  I don't care how big a temperature change it is nor how big a percentage it is to the total effect.  If that change leads to a significant reduction in my, and the rest of humanity's, ability to survive, then it is a "huge impact."

Everything else is just hand-waving.

Again what you did is hand-waving.  The specific point is that your claim that the change in CO2 leads to a "huge impact" is what is disputed.  Claiming that it has a huge impact definitionally doesn't fix that problem.

Quote
Quote
I don't agree that you've shown any reason to believe that a 4 degree C change (what is that almost 7 F) is even on the table.   Certainly, I see no possibility that any now existing or currently proposed environmental legislation could even in theory cause that large of an impact.

Credible sources say it is an extremely likely outcome.  Why don't you see it as a possibility?

I literally don't believe you have cited credible sources, and I'm questioning what your basis for determining the credibility of a source is.

Quote
Quote
What I want is proposals that are balanced and have a real meaningful impact.  Environmental legislation that doesn't help the environment but rewards bad environmental actors like China is a complete waste of time.  Rules that impose massive costs for marginal benefits are just stupid.

Great.  So does everyone else.  But we can't agree to start looking at them until we agree that there is an actual problem for them to address.  Work with those who acknowledge the problem to come up with such proposals, and oppose those who say that the problem doesn't even exist.

We actually don't have to agree here to make progress.  Virtually all pollutants have actual provable health impacts and other societal costs (even if its just loss of green space).  Many things can be addressed rationally and collectively, however, when you're trying to make an argument from authority and demanding solutions that don't even plausibly relate to your claims I'm gonna fight that.

Quote
Quote
The evidence that we accurately know on a general basis isn't all that great, we definitely don't know on a specific basis.

Again, credible sources say that we have a pretty good general accuracy.

Again they don't.  Just because they are the best we have doesn't make them credible.

Quote
Quote
One of the assumptions HAS to be that CO2 causes increases in global temperature.  There is no legitimate way to exclude that, which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system from our observations of it in a closed system.

How would you program that?  I mean, with dozens of systems being modeled, from solar input to convection currents to ocean absorption to cloud cover to methane levels, how to you program that the main cause HAS to be CO2?

I don't know where to begin, it almost sounds like you have no idea what a "model" is.  You do understand that every single rule of the model is selected by a human being?  The impact of CO2 is literally programmed into the model by the researchers, failing to include it's expected impact would literally be scientific malpractice, which means it's not possible for the model not to show increases of carbon increasing global temperature.

Quote
Yes, you have to include the basic amount of energy absorption by CO2 into the model.  But if something else is causing the warming that we are seeing, how do you make sure that the CO2 is THE culprit?

There is no way for a model to do this.

Data analysis based on properly constructed studies can lead to such a conclusion. If you have real experimental data (which we don't because n=1) you can do that analysis.  We use models to generate data to do an analysis, but there is a fatal flaw to modeled data, the analysis can only show you what the model requires.  For a complex system you may get a result you didn't expect but you can't get a result that wasn't a necessary conclusion of the rules you put in.  You can get any number of Queen takes King results, but your chess model will never return Snake Eyes as an answer.

Crunching modeled data does nothing but return the modeled rules.

Quote
Couldn't you tweek the methane variables, or the HFC variables, or one of the many other variables to account for it, too?  If those models are just as good, why hasn't someone done so already?

You can't "tweak" rules in a model unless you have a rational reason to do so.  They're really compounded from micro studies.  I've walked through this a number of times.  Models heavily weight what's been studied, whether or not its really relevant.

Quote
The group that comes up with a superior climate model gets the accolades and distinction.  In Trump words, they are "the winners." :)  I don't see why they would all play to the same assumption unless it didn't, or more likely couldn't, work without it.

Because they all rely on the same research, and they can't ignore what they know even if they don't really know everything about it.  As an example, they can't ignore carbon forcing, even if in reality there is a mechanism they don't know that at higher carbon levels counteracts it.  Any model that fails to account for the second item would be never be correct, yet no model would ever include it.

They also have to assign weights to everything they throw into the mix, and those weights are almost exclusively unverifiable opinions.

Quote
Quote
A computer model can not generate a surprise result, everything in it is a forced conclusion.

I still don't know what that means.  I am sure most of the early models gave results that were far off the historical record.  Some probably predicted that the Earth had a runaway greenhouse effect back in 1970. :)  Those would be "surprise results."

They may have surprised the researcher, but they were not surprise results, as always they were the direct and inevitable results of the math the research put in.

Let me give you another example.  Ever play a video game?  If you play the same level over and over against the same computer controlled enemies, is it really possible that anything they do is surprising after a while?  No matter how intuitive the game's algorithms are there are only so many "winning" strategies that they can pursue based open the layout of the board and its rules. 

Quote
They will work with the program until it conforms to reality, of course, but that is hardly a "forced conclusion."  It is goal of the project; to make a model that reflect reality.

They work with the program because they CAN NOT work with reality.  No matter what their research will always tell you about the model and not reality.

Quote
Once you've done that, then you can analyze what factors created this conclusion, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion.  It's just too complex for that.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be using supercomputers to run the models.

Unless they add "random" to their models the results are largely a foregoing conclusion, and adding "random" is a highly questionable thing to do.  What part of nature do you derive the "random" from?
Quote
Quote
What program do you think could do that?  We don't have data in those packets.  If you have generated data for them, you've effected played make believe.

According to my notes, that is the computational resolution of T106 L56 Atmospheric GCM, created by Center for Climate System Research (CCSR), National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and Frontier Research Center for Global Change (FRCGC).  Certainly they do not have unique measurement for every one of those grids, but they are not complete unknowns, either.  (You can't have hurricane-force winds in one grid and calm in the adjacent grid, for instance.)  Estimates are far from "make believe."

Considering that hurricanes have eyes, you literally could not have picked a worse example for your point.

I'd doubt that less than 60% of those grids have any direct measurement, when you think through the polar caps and ocean regions.  I'd doubt that more than 5% have regular measurements and even less have measurements that meet any kind of reasonable quality controls (for instance its questionable if there are quality measurements for most of Asia or Africa).

Quote
Quote
It appears to create significance by running multiple iterations, but all it will ever do is regress to the mean of the pre-programmed results.

Sure, but the results may be wildly different than what you expected.  Just ask any beginning programmer. ;)

Completely missing the point.  Not understanding a forced conclusion of your assumptions doesn't mean it isn't a forced conclusion.

Quote
From what I understand, the different iterations don't "regress" in any way.  They run independent of the other iteration.  One might follow the average of the runs, the next might be wildly different.  If there is a path, yes, it is a result of the programming.  But the idea is to make a program that works the same way the climate does.

Yes, I agree you don't understand what is going on.  A single iteration can't regress.  But just like if you flip a coin enough times the percentage you get the coin to turn up heads regresses to 50%, the "sophisticated" climate models have to do the same.

Quote
But we know that CO2 impacts the climate.  We know it traps heat.  We know how much it should reflect back onto the planet.

We know how those operate in a closed system, we have no experimental results for how it operates on a system like the climate.  We draw inferences from what we do know, but we can't actually test them.

Quote
What we don't know is exactly how that interacts with the rest of the climate, because it is a chaotic system.

No, just no.  Whether or not its chaotic has nothing to do with why we don't know how it interacts exactly.

Quote
But prevention of a problem is always cheaper than mitigation.

This is literally not true.  There are plenty of problems that are cheaper to treat than to prevent.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 18, 2017, 09:47:55 AM
If you bring up "many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher" and then ignore the other factors that were different during those other times... you aren't doing it right.
I understand your desire to assist and provide cover for someone but if you insist on these distractions I would ask that you tell me how the other factors change the properties of CO2 to go from a logarithmic to linear to exponential effect. Is this something you can do?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 18, 2017, 09:53:45 AM
At this point, I'll also mention a very recent development on the CO2 question:
Quote
Last year, Zaichin Zhu and 31 coauthors published a remarkable analysis of global vegetation change since satellite sensors became operational in the late 1970s. The vast majority of the globe’s vegetated area is greening, with 25-50% of that area showing a statistically significant change, while only 4% of the vegetated area is significantly browning.
Quote
We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models show that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend…

As you can see, there are enormous benefits to increase CO2 in the atmosphere (increased growing seasons and crop yields that will ease world hunger for one).  Rising CO2 is actually a net beneficial to the planet and has resulted in a greener, more living, world.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 18, 2017, 11:49:26 AM
Rising CO2 in the ocean is acidification, and deoxygenation of the ocean (due to destruction of coral reefs which absorb CO2 and release oxygen is killing the oceans.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on May 18, 2017, 12:59:55 PM
Crunch,

The change in vegetation is due to reduced acid rain nothing to do with CO2 fertilization.

http://gizmodo.com/after-decades-of-acid-rain-damage-northeastern-forests-1740571183

Also crop productivity is projected and expected to decrease - CO2 is basically never a rate limiting factor for crop yields - soil quality, water and pests are often rate limiting.  Increased temperatures increase evaporation which both decreases water availability and decreases soil quality (increased salt concentration, dryer soil increases losses of topsoil, etc.).  Pests survive winters better

Quote
Milder winters have been shown to increase the survival of many frost-sensitive insects [3]. Increasing temperatures also allow for higher rates of growth and reproduction in insect herbivores [3]. Studies on aphids and moths have shown that increasing temperatures can allow insects to reach their minimum flight temperature sooner, aiding in increased dispersal capabilities [4] [5] [6] [7]. Multiple studies have shown the northward expansion or shift of insect ranges, such as Edith's checkerspot butterfly or the mountain pine beetle, to be correlated with increasing temperatures [1] [8].

http://agadapt.ucdavis.edu/pestsdiseases/

Temperature increases decomposition rates and thus loss of organic matter in soil, meaning either increased fertilization will be needed and reduced crop productivity per unit of soil.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.4141/S05-084
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on May 18, 2017, 02:50:39 PM
If you bring up "many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher" and then ignore the other factors that were different during those other times... you aren't doing it right.
I understand your desire to assist and provide cover for someone but if you insist on these distractions I would ask that you tell me how the other factors change the properties of CO2 to go from a logarithmic to linear to exponential effect. Is this something you can do?
1. Your motive speculation adds nothing of value to your response,

2. You are focusing on the part of your statement with which I did not take exception.  You wrote
Quote
So that you know, the data being presented in that chart is demonstrably false.  There have been many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher (over 4000 ppm even) and temperatures did not increase at all much less as much as the above.  In one period when the Earth was above 5000 ppm. it was actually vastly colder than now and the planet was heavily glaciated. 

Also, it completely contradicts the logarithmic nature of CO2's effect.  It cannot possibly be accurate.
(I added the bold).

I was responding to the first section of that quote - which stands on its own - the "also" suggests you were making an additional, independent point, and I did not make reference to that secondary point.

So yes, pointing out that your exclusing of geological period climate variables from consideration when attempting to understand temperature variances over, well, geological periods of time, is not a distraction; rather, it's quite relevant.

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 18, 2017, 02:53:25 PM
Crunch,

The change in vegetation is due to reduced acid rain nothing to do with CO2 fertilization.

That is precisely, incorrect.  You link to a story more than 2 years old but the most recent data is:
Quote
After analyzing 45 studies from eight countries, Lixin Wang, assistant professor of earth sciences in the School of Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and a Ph.D. student in Wang’s group, Xuefei Lu, concluded the greening likely stems from the impact of rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant water savings and consequent increases in available soil water.
They estimate roughly 70% of this greening is due to rising CO2 levels.  The remaining 30% comes  from things like the reduced acid rain.

Also crop productivity is projected and expected to decrease - CO2 is basically never a rate limiting factor for crop yields - soil quality, water and pests are often rate limiting.
CO2 is actually a airborne fertilizer for plants.  We've known this for decades and can see this proven every day as many commercial greenhouses routinely pump up CO2 levels in their greenhouses.  This is know as carbon dioxide enrichment (https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide):
Quote
there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!  Commercial greenhouses are aware of this and commonly use CO2 generators to maximize production.

Again, I apologize, but what you're saying is simply not accurate and, in fact, largely never was.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 18, 2017, 02:55:33 PM
Rising CO2 in the ocean is acidification, and deoxygenation of the ocean (due to destruction of coral reefs which absorb CO2 and release oxygen is killing the oceans.

I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here.

Which also isn't to mention funny thing, there are ways to directly address all of that dissolved CO2 in our Oceans waters as well, except well, deliberately increasing the iron content of the ocean's more iron-poor regions is considered Geo-Engineering and there are international treaties prohibiting such acts. Even if it would be a massive boon to international fisheries.

Also on a related note, it seems that studies of the "methane upwelling" that currently underway is turning out to be a GHG sink rather than a net contributor at present. At least during the summer months(when it was being studied), because well, it seems that when the methane is being released, it's stirring up sediments on the ocean floor and bringing much needed nutrients back up to the surface with it... Nutrients which in turn help accomplish much the same thing than iron seeding would do.

Net result seems to be that the resulting photosynthesis activity happening thanks to those nutrients removed over 200 times as much CO2 from the atmosphere as there was methane being released.... Not bad for a scary gas that is supposed to be 19x as bad as CO2 itself in the AGW fight.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 18, 2017, 02:57:59 PM
1. Your motive speculation adds nothing of value to your response,
That's true.
So yes, pointing out that your exclusing of geological period climate variables from consideration when attempting to understand temperature variances over, well, geological periods of time, is not a distraction; rather, it's quite relevant.
That's not true.  We are talking specifically about CO2 the the heating it can generate.  As long as there is an insistence it simultaneously have a  logarithmic, linear, and exponential effect (truly an impossibility) then nothing else becomes relevant as the most basic underlying science is subverted to conform to ideological outcomes.  There's no relevance to these random factors if you don't understand the most basic principles being applied.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on May 18, 2017, 03:10:20 PM
Again, I will point out this:
Quote
There have been many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher (over 4000 ppm even) and temperatures did not increase at all much less as much as the above.  In one period when the Earth was above 5000 ppm. it was actually vastly colder than now and the planet was heavily glaciated.
This point has nothing to do with any mathematical relationship that WS may or may not have posited. Not to mention that relationship, which you seem focused on, is one of a rate of change - whereas your statement above concerns absolute levels of CO2 and of temperatures; clearly, that statement has nothing to do with what actually is a distraction - your focus on a logarithmic vs an exponential relationship in the rate of change of the two variables.

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on May 18, 2017, 03:25:23 PM
Quote
I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here.
The math is easy enough to do - have you tried it?  Because a number of researchers who's full time job it is to actually calculate these values have done so.  Are you suggesting their math is intuitively wrong or actually wrong?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 18, 2017, 03:28:40 PM
Temperature increases decomposition rates and thus loss of organic matter in soil, meaning either increased fertilization will be needed and reduced crop productivity per unit of soil.

...Or shifts in the methods used. For that matter, decomposition isn't exactly the problem, to a large extent it's desired. It's desiccation we want to avoid.

It just happens that most of the "Modern Ag Practices" happened to evolve based upon climates like what is found in western and central Europe because it's the Europeans who went about conquering and colonizing much of the rest of the world. Obviously other techniques were being used elsewhere, but few of them survived because their new European overlords of the 19th Century(or earlier) had little time or patience with such "primitive techniques."
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 18, 2017, 03:34:16 PM
Quote
I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here.
The math is easy enough to do - have you tried it?  Because a number of researchers who's full time job it is to actually calculate these values have done so.  Are you suggesting their math is intuitively wrong or actually wrong?

Oh, I'm not disputing that the ph would change(towards acidic)  as CO2 increases. I do have doubts that the bleaching and other such events we're witnessing now has much to do with CO2 levels though. It goes back to the example already cited. CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, oftentimes within the "lifetime" of many of the coral reef systems now "being harmed by high CO2." So color me skeptical on that assertion, I think some other (likely man-made) cause is at play(in most cases), but CO2 isn't the boogeyman at play there, he's just a distraction from the real issue.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 18, 2017, 03:58:56 PM
Quote
I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here

Of course we aren't.  Ocean creatures generate their own co2, and coral reefs and associated life used to absorb the CO2 and release oxygen.  Until we killed the coral reefs with trawler fishing and China's great wall of sand, etc
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 18, 2017, 05:23:31 PM
Again, I will point out this:
Quote
There have been many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher (over 4000 ppm even) and temperatures did not increase at all much less as much as the above.  In one period when the Earth was above 5000 ppm. it was actually vastly colder than now and the planet was heavily glaciated.
This point has nothing to do with any mathematical relationship that WS may or may not have posited.
This point is the context around which the impact of CO2 is known and documented.  It was not meant as a mathematical proof, I am not sure why you think that it was.  It is a historical fact that demonstrated what happens when CO2 increases.

Not to mention that relationship, which you seem focused on, is one of a rate of change - whereas your statement above concerns absolute levels of CO2 and of temperatures; clearly, that statement has nothing to do with what actually is a distraction - your focus on a logarithmic vs an exponential relationship in the rate of change of the two variables.
The rate of change is irrelevant. It's just more distraction.  It really doesn't matter how fast the rate is, the total amount remains the same.  Going to 1000 ppm in a single day will have the same effect as going to 1000 ppm over centuries.  The effect is logarithmic.  Nothing changes that.  It's a fact and, frankly, bizarre and completely unhinged from science for you or anyone else to insist that it is not.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 18, 2017, 06:13:48 PM
Tell me, Crunch, what was the solar input at those times?  How far was the Earth from the sun?  What was the cloud cover like?  Particular matter in the atmosphere?  Reflectivity of the surface?
We're not talking about those factors, we may presently, I don't know, but we've been specifically talking about CO2.  Trying to throw up this smoke screen and create distractions is not a viable point.

The total temperature of the Earth is a combination of all the forcings and factors.  Even today, it's not just the CO2 levels that creates our average temperature.  So pointing out how one factor was different in the past, without considering any of the others, is meaningless.  The other factors could have counterbalanced the high CO2 level (and doubtlessly did).  You really need to learn more about this subject, and think about it, before thinking that I'm "trying to throw up a smoke screen."

Quote
There are many factors that affect the average temperature of the Earth.  The current models incorporate as many as we know.  But with all those other factors, how can you say definitively that one or more of those other factors didn't overcome the heat trapping of CO2?  And, therefore, the models must be wrong?
We're talking about CO2 and the effect it has.  You agree it's logarithmic, then claim it's actually linear, and then put up a chart trying to make the case it's exponential. That's not even doublespeak, it's triplespeak and, frankly, non-nonsensical (i.e. it's not only not right, it's not even wrong).

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the mathematics, Crunch.  I'll try to explain.

Yes, CO2 appears to have a logarithmic relationship with temperature.  But at the concentrations we are dealing with, the line has "flattened out," as you put it, and is now acting in an approximately linear relationship.  It is not completely flat, but has a slope that is much smaller, but still significant, compared to the 0 - 20 ppm range.  So it is not doublespeak to say that the CO2 changes in the atmosphere have a linear relationship with the heat it traps for the current concentrations, even though CO2 increases temperature logarithmically.

And you do realize that a logarithmic curve is an exponential curve with the x and y axis swapped?  So it should be no surprise that a logarithmic curve can be shown as an exponential curve in another graph.  Hardly a "triplespeak."  ::)

And you seemed to have missed my previous post to you.  Do you agree that climatologists are at least as knowledgeable as you about CO2, and that it is more likely than not (although not an absolute certainty) that they may be right about how CO2 affects temperature and you may be wrong?  That it is not a mathematical certainty that they are wrong?  Because if you are absolutely convinced that you are more knowledgeable than professional climatologists with PhDs, who have spent years researching the subject, publishing papers, discussing and arguing about the issues with their peers, etc., and that you have found a simple mathematical proof that they are all wrong, that they never took this math into account, and there is no way you could possibly be wrong--well, I don't think there is any point in trying to convince you.  AFAIK, there is no argument that an ego will find convincing. ;)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 18, 2017, 06:47:51 PM
Wayward, you should delete that post. Honestly, the math in it makes no sense.  You seem to be really confused about what a logarithmic curve is.

I don't have any idea if the statement about carbon being logarithmic is itself true, but if it is then carbon in and of itself is effectively immaterial and limits on it would wasteful and ineffective.  And specifically, the point you made with your chart above (that you didn't need to consider runaway effects but could just look at carbon) is refuted.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 18, 2017, 10:59:50 PM
Quote
I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here

Of course we aren't.  Ocean creatures generate their own co2, and coral reefs and associated life used to absorb the CO2 and release oxygen.  Until we killed the coral reefs with trawler fishing and China's great wall of sand, etc

Trawler fishing isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2. China's "Great wall of sand" isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2.

Coral Bleaching due to "excess discharge" of various assorted man-made chemicals and/or fertilizers from farmland isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2.

The list goes on and on.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 18, 2017, 11:41:42 PM
Quote
Sorry, but you are wrong.  These are the estimates without a "runaway feedback loop." Here is a chart from a class on climate change that I took*:

CO2 (ppm)       Average Temp Increase (Equilibrium)
340 (320-380)                 1 degree C
540 (440-760)                 3 degree C
840 (620-1490)               5 degree C

No runaway feedback loop.

To all the people who scoffed at this data because CO2 has a logarithmic curve please read.

This data does show a roughly logarithmic increase. 

Base carbon dioxide equilibrium before the industrial revolution was roughly 280ppm.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html (https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html)

If a rise of 21% to 340ppm causes 1 degree of warming. Then every 21% increase would cause 1 degree of warming.  So increase by 21% 2 more times and you get about 500ppm squarely in the center range.  Two more 21% increases takes you to about 750ppm which is right in the 5 degree range.

Logarithmic does not mean asymptomatic.  Logarithmic means a fixed percent increase produces a linear output.

So apparently the climate scientists are well aware of the logarithmic relationship, even if you don't understand what that means or would look like.


Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on May 18, 2017, 11:50:07 PM
Quote
The effect is logarithmic.  Nothing changes that.  It's a fact and, frankly, bizarre and completely unhinged from science for you or anyone else to insist that it is not.
Why did you feel it necessary to misrepresent what I wrote?  I challenge you to point out where I insisted anything about the logarithmic nature (or otherwise) of CO2 levels to temperature.

My point was simply that taking geological time period variables into account when discussion temperatures in different geological periods is not a distraction - it is, in fact, a necessity - and that you suggesting otherwise is wrong-headed. You may attempt to evade this point by once again making some non sequitur about the logarithmic nature of the CO2/temperature relationship, but we all see what you are doing.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 18, 2017, 11:52:46 PM
In response to humans only produce 3.5% of the carbon released each year (I'll accept your facts without looking them up) that is more significant than you think.  The C02 levels had roughly reached an equilibrium level prior to the industrial revolution, this means that about the same amount of carbon was added to the atmosphere as was taken out each year.  The fact is we have just tipped the scales of what was an equilibrium reaction to something that is now c02 additive to the atmosphere each year.  In any one given year that isn't a huge deal but it adds up over time in a significant way. Take a look at the Mauna Loa data if you have doubts.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 18, 2017, 11:58:36 PM
As to the carbon being higher when temperatures were lower, one theory (and it is just a theory with only some modest data for its validity) is the snowball Earth theory.  If the Earth were entirely frozen over, the ice would reflect so much of the solar energy back into space that the Earth should stay frozen.  Unless C02 from volcanoes piles up in the atmosphere to cause a greenhouse effect to warm the Earth back to a melted state.  So yes you must account for many other geologic factors when looking at a geologic time scale.  The very evidence you are claiming shows CO2 isn't a driver of warming may be the strongest evidence of CO2 causing warming.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on May 19, 2017, 01:17:09 AM
Crunch,

Regarding Lu and Wang - if you would have read their paper, you would have realized that they don't even consider acid rain.  The paper being 2 years 'newer' doesn't imply anything.  Also it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 fertilization - it is talking about changing in water usage efficiency under elevated CO2.  Also their hypothesis and research is only related to 'drylands' (little or no soil moisture).  Also your '70%' number is nowhere mentioned in their paper.

The Zhu et. al. letter research is purely model based and completely ignores acid rain and it also ignores water usage efficiency.

Quote
CO2 is actually a airborne fertilizer for plants.  We've known this for decades and can see this proven every day as many commercial greenhouses routinely pump up CO2 levels in their greenhouses.

I do wish you would read what you quote. I said if CO2 is RATE LIMITING - there is a fertilization effect, but it is rarely RATE LIMITING.  In a greenhouse they have provided all the water and nitrogen, and minerals that the plant can use and provide the optimum growth temperature and light exposure, are free of pests and disease, and therefore CO2 can be RATE LIMITING.  In nature - plants are generally RATE LIMITED by nitrogen fixation, soil minerals, moisture, pests and disease, temperature, sun light exposure, so rarely is CO2 RATE LIMITING.

In natural ecosystems the three most common limiting factors are water, nutrients, and space - CO2 is basically never a limit factor for natural ecosystems (one reason for this is that CO2 is absorbed by opening stromata and for each molecule of CO2 absorbed results in about 100 molecules of H2O lost).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 19, 2017, 01:31:50 AM
Quote
I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here

Of course we aren't.  Ocean creatures generate their own co2, and coral reefs and associated life used to absorb the CO2 and release oxygen.  Until we killed the coral reefs with trawler fishing and China's great wall of sand, etc

Trawler fishing isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2. China's "Great wall of sand" isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2.


 :o ??? That's my whole point, D.  That Atmospheric CO2 is caused by deforestation of the land and of the ocean.  Not vice versa.  My point is that climate change is man-made but through the destruction of land and marine carbon sinks.  From what you said above, it looks like you hold the same position, but somehow don't understand it when I say it.  That's what I'm saying when I say that Kyoto is just another form of Climate Change denial.  Because it focuses on emissions, rather than on deforestation of the land and sea.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 19, 2017, 12:07:52 PM
Wayward, you should delete that post. Honestly, the math in it makes no sense.  You seem to be really confused about what a logarithmic curve is.

Seriati, I thought you were better at math than that.

Crunch is saying that the change in CO2 forcing cannot be both logarithmic and linear at the same time.  Specifically, he said:

Quote
You agree it's logarithmic, then claim it's actually linear, and then put up a chart trying to make the case it's exponential.

He even provided [/url=https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png]a chart, with a formula, showing the forcing of CO2.[/url]

Now look at the formula: Forcing = 2.94 Log2(CO2) + 233.6.

I assume Log2 means log base 2, and CO2 stands for the concentration of CO2 in parts per million.

So at 10 ppm, Log2 = 3.32.
At 20 ppm, Log2 = 4.32.
That's 1.00 difference, which is extremely large in this context.

But we're not at 20 ppm.  We've just broken 400 ppm.  What is the logarithm for that?

At 390, Log2 = 8.61
At 400, Log2 = 8.64
At 410, Log2 = 8.68
At 420, Log2 = 8.71
At 430, Log2 = 8.75

About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

And don't be fooled by the fact that the forcing increase is only 0.04.  We are not concerned how much a 1.00 forcing would be, because that is already built into the system.  We are already reaping the benefits of that forcing.  We are concerned with how much temperature increase a 0.04 forcing would create, which, according to the formula, would be 0.2 increase, in whatever units the formula is using.

The question is, how much temperature increase will a 0.2 increase make?

Quote
I don't have any idea if the statement about carbon being logarithmic is itself true, but if it is then carbon in and of itself is effectively immaterial and limits on it would wasteful and ineffective.  And specifically, the point you made with your chart above (that you didn't need to consider runaway effects but could just look at carbon) is refuted.

Since, at our current concentrations, the increase in forcing is linear, one would expect the result to be also linear.  Thus the chart does not contradict the results.

The point of the chart is that it does not include any runaway effects.  You stated that we would only get to 4 degree C increases because of the runaway effect.  The chart was to show that it doesn't need runaway effects.  The calculations show a steady increase with the steady increase in CO2 (plus or minus because of the complexity of the system).

A runaway effect would make the increase greater than what is expected.

But climatologists still expect the high increases even without any runaway effect.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 19, 2017, 12:53:45 PM
To all the people who scoffed at this data because CO2 has a logarithmic curve please read.

This data does show a roughly logarithmic increase. 
The data does not show the appropriate logarithmic effect, it's utterly divorced from reality.  Please see the link provided to understand the effect.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 19, 2017, 12:56:57 PM
So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.
You are very, very confused.  The effect is logarithmic.  It is not both logarithmic and linear at the same time, then becoming exponential when you feel it makes for better support.  I'm sorry, you just don't understand what you're talking about and I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

The math is what it is, it does not change based on situational creations you come up with.

Crunch: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 19, 2017, 12:58:20 PM
I do wish you would read what you quote. I said if CO2 is RATE LIMITING - there is a fertilization effect, but it is rarely RATE LIMITING.  In a greenhouse they have provided all the water and nitrogen, and minerals that the plant can use and provide the optimum growth temperature and light exposure, are free of pests and disease, and therefore CO2 can be RATE LIMITING.  In nature - plants are generally RATE LIMITED by nitrogen fixation, soil minerals, moisture, pests and disease, temperature, sun light exposure, so rarely is CO2 RATE LIMITING.

And I do wish you could understand what I provided without parsing it through a hyperpartisan lenses to fit a preconceived notion.  I suppose that won't happen.

Crunch: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 19, 2017, 01:31:55 PM
Base carbon dioxide equilibrium before the industrial revolution was roughly 280ppm.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html (https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html)

If a rise of 21% to 340ppm causes 1 degree of warming. Then every 21% increase would cause 1 degree of warming.  So increase by 21% 2 more times and you get about 500ppm squarely in the center range.  Two more 21% increases takes you to about 750ppm which is right in the 5 degree range.

Ah but we get into all kinds of "other fun stuff" in this comparison. "Pre-industrial revolution" is also a dodgy definition depending who you talk to. But suffice to say, if you're looking early 19th Century, you're coming out of "The Little Ice Age" and a solar minimum event along with a number of other contributing factors. Even for the  (credible) AGW hard-core advocates, they have to acknowledge that not all of the warming from 1800 up through some point in the mid-20th century was CO2 based, other factors were also demonstrably in play.

So it gets to be a bit dishonest to turn around and acknowledge that point, then turn around and claim a set of data points as you just did, and make projections based on that handful of points while ignoring those other factors. So yes, a compelling "absolute worst case" based on those data points alone could be made with that. The problem is, it is just that, an absolute worst case scenario assuming current trends continued as they did historically.

But I don't think anyone is forecasting planet Earth is about to start orbiting closer to the Sun (on average) then it currently is. 

I also don't think anyone is forecasting any other significant increase in (external) solar radiative forcings in the near future. (The ones talking about that are talking about a decrease)

And the list goes on...
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 19, 2017, 01:42:43 PM
OK, let me define my term here.

When I say "huge impact," I mean that the CO2 level itself leads to a change in temperature that impacts our ability to live, such as sea level rises, desertification, acidification of the oceans, etc.  I don't care how big a temperature change it is nor how big a percentage it is to the total effect.  If that change leads to a significant reduction in my, and the rest of humanity's, ability to survive, then it is a "huge impact."

Everything else is just hand-waving.

Again what you did is hand-waving.  The specific point is that your claim that the change in CO2 leads to a "huge impact" is what is disputed.  Claiming that it has a huge impact definitionally doesn't fix that problem.

But, from what I understand, the contention is that CO2 is not having a huge impact now because it had a large impact in the past.  Specifically, since Crunch said that there is a huge impact between 0 - 20 ppm, it is having only a minor, negligible impact now.

And he has a point, since the CO2 had 25 times the effect from going from 10 ppm to 20 ppm than it does today (if my calculations are correct).

But that is just saying it does not have a huge impact compared to the past.  It really doesn't matter how big an impact it had between 10 and 20 ppm, since we pasted those concentrations a long, long, LONG time ago.  We are only worried about the impact that a 10 ppm change has to the system today.  And how CO2 influenced the climate at 20 ppm is irrelevant to that.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I don't agree that you've shown any reason to believe that a 4 degree C change (what is that almost 7 F) is even on the table.   Certainly, I see no possibility that any now existing or currently proposed environmental legislation could even in theory cause that large of an impact.

Credible sources say it is an extremely likely outcome.  Why don't you see it as a possibility?

I literally don't believe you have cited credible sources, and I'm questioning what your basis for determining the credibility of a source is.

This chart was presented by a professor at U.C. San Diego, who studied climate, and participated in gathering and evaluating studies for inclusion in the IPCC.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found his source for these numbers.  But I ask, what would you consider a credible source?

Quote
Quote
Quote
What I want is proposals that are balanced and have a real meaningful impact.  Environmental legislation that doesn't help the environment but rewards bad environmental actors like China is a complete waste of time.  Rules that impose massive costs for marginal benefits are just stupid.

Great.  So does everyone else.  But we can't agree to start looking at them until we agree that there is an actual problem for them to address.  Work with those who acknowledge the problem to come up with such proposals, and oppose those who say that the problem doesn't even exist.

We actually don't have to agree here to make progress.  Virtually all pollutants have actual provable health impacts and other societal costs (even if its just loss of green space).  Many things can be addressed rationally and collectively, however, when you're trying to make an argument from authority and demanding solutions that don't even plausibly relate to your claims I'm gonna fight that.

I remind you again, I have not "demanded" any specific solutions.

Quote
Quote
Quote
One of the assumptions HAS to be that CO2 causes increases in global temperature.  There is no legitimate way to exclude that, which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system from our observations of it in a closed system.

How would you program that?  I mean, with dozens of systems being modeled, from solar input to convection currents to ocean absorption to cloud cover to methane levels, how to you program that the main cause HAS to be CO2?

I don't know where to begin, it almost sounds like you have no idea what a "model" is.  You do understand that every single rule of the model is selected by a human being?  The impact of CO2 is literally programmed into the model by the researchers, failing to include it's expected impact would literally be scientific malpractice, which means it's not possible for the model not to show increases of carbon increasing global temperature.
Quote
Yes, you have to include the basic amount of energy absorption by CO2 into the model.  But if something else is causing the warming that we are seeing, how do you make sure that the CO2 is THE culprit?

There is no way for a model to do this.

Data analysis based on properly constructed studies can lead to such a conclusion. If you have real experimental data (which we don't because n=1) you can do that analysis.  We use models to generate data to do an analysis, but there is a fatal flaw to modeled data, the analysis can only show you what the model requires.  For a complex system you may get a result you didn't expect but you can't get a result that wasn't a necessary conclusion of the rules you put in.  You can get any number of Queen takes King results, but your chess model will never return Snake Eyes as an answer.

Crunching modeled data does nothing but return the modeled rules.

OK, I think I see where our disagreement comes from.  You originally said, "which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system..."

The closed-system experiments showed how CO2 interacts with infrared light.  How it absorbs it, then emits it, sending some back as a "reflection."  This is a property of CO2 that is assumed true whether it is in a closed system or not.

It is assumed true because we could not make any conclusions about the universe otherwise.

If CO2 acted differently in this respect in an open system (which the Earth may or may not be--we would have to discuss exactly what you mean by that), then we could make no assumptions about CO2 outside of it being in a closed container. :)  Which means we would have to throw out everything we know about the universe outside of the laboratory.

For instance, how do we know how an airplane wing works?  Sure, we have all this theoretical stuff about fluid dynamics we know, but those are based on laboratory experiments.  Sure, we have tests in wind tunnels, but those are enclosed, "closed" systems.  Sure, we have thousands of airplanes flying, but since they are actually outside in the world, we cannot say that what we tested in the lab applies to them.  They may be staying up the air for other reasons, reasons we don't know, reasons we cannot predict...

You see how it snowballs?

CO2 works the same way trapping heat in our atmosphere as it does in a closed system in the lab.  The way it absorbs and re-emits the light is the same.  Otherwise, we don't need to bother with models at all.  We could never be sure that any of them worked the way we think they do.  It would only be sheer luck that any of them work.  As would any of our understandings of reality.

Quote
Quote
Once you've done that, then you can analyze what factors created this conclusion, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion.  It's just too complex for that.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be using supercomputers to run the models.

Unless they add "random" to their models the results are largely a foregoing conclusion, and adding "random" is a highly questionable thing to do.  What part of nature do you derive the "random" from?

In the case of a chaotic system, the initial conditions would be considered "random" since we don't know precisely what they were.

Quote
Quote
Quote
What program do you think could do that?  We don't have data in those packets.  If you have generated data for them, you've effected played make believe.

According to my notes, that is the computational resolution of T106 L56 Atmospheric GCM, created by Center for Climate System Research (CCSR), National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and Frontier Research Center for Global Change (FRCGC).  Certainly they do not have unique measurement for every one of those grids, but they are not complete unknowns, either.  (You can't have hurricane-force winds in one grid and calm in the adjacent grid, for instance.)  Estimates are far from "make believe."

Considering that hurricanes have eyes, you literally could not have picked a worse example for your point.

I'd doubt that less than 60% of those grids have any direct measurement, when you think through the polar caps and ocean regions.  I'd doubt that more than 5% have regular measurements and even less have measurements that meet any kind of reasonable quality controls (for instance its questionable if there are quality measurements for most of Asia or Africa).

OK, you got me with the hurricane eye. :D  But I think you see the larger point.

We can make good estimates of the data changes between grids.  Not perfect, of course.  Which would be another good reason to multiple runs, with each run having slightly different values for the grids to see how sensitive the model is to changes.  But there is a range we can work with.  So you just can't ignore the entire model when it has covered just about all the possibilities.

Quote
Quote
Quote
It appears to create significance by running multiple iterations, but all it will ever do is regress to the mean of the pre-programmed results.

Sure, but the results may be wildly different than what you expected.  Just ask any beginning programmer. ;)

Completely missing the point.  Not understanding a forced conclusion of your assumptions doesn't mean it isn't a forced conclusion.


But if your assumptions are wrong, unless you are very lucky, the conclusions will be wrong.  So then you re-examine your assumptions and try to find better ones, with the hope that one day your assumptions will be correct, or at least close enough to not matter.

Quote
Quote
From what I understand, the different iterations don't "regress" in any way.  They run independent of the other iteration.  One might follow the average of the runs, the next might be wildly different.  If there is a path, yes, it is a result of the programming.  But the idea is to make a program that works the same way the climate does.

Yes, I agree you don't understand what is going on.  A single iteration can't regress.  But just like if you flip a coin enough times the percentage you get the coin to turn up heads regresses to 50%, the "sophisticated" climate models have to do the same.

Yes, we only have one coin that is flipped--Earth.  (Assuming you ignore the other planets in our solar system which have been modeled in a similar way.)  But it is hardly a single flip, since the results change from day to day.  We have far more data than a single flip of a coin.

Also, we run the models multiple times to make sure they follow the known path as well as it can.  So rather than having multiple flips of the coin, we have to settle with multiple tries of the model.

Quote
What we don't know is exactly how that interacts with the rest of the climate, because it is a chaotic system.

No, just no.  Whether or not its chaotic has nothing to do with why we don't know how it interacts exactly.[/quote]

To repeat, it is a basic assumption of science that what is measured in the lab--a closed system--applies to the rest of the universe.  Our knowledge about how infrared light interacts with CO2 is true in the atmosphere as well as in the container.  Otherwise, we don't need to discuss anything, because everything is ultimately unknowable. :(

Quote
Quote
But prevention of a problem is always cheaper than mitigation.

This is literally not true.  There are plenty of problems that are cheaper to treat than to prevent.

OK, there are exceptions.  :-[  But when you are dealing with gigatons of CO2, I can't imagine how this would be one of them. ;)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 19, 2017, 02:00:09 PM
About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

This is where your point is lost.  It's not 0.04 difference per increment of 10.  It's an ever declining difference per increment of 10.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 19, 2017, 02:07:22 PM
Quote
Trawler fishing isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2. China's "Great wall of sand" isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2.

 :o ??? That's my whole point, D.  That Atmospheric CO2 is caused by deforestation of the land and of the ocean.  Not vice versa.  My point is that climate change is man-made but through the destruction of land and marine carbon sinks.  From what you said above, it looks like you hold the same position, but somehow don't understand it when I say it.  That's what I'm saying when I say that Kyoto is just another form of Climate Change denial.  Because it focuses on emissions, rather than on deforestation of the land and sea.

On Coral Reefs, there is a compelling argument to be made. On forests, you lose, and not by a little, but by a lot.

Deforestation is a myth at this point. The isn't to say that destruction of Rain Forests, Old Growth Forests, and various and sundry (micro-)ecosystems isn't taking place. But the total area covered by woodland (arguably "forestry land" aka "forests") has been on a steady increase globally, for decades. That isn't to say it's all sunshine and daises because it isn't and there are plenty of problems as previously mentioned.

The issue here is I don't buy into the popular media lines about climate change and what the MSM thinks should be done about it. Of course, I'm looking at things from more of an Engineering and conservationist perspective over any kind of crazy environmentalist tree-hugger view point.

I like technology, I don't view it as the enemy. I also think capitalistic systems are the better solution to the addressing the issue, with minimal governmental interventions to curb the more extreme abuses.

The problem you have is that a LOT of the environmental lobby likes to talk about science and supporting it only so far it helps support "one of their babies" which often seems to revolve around protecting mother Gaia from the evils of capitalist systems(so they can tax and redistribute the money in pursuit of some weird socialist or communistic utopia) and technology/other sciences(*)... Never mind the 20th Century environmental track record of "the capitalists" (in particular the US) vs the communists or even the socialists for that matter.

Yes, the capitalists were pretty freaking bad, and are prone to being bad wherever they think they can get away with it. But they're also the most accountable for what they do/have done.

Educated consumers and workers alike have a lot more influence over a free-market business than all but a few privileged elites could hope to have when it comes to state run or state sponsored enterprise. "Don't like what we're doing? Too bad, the government says we can, so we will, and you're still going to pay for our products too."

Don't confuse healthy skepticism with unconditional opposition to "all things environmental."

(*)Am I the only one who finds it incredibly funny that many of the loudest advocates in regards to taking action in regards to climate change, and the most prone to denouncing anyone who disagrees with them, even in part, as "Science deniers." Also tend to be the biggest proponents of "all natural" and "all organic" foods, and often also seem to be loudest critics of food stuffs being created through the efforts of modern science?

Funny how they can be so "pro-science" one minute, and staunchly "anti-science" the next.

Of course, I guess this also is on par with the Feminist who wants the government out of their bedroom, but wants the government to provide them with free birth-control and prophylactics for use within that same bedroom. That the same feminist also is likely to be that all-organic/all-natural foods, and AGW proponent just adds to the irony.

There are reasons people have a hard time taking many of these people seriously.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on May 19, 2017, 02:15:51 PM
About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

This is where your point is lost.  It's not 0.04 difference per increment of 10.  It's an ever declining difference per increment of 10.

Didn't he just mean that the results are roughly linear in a local portion of the graph? Across the entire graph of course the rate of change is changing. This argument began when a few results in a row seemed to have a linear progress, which was dubbed impossible since that's not how logarithms present, but it likely only appeared linear since it was a few local data points. Both sides are probably speaking past each other here.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 19, 2017, 02:18:15 PM
About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

This is where your point is lost.  It's not 0.04 difference per increment of 10.  It's an ever declining difference per increment of 10.

Didn't he just mean that the results are roughly linear in a local portion of the graph? Across the entire graph of course the rate of change is changing. This argument began when a few results in a row seemed to have a linear progress, which was dubbed impossible since that's not how logarithms present, but it likely only appeared linear since it was a few local data points. Both sides are probably speaking past each other here.

They are, one is talking about percentage points (which scales), while the other is using a fixed unit of measure.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on May 19, 2017, 02:25:47 PM
Funny how they can be so "pro-science" one minute, and staunchly "anti-science" the next.

Of course, I guess this also is on par with the Feminist who wants the government out of their bedroom, but wants the government to provide them with free birth-control and prophylactics for use within that same bedroom. That the same feminist also is likely to be that all-organic/all-natural foods, and AGW proponent just adds to the irony.

It's not really so surprising, since it has been long foretold that one of the dangers of democracy is that people will try to use the system to bully others. One of the original checks on this, I suppose, was the decentralization of a lot of things, including family and religious life, but the more centralized power there is Federally, the more mechanism there is to use against (or for) others. It's always the double-edged sword of creating the weapon, but then realizing it can be used in any direction based on who is loudest or can muster a majority today. When seen in this way, one shouldn't be looking for feminists to be 'pro-government' or 'anti-government'; the government is merely a tool in this sense to achieve their ends. It is natural that particular groups will be clamoring to have government set controls to serve their interests, and especially so when the Federal level takes it upon itself to choose policy that will affect all states.

It may sound cynical, but these groups don't seem to serve any master other than their own interests. It's not as if proponents of taking action about climate change are adherents of science in general. Oh, some are, and many are no doubt very informed on the matter, but the 'climate change crowd' as a whole consists of people with no allegiance to science, science funding, probably don't read lay science or follow Scientific American, and don't base their personal morals around cutting edge scientific wisdom. Likewise, most feminists are probably not political philosophers despite believing that government should or shouldn't do certain things. It's not that they have an ulterior motive - just the obvious one of furthering feminism, and if the government can be used as a tool to achieve this then that can be useful to them. But I doubt most feminists who demand changes by government are interesting in government qua government. So what looks initially like a contradiction in their position towards governing philosophy more likely than not belies the fact that they are uninterested in that area, and merely want things to change in a manner suitable to them, however that can be done.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 19, 2017, 02:28:16 PM
Quote
Quote
But prevention of a problem is always cheaper than mitigation.

This is literally not true.  There are plenty of problems that are cheaper to treat than to prevent.

OK, there are exceptions.  :-[  But when you are dealing with gigatons of CO2, I can't imagine how this would be one of them. ;)

In economics, it is called "opportunity cost."

It can apply to CO2 just as well as it can be applied to dollars.

I can spend XX Dollars on mitigating CO2 Emissions in a "non-productive way" (using a "green" option that costs much more than the alternative)

or

I can spend the same amount of money on a "productive use"(which will net me further gains(returns) later, which I can use to either fund further growth, or more adaptation) and take some measures to ensure that adaptation to expected conditions is taking place.

Making option 1 even worse, is the matter that the money went into "a sink" and does nothing towards preparing for the conditions to come. So you're still going to spend money on that after all is said and done.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 19, 2017, 02:53:16 PM
About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

This is where your point is lost.  It's not 0.04 difference per increment of 10.  It's an ever declining difference per increment of 10.

But for the concentrations we are dealing with, the declining difference is negligible.  Do the numbers yourself.

The difference between each increment is 0.04, plus or minus.  It doesn't vary with only two significant digits.   So whatever decline in the difference isn't seen to that precision.  So you can treat it as a line, and nothing is lost at that precision.

If X more amount of CO2 reflects Y more infrared heat back, then it doesn't matter that this Y amount is 0.1 of the total reflected back or 0.0001 of the total.  It is still Y amount, which increases the total amount of heat trapped in our atmosphere, which increases the average temperature.  The fact that the next increment of 10 is a smaller percentage of the total doesn't change the fact that it is still reflecting Y amount of heat.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 19, 2017, 02:54:04 PM
So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.
You are very, very confused.  The effect is logarithmic.  It is not both logarithmic and linear at the same time, then becoming exponential when you feel it makes for better support.  I'm sorry, you just don't understand what you're talking about and I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

The math is what it is, it does not change based on situational creations you come up with.

I showed you my math.  You show me yours.  :P
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 19, 2017, 03:02:51 PM
Quote
Again what you did is hand-waving.  The specific point is that your claim that the change in CO2 leads to a "huge impact" is what is disputed.  Claiming that it has a huge impact definitionally doesn't fix that problem.

But, from what I understand, the contention is that CO2 is not having a huge impact now because it had a large impact in the past.  Specifically, since Crunch said that there is a huge impact between 0 - 20 ppm, it is having only a minor, negligible impact now.

Not really.  The impact of CO2 from the first 20 ppm is still operating now.

His point is that you are grossly overstating the impact of marginal change in Co2 going forward because (a) virtually of the impact is already captured, and (b) new increases in Co2 have ever diminishing impact.  Don't recall if he pointed out that - on top of that - human caused Co2 is small percentage of the whole, which means marginal changes in human caused Co2 are fraction of a fraction of something who's impact is decreasing.

Quote
And he has a point, since the CO2 had 25 times the effect from going from 10 ppm to 20 ppm than it does today (if my calculations are correct).

Not sure why we care about the 10 to 20 increment.  The point was the pre-industrial impact already accounted - apparently - for about 85% of the maximum impact.

Quote
This chart was presented by a professor at U.C. San Diego, who studied climate, and participated in gathering and evaluating studies for inclusion in the IPCC.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found his source for these numbers.  But I ask, what would you consider a credible source?

One that cites to the underlying research and lists out some of the material assumptions.

Quote
OK, I think I see where our disagreement comes from.  You originally said, "which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system..."

The closed-system experiments showed how CO2 interacts with infrared light.  How it absorbs it, then emits it, sending some back as a "reflection."  This is a property of CO2 that is assumed true whether it is in a closed system or not.

It is assumed true because we could not make any conclusions about the universe otherwise.

The first two paragraphs are generally correct, obviously there are always limits to a controlled experiment being applied to an uncontrolled environment, many times scientists have been surprised by the interactions in the factors their experiments didn't control for.  The problem with the climate, is that absent interstellar travel we only have an N of 1, which means you can NOT run a controlled experiment or reach conclusions on causation.

Your last sentence however, is really wrong.  We can always make conclusions, we just limit them by reference to uncertainty.  This is where "modelling" comes in, it creates a false sense of certainty for the conclusions it generates by pretending n =/ 1, but rather that its equal to 20k, 50m or 10b or however many iterations it runs.

Quote
If CO2 acted differently in this respect in an open system (which the Earth may or may not be--we would have to discuss exactly what you mean by that), then we could make no assumptions about CO2 outside of it being in a closed container. :)  Which means we would have to throw out everything we know about the universe outside of the laboratory.

Your conclusion that we have to throw out "everything" is not logically supported by your premise.  We don't have to throw out anything to realize that something is our best guess.

The problem comes when some takes a "best guess" and turns it into orthodoxy ("climate consensus," defunding or ridiculing contrary findings, passing laws with no actual benefit because the "science demands it").

Quote
For instance, how do we know how an airplane wing works?  Sure, we have all this theoretical stuff about fluid dynamics we know, but those are based on laboratory experiments.  Sure, we have tests in wind tunnels, but those are enclosed, "closed" systems.  Sure, we have thousands of airplanes flying, but since they are actually outside in the world, we cannot say that what we tested in the lab applies to them.  They may be staying up the air for other reasons, reasons we don't know, reasons we cannot predict...

Lol.  You just walked through actual experiments and physical testing as if they were not real?  Are you kidding me.  Sure there is a possibility that it's all bunk and there are magic lizards that sit on the wings and make them fly, but that's a philosophical point.  We don't - ANYWHERE - have a "wind tunnel" for the climate.  We don't anywhere have a controlled experiment that has been run on the climate where we can observe the results.

What we have is the equivalent of ancient Greek priests who see the the thunderbolt and decided Zeus was angry and then went around looking for confirmation bias. 

Quote
You see how it snowballs?

You realize, you literally just argued that we have to give something more weight than the science demands because of a philosophical point, which largely boils down to it makes you uncomfortable to realize how much of certain sciences is still guess work.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Once you've done that, then you can analyze what factors created this conclusion, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion.  It's just too complex for that.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be using supercomputers to run the models.

Unless they add "random" to their models the results are largely a foregoing conclusion, and adding "random" is a highly questionable thing to do.  What part of nature do you derive the "random" from?

In the case of a chaotic system, the initial conditions would be considered "random" since we don't know precisely what they were.

Which is the fatal flaw in your point, maybe you just don't realize it?  It's very similar to a schroedinger's cat problem for you.

Quote
OK, you got me with the hurricane eye. :D  But I think you see the larger point.

We can make good estimates of the data changes between grids.  Not perfect, of course.  Which would be another good reason to multiple runs, with each run having slightly different values for the grids to see how sensitive the model is to changes.  But there is a range we can work with.  So you just can't ignore the entire model when it has covered just about all the possibilities.

You can't run "multiple runs" of the data, that's not how data works.  Again you're confused about what the model is and what it does.

The larger point is that you should have far less confidence in the data than you do.  You have to know that large portions of the globe have never had a human being in them, let alone a consistent measure of temperature (prior to the possibility that a satellite gives a consistent measure).  If you applied "climate science" data rules to humanity, congratulations you just solved poverty, no longer exists.

Even though there is literally no consistent ground level coverage on earth, let alone coverage of the sea surface, even if you assumed there was, how comfortable are you with the temperature cover in the Z axis?  Are there more than a handful of places on earth where there is any Z axis data?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
It appears to create significance by running multiple iterations, but all it will ever do is regress to the mean of the pre-programmed results.

Sure, but the results may be wildly different than what you expected.  Just ask any beginning programmer. ;)

Completely missing the point.  Not understanding a forced conclusion of your assumptions doesn't mean it isn't a forced conclusion.


But if your assumptions are wrong, unless you are very lucky, the conclusions will be wrong.  So then you re-examine your assumptions and try to find better ones, with the hope that one day your assumptions will be correct, or at least close enough to not matter.

Lol, I get how modelling works.  Now what you need to get is that weather models are currently the equivalent of stone age technology.  People are far more likely to have every point wrong, and most points grossly wrong than they are to have any point close to right.  Even when they manage to make a "prediction" that comes true (and with temperature there's really only 3 choices, up, down, same, which means a blind fool pick is gonna be generally correct at least 1 out of 3 times), that's no good reason to believe that the reason they picked it is true.

To give you an example, there are a least 10k models for how the stock market is going to go tomorrow, if it goes up which of the 5k completely different models that said it would is correct?  Want to look at it over time?  Virtually all of them are correct on the long term basis (as none of them predict anything but long term growth). 

Quote
Quote
Quote
From what I understand, the different iterations don't "regress" in any way.  They run independent of the other iteration.  One might follow the average of the runs, the next might be wildly different.  If there is a path, yes, it is a result of the programming.  But the idea is to make a program that works the same way the climate does.

Yes, I agree you don't understand what is going on.  A single iteration can't regress.  But just like if you flip a coin enough times the percentage you get the coin to turn up heads regresses to 50%, the "sophisticated" climate models have to do the same.

Yes, we only have one coin that is flipped--Earth.  (Assuming you ignore the other planets in our solar system which have been modeled in a similar way.)  But it is hardly a single flip, since the results change from day to day.  We have far more data than a single flip of a coin.

You literally do not have more than a single flip.  All your data is observational not experimental.  This is a basic, I mean really basic, scientific concept.

Quote
Also, we run the models multiple times to make sure they follow the known path as well as it can.  So rather than having multiple flips of the coin, we have to settle with multiple tries of the model.

Like I said, the point of modelling is that there is no way to run the experiment.  Just because its the only way you can do it, doesn't make it correct.  Could you write a computer model that would predict the words and actions of a single human being with any real accuracy?   Surely it's just a matter of chaos theory, you'd have plenty of days of data after all.

Quote
Quote
Quote
But prevention of a problem is always cheaper than mitigation.

This is literally not true.  There are plenty of problems that are cheaper to treat than to prevent.

OK, there are exceptions.  :-[  But when you are dealing with gigatons of CO2, I can't imagine how this would be one of them. ;)

It literally may be cheaper to invent carbon sequestration technologies (if we decide carbon really is a problem) than to change the living practices of the entire world.  In fact, its kind of hard to believe that it wouldn't be cheaper.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 19, 2017, 03:45:09 PM
OK, there are exceptions.  :-[  But when you are dealing with gigatons of CO2, I can't imagine how this would be one of them. ;)

It literally may be cheaper to invent carbon sequestration technologies (if we decide carbon really is a problem) than to change the living practices of the entire world.  In fact, its kind of hard to believe that it wouldn't be cheaper.

I can somewhat see this one. Although I've got my own issues with that crowd(see comments about "iron seeding(fertilization)" the ocean) as well regarding existing tech.

Athmospheric CO2 removal is something that hasn't really had a technically viable means of accomplishing by purely synthetic means until recently, and more lab work needs to be done before it will be known if many of the recent developments will scale. But even for the synthetic options we DO have working their way through labs right now, they'd currently be expensive to undertake. Prior to about 10 years ago, the synthetic route was largely a "SciFi option" although I wouldn't rule that out either. We're already seeing hints of it already with the whole "decarbonization" thing now going on. Granted many "Green efforts" are to credit for this, as much of the underlying tech wouldn't be out there if it hadn't been forced earlier.

Although personally I would have much preferred state sponsored/subsidized research into those things and waiting for them to become "commercially viable" before forcing them into the marketplace, but it is what it is. We are now at/near the breakeven point where many "Green technologies" are viable in their own right, even without government interference. So I'm inclined to think that further market intervention at the Federal(/International) Governmental level should be becoming increasingly unwelcome in this pursuit. Let the markets do what they do best.

If they want to meddle in the R&D side of things, that's their prerogative.

Beyond that, there isn't much at this point that a concerted and directed effort utilizing Nuclear power in either the Fission or Fusion form couldn't address for a few centuries at the least. Even if it was to power water purification plants in order to operate large greenhouses for doing carbon sequestration through raw large scale plant growth.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 19, 2017, 09:14:05 PM
Beyond that, there isn't much at this point that a concerted and directed effort utilizing Nuclear power in either the Fission or Fusion form couldn't address for a few centuries at the least. Even if it was to power water purification plants in order to operate large greenhouses for doing carbon sequestration through raw large scale plant growth.

And for that matter, it doesn't even need to be plants they're growing/harvesting. Just start farming giant vats of plankton and algae that use CO2 rather than generate it. Then if you have a strain that can work in salt-water you don't even need to treat the water (much), just skim the scum off periodically for whatever use it may have, or go dispose of it in a deep hole somewhere.

They're already experimenting with this in some of the carbon capture technologies/techniques that are being tested, although their end goal in those cases is usually some kind of petrol product/hydrocarbon.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 19, 2017, 10:44:06 PM
Quote
human caused Co2 is small percentage of the whole,

So what?  What throws things out of balance isn't human emissions but our destruction of the planet's carbon sinks: old growth forests and coral reefs.  It's not the CO2 that we cause that is going to kill us; it is the CO2 whose reabsoption we prevent.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 22, 2017, 12:14:02 PM
Quote
human caused Co2 is small percentage of the whole,

So what?  What throws things out of balance isn't human emissions but our destruction of the planet's carbon sinks: old growth forests and coral reefs.  It's not the CO2 that we cause that is going to kill us; it is the CO2 whose reabsoption we prevent.

To that end (https://www.usgs.gov/news/ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-more-makes-methane-emissions-seafloor-methane-seeps):
Quote
During the study, scientists continuously measured the concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in near-surface waters and in the air just above the ocean surface. The measurements were taken over methane seeps fields at water depths ranging from 260 to 8530 feet (80 to 2600 meters).

Analysis of the data confirmed that methane was entering the atmosphere above the shallowest (water depth of 260-295 feet or 80-90 meters) Svalbard margin seeps. However, the data also showed that significant amounts of carbon dioxide were being absorbed by the waters near the ocean surface, and that the cooling effect resulting from carbon dioxide uptake is up to 230 times greater than the warming effect expected from the methane emitted.

As we continue to see real science done, we're finding that all those thing's we've been told are just not so.  I still maintain that 2+2=4 in all cases (never 5 or even 6 depending on whatever environmental factors are conjured).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 22, 2017, 06:25:50 PM
How does that in any way contradict what I said?  My asserted that co2 uptake has reduced globally as we chopped forests and allowed China to rip apart coral reefs. The fact that the ocean retains some capacity to reason CO2 was in question.

Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 23, 2017, 03:19:29 PM
Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?

Except once more, forest(ry) land isn't shrinking, it's growing. Carbon offset taxes or not. It's a trend that's been going on for nearly a century.

And I'm not sold on "old growth" forests being better CO2 sinks than younger forests. What you're probably actually seeing is forests in more "diverse" habitats(usually due to extra moisture) among other factors that had little to with being particularly "old." Of course, I guess this comes from being a critter of the Western States where fire in an inherent part of the ecosystem, and without things getting burned out(or now, harvested), the habitats would stagnate and a multitude of other problems would start cropping up.

Coral Reef habitat is another matter entirely, while we can create artificial reef habitat, it isn't reliable, has its own set of issues and challenges, isn't cheap, and could not hope to keep pace with the destruction going on.

That said, we know how to make a very large carbon sink happen in the world's oceans, but to repeat myself again, it's currently banned under international law at practically any scale. Just check around to see the press reports about a Harvard study regarding Geo-Engineering and the sulfate aerosol proposal. Their plan is slowly release about 1 pound, yes, a single solitary pound. And environmental groups as well as the Government of Mexico are pitching fits about it. (Mexico because the test site is in Arizona and it might "blow into Mexico" thus making it subject to international law)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 23, 2017, 03:51:59 PM
Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?
What?!?   ???

Uh, no.  It's not. :o
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 24, 2017, 01:56:39 AM
Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?
What?!?   ???

Uh, no.  It's not. :o
Have to love fallacy. You are against X so you must be in favor of Y.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 24, 2017, 08:11:24 AM
Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?
What?!?   ???

Uh, no.  It's not. :o

Glad to hear it.  It it's not, then your post mischaracterized my position, just as Daemon did.

If you recognome that cutting forests and destroying coral reefs decreases reabsorption, then you acknowledge that those destructive human activities effectively increase greenhouse gasses.

Daemon, this is not "if you don't believe x, then you must also not believe y."  it's "I think you would agree about what I am saying if you would just pay attention to what I actually said."
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Mynnion on May 24, 2017, 09:08:05 AM
And I'm not sold on "old growth" forests being better CO2 sinks than younger forests.

The primary reason that "old growth" forests tend to be better carbon sinks is somewhat related to moisture and biodiversity as you mentioned but it is more than that.  A tree cut down in the jungles of Brazil can actually be carrying more than it's own weight in mosses, algae, and other plants.  It takes generations for the mass of these additional carbon sinks to reach full potential.

As Pete mentioned in the last post we absolutely know that man is changing the environment.  We see it at a regional level and it is extremely well documented.  We create cities, turn deserts into green zones, and green zones into deserts all of which can change regional rain fall and temperatures.  I'm not sure why the idea that man can trigger changes at a global level by changing the atmospheric equilibrium is so a stretch. 

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 24, 2017, 10:10:39 AM
Mynnion's reply is excellent but the attribution of Daemon's original remark needs clarification:

Quote from: Daemon
And I'm not sold on "old growth" forests being better CO2 sinks than younger forests.

The primary reason that "old growth" forests tend to be better carbon sinks is somewhat related to moisture and biodiversity as you mentioned but it is more than that.  A tree cut down in the jungles of Brazil can actually be carrying more than it's own weight in mosses, algae, and other plants.  It takes generations for the mass of these additional carbon sinks to reach full potential.

As Pete mentioned in the last post we absolutely know that man is changing the environment.  We see it at a regional level and it is extremely well documented.  We create cities, turn deserts into green zones, and green zones into deserts all of which can change regional rain fall and temperatures.  I'm not sure why the idea that man can trigger changes at a global level by changing the atmospheric equilibrium is so a stretch.

Additionally, I believe someone (I thought it was Daemon?) mentioned that the new growth trees being planted on the whole have darker leaves than the older growth taller trees, and therefore act as more of a heat sink whereas the old growth forest reflected more heat.

I tentatively agree with Crunch's attack on the idea of human "emissions" being a primary cause of climate change.  But I think that if Daemon and Crunch take the time to think about what I've actually said, that they will agree that humans have indirectly affected climate change by cutting down forests and destroying coral reefs.

Daemon might not agree with us on Old Growth forests, but he's just wrong there, and will remain wrong. :P
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2017, 11:16:41 AM
As Pete mentioned in the last post we absolutely know that man is changing the environment.  We see it at a regional level and it is extremely well documented.  We create cities, turn deserts into green zones, and green zones into deserts all of which can change regional rain fall and temperatures.  I'm not sure why the idea that man can trigger changes at a global level by changing the atmospheric equilibrium is so a stretch.
Of course there is an environmental impact from human activity - just as there is from the activity of other animals (beavers and their dams come to mind).

There is a big difference between regional effects and global.  That there are regional effects does not make measurable, significant, global effects a certainty.  The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2017, 11:31:50 AM
I meant to add, man-made CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect when you factor in water vapor.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2017, 11:53:31 AM
But I think that if Daemon and Crunch take the time to think about what I've actually said, that they will agree that humans have indirectly affected climate change by cutting down forests and destroying coral reefs.
Yes, there has been some effect.  How much?  I'll talk about the US since we have better data and are one of the biggest consumers of forest products.  From wikipedia: The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910 with the Forest Service reporting the minimum forestation as 721,000,000 acres (2,920,000 km2) around 1920.  The forest resources of the United States have remained relatively constant through the 20th century.  The 2005 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment ranked the United States as seventh highest country losing its old growth forests, a vast majority of which were removed prior to the 20th century.  So when we talk about cutting down forests, we're largely talking about something the was a problem over 100 years ago and has largely been addressed through conservation efforts.

For perspective, more than 83 million acres have been lost to wildfire from 2005 to date.  Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 23 million acres of forest land is projected be lost by 2050. So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.  Human activity is not the primary driver of deforestation in the US, it's wildfire.  Rather than trying to control human effects, we'd get far bigger bang for the buck by investing in better ways to control wildfires.

Should we be stripping all forests without any conservation efforts?  Of course not.  But we shouldn't be hanging it all on human activity either.




Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on May 24, 2017, 12:03:45 PM
So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.
I've never found arguments from incredulity particularly convincing.

It also doesn't need to be a planetary apocalypse to be unfortunate for humans. The planet and its ecosphere will hum along fine if the temperature changes by a degree or two. Our agriculture could be rather severely disrupted.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on May 24, 2017, 12:46:10 PM
Quote
So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.
Well, no.  I won't get into a fruitless debate about the relative importance of deforestation to global climate, but trees that are replaced by housing developments, infrastructure or agriculture are permanently removed from the global forest budget, whereas fires have occurred, naturally or human-initiated since the invention of trees in the former case, and since the invention of fire in the latter; those forests have grown back, are in the process of growing back, or will grow back once future fires burn them down. In effect, some fraction of forests worldwide is continuously in the process of regrowing post-fire.

Trees use fire as a very effective means of procreation,
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 24, 2017, 02:46:28 PM
But I think that if Daemon and Crunch take the time to think about what I've actually said, that they will agree that humans have indirectly affected climate change by cutting down forests and destroying coral reefs.
Yes, there has been some effect.  How much?  I'll talk about the US since we have better data and are one of the biggest consumers of forest products.  From wikipedia: The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910 with the Forest Service reporting the minimum forestation as 721,000,000 acres (2,920,000 km2) around 1920.  The forest resources of the United States have remained relatively constant through the 20th century.  The 2005 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment ranked the United States as seventh highest country losing its old growth forests, a vast majority of which were removed prior to the 20th century.  So when we talk about cutting down forests, we're largely talking about something the was a problem over 100 years ago and has largely been addressed through conservation efforts.

For perspective, more than 83 million acres have been lost to wildfire from 2005 to date.  Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 23 million acres of forest land is projected be lost by 2050. So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.  Human activity is not the primary driver of deforestation in the US, it's wildfire.  Rather than trying to control human effects, we'd get far bigger bang for the buck by investing in better ways to control wildfires.

Should we be stripping all forests without any conservation efforts?  Of course not.  But we shouldn't be hanging it all on human activity either.

Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

And our behavior affects our credibility when we ask other nations to spare their vast remaining forests. And their behavior affects our climate.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2017, 03:23:51 PM
So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.
I've never found arguments from incredulity particularly convincing.

It also doesn't need to be a planetary apocalypse to be unfortunate for humans. The planet and its ecosphere will hum along fine if the temperature changes by a degree or two. Our agriculture could be rather severely disrupted.
Snipping that one piece out to make a point about logical fallacies is, itself, a logical fallacy.  It's not an argument from incredulity but a argument from mathematics.  The conclusion, after showing the mathematical impossibility of the claims of AGW, is just a statement of how the match does not work out.

And, if the temperature does increase, agriculture will not be disrupted.  The airborne fertilizer CO2 along with lengthened growing seasons means we get better crop yields and an increased food supply.  Not a negative outcome.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2017, 03:27:12 PM
Quote
So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.
Well, no.  I won't get into a fruitless debate about the relative importance of deforestation to global climate, but trees that are replaced by housing developments, infrastructure or agriculture are permanently removed from the global forest budget, whereas fires have occurred, naturally or human-initiated since the invention of trees in the former case, and since the invention of fire in the latter; those forests have grown back, are in the process of growing back, or will grow back once future fires burn them down. In effect, some fraction of forests worldwide is continuously in the process of regrowing post-fire.

Trees use fire as a very effective means of procreation,
I've no idea what your point is.  The whole thing was about losing forests and the fact is much, much more is lost to fire than human activity.  That's what I said, not that it was a bad or good thing.  You argue that natural deforestation is good while the much less effect caused by humans is bad?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on May 24, 2017, 03:29:01 PM

Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

And our behavior affects our credibility when we ask other nations to spare their vast remaining forests. And their behavior affects our climate.
Why should we stop?

Our behavior has led to a stable level of forestation for about 100 years within the US.  IT appears we have all the credibility we need to promote global conservation.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 24, 2017, 03:34:16 PM
As Pete mentioned in the last post we absolutely know that man is changing the environment.  We see it at a regional level and it is extremely well documented.  We create cities, turn deserts into green zones, and green zones into deserts all of which can change regional rain fall and temperatures.  I'm not sure why the idea that man can trigger changes at a global level by changing the atmospheric equilibrium is so a stretch.
Of course there is an environmental impact from human activity - just as there is from the activity of other animals (beavers and their dams come to mind).

There is a big difference between regional effects and global.  That there are regional effects does not make measurable, significant, global effects a certainty.  The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.

Crunch, all the "apocalyptic fart" warriors have left the discussion, but you are still arguing about human emissions.  Please set that aside since Mynnion and I are talking about the human effects via destruction of the coral reefs and old growth forests.  I understand it's confusing arguing against a second, distinct global warming issue, but here's where we are.  Please note that I've referred to the Kyoto Treaty as "another flavor of climate denial" since it does little to stop (and in Brazil actually rewards) the cutting of old growth forest.

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 24, 2017, 03:36:58 PM
Quote
So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.
Well, no.  I won't get into a fruitless debate about the relative importance of deforestation to global climate, but trees that are replaced by housing developments, infrastructure or agriculture are permanently removed from the global forest budget, whereas fires have occurred, naturally or human-initiated since the invention of trees in the former case, and since the invention of fire in the latter; those forests have grown back, are in the process of growing back, or will grow back once future fires burn them down. In effect, some fraction of forests worldwide is continuously in the process of regrowing post-fire.

Trees use fire as a very effective means of procreation,
I've no idea what your point is.  The whole thing was about losing forests and the fact is much, much more is lost to fire than human activity.  That's what I said, not that it was a bad or good thing.  You argue that natural deforestation is good while the much less effect caused by humans is bad?

In a word, yes.  There is an upside to natural deforestation.  Just as there would be an up-side to human logging if we logged selectively rather than strip-logging whole forests.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 24, 2017, 03:42:27 PM

Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

And our behavior affects our credibility when we ask other nations to spare their vast remaining forests. And their behavior affects our climate.
Why should we stop?

Our behavior has led to a stable level of forestation for about 100 years within the US.  IT appears we have all the credibility we need to promote global conservation.

?  Appears from what?  Brazil is cutting down its forests to grow corn to make ethanol for Kyoto credits.  You support that?  No, not falling into Daemon's fallacy; you just said that we already are successfully promoting "global conservation" and I want to know what you mean.  China's great wall of sand. Indonesia chopping rain forest. Central Africa chopping rain forest. Brazil chopping rain forests.  Guess where they are all selling their lumber to?  To China.  Same as we are doing with our strip-logged forests.  Some example of "conservation" we are setting.

If you call the status quo "conservation," I can only conclude that your idea of conservation is chopping down our old growth forests, selling the wood to China, and buying it back for more money as furniture.  What exactly are we "conserving?"
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 24, 2017, 03:48:29 PM
Quote
And I'm not sold on "old growth" forests being better CO2 sinks than younger forests.

The primary reason that "old growth" forests tend to be better carbon sinks is somewhat related to moisture and biodiversity as you mentioned but it is more than that.  A tree cut down in the jungles of Brazil can actually be carrying more than it's own weight in mosses, algae, and other plants.  It takes generations for the mass of these additional carbon sinks to reach full potential.

Rain forest clearing IS a problem, and measures are in place, and continue to be tightened down to further discourage the process. Also, "the CO2 Absorption efficiency" of a forest is also largely contingent on the types of trees in question. With commercial forresty, those notorious (Dark leaved) trees typically "peak" in their late teens and their efficiency declines from that point on. Which is all well and good for the lumber industry, as that means it's a viable site to revisit within 30 years so they can start the process over again.  (And oh, hey, the logging road is already there and waiting for them, so one less expense to cover)

And as to those trees already planted having a darker albedo, now that it's been identified as an issue that is (slightly) contributing to warming, it's something forestry managers  and planers can take into account when they replant the recently harvested areas. Although in terms of what "big lumber wants" that's probably going to also require some shifts in what the upstream consumers are wanting when it comes to lumber products. Be it for paper, 2x4's or something else.

Which also seems to be the other thing a select group of people on this forum seem to want to buy into. The American and Canadian(and probably western European as well) lumber industries don't just strip the countryside bare and leave it to its own devices anymore. They replant new trees as they go.

Now that isn't to say there aren't bad practices happening in a number of third world countries where many lumber barons from 19th Century (and early 20th Century) America would be right at home. But that isn't how the industry as a whole, operates anymore.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 24, 2017, 03:50:39 PM
Additionally, I believe someone (I thought it was Daemon?) mentioned that the new growth trees being planted on the whole have darker leaves than the older growth taller trees, and therefore act as more of a heat sink whereas the old growth forest reflected more heat.

The color of the leaves had nothing to do with the darker albedo. What changed was the species of tree being replanted in place of what was there natively, as they planted a tree that would both grow back more quickly, straighter, and with fewer large knots. Making for a faster turnaround on the next harvest and creating more "board feet" per tree on the next pass.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 24, 2017, 03:57:02 PM
It also doesn't need to be a planetary apocalypse to be unfortunate for humans. The planet and its ecosphere will hum along fine if the temperature changes by a degree or two. Our agriculture could be rather severely disrupted.

Yes and no, farming strategies for different area will have to change as the conditions do. People who suddenly find themselves in a drier area will have to adopt techniques and practices better suited to dry conditions. People who find themselves in wetter areas will have to shift to crops that hold up better under wetter conditions. Instead of the current practice of being able to try to grow just about everything everywhere and brute forcing it by artificial means(often with lots of irrigation water) when needed.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on May 24, 2017, 04:05:40 PM
Snipping that one piece out to make a point about logical fallacies is, itself, a logical fallacy.  It's not an argument from incredulity but a argument from mathematics.  The conclusion, after showing the mathematical impossibility of the claims of AGW, is just a statement of how the match does not work out.

I made a point about arguments, not fallacies. Saying or implying that it's impossible to believe that such small numbers could have the claimed effect could be a valid argument. Just not a particularly good one.
Quote
And, if the temperature does increase, agriculture will not be disrupted.  The airborne fertilizer CO2 along with lengthened growing seasons means we get better crop yields and an increased food supply.  Not a negative outcome.
So if it increases enough to lengthen the growing season, no regions will become too hot for their current crops? There will be no changes in rainfall causing some harvests to fail? No weeds will prove better adapted to the new conditions that causes them to inhibit crop growth or soil quality?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 24, 2017, 04:11:45 PM
Well, no.  I won't get into a fruitless debate about the relative importance of deforestation to global climate, but trees that are replaced by housing developments, infrastructure or agriculture are permanently removed from the global forest budget, whereas fires have occurred, naturally or human-initiated since the invention of trees in the former case, and since the invention of fire in the latter; those forests have grown back, are in the process of growing back, or will grow back once future fires burn them down. In effect, some fraction of forests worldwide is continuously in the process of regrowing post-fire.

The one thing I will grant is "Forest fires don't build logging roads, and they don't haul nutrients away from the area by the ton." (Although landslides and erosion can remove plenty of tonnage on their own)

As to the agriculture thing, I think you'd be surprised at the Ag numbers, the total acreage being worked in the US has been under steady decline for decades. Both in terms of actively worked farmland, and rangeland(helped in no small part by environmental groups taking steps to block large swaths of land from being used by ranchers). A lot of that farmland that went fallow was reclaimed forest back in the 19th century. Well, after sitting fallow and being allowed to go "back to nature" over the ensuing decades, lo and behold, those old farmsteads are full of trees now.

Which isn't to mention residential neighborhoods, in particular ones built in areas that were forested(and many that never were) , they seem to have this uncanny ability to end up being filled with trees about 20 to 30 years after initial construction. Even further, they tend to be well watered and cared for. Unlike their peers in the wild.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on May 24, 2017, 04:15:21 PM
Yes and no, farming strategies for different area will have to change as the conditions do. People who suddenly find themselves in a drier area will have to adopt techniques and practices better suited to dry conditions. People who find themselves in wetter areas will have to shift to crops that hold up better under wetter conditions. Instead of the current practice of being able to try to grow just about everything everywhere and brute forcing it by artificial means(often with lots of irrigation water) when needed.
Therefore, disruption.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 24, 2017, 04:20:20 PM
Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

We don't strip harvest old growth for the most part any more, there are exceptions, but as they're "exceptions" that indicates by the very definition that it isn't the normal mode of operation any more.

Of course some of this also gets to the definitions being used for "old growth" and a list of other things. The vast majority of lumbering that is going on now is basically "tree farming" at this point. They're cutting down a tree that some lumberjack planted 30 years ago after he had cut down some trees that someone else had possibly planted 30 years prior to that, and so forth. In some regions, I understand the turn around is much quicker, sometimes ranging down to as little as 8 to 10 years per "generation" of trees being harvested, but that's usually to feed a paper mill rather than a lumber mill.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on May 24, 2017, 04:25:50 PM
Surely farmland and farming technology are not a primary concern when considering whether to take drastic measures to try to affect global climate. Not only is farming technology changing all the time (including new indoor farming methods), but I see no chance whatsoever that there will be any sort of food shortages that could be called emergencies. Maybe some sorts of foods might be affected somewhat, but on the aggregate there is 'plenty of food' to go around. When we note that there are laws in place to prevent deflation of farmed goods we know that shortage of supply is a non-issue.

To me the only considerations that should suggest the need for drastic measures (e.g. altering or halting worldwide production methods) would be the runaway effect where tilting the climate over some threshhold were to cause major tsunamis and other catastrophic mayhem, or maybe if entire islands like Manhattan would go underwater, as has been suggested in the past. Regarding the runaway climate-related global disaster scenario, I think it would have to be shown that we've been magically sitting just at the threshhold of this happening absent human contribution, and the small amount that human efforts have heated the planet pushes it just over the edge into the danger zone. If that is so then we were dangerously close to the brink even before doing anything! That would be pretty random, for the climate to magically have already been right at the safe temperature limit prior to "The Day After Tomorrow" happening. I guess it's possible, and if that was actually the case it would certainly warrant emergency measures. It only takes watching Superman or reading a comic or two to get that feeling of how stupid people would be to do nothing to save themselves from an apocalypse. But do we have a Jor-El who can tell us this is really what's going to happen?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on May 24, 2017, 04:47:29 PM
Surely farmland and farming technology are not a primary concern when considering whether to take drastic measures to try to affect global climate. Not only is farming technology changing all the time (including new indoor farming methods), but I see no chance whatsoever that there will be any sort of food shortages that could be called emergencies. Maybe some sorts of foods might be affected somewhat, but on the aggregate there is 'plenty of food' to go around. When we note that there are laws in place to prevent deflation of farmed goods we know that shortage of supply is a non-issue.

To me the only considerations that should suggest the need for drastic measures (e.g. altering or halting worldwide production methods) would be the runaway effect where tilting the climate over some threshhold were to cause major tsunamis and other catastrophic mayhem, or maybe if entire islands like Manhattan would go underwater, as has been suggested in the past. Regarding the runaway climate-related global disaster scenario, I think it would have to be shown that we've been magically sitting just at the threshhold of this happening absent human contribution, and the small amount that human efforts have heated the planet pushes it just over the edge into the danger zone. If that is so then we were dangerously close to the brink even before doing anything! That would be pretty random, for the climate to magically have already been right at the safe temperature limit prior to "The Day After Tomorrow" happening. I guess it's possible, and if that was actually the case it would certainly warrant emergency measures. It only takes watching Superman or reading a comic or two to get that feeling of how stupid people would be to do nothing to save themselves from an apocalypse. But do we have a Jor-El who can tell us this is really what's going to happen?
Local crop failures can be a ******. You don't even need people to run out of food, just a price increase. IRRC, one of the major factors driving the Arab Spring was a rise in food prices.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 24, 2017, 04:52:37 PM
Yes and no, farming strategies for different area will have to change as the conditions do. People who suddenly find themselves in a drier area will have to adopt techniques and practices better suited to dry conditions. People who find themselves in wetter areas will have to shift to crops that hold up better under wetter conditions. Instead of the current practice of being able to try to grow just about everything everywhere and brute forcing it by artificial means(often with lots of irrigation water) when needed.
Therefore, disruption.

Opportunity cost.

Natural Variability of climate.

Adaptability.

The climate varies over centuries without respect to activities undertaken by man. It is an unavoidable fact of life, and we have 1, and arguably 2 stark examples of that in North America alone. For that matter, the Roman Empire arguably bore witness to it as well as the Vikings centuries later.

Taking steps to mitigate any disruption that may occur is always a smart play, so long as the measures are "within reason." The "within reason," limiter is key. If the costs of taking the mitigating measures far exceeds any likely cost I'm likely to incur from having done nothing, then that particular mitigation option isn't viable and should be ignored.

Because hey, a 777 might fall out of the sky and crash into my house. I could theoretically have my built to such a specification that it could survive a direct hit in such a scenario. But realistically, it'd be more cost effective for me to set that extra money aside, buy some regular insurance policies, and in the event that my house does get destroyed by having a jetliner crash into it, I just build a new house. Because the cost multiplier of having my house built as an above-ground bunker just doesn't make it viable as a top-shelf  mitigation option.

But if my house is on a floodplain, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to budget up to a significant fraction of the house's value into taking proactive measures to protect it against a 100 year flood event, or even going for a 200 or "500 year" event depending on how the costs scale as you move up the chain. Of course, in this case, we're into moral hazard territory as your neighbors would think you're crazy, up until they get flooded out and you're high and dry. Because well "That's what we have flood insurance for" while ignoring the whole matter of the whole idea behind insurance is to never need to use it.

From my perspective, a LOT of the push going on with AGW is the "build a bunker to withstand the 777" approach, rather than latter option. What is being pursued in many cases just is not reasonable.

To put it a different way, they're basically telling someone that just qualified as an Olympic Sprinter that in order prevent a health issue they'll develop in 30 years, we need to cut their Achilles Tendons next week and reattachment can never happen.  Of course, that means the sprinter can't compete. What do you think their response will be?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on May 24, 2017, 05:01:17 PM
Local crop failures can be a ******. You don't even need people to run out of food, just a price increase. IRRC, one of the major factors driving the Arab Spring was a rise in food prices.

Even if that's so (and I have a hard time believing it was the most relevant factor even if so) it does bear mentioning that the public morale would already have to have plummeted below a certain margin for the population to consider overthrowing the government over food prices and other inconveniences. Basically there would already have to be a near-rebellious situation, and the price hike was the last straw. I see inflationary price hikes all the time, sometimes fairly significant ones, and yet you won't hear talk in the U.S. or Canada about setting yourself on fire over it. So maybe some countries actually would see significant unrest if farming efficiency was reduced there, but then again painting production methods of industrial countries as being "the cause" of that would take some chutzpah, when the state of those countries would have been what it was regardless of adding some marginal stressor that pushes the people there over the edge. If that's really the edge case pushing production reform, then maybe a cheaper (and also more effective (and humane)) plan should be to work with those countries to make living conditions better for their people :p
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on May 24, 2017, 06:49:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Crunch:
I've no idea what your point is.  The whole thing was about losing forests and the fact is much, much more is lost to fire than human activity.  That's what I said, not that it was a bad or good thing.  You argue that natural deforestation is good while the much less effect caused by humans is bad?[/b]
Clearly. I thought I made the points as simple as possible, but I'll try again.

I did not say either type of deforestation was "bad" or "good".

I was pointing out that a forest that is replaced by the asphalt, concrete and gravel that is a city does not grow back in even a decades-long time span. A forest that is burned out completely starts regenerating immediately: many species of trees actually depend on the high heat of a forest fire to kick-start germination.

My other point is that fires that raze forests are not a new phenomenon - they existed before your 2005 start date.  More to the point, the forests that burned down completely in 1995, 1985 and 1975 were during your reference period (2005 to present) in the process of regrowing.  The forest loss due to fire varies widely year to year, but forest loss and replacement is basically a steady state process.  You said it yourself, but probably didn't understand what you were paraphrasing: "The forest resources of the United States have remained relatively constant through the 20th century."

To summarize:
1. Forests lost due to being replaced by urban centres do not regrow.
2. Forests lost due to fire start replacing themselves almost immediately.
3. Suggesting that the temporary "loss" due to point #2 outweighs the effect of the permanent loss due to point #1 shows a basic misunderstanding.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 24, 2017, 11:24:11 PM
There is a big difference between regional effects and global.  That there are regional effects does not make measurable, significant, global effects a certainty.  The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.

First that human activity only accounts for 12 ppm of the 400 ppm in the atmosphere seems extraordinarily low.  I have no idea looking at the CO2 data how any claim that low can be taken seriously.

However accepting your claim that we have increased the impact of the greenhouse effect by .28% I get the following rough calculation:
Code: [Select]
W/(m^2 day) M^2 (trillion) W (trillion/day)  % Delta W/day J (trillion/s) J/C Mass Atm deg/s      deg C/year
160                510     81600 0.0028     228.48   2644444444 1 5.148*10^18 5.1368*10^-10 0.0161995338

Which is a really, really rough estimate since I didn't include anything that wasn't air in the mass and specific heat computation.  But even using your numbers you end up predicting a rise in global temps of about 1.6 degrees C over the next 100 years (assuming the system was in equilibrium before humans gave it a nudge).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 25, 2017, 05:22:33 AM
This:
Quote
1. Forests lost due to being replaced by urban centres do not regrow.
2. Forests lost due to fire start replacing themselves almost immediately.
3. Suggesting that the temporary "loss" due to point #2 outweighs the effect of the permanent loss due to point #1 shows a basic misunderstanding.

at best.
Quote from: Daemon
Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

We don't strip harvest old growth for the most part any more, there are exceptions, but as they're "exceptions" that indicates by the very definition that it isn't the normal mode of operation any more.

Which entirely begs my question of why we are strip-logging old growth forest in Washington and Oregon, selling the wood to China, and buying it back for more money as furniture. 

Of course it isn't the "norm" because we hardly have any old growth forest anymore. 

If you don't know the answer to my question, please, please, do not act like you've answered it.

What we're doing in Washington and Oregon is being duplicated all over the world in places that do have lots of rain forest.

Yossarian debunked your assumption that new trees substitute for old growth forest as the trees are often less than half of the whole carbon sink in old growth.

I have no problem with loggers cutting down the crap they planted 30 years before.  That's not old growth and it's not a massive carbon sink.

I have no problem with loggers taking wood selectively from Old Growth forest so that the bulk of non-tree carbon sinks can fill right back in with the newer trees.

Wiping out old growth forest is also wiping out plant and animal species, many of them unstudied, with God knows what chemicals that we haven't looked at, cures for cancer, antivirals, and whatnot.  And we're flushing it down to China, while setting a shameful example for the rest of the world.

Why are we strip logging in WA and OR?  The only answer I can see is, because that's our last Old Growth forest.   Do you have a better answer? Actual answer?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 25, 2017, 05:25:32 AM
Additionally, I believe someone (I thought it was Daemon?) mentioned that the new growth trees being planted on the whole have darker leaves than the older growth taller trees, and therefore act as more of a heat sink whereas the old growth forest reflected more heat.

The color of the leaves had nothing to do with the darker albedo. What changed was the species of tree being replanted in place of what was there natively, as they planted a tree that would both grow back more quickly, straighter, and with fewer large knots. Making for a faster turnaround on the next harvest and creating more "board feet" per tree on the next pass.

Great.  So we replace forest with tree farms.  And families with orphanages.  Save all the wild animals in zoos.  Fish in fish farms and aquariums.  Kind of a crappy world if you ask me.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on May 25, 2017, 03:03:09 PM
Quote
The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

This reminds me of the argument of why an elephant doesn't weigh much.

The world's largest dinosaur is estimated to have weighed between 30,000 and 60,000 kg.  Elephant weigh a mere fraction of that, as little as 6.7 percent.  Marginal at best.

This mathematically proves that, if an elephant steps on your foot, it won't hurt. :)

We have a great deal of greenhouse gas effects in our atmosphere.  We need that effect to keep us from having a frozen ball of ice.  But that's not what we are concerned about.

What we are concerned about is how much the increased levels of CO2 will warm our atmosphere now.  Saying it only a fraction of the total doesn't tell us anything about how much it will increase temperatures now.  It only tells us how it compares to historical averages.

You have to look at how CO2 is increasing temperatures NOW.  You also have to look how it affects the system as a whole.  Will it melt ice that is reflecting infrared light back into space, revealing dark rock that will absorb the heat instead?  Will it evaporate more water, which will cause more clouds, which will reflect more infrared from space back into space and reflect more infrared from Earth back to Earth?  Will increased temperatures make deserts expand, drying out forests and causing increased wildfires?

Just saying it is a small fraction of the total effect tell us nothing about these things.  And stating that they are insignificant, marginal, and ignorable tell us nothing about the actual temperature change they create.

Saying it is marginal doesn't mean it won't crush your foot. ;)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 25, 2017, 04:59:13 PM
Great.  So we replace forest with tree farms.  And families with orphanages.  Save all the wild animals in zoos.  Fish in fish farms and aquariums.  Kind of a crappy world if you ask me.

Some of your subsequent posts have clarified things a bit. To be clear:
I'm not "OK" with "old growth logging" at least within certain constraints. If it's on private property, then  the government has minimal rights or business getting involved in what the land owner decides to do. If we're talking public lands, then go ahead and ban the practice(which I think it already is within the US and Canada).

So in that respect, you're complaining about people exercising their rights as private land owners. If you find what they're doing objectionable, give them a better offer yourself, or donate to an organization that can/will give them a "better offer" which doesn't take the form of the Government seizing their land at bargain basement prices.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 25, 2017, 05:18:12 PM
You have to look at how CO2 is increasing temperatures NOW.  You also have to look how it affects the system as a whole.  Will it melt ice that is reflecting infrared light back into space, revealing dark rock that will absorb the heat instead?  Will it evaporate more water, which will cause more clouds, which will reflect more infrared from space back into space and reflect more infrared from Earth back to Earth?  Will increased temperatures make deserts expand, drying out forests and causing increased wildfires?

On a tangential note regarding melting glaciers, there is a side bar to be had about "legacy inputs" into the system, and still ongoing inputs in others(south-east asia).

Namely in the form of industrial soot pollution. There is white snow, and then there is WHITE snow, or as certain tribes of eskimos would claim, there are several hundred different words for various colors/shades of white snow.

A lot of soot was spewed into the atmosphere during the 20th century, which resulted in marginally darker snow, which means it has a slightly lower albedo, and if that snow's legacy happens to be the stuff on top, well, you get a mass of ice that is easier to melt with sunlight than it would have been otherwise. While such precipitation should be largely deeply buried in a lot of glaciers, there is one exception to that rule/expectation: Along the fringes of the glaciers where it is calving off/breaking apart, as portions of those "sooty" layers are once more exposed to sunlight.

As to increased cloud cover. I think we have something on an informal answer as to that question from what happened on September 11th/12th 2001. Where the daily temperature swing across the nation increased by about 1.5 Degrees(F) on both ends of the spectrum, IIRC. So all the increased cloud cover is likely to do is to further stabilize the temperature variation that is experienced, you'll have to look elsewhere to determine if there is a net warming/cooling effect from there. A large part of that would likely be decided by the elevations at which the clouds form, where they form, and a number of other variables. But "worst case" is (H20) clouds are likely to just stabilize the temps at wherever they already are.

The "other side" of that in regards to H20 in particular is the whole "heat index" thing, where the more moisture content there is in the air, the more energy that is required in order to increase the temperature by 1 degree. From one such example given that I can recall, the "heat index" vs actual temperature comparison could also at times be almost literally compared to "This is what the temperature would have been if the humidity level was below XX%" (I think the "baseline"  is set in the 20/30% range)

Of course,  H20 itself is a funny critter because it actually is "a Greenhouse Gas" as well, but "because it's short lived" in the atmosphere(typically measured in days/weeks rather than years), most groups ignore it as atmospheric pollutant. But then, that H20 is fuel for extreme thunderstorms doesn't seem to cross the minds of those same people.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 25, 2017, 06:02:26 PM
Great.  So we replace forest with tree farms.  And families with orphanages.  Save all the wild animals in zoos.  Fish in fish farms and aquariums.  Kind of a crappy world if you ask me.

Some of your subsequent posts have clarified things a bit. To be clear:
I'm not "OK" with "old growth logging" at least within certain constraints. If it's on private property, then  the government has minimal rights or business getting involved in what the land owner decides to do. If we're talking public lands, then go ahead and ban the practice(which I think it already is within the US and Canada).

So in that respect, you're complaining about people exercising their rights as private land owners. If you find what they're doing objectionable, give them a better offer yourself, or donate to an organization that can/will give them a "better offer" which doesn't take the form of the Government seizing their land at bargain basement prices.

Libertarian souflee!  So you drop the previous argument that it's "not normal"?

So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 25, 2017, 07:56:47 PM
I meant to add, man-made CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect when you factor in water vapor.

That's misleading enough to be suicidally wrong.  Since you're only factoring in emissions, and leaving out the cumulative CO2 in the atmosphere because humans permanently destroyed old growth forests and coral reefs.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 25, 2017, 08:01:04 PM
Quote
As to the agriculture thing, I think you'd be surprised at the Ag numbers, the total acreage being worked in the US has been under steady decline for decades. Both in terms of actively worked farmland, and rangeland(helped in no small part by environmental groups taking steps to block large swaths of land from being used by ranchers). A lot of that farmland that went fallow was reclaimed forest back in the 19th century. Well, after sitting fallow and being allowed to go "back to nature" over the ensuing decades, lo and behold, those old farmsteads are full of trees now.

So log those and don't log the species-rich old growth forests.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 26, 2017, 12:41:02 AM
Libertarian souflee!  So you drop the previous argument that it's "not normal"?

IT isn't "normal" all the same, without even looking for the stats, I'd put pretty good odds on it(harvesting of "old growth forests") not even making up 1% of the timber industry in the United States.  Unless of course they're including forests that were previously harvested/replanted by man more than X number of decades ago.

Quote
So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

I don't agree with eminent domain being used strictly for commercial development purposes("building a Costco"), but I would support eminent domain for building/enlarging existing roads. One has been practiced for centuries, the other didn't get (Supreme) Court approval until the 21st Century, and I think that was a very bad ruling.

On the international treaties, none of them have been ratified, none of them could get ratified, even when the Dems held the Senate, and in that light, the PotUS shouldn't have been signing the US up for those obligations.

As to saving things from extinction, I do believe that we're doing that already? That's the most surefire way for an environmental group to get a project stopped dead in its tracks, even on private land, if they can demonstrate it will threaten "an endangered species."
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 26, 2017, 02:56:41 PM
Quote
I don't agree with eminent domain being used strictly for commercial development purposes("building a Costco"), but I would support eminent domain for building/enlarging existing roads

Fair enough, I agree.

Would you support eminent domain to build a post in or near the woods to build infrastructure for fire fighting? To stop forest fires.  How about the building of a commercial dock on a populated island?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 26, 2017, 02:57:41 PM
I Orem Utah there was a blind girl whose house was razed to expand a Costco parking lot.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 26, 2017, 03:05:31 PM
So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

Which treaties are we not meeting our commitments under?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 26, 2017, 06:34:35 PM
So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

Which treaties are we not meeting our commitments under?

Didn't say we weren't. But if we are meeting Kyoto, we do so from an expensive ethanol boondoggle that technically hits Kyoto metrics.  Preserving old growth means absorbing more carbon. Meaning emissions needless policing. If industry means as much to you as you say, saving old growth is the way to go.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 26, 2017, 07:49:29 PM
Didn't say we weren't. But if we are meeting Kyoto, we do so from an expensive ethanol boondoggle that technically hits Kyoto metrics.  Preserving old growth means absorbing more carbon. Meaning emissions needless policing. If industry means as much to you as you say, saving old growth is the way to go.

"W" Withdrew us from Kyoto. But, IIRC we hit the targets anyway, and it wasn't due to ethanol. It was due to massive expansion of natural gas harvesting operations causing the price to drop to such a point that many coal fired plants were being pulled offline because it was more cost effective to build new plants and run them off of natural gas rather than continue to operate the existing coal plant. The Obama Admin then implemented further policies that just put additional nails in that particular coffin.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 27, 2017, 10:45:04 AM
Hot damn.  You mean that environmental regs that prevented (for global warming reasons) oil rigs from just venting all the methane as they got to the oil, actually turned around and provided a source of cheap energy?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 30, 2017, 09:35:38 AM
So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

Which treaties are we not meeting our commitments under?

Didn't say we weren't. But if we are meeting Kyoto, we do so from an expensive ethanol boondoggle that technically hits Kyoto metrics.

Pete, Kyoto was never ratified and hence is not a treaty of the US.  Complying with it is not a "boondoggle," Kyoto itself is the boondoggle of technical rules that do nothing on net to help the environment.  It's front and center for demonstrating how "climate" change treaties have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with social justice goals. 

Flat out, it would be better for the environment for the US to increase it's carbon production by producing more in cleaner first world factories and put the dirty third world factories out of business.

Quote
Preserving old growth means absorbing more carbon. Meaning emissions needless policing. If industry means as much to you as you say, saving old growth is the way to go.

I think preserving old growth is a good idea.   I think having a rational policy to protect natural resources is a great idea.  We don't need a climate treaty to do that, we need an intelligent cost benefits analysis that looks at the global impact of a decision (including who is going to be picking up the slack).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on May 30, 2017, 11:59:23 AM
Pete, Kyoto was never ratified and hence is not a treaty of the US.  Complying with it is not a "boondoggle," Kyoto itself is the boondoggle of technical rules that do nothing on net to help the environment.  It's front and center for demonstrating how "climate" change treaties have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with social justice goals.

One not-so little nitpick on this one. Under international law, and under provisions for many/most treaties, just being a signatory without ratification still makes you subject to the stipulations of the treaty. Albeit, withdrawal from said treaties is a lot easier to do for a signatory vs a nation that went whole-hog and ratified, for somewhat obvious reasons.

Of course, that could raise questions of whether or not a President who signs onto a treaty where Congress responds not just with a "no" but a "hell no!" couldn't be brought up on charges of high treason among other things, particularly if they refuse to withdraw their signature from it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 30, 2017, 12:43:04 PM
One not-so little nitpick on this one. Under international law, and under provisions for many/most treaties, just being a signatory without ratification still makes you subject to the stipulations of the treaty.

No.  US law is clear on treaties.  A President who doesn't get it ratified is little more than a rogue official pretending to have the authority to act.

The US does not recognize any version of international law as superior to the US Constitution, even treaties themselves - when properly ratified - are below the Constitution under US law.

Quote
Of course, that could raise questions of whether or not a President who signs onto a treaty where Congress responds not just with a "no" but a "hell no!" couldn't be brought up on charges of high treason among other things, particularly if they refuse to withdraw their signature from it.

No he can't, because like I said there is no treaty.  The other signatories are fully aware that a President alone can't create a treaty obligation.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 30, 2017, 01:09:22 PM
Quote
The US does not recognize any version of international law as superior to the US Constitution, even treaties themselves - when properly ratified - are below the Constitution under US law.

True, but the constitutional power to treaty imbues the Senate with powers that it doesn't have under normal legislation.  For example, Congress could not pass national laws regarding divorce law, but it could ratify international treaties that constrain state law on divorce.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 30, 2017, 01:34:03 PM
Not sure that's true as a practical matter Pete.  It would be unConstitutional to usurp authority reserved to the states.  Would ultimately depend on who sits on the SC when the case came before it.

But we've definitely seen federal usurpation of state authority overtime, heck take a look at the consent decrees that the feds have used to collude with cities to put federal authority behind state police actions eliminating any effective oversight of the people.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 30, 2017, 02:42:53 PM
To the extent that divorce i*substantive* law is a 10th. Amendment matter, sure.  But divorce jurisdiction treaties exist, such as Le Hague, and afaik they bind stated
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 30, 2017, 02:58:38 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.  International jurisdiction is a federal law matter, as are cross-state disputes, is it not?  Thought you meant that the Feds could work an end around on substantive state law, not procedural.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 30, 2017, 06:11:52 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.  International jurisdiction is a federal law matter, as are cross-state disputes, is it not?  Thought you meant that the Feds could work an end around on substantive state law, not procedural.

Choice of law is not considered a "procedural" matter.  According to my "Conflict of Laws" professor and my BarBri course, jurisdictional law aka "conflict of law law" (yes, that's two "law"s in a row; some actually say it that way!) is a third class of law, neither procedural nor substantive.  Federal courts sometimes enforce substantive state law, but use their own procedure.  State courts always use their own procedural law.  However, "choice of law" issues are governed by individual state law unless there is a superceding international treaty.  And Le Hague also governs between states as well as between the US and other countries.

Edited to add: Believe it or not, a cross-state divorce dispute is *not* a federal matter.  This is weird territory and I haven't looked at it since 2007 when I was prepping for the bar exam.  But just untangling the laws regarding "choice of law" is tangled enough that there are whole courses dedicated to the topic.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 30, 2017, 06:20:03 PM
Cross-state divorce, substance is not a federal matter.  Whether a state has to honor another state's marriages though is (or else they'd never have need the federal defense of marriage law).  Seems like a bit of mixed bag.  Choice of law is not going to be an area that I claim any knowledge on.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 30, 2017, 06:29:51 PM
Cross-state divorce, substance is not a federal matter.  Whether a state has to honor another state's marriages though is (or else they'd never have need the federal defense of marriage law).

You are absolutely right. I forgot about that part.  THAT very specific aspect of marriage and divorce law is backed by the "due faith and credit" rule of the constitution.  It also empowers the feds to force states to recognize each others' rulings in other matters.  But I'm talking about the question of who gets to try the matter in the first place.

One example of a horrible faith and credit law is the sex offender statute.  I've told you the story of the client of mine who offered a cop a blow job in Louisiana, and because of the odd morals of orality in that state, was labeled a "sex offender" because Louisiana views BJs as a "crime against nature" despite the fact that most creatures in nature lick each others nads.  So my client ends up treated as a "sex offender" regardless of where she moves in the country.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 31, 2017, 12:05:34 PM
In light of Trump maybe removing us from the Paris Accord, and the total outrage this appears to have spawned on the NYT's message forums I decided to take a look at what we'd be removed from.

Based on Wiki's page on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which are picked by each country, are not binding and have no penalties for violating, I'm not seeing how this deal is reasonable.

Most of the goals are for reductions per unit of GDP, which means they are efficiency goals not pollution reductions.  In fact,the page says that carbon emissions increased 24% from 1990 to 2010.  If the countries involved meet their targets the increase from 2010 to 2030 would be 11-23%!  It also looks like the US might be agreeing to cut carbon, while others are only agreeing to be more efficient in making pollution.

What am I missing?

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 31, 2017, 03:45:20 PM
What am I missing?

Per capita emissions of the countries in question.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 31, 2017, 04:14:40 PM
Where can I find those commitments?   From what I can see they aren't targeting/agreeing to per capita changes.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 31, 2017, 04:22:28 PM
By the way, just read the Weather Channel article on "What happens if the U.S. Backs out of the Paris Climate Accord?"  You know what was missing?  What happens.  They literally didn't tell you what happened.

They didn't touch on the fact that the US already has strong environmental laws (that aren't going away), that many US states have even stronger laws, or that even if we pull out we are still likely to meet our own internal targets.

In fact, they didn't put forward any claim about the change in pollution would entail.  Instead we get quotes like this:
Quote
Still, scientists overwhelmingly agree the planet would warm up even faster than it is already should the U.S. pull out of the agreement signed by nearly 200 countries to reduce emissions.

Pulling out of the agreement doesn't do that. 

The US reducing its carbon generation, while China picks up the resulting industrial slack is a literal net loser for the environment per unit of production.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 31, 2017, 05:02:27 PM
Where can I find those commitments?   From what I can see they aren't targeting/agreeing to per capita changes.

http://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_locale_id=en;&state_time_value=2013;&marker_axis/_x_which=population/_total&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=linear;&axis/_y_which=co2/_emissions/_tonnes/_per/_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=genericLog;;;&chart-type=bubbles
 (http://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_locale_id=en;&state_time_value=2013;&marker_axis/_x_which=population/_total&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=linear;&axis/_y_which=co2/_emissions/_tonnes/_per/_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=genericLog;;;&chart-type=bubbles)

The per capita emissions inform the targets for each country.  For example, India has per capita emissions of about 1/10 the USA.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on May 31, 2017, 05:20:10 PM
yoss, that isn't really responsive.  The targets for some countries, like both China and India don't actually result in a reduction of their production of carbon.  That means the next time you see that chart their very very large circles will be higher on that chart.  The US is a agreeing, apparently, to an absolute decrease, which with its increasing population means it will be lower on that chart.  End result = Way more carbon.

Per capita is kind of a silly measure.  We ought to be looking at carbon used per unit of production and maximizing production in the regions that do it most efficiently.  The pollution the US generates to produce a million cars for instance is well below what they create to produce a million cars in China.  If the US cuts its absolute carbon production it may have to cut out 2 million cars to reduce x carbon, meanwhile China picks up the industrial slack and makes those 2 million cars for 3.5-5x carbon.  How is this a good result?

Instead, have the US make 6 millions cars and put the Chinese Factories out of business.  US per capita goes up.  US pollution is 3 times greater (ie 3x) and you save 10.5 to 15x from closing the Chinese factories.  Net gain is a reduction in global Carbon of 7.5-12x the current US production on those cars.

Per capita is a third world argument premised on the idea that western factories are using more than their fair share.  If you're really for the environment (rather than social justice) you should WANT that result.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 31, 2017, 07:17:28 PM
Where can I find those commitments?   From what I can see they aren't targeting/agreeing to per capita changes.

http://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_locale_id=en;&state_time_value=2013;&marker_axis/_x_which=population/_total&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=linear;&axis/_y_which=co2/_emissions/_tonnes/_per/_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=genericLog;;;&chart-type=bubbles
 (http://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_locale_id=en;&state_time_value=2013;&marker_axis/_x_which=population/_total&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=linear;&axis/_y_which=co2/_emissions/_tonnes/_per/_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=genericLog;;;&chart-type=bubbles)

The per capita emissions inform the targets for each country.  For example, India has per capita emissions of about 1/10 the USA.

We reward third world aristocracies for keeping a massive impoverished underclass?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on May 31, 2017, 07:25:26 PM
By the way, just read the Weather Channel article on "What happens if the U.S. Backs out of the Paris Climate Accord?"  You know what was missing?  What happens.  They literally didn't tell you what happened.

They didn't touch on the fact that the US already has strong environmental laws (that aren't going away), that many US states have even stronger laws, or that even if we pull out we are still likely to meet our own internal targets.

In fact, they didn't put forward any claim about the change in pollution would entail.  Instead we get quotes like this:
Quote
Still, scientists overwhelmingly agree the planet would warm up even faster than it is already should the U.S. pull out of the agreement signed by nearly 200 countries to reduce emissions.

Pulling out of the agreement doesn't do that. 

The US reducing its carbon generation, while China picks up the resulting industrial slack is a literal net loser for the environment per unit of production.

While I'm not promoting Kyoto as an effective agreement, I think the assumption here is the USA is basically Mr. International.  Home of the UN, and founder.  The idea is that other countries are less likely to join in the agreement or to honor it if the US isn't involved.  But given that the USA was still setting the example of clear-cutting its old growth forests to sell to China under Obama (same as Indonesia, Africa, and Brazil are doing, I'm not sure what damage that is.

I'm really hoping that in order to attack Kyoto, that this admin will take the Old Growth argument forward, because it's less economically hurtful and also more ecologically helpful than attacking emissions.   Appreciate the conservatives here at least hearing me out on that.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 31, 2017, 08:16:10 PM
I'm really hoping that in order to attack Kyoto, that this admin will take the Old Growth argument forward, because it's less economically hurtful and also more ecologically helpful than attacking emissions.   Appreciate the conservatives here at least hearing me out on that.

I agree Pete and so does the Paris agreement.

Quote
nt national circumstances.
Article 5
1. Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as
referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests.
2. Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the
existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy
approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation
approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of
incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.

Emissions get the headlines but the people negotiating also talk about conservation.  Although I agree with you that it doesn't get enough attention.  But let's face it there is money to be made (and jobs to be had) in converting current infrastructure to be more efficient and there isn't anyone to make a buck off of paying Brazil to not cut down huge sections of rain-forest every year.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 31, 2017, 09:01:18 PM
yoss, that isn't really responsive.  The targets for some countries, like both China and India don't actually result in a reduction of their production of carbon.  That means the next time you see that chart their very very large circles will be higher on that chart.  The US is a agreeing, apparently, to an absolute decrease, which with its increasing population means it will be lower on that chart.  End result = Way more carbon.

India and China aren't going to sign onto an agreement that requires hundreds of millions of their citizens to live without electricity.  Everyone in the us already has electricity in their homes and work, therefore it is easier for us to adopt technologies that allow for maintained (or improved) standards of living while cutting energy use. LED's are a good example, higher upfront cost but they save money over their lifetime by reduced energy use and less frequent replacement. Installing LEDs in rural India increases their energy use because they don't currently have any indoor lighting. You can't really expect other people to agree to continue living in mud huts without running water and electricity just so you don't have to invest an extra $100 bucks today to save $150 in energy costs over 20 years.

Quote
Per capita is kind of a silly measure.  We ought to be looking at carbon used per unit of production and maximizing production in the regions that do it most efficiently.  The pollution the US generates to produce a million cars for instance is well below what they create to produce a million cars in China.  If the US cuts its absolute carbon production it may have to cut out 2 million cars to reduce x carbon, meanwhile China picks up the industrial slack and makes those 2 million cars for 3.5-5x carbon.  How is this a good result?

Instead, have the US make 6 millions cars and put the Chinese Factories out of business.  US per capita goes up.  US pollution is 3 times greater (ie 3x) and you save 10.5 to 15x from closing the Chinese factories.  Net gain is a reduction in global Carbon of 7.5-12x the current US production on those cars.

Per capita is a good consideration to take into account because it is a rough estimate for current levels of development. It isn't the only thing that matters, as you mentioned efficiency is also important. But it is much easier to make efficiency improvements starting from a higher baseline.

Your scenario is a complete strawman, there is nothing in the paris agreement that would lead to anything like that occurring. If China could improve their standard of living with fewer emissions by importing goods then they can meet their goals by doing that. Also industry only accounts for about 1/5 of US emissions so it isn't like cutting carbon is all about closing down "dirty" industries. I think the US could meet the emissions goals of the Paris agreement through mostly economical beneficial efficiency gains and conversion from the dirtiest energy sources to cleaner ones.

Quote
Per capita is a third world argument premised on the idea that western factories are using more than their fair share.  If you're really for the environment (rather than social justice) you should WANT that result.

Not western factories, western societies. Let's face it we use lots of energy in America, nothing in the Paris agreement says we are going to use less, just use a few different sources and build more efficient homes, buildings, and cars. Do you really expect nations to sign up for permanent mud hut status while we get to live like kings in America?

The whole idea of Paris is that the developed world develops more efficient technologies and then aids the developing world in skipping over the dirtiest part of increasing their standards of living.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on May 31, 2017, 11:00:32 PM
There is a big difference between regional effects and global.  That there are regional effects does not make measurable, significant, global effects a certainty.  The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.

First that human activity only accounts for 12 ppm of the 400 ppm in the atmosphere seems extraordinarily low.  I have no idea looking at the CO2 data how any claim that low can be taken seriously.

However accepting your claim that we have increased the impact of the greenhouse effect by .28% I get the following rough calculation:
Code: [Select]
W/(m^2 day) M^2 (trillion) W (trillion/day)  % Delta W/day J (trillion/s) J/C Mass Atm deg/s      deg C/year
160                510     81600 0.0028     228.48   2644444444 1 5.148*10^18 5.1368*10^-10 0.0161995338

Which is a really, really rough estimate since I didn't include anything that wasn't air in the mass and specific heat computation.  But even using your numbers you end up predicting a rise in global temps of about 1.6 degrees C over the next 100 years (assuming the system was in equilibrium before humans gave it a nudge).

Just curious is 2+2 still 4? Or are there some other environmental factors (a term you scoffed at earlier) you want to throw in there? That is a pretty simple thermodynamics calculation that takes from your (IMO low estimate of current human impact) that shows with no further increase we would expect a 1.6 degree C increase over the next 100 years.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2017, 02:33:35 AM
Most of the goals are for reductions per unit of GDP, which means they are efficiency goals not pollution reductions.  In fact,the page says that carbon emissions increased 24% from 1990 to 2010.  If the countries involved meet their targets the increase from 2010 to 2030 would be 11-23%!  It also looks like the US might be agreeing to cut carbon, while others are only agreeing to be more efficient in making pollution.

What am I missing?

According to:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions

We "peaked" our carbon footprint in 2007, and the trend has been a slow decline from there. But also, looking at that chart, US carbon emission had been mostly flat since 2004, and prior to that 1999 to 2004 had been a very slow (almost glacial) increase in emissions. During the evil environmentally irresponsible Bush Admin years no less. In perhaps the biggest irony of all, by that chart, if my eyeball is right, just about any 2 years of the Bill Clinton administration saw a larger increase in CO2 Emissions that happened over the course of the entire "W" Bush admin.  (yeah yeah, "Clinton laid the groundwork")

The US seems to be "decarbonizing" already so our stating the intent to cut our emissions further is pretty much saying we intend to continue with what we've been doing?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on June 02, 2017, 12:17:15 PM
So now I have seen dozens of "articles" on Trump's decision, including several versions claiming they are "everything you need to know," and not one of them has accurately stated the deal itself.  Anything that predicts a "consequence" from the US "pulling out" of a non-binding voluntary agreement starts as a blatant overreaction.  But even worse, most seem to assume that a pull out means we will not continue to follow our own laws and patterns and reduce carbon independently (which we have been doing for years), but instead "renege" on one hundred percent of the target.  The US is one of the few countries that actually seeks to meet self imposed carbon reduction and pollution control goals, and that doesn't change whether or not we are in this agreement.

It's amazing too how they can all point out that 194 countries signed on, yet fail to point out that for most of them there is absolutely no teeth (and for most a net gain).  If you have 200 people in a room and 199 sign an agreement where they get $100 books and person 200 refuses to sign the agreement to pay out $19,900 to make it happen its kind of silly to act like they are the one killing a "great" deal.

I'd be interested to see even one article with an honest evaluation of the carbon impact this agreement has for the countries not named the United States.  It actually looks to me like the end result of their Agreement is for an increase in carbon production by those 194 countries, and it'll look worse now because they were banking on US negative carbon production to "offset" their increases.  This is literally the rest of the world paying lip service to carbon reduction and asking the US to once again bear the global cost.

Or how about a single honest article explaining why closing US factories to open new ones in China and India is in the environments best interest?  There's literally no environmental case for that.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on June 02, 2017, 01:40:05 PM
Or how about a single honest article explaining why closing US factories to open new ones in China and India is in the environments best interest?  There's literally no environmental case for that.

But what about "Environmental (Economic) Justice?" Clearly you need to make room for that! How are all those poor impoverished people in foreign lands supposed to lift themselves out of poverty if we're not providing perverse incentives for companies to offshore work to them?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on June 02, 2017, 01:49:49 PM
So now I have seen dozens of "articles" on Trump's decision, including several versions claiming they are "everything you need to know," and not one of them has accurately stated the deal itself.  Anything that predicts a "consequence" from the US "pulling out" of a non-binding voluntary agreement starts as a blatant overreaction.  But even worse, most seem to assume that a pull out means we will not continue to follow our own laws and patterns and reduce carbon independently (which we have been doing for years), but instead "renege" on one hundred percent of the target.  The US is one of the few countries that actually seeks to meet self imposed carbon reduction and pollution control goals, and that doesn't change whether or not we are in this agreement.

It's amazing too how they can all point out that 194 countries signed on, yet fail to point out that for most of them there is absolutely no teeth (and for most a net gain).  If you have 200 people in a room and 199 sign an agreement where they get $100 books and person 200 refuses to sign the agreement to pay out $19,900 to make it happen its kind of silly to act like they are the one killing a "great" deal.

I'd be interested to see even one article with an honest evaluation of the carbon impact this agreement has for the countries not named the United States.  It actually looks to me like the end result of their Agreement is for an increase in carbon production by those 194 countries, and it'll look worse now because they were banking on US negative carbon production to "offset" their increases.  This is literally the rest of the world paying lip service to carbon reduction and asking the US to once again bear the global cost.

Or how about a single honest article explaining why closing US factories to open new ones in China and India is in the environments best interest?  There's literally no environmental case for that.

Can you source that, Seriati?  What do you say to this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/us-rear-carbon-emissions
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on June 02, 2017, 02:01:22 PM
Can you source that, Seriati?  What do you say to this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/us-rear-carbon-emissions

Where is Canada in that list?

Ok, I can buy that those nations have a lower "Carbon intensity" and a few other things. But they also have mostly urbanized populations, with closely grouped urban population centers. Much of Carbon Emissions happening in the US occur as a result of transportation of people, goods, and services. Because you know, the United States is a very large country, and while it's "urban population" as a % of the whole is increasing over time, those urban centers tend to be widely dispersed across a very large nation. (It also ignores the matter that many parts of the US also experience more extreme weather conditions than most of Europe, on both ends of the spectrum, which also results in more energy use)

It's kind of like proclaiming citizens of the state of Montana are destroying the environment because their per capita CO2 emissions are so much higher than a comparable citizen in NYC who doesn't own a car and uses mass transit to get around. The citizens of Missoula are just such neanderthals that they cannot begin to fathom the merits of establishing a comprehensive light rail or subway system in their fine town.  ::)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on June 02, 2017, 03:50:52 PM
My thought on supposed global warming and the human factor has, for years, been that the most likely outcome is that technological innovation would inevitably make scare-mongering about the end of the world irrelevant. I more or less have thought that the natural market would take care of reducing pollution and eventually even cleaning up what we've already done to the environment, and I still think so. Maybe this was wishful Star Trek thinking on my part, and admittedly having grown up on TOS and TNG I do believe in those kinds of outcomes.

So far my optimism seems to have been born out because we are already seeing natural innovation paving the way for clean energy production without any need for strong-arming the economy through enforced treaties. Some European nations have already made great headway switching over almost entirely to renewable energy (including Germany, so not just 'crap countries', as Ali G called them), and likewise I think the availability and convenience of those methods will soon become ubiquitous and standard in developed nations. As Seriati points out, the trick will be to try to switch over less developed nations to the new system if possible. But the more nations that switch over to renewable energy and clean production, the less urgent it will be to swiftly switch over the undeveloped nations. It will be a good long-term goal, but not highly time sensitive. For some time various oligarchs and cartels have squashed attempts at innovation into clean energy (see: "Who Killed the Electric Car" and other such documentaries), however by this time innovation is too far along for it to realistically be stopped by fiat, so they will have to roll over soon and try to cash in on the change rather than oppose it.

I can't say I'm that informed about the details of the Paris deal, but based on the rhetoric and outcry that followed the U.S. withdrawal from Kyoto (which I thought was a bad deal at the time) I'm automatically skeptical about the outcry that's following Trump's decision on this one. Hey, maybe Trump is making a mistake, or maybe Seriati is right and the thing is a boondoggle. But I do know that the outcry would be the same regardless of whether it's a boondoggle or a miracle plan. The reaction itself says nothing about the quality of Trump's decision.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on June 02, 2017, 04:33:43 PM
Can you source that, Seriati?  What do you say to this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/us-rear-carbon-emissions

That's a bit of a compilation, which part do you want a source for?

I'd say the MotherJones piece has carefully selected the charts it's showing you.  Why do you think that is?  Why does each country put it's emissions target in a different measure under the Paris accord?  Take a look at a single measure for all of them, like net gain or loss in total carbon.  Look at everyone for absolute carbon production per unit of production.  Forget per capita entirely, that's a measure that has no real merit other than for social justice "fairness" comparisons.

There are plenty of resources for looking at the raw data.  Heck there is a wiki for carbon emissions by gdp (which is a limited indicator of efficiency, US in the middle, China fifth from the bottom).  Or total Carbon, China was closing in on double the US in 2011, where do you think they are now?

China's increases in carbon production, alone, will offset any and all reductions the US chooses to make.  Add in other countries that are still on the upramp, like India, Russia, most of the oil rich Middle East and South American "super powers" and this Agreement doesn't deliver anything it promises.  Why don't they want you to be able to see that in clear terms?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on June 02, 2017, 05:12:40 PM
Here's another question for you guys, why does the reconciliation process, require a budget neutral bill to avoid a filibuster, in other words you can not spend more than you save without getting 60 Senators and a majority of the House, yet apparently a President can sign onto an International accord (like say the Paris accord) which potentially has an economic impact of $3 trillion in GDP without any Senate approval?  The three trillion number comes from right wing oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens so almost certainly on the high end of the estimates, but there is no estimate where there are not substantial costs to the US.

What happened to the power of the purse?

Okay, I cheated a little there, cause there a NO COSTS to the Paris accord cause it's not binding and has no penalty or enforcement mechanisms.  The only costs would come from the subsequent legislation (no chance) or regulations (virtually certainty with a Dem President that the unelected bureaucratic masters would have implemented costly regulations).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on June 02, 2017, 05:22:02 PM
Thank you.  That pretty much backs my earlier statement that Kyoto is just an alternate form of climate denial.  I don't understand why you waste time with the denial arguments when there's such a more powerful argument to be made that Kyoto is a fraud even according to mainstream climate science.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on June 02, 2017, 05:53:18 PM
Not sure I've ever stated an opinion on warming or denied it.  My primary beef on this topic is with those treating Science as a religion (making black box arguments from the conclusions without any real understanding of the problems and limitations built into the conclusions).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on June 02, 2017, 06:32:38 PM
One of the more interesting things about Trump declaring his pullout from the Paris Accords is the international political implications.

Sure, Republicans in this country have convinced themselves that climate change is a hoax, not happening, is natural, and/or is insignificant, but apparently not the rest of the world.  And they aren't too happy about it. (http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/02/protests-trump-paris-accord/)

Quote
Hours later German Chancellor Angela Merkel summoned reporters for an impromptu statement in which she called Trump’s decision “extremely regrettable, and that’s putting it very mildly...”

[T]he leaders of France, Germany and Italy said in a joint statement Thursday that the agreement cannot be renegotiated, “since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economics...”

South Africa called the U.S. pullout “an abdication of global responsibility...”

Japan’s environment minister, Koichi Yamamoto, said in Tokyo: “I’m not just disappointed, but also feel anger.”

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox also criticized Trump’s move, saying on Twitter: “He’s declaring war on the planet itself.”

So the rest of the world (except for Syria, which refused to sign the agreement) will look to China and Europe for direction on how to address limiting our carbon output.  We just ceded leadership in this to China.

Great going, Trump.  ::)

And it's not like we are going to be able to ignore this.  Since this is a world-wide problem, the world is going to insist that we do our fair share, whether we like it or not. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumpbeat-if-you-dont-like-the-officiating-fire-the-refs/)

Quote
Kemp expects China and the European Union to take over from the U.S. as the prime movers on climate negotiations and to pursue deals that aren’t predicated on American participation. And that could have big economic consequences for the U.S. That’s because trade penalties are one of the primary mechanisms that international treaties, including environmental agreements, use to prevent countries that don’t participate from freeloading off the work of others. For example, the Montreal Protocol, a 1989 deal to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals, forbade its signatories from trading in those chemicals with countries that weren’t part of the agreement. In a climate agreement, a similar penalty might require the U.S. to pay carbon-based taxes on any goods we sold to member countries. In other words, the U.S. can free itself from international agreements, but not from international power.

Since the Paris Agreement allowed each country to set their own targets on decreasing greenhouse gases, we traded leadership in an issue that the rest of the world believes is important, and subjected ourselves to international sanctions without our input (regardless of Trump grandiose promises of "renegotiating a better deal"), so that we can ignore targets that we decided upon and are working toward anyway.

What a deal!  ::)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on June 02, 2017, 07:23:51 PM
Quote
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox also criticized Trump’s move, saying on Twitter: “He’s declaring war on the planet itself.”

Strong words for a guy whose administration required tetraethyllead in gasoline.

I'm hard-pressed to see how Trump signing an agreement that he had no hand in negotiating, and that he knows that the Senate will not ratify, would constitute US "leadership."

Americans' dislike for Kyoto (right or wrong) was one of the causes for Trump's election.

Since Methamphetamine precursor methylamine is technically a Greenhouse gas, I'd be tickled pink if China stopped selling methylamine to us and to Mexico.

There's nothing that prevents later administrations from signing in.




Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2017, 01:39:33 AM
Can you source that, Seriati?  What do you say to this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/us-rear-carbon-emissions

One other thing I find particularly funny as I think about that graph they provided of Energy related CO2 Emissions. They comment on CO2 releases tracking with economic activity so when it decreases(such as during a recession) CO2 also falls.... Except, I recall the Democrats lauding Obama for the amazingly stable economy during his tenure as President, where the economy chugged along at a fairly consistant ~2% of GPD growth for much of his presidency.

So what do we have on the Mother Jones Chart? Emissions bottom out in 2009, which corresponds to the end of the Recession Obama entered office under.

Emissions increase, for 1 year peaking in 2010 after increasing by 200 million metric tons over 2009's total.
Then in 2011 CO2 drops by about 100 million metric tons, wait I though the economy grew under Obama?
In 2012 CO2 drops by about 300 million metric tons, wait, wasn't the economy supposed to be growing that year?
in 2013 CO2 does increase by less than 200 million metric tons, I'm going to call it at 175 for this. So obviously growth was happening.
2014 saw CO2 barely increase, maybe 25 million additional metric tons that year? Strange, these numbers don't seem to be tracking with a ~2% annual increase.
Remember, we're +200 (Y2010), -100 (Y2011), -300(Y2012), +175 (Y2013), +25(Y2014)

Last I checked, 200 -100 - 300 +175 + 25 = 0 and by their chart, my numbers seem a bit off as 2014 looks to have a slightly lower emissions total than 2009 did. But didn't the economy grow between 2009 and 2014?

And for completeness, I'm not cherry picking here either. 2014 was where I stopped in this example as it was the last year on the chart with an increase in emissions.

2015 saw emissions drop to just a bit higher than 2012 levels. (Remember, the claim is Obama presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in history)

2016 saw further emission reductions about on par with emissions growth in 2014. But of note on their own chart, in 2012 saw fewer CO2 Emissions than 2009. While 2016 saw lower emissions that 2012.

So I guess Mother Jones is now claiming that Obama presided over multiple recessions?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2017, 07:54:27 AM
Pictures that tell the story (http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.FRCeo69o.sqzbNnlt.dpbs).

Quote
Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
 
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
As real science is being done, the truth is coming out.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on June 07, 2017, 09:24:29 PM
So I guess Mother Jones is now claiming that Obama presided over multiple recessions?

The article was written by an idiot who couldn't read their own graphs. The only marginal value was that they showed some graphs but based on the quality of the writing unless someone else produced their graphs there are probably errors in them.  It was basically a political reporter trying to write a science article (blugh).

That being said emissions do decline during recessions but more recently they have been declining for other reasons, the move from coal to natural gas, increased solar and wind power, and more efficient cars to name a few.

So our political reporter missed the biggest story in their own data, we don't have to tank our economy to cut emissions. (we really need a face-palm emoji)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on June 07, 2017, 09:33:51 PM
Pictures that tell the story (http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.FRCeo69o.sqzbNnlt.dpbs).

Quote
Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
 
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
As real science is being done, the truth is coming out.

Could you pick one of those papers that makes a claim about global temperature averages. Most of the graphs looked to be regional. I don't have time to read them all but I seriously doubt the authors of the papers support the claims made by brietbart et al about the papers.

Would you be convinced if I went and found 89 graphs that showed warming in recent years in regions of my choosing?

Gcrunch before I take the time to look too deeply into your breitbart claims about climate science I'm just curious:
1) What data sets do you find reliable?
2) Do you believe in thermodynamics? (just curious if you believe that the previous .28% greenhouse gas impact caused by humans predicts 1.6 degree warming over the next 100 years)

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2017, 08:14:28 AM
It's very strange you keep mentioning Breitbart. The link does not go to Breitbart.  Before you comment on a link or its content, I suggest you actually click the link and see it.

I find the data I linked reliable, you should too.  Asking if I "believe in thermodynamics" is a strange framing of the question, more appropriate to a discussion on religion rather than science.  I think that's telling.

Here's an example of the problem with science as a belief system, in 2014 we were to see the end of snow (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?_r=0).  Three years later, we have the "endless winter": (https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/06/07/californias-endless-winter-8-feet-snow-still-ground-june/102586278/)
Quote
It's an endless winter in the West.

Snow from the barrage of storms that pounded the western mountains over the winter is still on the ground. Many mountains in the Rockies, Sierra and Cascades are packed with at least 8 feet of snow, the National Weather Service said, creating a dream summer for skiers and snowboarders.

The Mammoth Mountain ski area in Mammoth Lakes, Calif., is seeing its "best spring conditions in decades ... and will be operating DAILY into August for one of our longest seasons in history," the resort said on its website. "When will this endless winter end? We don’t have that answer yet, but we do know that the skiing and riding is all-time right now."

The snowpack throughout the Sierra rivals, and in places exceeds, records set during the massive winter of 1982-83. As of June 6, the amount of snow on the ground in the central Sierra region was twice as much as usual, marking its biggest June snowpack in decades, the California Department of Water Resources said.
I believe in the scientific method, a theory's predictions should be validated. When evidence contradicts the theory, I believe we should question the accuracy of the theory instead if refusing to consider the evidence or fabricating evidence to support the theory.  Wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on June 08, 2017, 10:43:32 AM
The problem with the site is not the papers themselves, but the conclusion that the site comes to, specifically:

Quote
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

Consider the paper by Li et al:

Quote
“Contrary to the often-documented warming trend over the past few centuries, but consistent with temperature record from the northern Tibetan Plateau, our data show a gradual decreasing trend of 0.3 °C in mean annual air temperature from 1750 to 1970 CE. This result suggests a gradual cooling trend in some high altitude regions over this interval, which could provide a new explanation for the observed decreasing Asian summer monsoon. In addition, our data indicate an abruptly increased interannual-to decadal-scale temperature variations of 0.8 – 2.2 °C after 1970 CE, in terms of both magnitude and frequency, indicating that the climate system in high altitude regions would become more unstable under current global warming.”

How does a "gradual decreasing trend of 0.3 °C in mean annual air temperature from 1750 to 1970 CE" and "an abruptly increased interannual-to decadal-scale temperature variations of 0.8 – 2.2 °C after 1970 CE" support the claim that "there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability?"  Seems to say the exact opposite to me.  So why did they include it?

There is a trick, used by Creationists, to take snippets from scientific papers and use them, out of context, to "prove" that there is serious questioning of basic evolutionary concepts.  I suspect that this site is using the same technique for AGW.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: ScottF on June 08, 2017, 11:07:42 AM
Or, you provide what you feel is the compelling snippet and then link directly to the papers for more full analysis, as that link does. I'm pretty sure that "trick" is common practice, but trying to associate any contradictory studies to Briebart and creationists is, as crunch states, odd and quite revealing.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on June 08, 2017, 12:03:24 PM
Or, you provide what you feel is the compelling snippet and then link directly to the papers for more full analysis, as that link does. I'm pretty sure that "trick" is common practice, but trying to associate any contradictory studies to Briebart and creationists is, as crunch states, odd and quite revealing.

But the snippet does not support what the site is contending.  So there is no "or."  If that is the best snippet the authors of the site could find, then there is no "there" there, because that would mean that there was no suitable summary of what the paper showed.  That would be like writing a paper that shows the sky is actually green and never stating "this indicates the sky is green."  Kinda defeats the purpose, ya know? ;)

It's not so odd, since there are quite a few similarities between creationists and AGW deniers (rather than skeptics).  Both types of deniers use common tricks to fool the readers into thinking they have proved something they have not.  If you have looked into this subject at all, I'm sure you've come across such tricks.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on June 08, 2017, 01:06:23 PM
Breitbart, Creationists, and AGW

Now that would be an interesting Ven diagram, but kind of spurious and doesn't seem to add value to any discussion, it is a vulgar venting of "I'm better than those people" that is somewhat contrary to the values Ornery struggles to uphold.
 
The vast number of people quoting snippets of papers, speeches, and other materials without fully understanding the source material approaches equivalence to the set of all literate humans, so picking one or two of those subsets is a meta-level cherry picking snippet.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on June 08, 2017, 01:24:48 PM
2) Do you believe in thermodynamics? (just curious if you believe that the previous .28% greenhouse gas impact caused by humans predicts 1.6 degree warming over the next 100 years)

That must be the little known fourth law of Thermodynamics. Lol.

Your logic is flawed, as accepting the laws of Thermodynamics does not necessitate accepting a conclusion based on many other factors in conjunction with those laws, nor about what is potentially an open rather than a closed system.  If you want to close the system, I'm curious how you're obtaining your global temperature measurements from 3 miles below the Earth's surface?  500 feet about the ground?  And every where else within the closed volume.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on June 08, 2017, 02:31:30 PM
picking one or two of those subsets is a meta-level cherry picking snippet.

lol
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on June 08, 2017, 03:41:38 PM
The bottom line remains: do those 80 graphs in 58 new papers support their contention, or did they just list them to make their list look impressive.

The one summary I chose appears not to.  In fact, it appears to contradict their contention.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2017, 10:16:29 AM
The bottom line remains: do those 80 graphs in 58 new papers support their contention, or did they just list them to make their list look impressive.

The one summary I chose appears not to.  In fact, it appears to contradict their contention.
Let's assume you understood the one summary you chose and that, very hypothetically, you are correct (I say 'very' because the fact you don't understand it does not mean it's wrong).  At this point, the best we can say of your analysis is that it's a fallacy of composition.  That's not much to work with.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on June 09, 2017, 11:34:07 AM
The bottom line remains: do those 80 graphs in 58 new papers support their contention, or did they just list them to make their list look impressive.

The one summary I chose appears not to.  In fact, it appears to contradict their contention.
Let's assume you understood the one summary you chose and that, very hypothetically, you are correct (I say 'very' because the fact you don't understand it does not mean it's wrong).  At this point, the best we can say of your analysis is that it's a fallacy of composition.  That's not much to work with.

Also that study may have been included within the context of yet another study they linked to that looked at paleo-climate in order to assert its "nothing historically unprecedented" claim. If there is a paleo-climate example of  temperature change happening that was faster than what the other report indicates is currently happening, then it helps support their position, rather than debunk it. (And IIRC, there are paleo-climate examples of such things happening, several degree (C) shifts happening over the course of a century or less)

Nothing says each individual study on its own has to support their position when taken on their own.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on June 09, 2017, 11:40:44 AM
The obvious answer is.... These graphs and analyses are stupid. You'd have to correct for a bunch of other factors to try to explain the behaviour of such a complex system. It's like the President vs. GDP graphs, which might as well be Number of Miley Cyrus albums sold vs highway deaths. Although....

Thermodynamics, by the way, gratefully assures us that such pontifications will dissolve under the relentless increase of entropy.

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on June 09, 2017, 11:52:29 AM
The bottom line remains: do those 80 graphs in 58 new papers support their contention, or did they just list them to make their list look impressive.

Lists are not meta-analysis.  I would always assume they suffer from cherry picking and bias in selection.  That said, they can still raise interesting questions.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on June 09, 2017, 02:06:35 PM
2) Do you believe in thermodynamics? (just curious if you believe that the previous .28% greenhouse gas impact caused by humans predicts 1.6 degree warming over the next 100 years)

That must be the little known fourth law of Thermodynamics. Lol.

Fair point, the more accurate statement would be that the .28% increase in the greenhouse effect would result in the Earth retaining enough additional energy to heat the atmosphere by 1.6 degrees. The distribution of that heat in the Earth is not addressed.

Quote
Your logic is flawed, as accepting the laws of Thermodynamics does not necessitate accepting a conclusion based on many other factors in conjunction with those laws, nor about what is potentially an open rather than a closed system.  If you want to close the system, I'm curious how you're obtaining your global temperature measurements from 3 miles below the Earth's surface?  500 feet about the ground?  And every where else within the closed volume.

I was really just looking at input/output of the Earth system. I did apply all of the additional heat to the atmosphere which I just admitted is a likely error (but one I acknowledged in the original post). 

The computation was really to shine a light on the point that even if the human contribution to green house gas emissions is just .28% (as claimed by Gcrunch) that still is a massive amount of heat over 100 years. So a .28% increase can very plausibly cause warming at least in the 1-2 degree C per century.  It really isn't a good substitute for a real climate model but is a simple and reasonable enough calculation to show that effects on the scale predicted are plausible.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on June 09, 2017, 02:18:06 PM
It's very strange you keep mentioning Breitbart. The link does not go to Breitbart.  Before you comment on a link or its content, I suggest you actually click the link and see it.


And I did enough to know that Breitbart was pushing this particular piece of propaganda.

Quote

I find the data I linked reliable, you should too.  Asking if I "believe in thermodynamics" is a strange framing of the question, more appropriate to a discussion on religion rather than science.  I think that's telling.


Your correct thermodynamics doesn't give a **** if you believe in it or not.  The better question is do you find arguments using thermodynamics persuasive.

Quote
[paraphrase, lots of stuff about snow pack and winter]
Wouldn't you agree?

I don't really care about what about a journalist writing a report based on one possible scenario wrote. If you go back to the original scientific paper (if there was one) you probably will see a large number of scenarios put forth with varying degrees of uncertainty. So that impacts my conclusions about actual science very little.

But yes I do agree that science should put forth hypothesis, measure data, create a model, refine and repeat. I just don't reject out of hand any study/data that shows a conclusion I don't like.

In terms of data sets, how do you feel about the GISS data set?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on June 09, 2017, 02:26:24 PM
Fair point, the more accurate statement would be that the .28% increase in the greenhouse effect would result in the Earth retaining enough additional energy to heat the atmosphere by 1.6 degrees. The distribution of that heat in the Earth is not addressed.

You still need a couple qualifiers, "all other things being equal," and "assuming the Earth's climate is sufficiently like a closed system for the analysis to have merit," neither of which is self evidently true, though the latter strikes me as more likely than the former.

Quote
The computation was really to shine a light on the point that even if the human contribution to green house gas emissions is just .28% (as claimed by Gcrunch) that still is a massive amount of heat over 100 years. So a .28% increase can very plausibly cause warming at least in the 1-2 degree C per century.  It really isn't a good substitute for a real climate model but is a simple and reasonable enough calculation to show that effects on the scale predicted are plausible.

Unless I misunderstand him, his point is that the 0.28% is the aggregate, not the incremental.  Your argument is more like a 0.005% change that has a lower impact at this point on the curve (and is approaching essentially a zero additional impact point).

I'm also troubled by the idea that for instance the Paris Accord would result in an aggregate decrease in the first place.  Per it's terms it far more likely that the 0.28 is going to 0.31 than to 0.27.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on June 10, 2017, 11:07:46 PM
I'm also troubled by the idea that for instance the Paris Accord would result in an aggregate decrease in the first place.  Per it's terms it far more likely that the 0.28 is going to 0.31 than to 0.27.

I don't think the initial goals set forth in Paris would result in an aggregate decrease (and I can't remember reading any claims it would). I'm guessing it would be more like .28 goes to .3 instead of .32. I think the stated goal was to limit warming to less than either 2 or 3 degrees C, not to completely stop warming.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on June 10, 2017, 11:33:17 PM
Unless I misunderstand him, his point is that the 0.28% is the aggregate, not the incremental. 

I understood it to mean that .28% was small and insignificant. I read it as humans only had a .28% impact on greenhouse warming and something that small doesn't matter. My point was that .28% while a small number can still impact climate.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on June 10, 2017, 11:36:16 PM
I'm also troubled by the idea that for instance the Paris Accord would result in an aggregate decrease in the first place.  Per it's terms it far more likely that the 0.28 is going to 0.31 than to 0.27.

I don't think the initial goals set forth in Paris would result in an aggregate decrease (and I can't remember reading any claims it would). I'm guessing it would be more like .28 goes to .3 instead of .32. I think the stated goal was to limit warming to less than either 2 or 3 degrees C, not to completely stop warming.

Those numbers should probably be more on the scale of .28 goes to .35 +- .05 instead of .45 +- .1.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on June 16, 2017, 07:03:35 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Except you don't get to 3 degrees centigrade just from carbon emissions you have to have a runaway feedback loop to get there.



Sorry, but you are wrong.  These are the estimates without a "runaway feedback loop." Here is a chart from a class on climate change that I took*:

CO2 (ppm)       Average Temp Increase (Equilibrium)
340 (320-380)                 1 degree C
540 (440-760)                 3 degree C
840 (620-1490)               5 degree C

No runaway feedback loop.


Lol.  If you have a chart that lays it out for you like that, at best it was written for grade school consumers, and is more propaganda than science.  Why don't you go back and find the source and then we can discuss it.

Sorry to take so long, Seriati, but I finally found my copy of the presentation.

The chart was derived from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Synthesis Report, paragraph 5.4. (https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html)  The temperature increases are the "best estimates" at the time of the report.  Also note that they are the "equilibrium" temperatures.  The full effects of CO2 in the atmosphere do not appear for about a decade after the concentration is reached.  It takes a few years for the temperature changes to reach equilibrium.

Not quite for "grade school consumers," unless you went to a much better grade school than I did. :)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on June 16, 2017, 07:32:13 PM
Those numbers should probably be more on the scale of .28 goes to .35 +- .05 instead of .45 +- .1.

But that's ignoring the point.  If we're at a point of diminishing returns .45 may not even possible to hit, it would certainly require a multiple of current carbon that is greater than a 10x increase.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on June 18, 2017, 04:30:36 PM
Those numbers should probably be more on the scale of .28 goes to .35 +- .05 instead of .45 +- .1.

But that's ignoring the point.  If we're at a point of diminishing returns .45 may not even possible to hit, it would certainly require a multiple of current carbon that is greater than a 10x increase.

Seriously logarithmic does not mean almost zero. The approximately 50% increase in carbon lead to a .28 increase in the greenhouse effect. To get another .28 increase takes another 50% increase from today's levels.  So the .45 would be approximately 600ppm of CO2.  600ppm is in the "we do nothing" range for projections of carbon levels in the future so while certainly a rough approximation it is reasonable.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: ScottF on July 10, 2017, 01:50:04 AM
I found this very interesting. Apparently the global average surface temperature (GAST) calculations have been routinely adjusted/manipulated based on models (i.e people) that actually remove previously existing cyclical temperature patterns from the data.

This peer reviewed study seems to cast a lot of doubt as to the validity of the GAST data. Of course if the GAST baselines are questionable, it clearly calls into question findings from GAST reliant studies from NOAA, NASA and HADLEY (who all use the same GAST baselines).

"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming."

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2017, 02:33:53 PM
Those numbers should probably be more on the scale of .28 goes to .35 +- .05 instead of .45 +- .1.

But that's ignoring the point.  If we're at a point of diminishing returns .45 may not even possible to hit, it would certainly require a multiple of current carbon that is greater than a 10x increase.

Seriously logarithmic does not mean almost zero. The approximately 50% increase in carbon lead to a .28 increase in the greenhouse effect. To get another .28 increase takes another 50% increase from today's levels.  So the .45 would be approximately 600ppm of CO2.  600ppm is in the "we do nothing" range for projections of carbon levels in the future so while certainly a rough approximation it is reasonable.

Youre not analyzing this correctly. It is actually mathematically impossible to get where youre talking about going. Over 87% of all possible effect ftom CO2 has already occurred.  If we went to 600ppm, or even 1200ppm, we would see a marginal increase and the effect at both levels would be effectively the same. CO2 is strongly logarithmic, over 50% of its effect is realized in going from 0 to 20 ppm (thats twenty). Its effect degrades quickly after that .
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2017, 02:35:50 PM
Quote
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming."
I've come to believe that a great many of the conclusions from warming theory have a similar background.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on July 10, 2017, 11:28:36 PM
Breaking news:
Quote
Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud.

Data fraud.  Criminal.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on July 11, 2017, 12:42:47 PM
Mann's attorney disagrees,

Quote
Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.
No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.
Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.
Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.
In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.
If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.
O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”
The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.
So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer.

and

Quote
Oh, and perhaps it's worth stating the obvious: ANYONE claiming that our "data" was not made publicly available is either ignorant, dishonest or both. Even the most cursory search yields e.g. http://realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1466774033378794:0

I'd say the odds of your source being accurate are quite close to zero, given your previous sourcing quality.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: D.W. on July 11, 2017, 01:25:34 PM
With all these smoking guns, how can the temperature not be going up?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on July 11, 2017, 02:23:24 PM
Mann's attorney disagrees,

Quote
Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.
No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.
Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.
Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.
In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.
If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.
O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”
The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.
So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer.

and

Quote
Oh, and perhaps it's worth stating the obvious: ANYONE claiming that our "data" was not made publicly available is either ignorant, dishonest or both. Even the most cursory search yields e.g. http://realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1466774033378794:0

I'd say the odds of your source being accurate are quite close to zero, given your previous sourcing quality.

Well, pick any sorce from Google that works for you (http://mann contempt of court). Citing Mann's lawyer as an unbiased source aint exactly a shot at quality sourcing.  ;D
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on July 11, 2017, 03:44:54 PM
Of course, citing John O'Sullivan, a colleague of Ball's and not a lawyer, ain't the most reliable source, either. ;D

We probably should wait for the judge, who Mann supposedly is in contempt of, to decide the issue.

Although it might be a long wait, considering that Mann was supposed to provide the data (which is available on the internet) and computer codes (which he may not have "in his possession"--they may belong to someone else) by Feb. 20, 2017, which ain't so breaking. ;)  It will be interesting to see why it took almost 5 months for this story to "break." :)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on July 11, 2017, 03:57:04 PM
Of course, citing John O'Sullivan, a colleague of Ball's and not a lawyer, ain't the most reliable source, either.  :)
That's why I linked to the entire google search results, you can pick from dozens yet you hang on one you think, for unspecified reasons, might possibly be incorrect depite all those others saying the same thing - a few with in depth legal analysis.
We probably should wait for the judge, who Mann supposedly is in contempt of, to decide the issue.

Although it might be a long wait, considering that Mann was supposed to provide the data (which is available on the internet) and computer codes (which he may not have "in his possession"--they may belong to someone else) by Feb. 20, 2017, which ain't so breaking. ;)  It will be interesting to see why it took almost 5 months for this story to "break." :)
It took that long for likely several reasons: it's in Canada, not a lot of US media coverage on Canadian courts, Mann was likely given more than one chance to comply(Mann's lawyer may have seen to that), it does not fit global warming dogma so most mainstream media outlets will bury it. If you read the legal analysis, you see Mann is really in a lot of trouble.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on July 11, 2017, 04:24:52 PM
Sorry, Crunch, but your link doesn't work for me. :(

Perhaps you could link to an analysis that is written by a lawyer (as opposed to O'Sullivan or any of the sites that quote his legal analysis)?  The first five links in this search (https://www.google.com/#q=analysis+mann+contempt+of+court&spf=1499804431776) all quote O'Sullivan.

It really doesn't count if the "dozens" of sites all quote from the same source without any further information. ;)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on July 11, 2017, 04:36:08 PM
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx

Knock yourself out.

If Mann was held to be in contempt of court in BC, you would be able to find that judgment here.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on July 11, 2017, 07:52:12 PM
Well, pick any sorce from Google that works for you. Citing Mann's lawyer as an unbiased source aint exactly a shot at quality sourcing.  ;D

A linking to a google search result isn't a very reliable course of action for finding an answer. Google search results are not uniform across users, they sift, sort, and rank the results before presenting what they(well, their AI/algorithm) believe to be "the most relevant" search for you, based on past browsing habits tied to you/that specific web browser(cookie)/ip/computer mac address.

Chances are decent that on any given search term, nobody in this forum would get the same "top 5" search results returned to them in the same order, if they even saw the same top 5 results, which we probably wouldn't. (although overlap probably would happen, such as say, Wikipedia being highly ranked)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on July 11, 2017, 10:17:06 PM
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx

Knock yourself out.

If Mann was held to be in contempt of court in BC, you would be able to find that judgment here.

Perhaps I'm using this wrong.  Is "Contempt of Court" the operative legal phrase in Canada these days?  Because I can't find *any* judgments for contempt of court in your database.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: ScottF on July 12, 2017, 12:56:57 AM
I just googled "Mann contempt court" and found a ton of different hits. Those also ended up linking to "Mann Nobel laureate humiliation".
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Gaoics79 on July 12, 2017, 08:38:02 AM
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx

Knock yourself out.

If Mann was held to be in contempt of court in BC, you would be able to find that judgment here.

Donald does B.C. actually archive all of its judgments online or are those just reported decisions like you would find on Canlii or Westlaw? If they do then I need to move to B.C. In Ontario if you want non reported stuff better send a process server to each courthouse :(
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on July 12, 2017, 11:24:41 AM
Yes; I think our friend Donald just pulled a fast one. :D
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on July 12, 2017, 11:39:26 AM
You can probably get similar results if you use an anonymous tab for the search or even better an anonymous tab through a proxy.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on July 12, 2017, 12:06:51 PM
Jason, the only point I was making was that Crunch should go to primary sources - a Google count of search results is just stupid, as clearly, results for (even fictional) events will always outnumber results for things that did not happen.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on July 12, 2017, 03:23:47 PM
AFAIK, the Canadian Court itself has not declared Mann in contempt of court.

From what I read, it is only O'Sullivan saying that the courts must hold him in contempt of court because he says Mann did not provide the full information per the agreement.  The courts still have to decide whether that is true or not.

And we all know how well judges take being told what they must do. :)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on July 12, 2017, 03:36:49 PM
You can probably get similar results if you use an anonymous tab for the search or even better an anonymous tab through a proxy.

From my understanding, Google collects data on:
1) The cookie you may or may not have allowed to function due to browser settings. (and any (Google) accounts that cookie may tie you to)
2) Your IP, but due to NAT there can be more than one person on an IP address so...
3) The MAC address of the device using Google.

Enabling "Private Browsing" addresses #1, so long as you don't log back in. But it does nothing about #2 and #3.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on July 13, 2017, 06:24:09 PM
I found this very interesting. Apparently the global average surface temperature (GAST) calculations have been routinely adjusted/manipulated based on models (i.e people) that actually remove previously existing cyclical temperature patterns from the data.

This peer reviewed study seems to cast a lot of doubt as to the validity of the GAST data. Of course if the GAST baselines are questionable, it clearly calls into question findings from GAST reliant studies from NOAA, NASA and HADLEY (who all use the same GAST baselines).

"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming."

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

I had to wait a few days to find some rebuttal, and finally found one in The Guardian. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming)

Quote
The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually reduces the long-term global warming trend...

Additionally, a peer-reviewed study last year led by Hausfather verified the validity of the temperature adjustments by showing that they bring the data in closer agreement with that from pristinely located temperature stations.

The white paper also claims that the adjustments remove a “cyclical pattern” that appeared more clearly in early versions of the temperature record. As Hausfather told me, that’s simply because we now have more data that better represent the planet as a whole:

"What they don’t tell you is that the 1980 record in question only comes from around 500 land stations almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and does not include any ocean data at all. There is a well-known warm period in the mid-to-high latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere in the 1930s and 1940s, but it does not really show up much in the oceans and not at all in the Southern Hemisphere. As scientists have collected more historical temperature records from around the world in the past 35 years, we have created more complete records that show less warmth in that period simply because they cover more of the planet."...

The white paper authors admit that some adjustments to the raw data are necessary (for example, to correct for changes in instrumentation technology, time of observation, moving station locations, and so on), and they don’t dispute the accuracy or necessity of any of the adjustments that climate scientists have made. Basically, because they don’t like the end result of global warming, the authors assert that the adjustments must somehow be wrong, but fail to support that assertion with any real evidence.

It doesn't sound like the "conclusive findings" are all that conclusive. :)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on July 13, 2017, 07:22:24 PM
It sounds like it took you a long time to get some confirmation bias.  ;D
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on July 14, 2017, 11:57:29 AM
Sorry, Crunch.  I don't get it instantly like you do.  :P  ;D
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on July 14, 2017, 02:22:53 PM
That's because I like think for myself rather than rely on others to tell me what to think.  :P ;D
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on July 14, 2017, 03:27:12 PM
Which is easy when you don't have to have find any facts to justify what you think.  ;D

(I shall now bow out before this gets out of hand...)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on July 14, 2017, 06:18:10 PM
There's dozens of facts in this thread, you just refuse to accept them.  You're basically a post-factual/post-truth  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics)guy:
Quote
Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.

You refuse to accept facts that don't fit the emotional and ideological basis upon which you've built your opinion - that is very, very obvious.  Perhaps you should bow out ...    8)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on July 14, 2017, 06:32:12 PM
Considering that my post primarily consisted of an extended quote detailing the perceived failing of the abridged research report, I don't see how that could be a fair assessment.

Or do you find terms like "net adjustment to the raw data" to be emotionally compelling in an argument? :)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on August 01, 2018, 08:14:32 PM
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record (https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record)

Are conservatives still convinced climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global scientific community?

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 02, 2018, 09:28:10 AM
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record (https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record)

Are conservatives still convinced climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global scientific community?

...based on data that pulls the equivalent of predicting the temperature in Flagstaff, Arizona based on weather reporting in Phoenix, AZ, Albuquerque, NM, and Las Vegas, NV.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 02, 2018, 01:44:19 PM
...based on data that pulls the equivalent of predicting the temperature in Flagstaff, Arizona based on weather reporting in Phoenix, AZ, Albuquerque, NM, and Las Vegas, NV.

What?

So we're predicting the average temperature of the earth by measuring the temperature of other planets nearby?

Or are you saying that somehow we don't have enough sample points to track an average temperature trend of the earth, and that there are a lot of hidden cooling zones that aren't being factored in?

Either your analogy machine is broken, or mine is.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 02, 2018, 03:24:03 PM
So we're predicting the average temperature of the earth by measuring the temperature of other planets nearby?

Or are you saying that somehow we don't have enough sample points to track an average temperature trend of the earth, and that there are a lot of hidden cooling zones that aren't being factored in?

Either your analogy machine is broken, or mine is.

Differing sampling methodologies. I admit, I didn't look at the article, and don't have time to more than fire off a response again right now. But I'd give a 75% certainty that if somebody checked, that claim is "based on ground station observations" and further, the overwhelming majority of the reported warming also happens to coincide with regions with particularly sparse coverage by ground observation stations. Sufficiently such that a few dozen stations reporting a variation of a fraction of a degree ends up "warming" hundreds of thousands of square miles of the Earth.

It also is why the warmest years based on (non-extrapolated/interpolated) satellite data have tended to also not agree with such claims. Which would cover the 76% to 95% range of certainty. Where instead of using actual data to make their claim, they're extrapolating data for both the extreme northern and extreme southern latitudes based on points where they did have data(further south) in order to make their claim.

But that still leaves you with their claim being asserted based on "generated data" rather than anything that actually exists in the observational record.

And people keep criticizing the skeptics for creating "facts" out of thin air.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 02, 2018, 10:44:27 PM
Quote
It also is why the warmest years based on (non-extrapolated/interpolated) satellite data have tended to also not agree with such claims.
First off, ALL satellite data is extrapolated - satellites do not measure temperature, but rather microwave response, and the measured microwave levels are then put through an algorithm to come up with estimated temperature values.  Satellite values are by their very nature manipulated to a far greater degree than land based measurements.

Secondly, satellite algorithms have had far more major corrections in the past decade, as those algorithms needed to be fixed due to errors in calculations, assumptions and physical processes.

Thirdly, the satellite data sets in large part now agree with surface and ocean based data sets.  Where did you get the idea that they do not?  Just taking 2017, for instance, both UAH (exclusively satellite-based) and NOAA (which is not) agree that the year was the 3rd warmest in their respective records.

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on August 03, 2018, 05:24:05 PM
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record (https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record)

Are conservatives still convinced climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global scientific community?
When you frame this so dishonestly, I assume you’re not looking for a response but just confirmation of your bias.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 04, 2018, 08:27:13 AM
Quote
It also is why the warmest years based on (non-extrapolated/interpolated) satellite data have tended to also not agree with such claims.
First off, ALL satellite data is extrapolated - satellites do not measure temperature, but rather microwave response, and the measured microwave levels are then put through an algorithm to come up with estimated temperature values.  Satellite values are by their very nature manipulated to a far greater degree than land based measurements.

Secondly, satellite algorithms have had far more major corrections in the past decade, as those algorithms needed to be fixed due to errors in calculations, assumptions and physical processes.

Ok, "Satellite data based on actual data from readings actually taken" vs data that is claimed to be part of the Satellite datasets even though few to no actual measurements or data exists for the latitude being modeled. (Specifically polar regions, where most of the so called "Satellite data" (which doesn't actually exist) claims the warming to be happening at.)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 04, 2018, 08:20:19 PM
Which temperature products are you holding up as accurate or dependable, vs which temperature products do you take issue with?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on August 05, 2018, 10:05:46 PM
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record (https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record)

Are conservatives still convinced climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global scientific community?
When you frame this so dishonestly, I assume you’re not looking for a response but just confirmation of your bias.

So conservatives feel climate change is real? Or do conservatives dispute that it is the consensus opinion of the scientific community?

I'm not sure of a fairer way to honestly state the opinion of climate change deniers.   
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on August 07, 2018, 12:52:44 PM
Quote
It also is why the warmest years based on (non-extrapolated/interpolated) satellite data have tended to also not agree with such claims.
First off, ALL satellite data is extrapolated - satellites do not measure temperature, but rather microwave response, and the measured microwave levels are then put through an algorithm to come up with estimated temperature values.  Satellite values are by their very nature manipulated to a far greater degree than land based measurements.

Secondly, satellite algorithms have had far more major corrections in the past decade, as those algorithms needed to be fixed due to errors in calculations, assumptions and physical processes.

Ok, "Satellite data based on actual data from readings actually taken" vs data that is claimed to be part of the Satellite datasets even though few to no actual measurements or data exists for the latitude being modeled. (Specifically polar regions, where most of the so called "Satellite data" (which doesn't actually exist) claims the warming to be happening at.)

TheDeamon, we know that the Arctic is warming even without the Satellite data, from numerous other sources.  From the melting of the Arctic sea ice.  From the melting of the Greenland glaciers.  From the melting of the permafrost.  From the revealing of many archaeological finds, thousands of years old, which were trapped in ice all this time.

One of my favorites comes from a talk I hear a few years ago from a gal who studies arctic pools.  These are small pools of water that are frozen most of the year and only thaw during the summer.  Bacteria grow in these pools, which die at the end of the season and fall to the bottom, leaving layers of dead bacteria.  She spends eight hours a day over a microscope cataloging these bacteria.  A most boring job, but kinda interesting in a scientificy way.

Many of these pools are disappearing.  They are drying up during the summer, something that hasn't happened in hundreds of years (which she knows from the bacteria record).  And the bacteria in the pools are changing.  Bacteria that thrive in warmer temperatures are displacing the traditional bacteria.  The temperature of these pools is increasing.

I see no plausible explanation for her to be lying in order to "claim" global warming is happening.  You don't spend eight hours a day over a microscope to produce erroneous data for a grand conspiracy--not at graduate student wages. :)

Now, perhaps the "warmest" year wasn't last year.  Maybe it actually was a year before, or two years before, or ten.  It may even have occurred back in the 1930s.  There is a certain amount of uncertainty in the measurements, and the top spot is always being contended.  But if you look over periods of decades, the warmest decade was the last decade.  The warmest one before that was the one before that.  And worldwide, temperature records are being broken.  Crops are wilting from the heat.  Diseases are moving up from the tropics.  Growing seasons are changing.  Droughts are more common.  Wildfires are more common and more intense.  Sea levels are rising.  All the people who examine and track these things (including farmers) are not lying.

The Earth is getting warmer.  Satellite and ground temperature readings give us our best estimate of how quickly it is happening.  But you don't need a weatherman to know which way the winds blow.  And they are blowing hotter. :(
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 07, 2018, 04:46:32 PM
So conservatives feel climate change is real?

What do feelings have to do with it?  And do you really think "conservatives" are a group with a uniform opinion on climate change (not even Democrats have a uniform opinion on it).

I think, what you really want to talk about are climate change deniers - which is actually a fairly tiny group.

Quote
Or do conservatives dispute that it is the consensus opinion of the scientific community?

In addition to the above, any rational person should question why "consensus" is relevant.  We are talking about science are we not?  I must of missed the day in class where they said that it wasn't proof that was needed to confirm a hypothesis but opinion polling.

Quote
I'm not sure of a fairer way to honestly state the opinion of climate change deniers.

Well, you got a bit better there in the last sentence where you actually focused on the people you seem to want to criticize.  Of course, they're the strawmen of the debate.  And I'm pretty sure you could find a fairer way to state the basis of their beliefs that to ascribe them to a belief in a conspiracy hoax.

Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it, and none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).

So as a non-denialist, I'm kind of left with criticizing the religiousity of climate change "belief" and flat out opposing the incredibly bad for the environment social redistributive policies that the international community puts out.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 07, 2018, 08:21:53 PM
The USA has more climate skepticism than almost anywhere else in the world: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/17/the-u-s-has-more-climate-skeptics-than-anywhere-else-on-earth-blame-the-gop/?utm_term=.2928cf6201b4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/17/the-u-s-has-more-climate-skeptics-than-anywhere-else-on-earth-blame-the-gop/?utm_term=.2928cf6201b4).  I suppose one can play the "not a true climate change denier" game... and one can quibble about what "tiny group" actually means. 

Clearly, not all conservatives are climate change deniers - that's painting with far too broad a brush.  Only 65% of Republicans don't believe that climate change is caused by human activities. https://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-poll-republicans-climate-change-problem-2018-3 (https://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-poll-republicans-climate-change-problem-2018-3)

Last year, virtually no Republicans in Washington accepted climate change as being real (OK, maybe 5%) (OK, publicly, as in, where somebody might hear them) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/18/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-says-virtually-no-republican-believes-/ (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/18/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-says-virtually-no-republican-believes-/)

As for "the consensus" - you've made this logical error any number of times now, and it's been pointed out to you any number of times. The consensus is not a poll of random people with thoughts about climate change; the consensus is rather the end result of the vast majority of experts, whose careers centre around the subject, no longer finding areas of major disagreement with each other on the causes of climate change. Even more importantly, they are so convinced of this lack of another viable hypothesis that they actually spend years building upon the previous research.  That's a different type of evidence.  The consensus is not evidence of climate change - it is rather evidence that the people who study climate are convinced of the AGW/climate change hypotheses.

Rational people generally don't question why a broad, almost universal consensus of experts is relevant.  Especially not after the first couple of times it's been explained to them.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 08, 2018, 09:09:18 AM
I see DonaldD and when the "consensus of experts" agreed the sun circled the Earth should a rational person have asked for proof, or explained why the proof that was available should not be as convincing as made out?  Or should they have shut up because a consensus of experts really is binding?

This is the power of propaganda, you made a convincing sounding argument, but it's not really a sound argument.  We know for a fact that every scientist is wrong from time to time, we know for a fact that new discoveries sometimes turn entire fields on their heads.  We know for a fact that virtually all climate science, including all of its projective power is based on computer modelling, and that the limitations of that model are never accounted for in claims that the consensus has settled it.

There's no logical error in pointing out that a "consensus" adds nothing to a scientific proof.  If a statement is a fact,  it is true without recourse to an opinion.

The US does have more climate skepticism, it also has one of the biggest drops in carbon production in the world.  All the result of our deliberate policy choices.  The US has been leading the anti-pollution effort for decades.  And we've paid a heavy economic price at times.  Meanwhile China, produces more carbon than us, and it's RATE of increase is still going up.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 08, 2018, 10:34:00 AM
The scientific method only began to be used in Europe in the 16th century (Galileo, Bacon), although similar concepts were being used during the Islamic golden age several centuries earlier.  Coincidentally, geocentrism died a slow death over the same period, starting with Copernicus in the 15th century, and being resisted by the Catholic Church, that bastion of medieval scientific thought, until 1758 when even the church capitulated.

Bravo - you've illustrated that the scientific method, in conjunction with more advanced optical equipment, informed the study of heliocentrism in a very similar fashion as it did anthropogenic global warming.

And no, you continue to misunderstand what "the consensus" means.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: rightleft22 on August 08, 2018, 10:45:14 AM
So, because we know for a fact the scientists can be wrong we can ignore their findings especially when they go against our political biases and the possibility of making money.

The Scientific method is an extension of how consciousness works. Something happens, we compare it to past happenings and from that comparison predict the future. For the most part this has been an effective way to survive. The challenge is that over time we create filters that keep us from seeing the present for what it is which is why acceptance is so difficult and the desire to return to the past --- and make it great again.   

Personally, I don’t care much about the debate on if climate change is real or not, impacted by man or not. It makes economic sense to develop more efficient ways to use our recourses, full stop. Sure, that will mean disruption to current drivers of the economy as some business that make a lot of money now might not make as much tomorrow, other business will take their place.  And just as all the other times this has happened people will be afraid of change as they cling to what they know and have.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 08, 2018, 11:06:22 AM
Rightleft if you can find any place where I said to ignore the science or the scientists I'll eat my shirt (figuratively).  I have years on this topic, including on the prior board.  Feel free to knock yourself out.

And DonaldD I'm not mistaking at all what "consensus" means.  You're appealing to an exemption to the argument from authority fallacy (ie where it's an actual expert opinion standing in as fact).  However, we've walked through the specific deficiencies in the stated record, and there's nothing about this statement that is inaccurate in any way:

Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it, and none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).

That's a compilation of a number of points that have been previously discussed, including specifically problems with the instrumental record, problems with modeled projections, inability to run experiments on a climate, and frankly, the idea that a "consensus" has real meaning (4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest after all - does that mean that they had the clinical expertise to evaluate whether Crest was objectively better?  Is expertise in being a dentist really the same as expertise in evaluating tooth paste?  Every list of the "climate consensus" includes a lot of people who have no direct expertise on global climate change). 

On this last point, I note that we increasingly take "lists" or "groups" at face value uncritically in debate (as another, admittedly less popular example, we frequently hear about Trump's "documented lies" when a bunch of the "documented lies" are nothing more than differences of opinion).   If your argument really is that you don't know anything but you believe other smart people who told you the answer, why exactly are you "debating" an issue in the first place?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 08, 2018, 11:30:22 AM
And no, you continue to misunderstand what "the consensus" means.

Methinks it doesn't mean what you think it means. As much stock as you place in that "consensus" have you ever looked into the sourcing for that claim? Or more particularly, the methodology used? Or do you just parrot soundbites that match your world view?

Edit: Actually, I don't "think" on this point. I know. But then. I am going from memory, and whatever source I dig up would likely be ignored, so I will leave it as a self-discovery task.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 08, 2018, 11:40:51 AM
I still don't know what this argument is even about. Are you arguing over long-term strategy...or what? I doubt either of your positions is "never improve our carbon efficiency". So is the argument about rapidity? I know that back in the time of the Kyoto protocol the 'consensus' seemed to be to apply a scorched Earth policy to the economy and just curtail production. I don't think that would have turned out well. As it happens, removing your economic base isn't a good way of finding funding for research.

So what's this argument about, again?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 08, 2018, 12:34:19 PM
Easy answer. And preview of what will be found after drilling down on "the consensus" is that:
Quote
that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it

And that a lot of so-called "skeptics" are called such for calling bad science what it is, and/or also pointing out:

Quote
none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 08, 2018, 01:06:00 PM
Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it
How exactly can you make this claim?  You have neither done original research in this area, nor have you reviewed anything but a small fraction (at best) of the original research.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on August 08, 2018, 01:58:28 PM
Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it
How exactly can you make this claim?  You have neither done original research in this area, nor have you reviewed anything but a small fraction (at best) of the original research.

So you never make any claims about science? I'm guessing that you have never viewed a significant amount of the research on basic physics, astronomy, viewed mathematical proofs - yet I'm assuming you have made claims or wouldn't dispute claims made about those.

How about pharmaceuticals, do you only ever take drugs where you have reviewed all of the scientific literature on the drugs, or do you just read the pharmacy labels and listen to your doctors advice on what drugs to take?

We have a largely trust based society. If everything was held to the standard that skeptics demand of climate change no one could claim to know anything much beyond some basic mathematics that is easily provable by anyone.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on August 08, 2018, 01:59:00 PM
Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it, and none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).

That's a compilation of a number of points that have been previously discussed, including specifically problems with the instrumental record, problems with modeled projections, inability to run experiments on a climate, and frankly, the idea that a "consensus" has real meaning (4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest after all - does that mean that they had the clinical expertise to evaluate whether Crest was objectively better?  Is expertise in being a dentist really the same as expertise in evaluating tooth paste?  Every list of the "climate consensus" includes a lot of people who have no direct expertise on global climate change). 

On this last point, I note that we increasingly take "lists" or "groups" at face value uncritically in debate (as another, admittedly less popular example, we frequently hear about Trump's "documented lies" when a bunch of the "documented lies" are nothing more than differences of opinion).   If your argument really is that you don't know anything but you believe other smart people who told you the answer, why exactly are you "debating" an issue in the first place?

Your position does put you firmly in the "believer" column, although I do question the depth of your belief.  (If I were stuck on a ship that I thought was most likely sinking because of what we were doing, but no one had a good plan on how to stop it, I think I would spend much less energy on defending those who thought the ship wasn't really sinking and far more energy on trying to find a way to keep the freaking thing afloat. :) )

However, I would like to discuss the value of "consensus."  You are correct that a consensus does not prove a scientific idea, and that many lists of "climate consensus" include people who are not experts in the field.  But I think you are dismissing the value of such consensuses.

For one thing, while there are lists of consensuses that include many people with no direct expertise on the subject, I don't know of any list limited to those with expertise that is not also a consensus.  There is a consensus among scientists in general; among climatologists in general; and among climatologists who study and model the climate and the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, AFAIK.  While such lists can give an incorrect impression about what is generally agreed about in a field, I don't think it is the case with climate change.

I would very much like to see the lists that do not have a general consensus on AGW.  I think it would be quite instructive to see who were on those lists, what groups they represent, and how the members of the list were chosen.

The other thing is about proof in science.  Unlike mathematics, you can never really "prove" a scientific theory.  There is always the possibility of it being changed or disproven by new facts.

What you can state is that the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that the theory is sound.  This includes measurements, models, predictions and consensus.

Consensus is part of the evidence because those who know the most about a subject are much better at being "right" about it than the layman.  Just like professional car mechanics are more likely to know how to fix your car than the guy off the street, or professional oncologists are more likely to know how to treat your cancer.  Because they are familiar with the subject and its details; they have questioned and reviewed the evidence in the subject; they have tested the information, looking for flaws; they have made practical predictions and seen how they turned out; and they have searched for answers when the predictions did not turn out correctly and try to correct their models and knowledge.  IOW, they have done everything you expect the skeptics to have done, but on a professional level, where their reputations and livelihood are at stake.

Does this mean they are correct all the time?  Of course not.  But neither are the skeptics.  And between the two, I think you'll find the experts are correct far more often than the skeptics.

Which means that the consensus of experts should be given significant weight when deciding whether a hypothesis is likely to be true or not.  It is not just an "argument from authority."  It is another piece of evidence to be considered along with the basic known science (increase in greenhouse gases should increase trapped heat), what is observed (temperatures are increasing at rate unprecedented in the last few hundred thousand years, along with the other evidence and the observed increased in human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere), and the hypotheses (various models of climate that all indicate that CO2 is responsible).  Everything combined makes AGW as certain as just about anything else we currently "know" about the universe.  The only real questions are the details--how fast is the climate changing, what are the effects of this change, and is there a "tipping point" when the whole chaotic system may change to a new state.

It's not just an argument from authority.  When almost everyone who should know believes something is true, it means you should carefully check what makes you believe otherwise.  Because the best bet is that you are the one who is wrong. ;)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 08, 2018, 02:40:24 PM
Yossarian, to whom are you responding?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 08, 2018, 03:21:32 PM
I still don't know what this argument is even about. Are you arguing over long-term strategy...or what? I doubt either of your positions is "never improve our carbon efficiency". So is the argument about rapidity? I know that back in the time of the Kyoto protocol the 'consensus' seemed to be to apply a scorched Earth policy to the economy and just curtail production. I don't think that would have turned out well. As it happens, removing your economic base isn't a good way of finding funding for research.

So what's this argument about, again?

We're arguing over nits, but he also is firmly in the "We NEED to take action NOW!" camp which still firmly believes that gutting the Economy in order to lower CO2 emissions wouldn't be a bad thing.

While at least some of us are going "Yes, warming appears to be happening. Yes, some of the science behind it seems solid enough. Yes, some of the purported science makes for nice infographics, but poor science." (Claiming temperature instrumentation data down to 0.xxx degree precision where no such instrumentation record exists is a no-no, and bad science)

"Yes, CO2 is probably contributing.  But probably not to extent being claimed in most models. Also, are you ignoring the whole matter of most computer models run to date not only being wrong, but wildly so?" Ok, you can point to a handful of models that "Came close" but that is a handful out of how many hundreds of models run? How did they fare on the over/under by the way? Oh right, they almost universally failed on the "over" side of things.

So we're supposed to slow down economic activity and growth by significant percentage year over year, based on computer models that have a historical record of being overly aggressive in their predictions?

And then there is the whole matter of what the correct response to that information should be.

Such as the various treaties and protocols to supposedly help save the planet. Which clearly show that even if everyone agreed to cuts, and you simply made the United States disappear entirely, the Earth is still going to warm further according to these same computer Models which are evidently our new and highly unreliable arbiter of "reasonable actions" for some reason

...sounds to me more like we need to be working more on preparing for the worst case scenarios while trying to "decarbonize" our economies, but not by going to such extra-ordinary means that we end up destroying our ability to respond to the changes that are coming without respect to any other choices that are made.

...Of course, this also doesn't get into the matter of while there is a "scientific consensus" on man's likely contribution on the current climate change, it isn't all centered exclusively around AGW.  Land use change(in particular urban heat islands) among a number of other factors are come into play as contributing factors as well.

Which brings us back to melting ice in the Arctic. Remember, there has been an "Asian brown cloud" problem for a couple decades now, not much unlike one North America and Europe experienced at points in the 20th Century and earlier. Thing is, a LOT of that particulate matter IS finding its way up into the arctic, and undoubtedly helping speed along that snow/ice melt process.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 08, 2018, 03:53:20 PM
Good. Assuming others agree this this is the issue under dispute - even if they don't agree with TheDeamon's conclusions - then it seems to me the issue should be what potential plans are on the table. I could see a scenario where a solid plan was on the table but had short-term costs, whereas a more long-term plan was proposed by others who didn't want to see such a short-term hit. As long as both plans were feasible then it would be a matter of risk assessment of the odds of things getting terrible before the long-term plan came to fruition.

But I've scarcely ever seen a debate of that type. Why not?

I've been skeptical of the AGW crowd for a long time. I'm not a climate denier - more like agnostic - but I have always sensed something weird and suspicious about how the climate claims have come about. Back in the 90's there were 'sky is falling' type claims being made, and before that in the 70's (I think, it's been a while since I've read that old material and I totally forget the dates). So I'm not impressed by "we need to do something now!!" rhetoric. But lest I get pidgeonholed into the "do nothing" category in the 'us vs them' standard, I will assert that I bet I'm more of a radical conservationist than most AGW pushers. I would *love* to see standards increase in terms of pollution, treatment of habitat, living conditions for people (air and water quality), and protection of the ecosystems that we have. I would be the first to jump on board a solid eco-train that had real cargo.

I've read theories about ways to manipulate carbon through greenery, maybe some way in future using oceans, and perhaps artificial methods for the atmosphere. I've read about trying to switch to green energy. That's all great. Any plan for that would get two thumbs up from me. And so my question is - would someone like Seriati object to these either? I bet he wouldn't. So what is this argument about, again?

I hope it's not solely about, as TheDeamon suggests, whether we should sabotage the economy for a faint hope of maybe affecting the climate a little bit, but still not enough to stop it. Is that the only plan on the table that is seriously being debated? What else could the debate be about? Even if there wasn't AGW I would still want to adopt the above measures, and ASAP.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 08, 2018, 04:06:55 PM
I've been skeptical of the "ruin our economy" side of things. Would it ruin our economy to accelerate adoption of emissionless vehicle infrastructure, solar deployment, shutting down fossil plants, increase subsidies for electric vehicles, etc?

It seems to me, making the kind of wholesale changes recommended to reduce carbon emission would greatly stimulate the economy.

Of course, it isn't helpful when you slap tariffs on solar panel imports and raise the costs of installation.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 08, 2018, 04:27:04 PM
My point was rather about scientific illiteracy masquerading as reasoned positions.

Hint: the misunderstanding that an average calculated down to significant digits not available to each individual measuring device is a problem; or the misunderstanding about what "the consensus" actually means, in the face of having the value/meaning explained once more on this thread; or the mistaken belief that the satellite temperature products don't show significantly similar warming trends as the surface temperature products; or the mistaken belief that the temperature products that exclude the polar regions show significantly different warming than those products that include the polar regions using smaller sample-set density and extrapolation.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 08, 2018, 05:01:10 PM
or the mistaken belief that the temperature products that exclude the polar regions show significantly different warming than those products that include the polar regions using smaller sample-set density and extrapolation.

You can get almost a full tenth of a degree(F) of warming out of that one simple change in certain years(such as this last year), IIRC. When a LOT of this argument is over very tiny fractions of a degree year over year, THAT is significant.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: rightleft22 on August 08, 2018, 05:23:41 PM
Quote
Rightleft if you can find any place where I said to ignore the science or the scientists I'll eat my shirt

We know for a fact that every scientist is wrong from time to time, we know for a fact that new discoveries sometimes turn entire fields on their heads.  We know for a fact that virtually all climate science, including all of its protective power is based on computer modelling, and that the limitations of that model are never accounted for in claims that the consensus has settled it.

I would never imply that you personally ignore science or aren’t rational in your arguments only that the statements you made about science and method are and have been used as an excuse to discount the findings of the scientific method and the embrace ones bias.

I’m not even sure what your stance on climate change is other then a healthy skepticism of the scientific method as it concerns the study of climate.

Regardless of climate change being a fact or fiction my bet is that in 20 to 50 years clean technology will be the driving force behind the economy.  Those that are stuck in the past will cry and push back, especially those who’s fortunes rely on keeping things the same, but it will happen.  That or we go Mad Max   
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on August 08, 2018, 05:52:09 PM
Quote
Assuming others agree this this is the issue under dispute - even if they don't agree with TheDeamon's conclusions - then it seems to me the issue should be what potential plans are on the table. I could see a scenario where a solid plan was on the table but had short-term costs, whereas a more long-term plan was proposed by others who didn't want to see such a short-term hit. As long as both plans were feasible then it would be a matter of risk assessment of the odds of things getting terrible before the long-term plan came to fruition.

But I've scarcely ever seen a debate of that type. Why not?

Probably because we can't get past the "whether there is a real problem" debate. :(

There are a lot of potential plans on the table.  It's what has been discussed by international conferences since the first one.  It's just finding the one(s) that will address the problems without exasperating other problems that is the trick.

The Paris Accords were pretty good, in that they let each country set their own voluntary goals, instead of having them imposed from outside.  They didn't go far enough, but they were a good start and a foundation to work from.  But that was too far for Trump.  :'(

Then there is David Brin's TWOTDA--Things We Ought To Do Anyway.  Like increasing mileage requirements, and reducing polluting power plants.  Which, again, was too far for Trump. :`(

So it's hard to discuss further measures when we can't even agree on the easy, obvious ones.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 08, 2018, 05:58:51 PM
So it's hard to discuss further measures when we can't even agree on the easy, obvious ones.

Why should it be taken for granted that those are easy, obvious ones? In fact, why should it even be assumed that any viable plan will be easy or obvious?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 08, 2018, 06:09:30 PM
Quote
You can get almost a full tenth of a degree(F) of warming out of that one simple change in certain years(such as this last year), IIRC. When a LOT of this argument is over very tiny fractions of a degree year over year, THAT is significant.
And why do you think that is a problem?  We know that the Arctic is warming more quickly than the rest of the planet.  We know this from a multitude of data points, not limited to temperature measurements.

Excluding the Arctic from the data set is a decision, but one that is not inherently better or worse than including the Arctic.  HadCRUT excludes the Arctic, and shows a rate of warming (since 1980) of about 0.18C per decade, GISTEMP includes the Arctic, and shows warming of about 0.22C per decade.  And that difference is predictable, given what we know about what is happening in the Arctic.

What is clear in both cases is that there is a significant warming trend. We also know that HadCRUT is by its nature being conservative, so the global value is likely to be higher.  What this difference does not show is that there is any significant disagreement between the two data products. 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 08, 2018, 06:13:19 PM
In general, I think the "lots of little things" approach is not only annoying but hard to prove effective. I remember a roommate once taking me to task over letting the TV auto off rather than turning it off manually. Then there's people who are unplugging electronics in standby mode. This religion just gets old, it doesn't even have good songs or pot luck dinners.

I once calculated the total amount of power that comes from residential lighting in the US. Guess what, it means f-all to the total numbers.

Mileage increases are like that. So we're going to increase mileage by N. Despite the fact that we know manufacturers have been faking the numbers, the fact that the test conditions don't reflect real-world driving scenarios in the first place, the fact that even nominally this only decreases fuel use by slight percentages - we're on the diminishing returns part of that curve. Then there's the idea of stripping the "standard" car down and then having the buyer add back the weight to make it functional.

When all that effort would be much better spent making qualitative differences, in my opinion, concentrated into areas with predicted benefits - rather than handwaving of "this oughtta do some good". A real plan has to be serious, not nibble around the corners.

When a solution is proposed, each item should be related to the total size of the problem, predictions according to various outcomes (what is the highest predicted solar install rate for a given subsidy, and what is the lowest). Add to that all the side benefits that you get.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 08, 2018, 09:06:19 PM
Regardless of climate change being a fact or fiction my bet is that in 20 to 50 years clean technology will be the driving force behind the economy.  Those that are stuck in the past will cry and push back, especially those who’s fortunes rely on keeping things the same, but it will happen.  That or we go Mad Max

My bet is that in 50 years Fusion Power is going to be baseline power generation for much of the world, wind/solar are going to supplemental/backup power sources, if anything.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 08, 2018, 09:19:46 PM
In general, I think the "lots of little things" approach is not only annoying but hard to prove effective. I remember a roommate once taking me to task over letting the TV auto off rather than turning it off manually. Then there's people who are unplugging electronics in standby mode. This religion just gets old, it doesn't even have good songs or pot luck dinners.

I once calculated the total amount of power that comes from residential lighting in the US. Guess what, it means f-all to the total numbers.

This is the stuff that some of the harder-core Environmentalists are starting to wake up to, and its also, surprise surprise, helping their credibility in other circles. Such as the growing list of Environmentalists that are pushing for Nuclear Power now, rather than fighting against like they have been for decades.

Wind and Solar is great and all, but it is horrid for "baseline" grid-level power, and requires a lot of other supporting tech(Battery) which comes with its own set of environmental hazards on top of Solar's unadvertised "dirty" side(Those solar installs don't last forever).

Pushing for energy conservation is great and all, but it likewise doesn't hold a candle to increasing demands for power from an increasing population to boot. "Lots of little things" isn't enough, for real change, we need grid-scale "big things" to close the gap, the only game in town for that at present is Nuclear and Hydro. Hydro has obvious constraints on it, and Nuclear has its own issues.

Which cycles back to ongoing annoyance about lack of support for Fusion Power research. And the hard anti-nuke push in general. THAT helped fuel a very significant amount of skepticism from a number of quarters.
"IF you're so concerned about CO2, why don't you just do _____."
"NEVER!"
"Ok, you must not be serious, and this is probably an agenda driven scam of some kind."
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on August 09, 2018, 07:33:28 AM
My bet is that in 50 years Fusion Power is going to be baseline power generation for much of the world, wind/solar are going to supplemental/backup power sources, if anything.

People were making the same bet 50 years ago. I had a physics professor (a guy in his 70s) who when asked about fusion said that fusion power had been 20 years out his entire career and he expected it to perpetually stay there. That was almost 20 years ago - so far he's still right.

That said I would support investing billions in research in fusion power, it is the one technology that could actually produce a clean grid base load without figuring out massive energy storage systems.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2018, 09:14:25 AM
I still don't know what this argument is even about. Are you arguing over long-term strategy...or what?

We are arguing, I think, about whether the evidence is strong enough to overwhelm any contrary argument.  If, we are at an end of days moment - like a meteor strike, then what does the economy matter?  We should make every effort to stop carbon production.  Of course, our friends on the left don't actually believe that or they'd be advocating for a complete ban on economies such as China and India that are still increasing their rate of carbon production. 

Instead, we get another version of "American guilt" where our economy is asked to bear incredibly expensive and punitive carbon burdens that will slow the rate of increase not reduce it so that our dirtier competitors can produce more and we can feel better about "doing our part" AND social justice.

If we are truly at end of days, absolute carbon cuts should be the goal and that means increasing production at clean plants and forcing third world countries to shut down their factories, "social justice" be damned.  It's interesting that the US economy isn't "important enough" to consider, but third world ones are in their world view.

On the other hand if we're not at end of days, or if our solution is technical and not restrictive, everything that is being proposed as a solution is just doing more harm than good.  The only real benefit is that people get to assuage their cognitive dissonance by claiming they are "doing something," even if it's counterproductive.

I mean honestly, we instituted a massive infrastructure around "recycling" and from most estimates a very large percentage of that ends up in garbage dumps rather than recycled.  Multiply your personal time, by every person in the country, add in entire separate fleets of trucks, plants and even  international shipments, and weigh that cost against the benefits of what got recycled.  Did we come out ahead?  Wouldn't we have had a much better result by trying to convert people to re-usable rather than re-cyclable?

Quote
I doubt either of your positions is "never improve our carbon efficiency". So is the argument about rapidity?

My point is about the stuff above.  Environmental policies that apply more strictly to the cleanest plants in the world are counterproductive to the environment. 

Quote
I know that back in the time of the Kyoto protocol the 'consensus' seemed to be to apply a scorched Earth policy to the economy and just curtail production. I don't think that would have turned out well. As it happens, removing your economic base isn't a good way of finding funding for research.

Except that wasn't what Kyoto was about.  Kyoto was about a radical wealth transfer.  It put scorched earth measures on the cleanest first world plants, and had absolutely no restrictions on developing countries pollution.  It literally was an economic measure designed to destroy the planet.  The only nod it gave to "fixing" that problem was an attempt to force first world countries to transfer high end clean tech to the third world, but again the focus wasn't on expensive clean up measures but on the tech transfer itself.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2018, 09:16:33 AM
Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it
How exactly can you make this claim?  You have neither done original research in this area, nor have you reviewed anything but a small fraction (at best) of the original research.

How can I make the claim?  By reading some of the research, by investigating how it's conducting and not just relying on how the news chooses to report on it. 

Not sure how you think you can make a claim without doing that. 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 09, 2018, 10:16:36 AM
People were making the same bet 50 years ago. I had a physics professor (a guy in his 70s) who when asked about fusion said that fusion power had been 20 years out his entire career and he expected it to perpetually stay there. That was almost 20 years ago - so far he's still right.

That said I would support investing billions in research in fusion power, it is the one technology that could actually produce a clean grid base load without figuring out massive energy storage systems.

Uh, have you "checked in" on the status of Fusion Power research in the past 4 years or so?

If we don't have a controlled Fusion Power reaction release more energy than was used to create it within the next 5 years, I'm going to be shocked. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in the next 1 to 2 years. They're VERY close to achieving it now, and the progress has been happening rapidly.

Once THAT benchmark is cleared, all bets are off on the time-frame for anything happening with it. I highly doubt it will take 20 years from there.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 09, 2018, 10:36:16 AM
Quote
By reading some of the research, by investigating how it's conducting and not just relying on how the news chooses to report on it.
So you admit, then, that you have only read a vanishingly small number of the tens of thousands of studies in this area. There could by literally 100 times as many studies that disagree with your position, but since you have not yourself read them, you wouldn't know.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2018, 12:24:16 PM
Wow DonaldD you caught me.  I'm not a climate change researcher.  Imagine that.  Meanwhile, you have expressed far greater certainty than I, based on apparently less research.

In any event, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that one would have to read every study that relates to the environment to have an opinion on the main sources of environmental research.  I can't see any reason to subscribe to that philosophy.   Or do you think there's a computer model out there that is no subject to the limitations on all computer models?  (i.e., that they can only "project" history restated, and that their conclusions are mandated by their assumptions?).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 09, 2018, 02:25:41 PM
Not my point - my point is that even people who's careers are in this area cannot read and analyze any significant amount of the primary literature, except in a fairly limited scope.

They are dependent on other people to replicate, analyze and synthesize this knowledge.  They can trust this process because mistakes will show up either during attempts to replicate or while basing future research on the earlier research, and those mistakes are publicized to the detriment of the earlier researchers.  In the case of modern climate science, this process has been going on for over 50 years.

Without basing one's understanding of a topic as broad as climate change on this process, one is completely hamstrung in one's ability to come to terms with more than a tiny portion of the science.  And basing one's understanding of such a complex topic exclusively on a tiny portion of the science risks basing one's knowledge on a non-representative data set; even assuming one is not suffering under the misapprehension of false expertise; even assuming one's choice of research to survey is not weighted by subconscious bias.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 09, 2018, 02:50:05 PM
They are dependent on other people to replicate, analyze and synthesize this knowledge.  They can trust this process because mistakes will show up either during attempts to replicate or while basing future research on the earlier research, and those mistakes are publicized to the detriment of the earlier researchers.  In the case of modern climate science, this process has been going on for over 50 years.

You're absolutely right that a lot of trust is needed to do science work. Kuhn's book describes precisely how once a paradigm is accepted people must take it for granted in their daily work in order to get anything done. Over time anomalies are found that the theory cannot explain and eventually it's overturned. However there are two difficulties when inspecting climate science. One is that 'daily work' isn't quite a thing in climate science like it is in the other sciences, involving lab work, experiments, functional activity that needs theory as a basis; in other words, it seems like most of the work involved is in collecting data and trying to come up with a paradigm in the first place. And this leads directly to the second problem, which is that as of now there isn't really an accepted paradigm of how 'climate works' that can be more or less taken for granted as a general theory. There simply isn't a general theory to speak of, at least that I've heard of. So this makes it especially difficult to speak of consensus as being authoritative.

In the other sciences, a 'consensus' isn't really a matter of how likely it is that they're right, but rather it refers to an operating model upon which they'll do work. As long as it basically works well the paradigm is effective, even if incomplete or problematic in certain cases that need to be solved by an updated or new paradigm. For instance Newtonian physics was quite adequate for certain macro physics problems even though it's of less value right now for calculating small events. As such, a consensus of climate scientists to me should mean a large group of workers who operate on a common theory and get results in whatever capacity they're working. It wouldn't be a question of rightness or wrongness, but rather a question of true effectiveness - they get results. However in the case of climate science right now this isn't the sort of situation we're in, where the science is too new and undeveloped to be able to speak of any general theory. To an extent this is because of the complexity of what's involved; in a similar way this is why there's no 'science' of economics right now. Both subjects involve fluid dynamics in complex interactions with changing systems. To be fair economics is probably even worse, but at least it's restricted mostly to human interaction, whereas climate science should take into account *all* factors, including human action. So to me it's suspicious to speak of a consensus in a field with no general theory; all that means right now is they seem to agree on data. Seriati and TheDeamon seem to even be disputing that they truly agree on data, but even if we put that objection aside we're still left with the reality that there's no 'art' of climate science right now, only preliminary hypothesis. I think a lot of the resistance comes with the certainty of claims that are made. I've read claims just as certain in economic circles going back a hundred years, and every time the 'expert' were sure of something they were completely full of it. It's actually scandalous how little they really knew compared to what they claimed they knew. I'm not saying it's exactly comparable in climate science, but even briefly looking at a history of expert opinion should make you cringe at the thought of experts in a field with no general theory making long-term claims.

That being said, I would *still* advocate to devote significant funds towards protecting the environment, even if no disaster is coming. It's a safeguard against the possibility of a disaster, but also something that should be done anyhow on principle. But ah! There's the rub. Things are rarely done now without economic incentive, and that's a major weakness of capitalism. Central governmental power has its uses, one of which is long-term planning and committing to significant projects. If I were king I would most certainly push hard for R&D into all sorts of things to move us away from fossil fuels. We don't need the sky to be falling to do this, but as expected when people are free to refuse to do difficult things they're usually only get around to it when there's a fire under their a**. That alone is a major issue to remedy.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on August 09, 2018, 02:57:17 PM
Uh, have you "checked in" on the status of Fusion Power research in the past 4 years or so?

If we don't have a controlled Fusion Power reaction release more energy than was used to create it within the next 5 years, I'm going to be shocked. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in the next 1 to 2 years. They're VERY close to achieving it now, and the progress has been happening rapidly.

Once THAT benchmark is cleared, all bets are off on the time-frame for anything happening with it. I highly doubt it will take 20 years from there.

So Xeno's fusion reactor is down to five or ten years out. That's progress but still not quite time to start taking timelines at face value.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 09, 2018, 03:15:12 PM
Quote
isn't quite a thing in climate science like it is in the other sciences, involving lab work, experiments, functional activity that needs theory as a basis
This is not quite accurate, unless you limit yourself to some very specific areas of research.

For instance, well before we had satellites capable of measuring outgoing radiation for the atmosphere, there were predictions about the changes we would expect to see in the case of increased GHGs in the atmosphere, predictions that were borne out in practice once satellites began measuring this radiation.

That's quite aside from small scale experiments that also have been done to confirm GHG behaviour to different radiation wavelengths in a lab environment.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 09, 2018, 03:30:04 PM
Power - several big problems that can be solved with existing technology.

1. distributed collection, generation, and usage

If power is generated at the location it will be used, you don't have transmission losses. It is also much more robust. It could be as simple as removing the ability of HOA to block wind turbines. Or removing environmental impact studies. Clean energy distribution should be an automatic trump card. Wind farms shouldn't be blocked because some dumb-ass birds are going to fly into the blades. Not if we really are in crisis mode.

2. eliminate the need to drive

Most workers in the information economy could work full time from home. If so, you don't have to take the energy hit for commuting, plus HVAC lighting and everything else to run an office park. Increased automation for physical work also helps. 2-3 % improvement in fake MPG numbers? How about 20-30% less driving instead?

3. durable goods

The energy expended replacing cheap garbage constantly is probably large. Pressboard disposable furniture should be a big target. The Dollar store should have an even bigger stigma against it, because that frying pan is going to get replaced on an annual basis instead of being generational.

4. Property use

Get rid of the energy expended on a lawn that is often mandated by HOA, or local ordinance. Allow gardens in their place, reducing food transport costs. Eliminate restrictions on small livestock in residential areas.


These aren't necessarily government policy, but rather a much bigger advocacy advantage than telling someone to be careful about their lights and set their thermostat 2 degrees higher or lower.

All the other things can be done as well, and I wouldn't oppose a JFK, national pride approach to energy reduction. Do a really cool, ultra public Apollo/Manhattan type program. Publicly fund it, and keep the IP rights open so every other country can follow suit. In fact, they can join in, but we should be prepared to foot the bill.

That's assuming we want to treat it as a serious crisis, like the potential of losing the high ground of space, or defending against the threat of Communist expansion. Otherwise we are just paying lip service to the whole thing, like Kyoto and Paris, not solving the problem but modestly mitigating it.

I can only imagine the moon howling that goes on if somebody tried to launch an environmental crisis program though. Waaah, other countries aren't paying as much. Waaah, my tax dollars. Waaah, coal miners. Waah, the science isn't real because I read a blog that cherry picked some results and showed them incorrect.

My other items don't have to grab the electrified rail of climate science. They all have immediate economic and health benefits, and many can be accomplished without giant bales of currency.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 09, 2018, 05:32:37 PM
Quote
isn't quite a thing in climate science like it is in the other sciences, involving lab work, experiments, functional activity that needs theory as a basis
This is not quite accurate, unless you limit yourself to some very specific areas of research.

For instance, well before we had satellites capable of measuring outgoing radiation for the atmosphere, there were predictions about the changes we would expect to see in the case of increased GHGs in the atmosphere, predictions that were borne out in practice once satellites began measuring this radiation.

That's quite aside from small scale experiments that also have been done to confirm GHG behaviour to different radiation wavelengths in a lab environment.

What I mean to say is that there's no other branch of science where agreement is required of anyone, no less the general public. In any field you take a theory and you can work with it or not. The results of your work will dictate whether you're barking up the wrong tree or not. It's never before (and I mean, ever) been about anyone coming to a common conclusion and agreeing about it on a theoretical level. Someone posits a theory, and others can test against it or use it as they wish. If it's good many will adopt it unless it becomes standard, being superior to the alternatives. Climate science just isn't there yet. And the worst part is, in a new science that's just finding its first teeth, somehow the public is meant to both understand it and also say something about it in a meaningful way? This would never occur in another field, and the only reason it does here is because the scientists (or popular writers) are calling for government action, rather than for private work to be allowed. Because of course private work is allowed. Now I could see a case for arguing that climate scientists should get the kind of funding particle physics researchers do. That's a point, and if funding is unequal for a field meant to help protect the environment then I, too, would be upset about it. I don't actually know what funding levels are like but if someone told me that climate science is treated like dirt I'd take issue with that. But this business of everyone being told to jump and we're supposed to say how high, on account of very new science - do you realize how unprecedented this is in history? Even if the findings were 100% valid that would still be a weird social phenomenon. Through most of the 20th century discoveries came in one of two packages: either an idea you could ruminate over as you wished for personal enjoyment, or else as a tangible product, often inventions or processes. So in both cases a discovery would always be a positive addition to someone's life (putting aside bad inventions that turn out to be useless and you wasted money on).

So now a new discovery, it is claimed, requires huge sacrifice and will come with a cost for the knowledge, rather than a gain. I can't think of a case prior to this where people's material lives were meant to be harmed in order to partake of a discovery, and they should not only accept it but call for it? And as I say this I don't even speak of whether they should, in fact, comply, but rather the fact that this crazy new phenomenon has never happened before and has been delivered with the graciousness of an ultimatum. Do this! Or else! How better it all could have been handled is a matter for another conversation, but no credit seems ever to be given to resistance simply because many people are rightly cautious before jumping into a new thing that will have major costs. So I'm not really down with the "you'd better get with the program" approach to popularizing scientific ideas. It makes it feel too much like a cult. If science is solid then it will simply become the basis for scientific work. No one ever had to convince the public that relativity is a good theory. Let people use it in their calculations and if it stands the test of time then it's probably pretty good. But the claim here is that there's no time to permit for normal scientific rigor or scrutiny. It is, in fact, possible for there to exist a situation where time is of the essence. But where's the recognition of how abnormal and even dangerous it is to ask of people to accept a theory given by a new science, to submit to it, and not to argue any more? Even if this demand does have to be made (if doomsday is coming), how about a little awareness of how bizarre the argument is, even if correct?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2018, 05:42:14 PM
That's an interesting take on it Fen, I'd add that the fact that the "do it or else" message has been deliberately tainted with programs and requirements that actively undermine the goal (helping the environment) while achieving completely different goals (economic redistribution), makes directly obvious that whether or not there is merit to the underlying science there is no merit to the implementation. 

It's inevitable that some of the taint of false purposes, will backfill into the the rationale for the change in the first place.  In other words, if the experts identify a problem, and the "must act" solution will make it worse rather than better, it taints the claim there is a problem.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DJQuag on August 09, 2018, 05:45:01 PM
https://youtu.be/NFPtjXFfczM
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 09, 2018, 05:58:54 PM
And yet it was super easy to convince everyone that saccharine was deadly and pull it from the market.

And basically nothing got people on the gluten free bandwagon.

There just wasn't as much money at stake in those cases. Climate change was immediately fought back against with petrodollars.

Added to that is a whole lot of grumbling that the world ain't what it used to be - like grousing about low-flow toilets, the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs, or not having your favorite hairspray.

Trump pontificated on that last one:

Quote
"You know, you're not allowed to hair spray anymore because it affects the ozone," Trump said. "Hair spray's not like it used to be. It used to be real good," he added.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on August 09, 2018, 06:48:30 PM
Fenring, I think you have a skewed understand of what climate science is.

Climate science is built upon established science.  The established theories of fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, solar insolation and such.  There is no overarching theory because there doesn't need to be.  There is just the combination of how we know these systems interact.  That is the accepted paradigm of how climate works.

The only problems is that climate is a chaotic system, and so impossible to know precisely the weather from year-to-year, and that there are so many factors included in the systems that it is difficult to identify them all.

But it's not like Scientist X has one paradigm he's working from, and Scientist Y is working from a completely different one.  They have the same one.  It is just refining the interaction of these components that is so difficult.

And the basic idea is not controversial at all.  Greenhouse gases are what keeps this planet warmer than the moon.  Increasing the concentration of those gases will increase the amount of heat our planet retains, i.e. it gets warmer.  There is no doubt about it.  That is why President Johnson mentioned global warming over 50 years ago in a speech to Congress.  Only the details--exactly how much it is warming the planet and when it will get warmer--is still being studied and refined.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on August 09, 2018, 07:11:57 PM
Not my point - my point is that even people who's careers are in this area cannot read and analyze any significant amount of the primary literature, except in a fairly limited scope.

They are dependent on other people to replicate, analyze and synthesize this knowledge.  They can trust this process because mistakes will show up either during attempts to replicate or while basing future research on the earlier research, and those mistakes are publicized to the detriment of the earlier researchers.  In the case of modern climate science, this process has been going on for over 50 years.

Without basing one's understanding of a topic as broad as climate change on this process, one is completely hamstrung in one's ability to come to terms with more than a tiny portion of the science.  And basing one's understanding of such a complex topic exclusively on a tiny portion of the science risks basing one's knowledge on a non-representative data set; even assuming one is not suffering under the misapprehension of false expertise; even assuming one's choice of research to survey is not weighted by subconscious bias.

That’s the longest winded appeal to authority I’ve seen in a long time.  ;D

You know what the average person can very easily do? We can look at the theory’s predictions and see if they come true. For a guy that loves getting people to make predictions, I’d think you would embrace this.

Hansen and fellow scientist Michael Oppenheimer predicted temperatures would rise 3-9 degrees as early as 2025. We’re still a few years out but how’s that looking?  Global temperature has risen only slightly more than 0.5° F in that time.

The scare was that 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. Anybody know where they went? Adter thst epic failure, it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020. 18 months to go, when’s this gonna start?

Tuvalu sunk yet? With only 3-4 inches increase in sea levels - which is well within natural variability of the last decades - it seems they’re safe. Speaking of safe, did we get Katrina scale storms as our new norm, as predicted. Or, did we insread see just the opposite with the longest stretch of time in history without a major storm?

There are so, so, many more, I hope you get the idea.

So no, we don’t have to devote our lives to science in order to understand the complex and arcane secrets of climate. That logical fallacy you’re promoting is a fallacy for a reason.

We can look at the results predicted and easily see that the theory failed. Hansen, Gore, all the acolytes of the global warming religion have been proven wrong by the simple fact that their predictions failed. Miserably so. 



Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 09, 2018, 07:19:22 PM
Quote
Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.

Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.

The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.

So in other words, things get predicted as bad, then people do something about it, and it comes up shorter than the predictions.

Quote
Hansen’s predictions have thus become a target of climate denier misinformation. It began way back in 1998, when the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels – who has admitted that something like 40% of his salary comes from the fossil fuel industry – arguably committed perjury in testimony to Congress. Invited by Republicans to testify as the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement was in the works, Michaels was asked to evaluate how Hansen’s predictions were faring 10 years later.

In his presentation, Michaels deleted Hansen’s Scenarios B and C – the ones closest to reality – and only showed Scenario A to make it seem as though Hansen had drastically over-predicted global warming. Deleting inconvenient data in order to fool his audience became a habit for Patrick Michaels, who quickly earned a reputation of dishonesty in the climate science world, but has nevertheless remained a favorite of oil industry and conservative media.

But go ahead keep regurgitating easily refuted AGW talking points. I'm not going to waste time taking them all on.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 09, 2018, 07:42:52 PM
Quote
So now a new discovery, it is claimed, requires huge sacrifice and will come with a cost for the knowledge, rather than a gain.
No, the discovery  requires no sacrifice of anybody. It simply is.  That this 'discovery' is interpreted by many to require them to take actions that they disagree with is not a reason to argue against the discovery; it may be a reason for them to argue against making the sacrifice, but that's another kettle of fish.

As to it being a "new" discovery?  it's been more than 30 years now.  How many generations will it take for the "discovery" to no longer be considered as "new"?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2018, 08:46:49 PM
Your position does put you firmly in the "believer" column, although I do question the depth of your belief.

Belief in what?  And again, what does "belief" have to do with it?  Do you describe yourself as a "believer" in gravity?  I mean sure you believe its there, but belief is hardly the question when it comes to the how and the why.

Quote
(If I were stuck on a ship that I thought was most likely sinking because of what we were doing, but no one had a good plan on how to stop it, I think I would spend much less energy on defending those who thought the ship wasn't really sinking and far more energy on trying to find a way to keep the freaking thing afloat. :) )

I really like this analogy, it plays in so many ways.

Are you going to "believe" your ship is sinking because a hysterical person is screaming they saw water below decks?  Does it change your mind if you understand that some water is normal on the type of ship you're on, and that there are pumps that address it?  The ship could be sinking, or the person crying about it could have a strong "belief" that isn't based on all the facts.

So let's decide the ship really is sinking.  A group of concern passengers have decided that because wood floats and we don't want to waste it, we should tear it out of the Hull below the water line, and nail to the deck.  Do you help them, because we have to do "something" because the ship is sinking?  Or do you consider that what they are doing is actually making the process worse?

Let's say, the person that says the boat is sinking, locked the door, has a gun and wants you to pay to get on the life raft.  Do you think they are being honest about what's going on?  What if they just locked the door and you know they have a big insurance policy on the boat, do you think it's worth checking whether there is a way to stop the leak or do you just jump on the boat because "mitigation" can't be the answer?

Let's say the boat really is sinking, but it's the middle of a storm, are you getting in the life rafts with your family and friends where at least 50% will die, or are you staying with the ship and trying to fix it, say 75% chance everyone who stays lives, but otherwise they all die?  We don't really know, what the "odds" are of better solutions, but we do know there are dramatic costs to whats been offered up as solutions. 

Quote
The other thing is about proof in science.  Unlike mathematics, you can never really "prove" a scientific theory.  There is always the possibility of it being changed or disproven by new facts.

This is true, and it literally undercuts the entire point you made about consensus.  A consensus opinion is not a fact, or a better version of a statement.  Does a consensus opinion that fireworks are pretty, describe an objective truth?

Quote
What you can state is that the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that the theory is sound.  This includes measurements, models, predictions and consensus.

Are you talking about climate science or science generally?  I'm not aware that there is a "theory" of climate science.  I'm certainly not aware that there is any global experiment ever run on the climate or any results that bear out your claim here.

Measurements.  It's literally fact that there is no accurate measurement of temperature for the Earth.  The vast majority of the planet has no regular direct measurements.  Even where they do have them, the historical record and instrument quality over time degrades to the point of garbage if you go back even 4 decades.  You're literally down to a comparative handful of halfway credible sources if you go back 100 years.

Models.  Models aren't science.  Models are used when experiments can't be run to pretend that they can be run.  Computers literally can not return a result that isn't assumed.  Hear this clearly.  All a computer can do is tell you what you told it to say.  There is no computer driven model that doesn't specifically conclude exactly what its programmers told it had to say.  That literally means if you program in carbon forcing - which you'd have to do based on our understanding - models can not generate any result other than warming.  Pretending that a computer made your original conclusion into something new and "more valid" is nonsense.  It's not science it's just manipulation of people not understanding the difference.

Predictions.  Literally the only prediction is this.  In a closed system carbon makes the system get hotter, ergo in our environment it will do so too.  That's it.  A kid could run the actual experiment with a fish tank.  Every thing else is like a priest's regalia, it's all there to make you think there's more credibility, but it has no meaning and truthfully adds nothing.  Don't get me wrong, the kid's fish tank actually has merit, but the climate is far more complex than a closed system.

Consensus.  Again its garbage.  It's kind of like how teacher's in a union have a "consensus" that their strike helps the children.  No.  They have rationalizations that they've accepted because they are core to their belief system.  Climate scientists have all bought into the effacacy of modelling, and they've rationalized it to their core.  To do otherwise, is to admit their careers are not real science.

Quote
Consensus is part of the evidence because those who know the most about a subject are much better at being "right" about it than the layman.

There is some truth to that.  Of course, we don't let experts set their own rules without being monitored, because even though they are experts, they have a gross conflict of interest.  Much like it's hard to get cops to testify against a dirty cop, or doctors to call out a colleague for malpractice.  If you don't see where there are conflicts here, then you're missing a real and important factor in evaluating credibility. 

Quote
Just like professional car mechanics are more likely to know how to fix your car than the guy off the street,

Interesting thing about mechanics is how often they repair things that are not broken.  Ever watched a hidden camera show?
Quote
Because they are familiar with the subject and its details; they have questioned and reviewed the evidence in the subject; they have tested the information,

They've tested it?  Maybe you can expand on the climate tests they've run.

Quote
looking for flaws;

By "flaws" what they are normally looking for are incremental changes to formulas with thousands of inputs.  Not systemic reconception of how they use modelling.

Quote
they have made practical predictions and seen how they turned out;

A more accurate description, is they've made wildass guesses but been lucky that they are predicting around a line with a clear trend.  Kind of like "predicting" the stock market will rise over time - doesn't make you a genius or tell you how to get rich.

Quote
IOW, they have done everything you expect the skeptics to have done, but on a professional level, where their reputations and livelihood are at stake.

Their training is in computers and statistics.  The data is really secondary.  Do you really think that statistics majors have better insight into how the climate works than others?

Quote
Which means that the consensus of experts should be given significant weight when deciding whether a hypothesis is likely to be true or not.  It is not just an "argument from authority."

It's nothing more than the "science" it rests on.  1 million people repeating a computer's conclusion that was forced by the input of one assumption, doesn't add any credibility to the original assumption.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 09, 2018, 11:16:39 PM
Quote
They've tested it?  Maybe you can expand on the climate tests they've run.
I'm not Wayward, but I gave two examples above.  You can find more for yourself if you like.

Quote
I'm certainly not aware that there is any global experiment ever run on the climate or any results that bear out your claim here.
Ahh, so you're looking for experiments where a planet is replicated, and all variables are held constant with the exception of a single variable which is varied in a controlled fashion - and preferably, the test should be double blind.  Good luck with that.

Quote
This is true, and it literally undercuts the entire point you made about consensus.
It doesn't, but it illustrates that you continue to misunderstand his point.

Quote
Their training is in computers and statistics.
This goes to show that you have little appreciation for all the different areas of research that inform climate science.  Granted all scientists today are educated in statistics and computer analysis, but that does not mean that, for instance, a neuroscientist's training is "in computers and statistics", any more than is an atmospheric physicist, a solar physicist, an atmospheric chemist, a geophysicist or a geochemist.  Of course, members of research teams are absolutely trained in computer analysis, statistics and mathematics, but the people who are exclusively trained in those disciplines do not make up a significant number of the researchers involved in studying the climate.

You really need to get past the idea that climate models are the primary research areas of the majority of researchers falling under the umbrella of climate scientists.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 10, 2018, 02:11:48 AM
That's quite aside from small scale experiments that also have been done to confirm GHG behaviour to different radiation wavelengths in a lab environment.

But ignores other items, like:
1) Water is a greenhouse gas, but it also forms white clouds, which in turn potentially lowers the planetary albedo. What little observational data exists(september 11th, 2001) suggests it's potentially a net 0 effect. (It reflects as much heat away as it traps) However, it is uncertain if cloud layers at different altitudes will have different impacts.

2) CO2 also is "a greenhouse gas" although it also appears that there continues to be considerable dispute over the relevant forcings being attributed to CO2, and the matter of it reaching a point of diminishing returns.

With models ranging from a 0.164 degree(C) temperature increase("Skeptic" model) going from 400 PPM to 1,000PPM, to a 1.915 degree(C) swing in a AGW(non-skeptic) model. In my quick googling around, the more pessimistic "skeptic" model opts for 0.382 degrees(C) from CO2 once increased to 1000PPM, while to most optimistic AGW (non-skeptic) model cited gave 0.821 degrees(C)  as a consequence of CO2 reaching 1,000 PPM.

It seems neither the skeptics, nor the AGW proponents seem to be agreed upon "GHG Behavior" as you seem to want to claim. They don't seem to be agreeable with their own respective sides, never mind between the two sides.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 10, 2018, 07:11:40 AM
Do you really believe that the effects of water vapour in the atmosphere are being ignored?  That is a popular meme in some circles, it gets traction with a certain segment of the internet, but it ignores reality.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 10, 2018, 12:06:24 PM
Do you really believe that the effects of water vapour in the atmosphere are being ignored?  That is a popular meme in some circles, it gets traction with a certain segment of the internet, but it ignores reality.

It isn't being ignored, it is how the IPCC came up with a significant portion of their warming. But that assumes they have a correct understanding of the processes involved, and even the IPCC acknowledges deficiencies exist, particularly on the micro scale.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: rightleft22 on August 10, 2018, 01:02:58 PM
What does the " IPCC acknowledging that deficiencies exist" mean, in context of the debate?


Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 10, 2018, 04:14:46 PM
What does the " IPCC acknowledging that deficiencies exist" mean, in context of the debate?

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html

Quote
Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Tropospheric water vapour concentration diminishes rapidly with height, since it is ultimately limited by saturation-specific humidity, which strongly decreases as temperature decreases. Nevertheless, these relatively low upper-tropospheric concentrations contribute disproportionately to the ‘natural’ greenhouse effect, both because temperature contrast with the surface increases with height, and because lower down the atmosphere is nearly opaque at wavelengths of strong water vapour absorption.

In the stratosphere, there are potentially important radiative impacts due to anthropogenic sources of water vapour, such as from methane oxidation (see Section 2.3.7). In the troposphere, the radiative forcing due to direct anthropogenic sources of water vapour (mainly from irrigation) is negligible (see Section 2.5.6). Rather, it is the response of tropospheric water vapour to warming itself – the water vapour feedback – that matters for climate change. In GCMs, water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases). There are also possible stratospheric water vapour feedback effects due to tropical tropopause temperature changes and/or changes in deep convection (see Sections 3.4.2 and 8.6.3.1.1).

The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in water vapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism. Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming (see Section 8.6.3.1). Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere. In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4). This further enhances moisture changes in this region, but also introduces a partially offsetting radiative response from the temperature increase, and the net effect of the combined water vapour/lapse rate feedback is to amplify the warming in response to forcing by around 50% (Section 8.6.2.3). The close link between these processes means that water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks are commonly considered together. The strength of the combined feedback is found to be robust across GCMs, despite significant inter-model differences, for example, in the mean climatology of water vapour (see Section 8.6.2.3).

Confidence in modelled water vapour feedback is thus affected by uncertainties in the physical processes controlling upper-tropospheric humidity, and confidence in their representation in GCMs. One important question is what the relative contribution of large-scale advective processes (in which confidence in GCMs’ representation is high) is compared with microphysical processes (in which confidence is much lower) for determining the distribution and variation in water vapour. Although advection has been shown to establish the general distribution of tropical upper-tropospheric humidity in the present climate (see Section 8.6.3.1), a significant role for microphysics in humidity response to climate change cannot yet be ruled out.

More specifically: Clouds. They don't fully understand them.

After all, the presence of water vapor does not necessarily make a cloud happen. They can model water vapor(aka humidity) with reasonable confidence. Clouds are another matter.

To get a cliff-notes overview of that specific issue try watching a minute of this from the bookmarked start point. Although I think many in here wouldshould find the entire video of interest.
https://youtu.be/_3jXCo3BVuA?t=22m35s (https://youtu.be/_3jXCo3BVuA?t=22m35s)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 10, 2018, 09:08:42 PM
To get a cliff-notes overview of that specific issue try watching a minute of this from the bookmarked start point. Although I think many in here wouldshould find the entire video of interest.
https://youtu.be/_3jXCo3BVuA?t=22m35s (https://youtu.be/_3jXCo3BVuA?t=22m35s)

As a heads up warning, the video in question is a documentary following the development of a theory involving Stellar Radiation and cloud formation, and its potential impacts on climate.

There are some things discussed there that don't quite line up with my understanding of things, but then, I never looked too hard at galactic astronomy and those parts of astrophysics.

But assuming that one guy wasn't blowing smoke, they probably have a theory that probably also explains "Greenhouse Venus" if you take a couple steps back from it. It just also pisses off the AGW crowd along the way. As it means their models probably work great... for the situation Venus is in, but not Earth.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 11, 2018, 09:10:10 AM
Quote
More specifically: Clouds. They don't fully understand them.
Welcome to science.  The IPCC calls out an area of uncertainty requiring further research, and you consider this a problem?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on August 11, 2018, 10:26:35 AM
Now, contrast that with the “the science is settled” argument anyone who calls out the failures of AGW is subjected to. 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 11, 2018, 01:42:18 PM
Quote
More specifically: Clouds. They don't fully understand them.
Welcome to science.  The IPCC calls out an area of uncertainty requiring further research, and you consider this a problem?

Because "The Science is settled" didn't you know? So if the IPCC says they don't understand something, even if they go to great lengths not to admit it, that clearly is a just a mis-understanding of what they "really meant" as once again, the science is settled, whatever the further discoveries are in those respective areas are not going to upset their proverbial apple cart.

Or you can get even more technical, while clouds are aerosols of water, they technically aren't necessarily "water vapor" in regards to being water in a gaseous state. But rather liquid water(precipitate) in an air borne state, which gives them more wiggle room in how they express themselves in research documentation. It is that very same "precipitate state" that they have insufficient understanding of in order to try to properly model it. Yes, they understand elements of it, ie "water vapor condenses around airborne particulate matter"  but they don't sufficiently understand the how or why behind what makes it do so, or not do so in any particular given circumstance. Sure they can plug in arbitrary proxies to approximate it in their models, but that makes the model only as valid as their choice in arbitrary proxy and its ability to reflect reality.

And when both water vapor and cloud formation play major roles in both warming and cooling of the planet, that's kind of a big deal. Particularly when there are theories out there(like the one in that documentary) which appear to be able to create giant holes in their existing models.(And further checking on my end hasn't, yet, poked any significant holes in that one; if anything, it's ironically poking holes in statements made by bloggers/others who are (unknowingly) providing the "corroborating information" as they're "inverted" relative to that same theory and supporting evidence--according to them Cosmic Radiation is expected to warm the planet, not cool it)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 11, 2018, 06:24:54 PM
My hypothesis is that almost all opposition to climate change science is based on political loyalties and not on actual judgement about the level of empirical evidence. If I am right, we would also observe that those who reject climate science are willing to trust medical science that is no more well-established, even to the degree that they will bet their lives on some procedures over others, based on less conclusive evidence than that supporting many of the findings of climate science.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 11, 2018, 10:39:45 PM
My hypothesis is that almost all opposition to climate change science is based on political loyalties and not on actual judgement about the level of empirical evidence. If I am right, we would also observe that those who reject climate science are willing to trust medical science that is no more well-established, even to the degree that they will bet their lives on some procedures over others, based on less conclusive evidence than that supporting many of the findings of climate science.

Love the lack of conditionals or quantifiers there. Of course you're going to find Vaxxers, Contrailers, Truthers, and a whole slew of others in the skeptic circle. That doesn't mean that everyone who is a skeptic on AGW also is a Vaxxer, or that anywhere close to a majority of them are. There might be a plurality, but I'd be a little dubious on that one.

As to political loyalties, as it's been something of a political issue since the 1980's at the least, there undoubtedly is a strong correlation, but that doesn't necessarily mean causation(in regards to their being conservative "causing" them to be AGW skeptics).

I think there is probably a MUCH stronger correlation to be had among communists and socialists and their desires to support AGW causes and research that makes the case. In that respect, you might be closer to the mark as to conservatives being a bit skeptical about the subject matter, because they're responding to who "the pushers" are more than anything else.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2018, 01:41:54 AM
The Deamon,

My point was different - there are some cranks on just about any issue that you can name. But climate change skepticism is different. For many decades, the same groups that were producing fraudulent research to argue that smoking didn't cause cancer were also fighting against evidence of climate change https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/). And this is not a liberal-conservative difference - because almost everywhere else in the world both liberals and conservatives agree that the fundamental debate is over. Only in the United States and in particular with the Republican Party (and their corporate sponsors) is there the pretense of a debate as to whether or not there is climate change due to human causes.

And when August 11, 2028 comes around, and then August 11, 2038, and it is so completely obvious that the Republican position was as disingenuous as the decades-long argument about smoking and cancer, all those who believed in those fantastical myths should own up to your own responsibility through your votes for the harm that you have caused.

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 12, 2018, 03:52:11 AM
The Deamon,

My point was different - there are some cranks on just about any issue that you can name. But climate change skepticism is different. For many decades, the same groups that were producing fraudulent research

I'm going to snip here because it amuses me to do so. :)

You're forgetting an important group of "skeptics" in all of this: The ones who DO know "the state of the science" and have been constantly going "Woah, wait a second here." Yes, their level of certainty about certain aspects has progressed over time, but that still doesn't mean full buy-in on other parts of it.

Bad science is bad science, spouting off about "scientific projections" using models of unknown reliability or efficacy is also highly dangerous as it causes potential to "poison the well" as it were.

You know, like Al Gore making ominous predictions on the Senate Floor in the late 1980's using "the latest science" about how totally screwed we were going to be, by the year 2000 no less, if drastic actions were not taken immediately regarding Global Warming. Well... Drastic actions weren't taken,  Y2K was some 18 years ago, and Global Warming hasn't caused the world to collapse into anarchy yet. So much for the infallibility of Science.

Or how about predictions that teens living in Great Britain in the year 2018 would never see snow fall in Great Britain, and probably not see it fall anywhere else either for that matter. SOME Climate models predicted that after all, the Science is settled after all, anybody who says the models are unreliable must obviously be working for the same groups who did cancer studies for Phillip Morris.

That the IPCC has run hundreds of published computer models and only had a single digit percentage of them come even remotely close to predicting what really happened(and all of them having a warm bias) also shouldn't be taken to mean that "the Science isn't completely there yet." It actually it quite settled actually, and their failure to properly predict temperature is merely an unfortunate anomaly.

Never mind that in any other scientific field, if your model failed to accurately predict things, you'd be told to go back to the drawing board. Not so here, the models cannot properly predict anything, but they MUST be trusted all the same and be given the same full faith and credit you would give the industrial chemist brewing the next batch of life-saving medications for members of your family, or the power plant operator overseeing a Nuclear Reactor. Because the science is settled on this issue.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2018, 10:41:42 AM
Quote
Never mind that in any other scientific field, if your model failed to accurately predict things, you'd be told to go back to the drawing board.

Is your argument that you have debunked global warming by refuting predictions of (a) global anarchy, and (b) teens living in Great Britain in the year 2018 would never see snow fall in Great Britain? Is your argument that on balance the predictions of climate science have been less accurate that most other fields of science that you do not question? https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/).  I have worked with the actual scientists doing this research, and I hate to spoil it for you, but Al Gore is not one of them.

In 1985 I heard Tom Schelling give a talk about climate change (he was a cold warrior who later won a Nobel Prize for aspects of game theory that were used to set US-nuclear weapons doctrine in the 1950s, not your stereotypical liberal by any means). He showed data on the growth of atmospheric carbon from the prior 20 years, and extrapolated forwards to 2050. Using a game theory perspective, he talked about what the likely response of Corporations would be to a potential devaluation of trillions of dollars of their assets buried in the ground in the form of fossil fuels. His prediction was that the response to climate change would be the biggest threat to human life over the next 65 years, and yet financial incentives would drive Corporations to mount the most fierce resistance using all means within their powers to fight against protective measures.

A pretty sound prediction.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 12, 2018, 10:55:14 AM
Sounds kinda vague, don't have time right now.

Did appreciate this part however:
Quote
According to Manabe himself — still active at age 85 — the modeling of large-scale processes, like atmospheric circulation, is virtually identical today to what it was in the 1960s. Smaller-scale phenomena, like moist convection, cloud processes, and land surface processes were much simpler back then, and have improved in both precision and accuracy, although uncertainties (particularly in clouds) still remain. There are some aspects of models that are ineffective, he notes, but not for the reason people think:
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 12, 2018, 01:11:35 PM
In 1985 I heard Tom Schelling give a talk about climate change (he was a cold warrior who later won a Nobel Prize for aspects of game theory that were used to set US-nuclear weapons doctrine in the 1950s, not your stereotypical liberal by any means). He showed data on the growth of atmospheric carbon from the prior 20 years, and extrapolated forwards to 2050.

I'm not looking to take a position on the argument as a whole, but I did want to comment on this mention of game theory. I'm no expert in that 'field', if we can call it that, as it's often linked with mathematics and given some kind of accolades. All I'll say about it is that I've read a few textbooks on the subject to see what the fuss was about, and my conclusion in each case is that the entire subject appears to me to be bogus pseudo-reasoning. I could be wrong, but I've rarely read about any new subject (new to me) and distinctly noted when reading about it that it didn't make sense and was a house of cards built upon faulty premises. The entire idea of quantifying different options in a scenario and then calculating the 'best' outcome is so myopic that at times when reading the more 'advanced' examples (such as ones actually used historically in military application) I laughed out loud at how reductionist and simplistic they were. Maybe I only had the kiddie's version and the real thing is totally serious or something. But let's just say I'm skeptical.

I mention this not to lay into game theory (as I don't know if anyone here would be interested to have that conversation) but rather to suggest that there's a certain mentality that goes into game theory which I consider to be suspect in certain intellectual traditions, wherein very complex and even gargantuan problems are listed as being a few simple variables and "solved' easily. Of course what I mean to say is that nothing is actually solved since the conclusions only follow naturally from the false and reductionist premises, and those are to blame, not the syllogism that led from premise to conclusion. The style of argument in game theory strikes me as being remarkably Aristotelian in that it feels confident to employ strangely simple premises as clear "facts" and then to derive all sorts of conclusions from them, when in fact the entire exercise amounts to little more than a fantasy; like a D&D session where amazing conclusions are drawn from the Player's Handbook about how to solve problems, notwithstanding the fact that the Handbook is made-up in the first place. It seems to me that when citing a person's credentials in climate science, game theory isn't, in my opinion, that good of a selling point since in my view the failings of game theory are precisely the failings that Seriati and TheDeamon are suggesting exist in climate science. I personally don't know enough about climate science to make any such claim, and maybe Schelling was the real deal as you say. But if you wanted to promote Newton's math as being groundbreaking I wouldn't suggest a marketing scheme announcing how qualified he is on account of his work in alchemy. All that's going to do is make him sound like a quack. Not that game theory has that reputation generally...although it does to me.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 13, 2018, 09:19:24 AM
Quote
So if the IPCC says they don't understand something, even if they go to great lengths not to admit it
It sounds very much like you are conflating media coverage and internet warriors with the IPCC.  How could the IPCC be going to great lengths not to admit something that they called it out in the very passage you quoted? 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 13, 2018, 11:48:39 PM
Some summaries of Tom Schelling's work from wikipedia

Quote
The Strategy of Conflict (1960)
The Strategy of Conflict, which Schelling published in 1960,[16] pioneered the study of bargaining and strategic behavior in what Schelling refers to as "conflict behavior." The Times Literary Supplement in 1995 listed it as one of the hundred most influential books since 1945.[17] In this book he introduced concepts like focal point and credible commitment. Chapter headings include "A Reorientation of Game Theory," "Randomization of Promises and Threats," and "Surprise Attack: A Study of Mutual Distrust."

The strategic view toward conflict that Schelling encourages in this work is equally "rational" and "successful."[16] That said, it cannot merely be based one's intelligence alone, but must also address the "advantages" associated with a course of action; though even the advantages gleaned, he says, should be firmly fixed in a value system that is both "explicit" and "consistent."[16]

Conflict too has a distinct meaning. In Schelling's approach, it is no longer enough to beat your opponent. Instead, one must seize opportunities to cooperate. And in most cases, there are many. Only on the rarest of occasions, in what is known as "pure conflict," he points out, will the interests of participants be implacably opposed.[16] He uses the example of "a war of complete extermination" to illustrate this phenomenon.[16]

Cooperation, where available, may take many forms, and thus could potentially involve everything from "deterrence, limited war, and disarmament" to "negotiation."[16] Indeed, it is through such actions that participants are left with less of a conflict and more of a “bargaining situation.”[16] The bargaining itself is best thought of in terms of the other participant's actions, as any gains one might realize are highly dependent upon the "choices or decisions" of their opponent.[16]

Communication between parties, though, is another matter entirely. Verbal or written communication is known as “explicit,” and involves such activities as "offering concessions."[16] What happens, though, when this type of communication becomes impossible or improbable? This is when something called "tacit maneuvers" become important.[16] Think of this as action-based communication. Schelling uses the example of one's occupation or evacuation of strategic territory to illustrate this latter communication method.

In an article celebrating Schelling's Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics,[18] Michael Kinsley, Washington Post op‑ed columnist and one of Schelling's former students, anecdotally summarizes Schelling's reorientation of game theory thus: "[Y]ou're standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You'll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal—threatening to push him off the cliff—would doom you both? Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don't have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win."

Arms and Influence (1966)
Schelling's theories about war were extended in Arms and Influence, published in 1966.[19] The blurb states that it "carries forward the analysis so brilliantly begun in his earlier The Strategy of Conflict (1960) and Strategy and Arms Control (with Morton Halperin, 1961), and makes a significant contribution to the growing literature on modern war and diplomacy." Chapter headings include The Diplomacy of Violence, The Diplomacy of Ultimate Survival and The Dynamics of Mutual Alarm.

Micromotives and Macrobehavior (1978)
In 1969 and 1971, Schelling published widely cited articles dealing with racial dynamics and what he termed "a general theory of tipping."[20] In these papers he showed that a preference that one's neighbors be of the same color, or even a preference for a mixture "up to some limit," could lead to total segregation, thus arguing that motives, malicious or not, were indistinguishable as to explaining the phenomenon of complete local separation of distinct groups. He used coins on graph paper to demonstrate his theory by placing pennies and dimes in different patterns on the "board" and then moving them one by one if they were in an "unhappy" situation.

Schelling's dynamics has been cited as a way of explaining variations that are found in what are regarded as meaningful differences – gender, age, race, ethnicity, language, sexual preference, and religion. Once a cycle of such change has begun, it may have a self-sustaining momentum. His 1978 book Micromotives and Macrobehavior expanded on and generalized these themes[21][22] and is often cited in the literature of agent-based computational economics.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 14, 2018, 03:59:32 PM
Quote
So if the IPCC says they don't understand something, even if they go to great lengths not to admit it
It sounds very much like you are conflating media coverage and internet warriors with the IPCC.  How could the IPCC be going to great lengths not to admit something that they called it out in the very passage you quoted?
They mentioned it, then obfuscated the significance of it like nobody's business.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 14, 2018, 04:40:49 PM
Since the interpretation of the IPCC authors does not match your preconceived notions, that amounts to obfuscation?

Also, you do realize that not being able to rule out "a significant role for microphysics in humidity response" in the upper troposphere does not mean that the current estimates are over-stated, correct?  It might mean that they are actually understated.

There are 5 main possibilities here:I'm not making any claim about the likelihood of any one of these options, but only one of them might have any effect to cause the current trends to have been overstated.

To that point, however, the authors have already observed that advection has been shown to be the main distribution method for upper tropospheric humidity, and while they don't rule out that the humidity response resulting from the microphysical mechanisms might be significant, no significant climate signal resulting from such a mechanism has been observed to-date, notwithstanding that we have observed significant changes to solar radiation across a number of solar cycles in the satellite era (that being one of the posited microphysical mechanisms most often mooted). 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 15, 2018, 09:17:10 PM
Of those 5 options, they only cover one of them. As per their own disclaimer they even say "nearly half" of the warming seen in their models comes from how they're modeling water vapor. But don't worry, while their confidence on modeling "micro-scale" water vapor is poor, they are quite confident in their macro-scale models.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 16, 2018, 07:03:46 AM
Yes, and based on their analysis, the current expectation is that the effects will not be significant.  I know that analysis doesn't mesh with your beliefs, but it's certainly not evidence of dishonesty.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 21, 2018, 11:00:25 AM
On the topic of public awareness of facts, I just came across a cute thread about the original of the 1980's game Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego, which PBS claimed was created as a result of surveys showing that average Americans had a distinct lack of knowledge of geography. Then I quickly skimmed a 2006 National Geographic survey of geographic literacy among Americans, which you can find here:

http://www.geography.unt.edu/~rice/geog3100/3100handouts/nationalgeographicpoll.pdf

Quote
Pinpointing North America on a Map Is a Breeze

Nearly all (94%) young Americans can find the United States on the world map, and Canada
(92%) and Mexico (88%) are nearly as familiar. Wide majorities can find bordering bodies of
water including the Pacific Ocean (79%) and the Gulf of Mexico (75%). Trends from 2002
suggest that more young adults can pick out Canada and Mexico (with few signs of change for
other countries). However, it is concerning that one in ten of those with up to a high school
education cannot identify the U.S., and one in five cannot find the Pacific Ocean.

Places Beyond North America are Less Often Identified

Moving further abroad, three-quarters of young Americans can spot the distinctive landmass of
Australia (74%), and over half (56%) identify Brazil, the largest country by far in South America.
However, majorities cannot find the U.S.ís closest ally, the United Kingdom (36% correct, 65%
incorrect), nor can they find Egypt (30% vs. 70%) or Indonesia (25% vs. 75%).


You read that correctly: 6% could not identify the U.S. on a map, while 21% could not locate the Pacific Ocean on a map. I'm not saying this to be insulting to anyhow, but realistically if this is the literacy rate regarding the location of one of the two oceans bookending the U.S. then what is really the purpose of asking the general public what their 'opinion' on AGW is? The answer is that most people will have no real knowledge about it, and so any opinions will be based on something other than knowledge. But in case it sounds like I'm saying that therefore these people should acknowledge their betters and trust what the scientists say, why would they even have the knowledge to do that (assuming they should)?

To take a parallel example from an earlier message of mine, imagine putting to the public the notion of general relativity and requiring them to make a decision about whether there is empirical evidence supporting Einstein's theory. Or even worse, imagine putting to the public that they need to acknowledge the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM in order to justify a policy shift towards funding for theoretical research. People are going to provide all sorts of answers about what they "think" about the non-locality of point particles and wave-function collapse, and I think there would be no point in chastising them for 'disagreeing' with experts if the answer they give back isn't the mainstream physics view. That's what you get for polling them about that in the first place! Many of these are the same people who can't find the U.S. on a map. So like I said earlier, it strikes me as being a bizarre phenomenon that AGW has become a publicly debated topic when, by and large, it's not a topic the public can actually be informed about in a meaningful way. I've read many articles about it and you know what? I would still count my comprehension of planetary climate as approximately zero.

The closest example historically that I can think of where what should have been a laboratory subject became a public one was the case of the theory of evolution. And that's for obvious reasons: it had implications regarding one's entire worldview, the place of humanity in nature, how religious narratives squared with reality, and many other things of interest on a daily basis. Now, most people still probably can't say much about evolution to this day - and it's a theory 150 years old - but at least it's mostly been accepted as reasonable, if not proven exactly. Although much resistance to evolution wasn't based on reasoned objection, much of it was, and it likely would have been unfair for even a scientist in the 1920's to be called out for not embracing it wholesale, no less the general public. But given how long it took popular culture to accept it in America, it strikes me that AGW has been accepted by roughly half the country remarkably quickly.

This was all to just reiterate that overall it's quite unusual for the public to be polled about something scientific and to be held to task for their answers. In general these matters should never be put before them in the first place in the form of a question. I can see the appeal of that here, mind you: if special interests try to squash research results for monetary reasons, someone needs to form a coalition to oppose their opposition. But then doesn't the answer come back as obvious: the way to combat this money lobby isn't by throwing facts at them, but by eliminating lobbyists as being relevant. Because you may beat them down eventually in climate science but then they'll oppose the next research area that harms their business, whatever that is. The general goal of eliminating money interests from politics still seems to me to be of utmost priority and the failure to address it hurts so many areas it's ridiculous. If liberals want to see the AGW matter cleared up then they should push for their party to divest themselves of special interests immediately. Cleanup starts at home.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on August 21, 2018, 12:25:29 PM
Always be skeptical of polls where there is no incentive to answer honestly or put effort in.  "Mischevious Responders" (deliberately wrong answers) are quite common - and likely exceed the 6% threshold, as do kids who could do something but don't out of laziness ("Insufficient Effort Responders").
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 21, 2018, 12:35:51 PM
Always be skeptical of polls where there is no incentive to answer honestly or put effort in.  "Mischevious Responders" (deliberately wrong answers) are quite common - and likely exceed the 6% threshold, as do kids who could do something but don't out of laziness ("Insufficient Effort Responders").

I believe that. But then again if you check out Reddit threads about "something crazy I believed until I was an adult" it might make a believer out of you at how bad someone's information can be.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 21, 2018, 02:32:01 PM
Don't look at me. I don't trust the general population to answer anything correctly. Whether you study risk aversion, anchor bias, behavioral economics, eyewitness accounts, or dozens of other topics you come to realize that the average person should not be trusted with anything important.

Crap, that's why scientists figured out they had to utilize double blind experiments because they couldn't even trust themselves not to subconsciously fudge the numbers. If I were to pick one problem with climate science, it would be that unavoidable reinforcement that they have the ability to alter their model during the experiments - or at least in subsequent experiments. Even without an ulterior motive of sweet sweet grant money, which I find ridiculous, they are going to be biased by their own hypothesis. Of course that goes triple for the climate deniers, who never really run their own experiments, they just hunt down uncertainty in the other guy's work based on their bias that there isn't any significant climate change happening.

Didn't get the distribution you wanted from 10 iterations? p-hack (https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/19817) it and keep running 10 more until it goes your way. Again, many deniers are way worse about this, cherry picking years to demonstrate how flat temperature was. Or throwing out some data sets and focusing on just one.

That's why my push for environmental reform would focus on immediate pollution. We have plenty of localized geographic data to show the effect of various energy production on asthma, for example. Take a drive through, say, Salt Lake City or Beijing and try to deny the impact of air pollutants.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on August 21, 2018, 02:48:54 PM
TheDrake,

Quote
If I were to pick one problem with climate science, it would be that unavoidable reinforcement that they have the ability to alter their model during the experiments - or at least in subsequent experiments.

models are essentially thermodynamics simulations constrained by observations.  The primary usage (and motivation for development) of the models are for weather predictions and short term climate - long term climate predictions are a nice side benefit - we would spend essentially the exact same money and do the same research even if we had zero interest in long term climate prediction because a few hours earlier hurricane warning, or knowing rain and wind and temperature forecasts a few days earliers is worth hundereds of billions of dollars.  So the absurd belief that it is for the 'sweet grant money' - is just bizarre.  The people who think you can try and bias the simulations have zero understanding of what is going on - there are a few important constants that have some slight wiggle room - everything else is convection, conduction, radiation, evaporation, and condensation.  For longer term simulations there is also assumptions about population changes, energy usage, and land use changes.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 21, 2018, 04:33:54 PM
So the absurd belief that it is for the 'sweet grant money' - is just bizarre.

Yes, me too. "Even without an ulterior motive of sweet sweet grant money, which I find ridiculous"


I'm not delving into a 3 year quest to fully understand the models or pick away at the assertion that all the models are derived from proven physics. I know my own limitations. I'm just saying that there are always theoretical thumb on scale considerations to always be mindful of. Even Einstein cooked up the cosmological constant out of thin air to make the universe fit his expectation.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on August 22, 2018, 07:26:48 AM
So the Northwest passage is now open for commercial shipping.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/640679831/worlds-largest-shipping-company-heads-into-arctic-as-global-warming-opens-the-wa (https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/640679831/worlds-largest-shipping-company-heads-into-arctic-as-global-warming-opens-the-wa)

Can we take this as evidence the arctic is warming?


Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: rightleft22 on August 22, 2018, 10:05:56 AM
is the debate about the question of global warming or the question as to if human activity is a factor in warming?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 22, 2018, 10:17:26 AM
Global warming itself is not happening.  But even if it is, it's less than claimed and not caused by humans.  But even if it is caused by humans, warming is actually a good thing, so we need more of it.

Seriously, there are camps claiming all of those things, with small numbers migrating from the left to the right.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 22, 2018, 11:46:30 AM
Global warming itself is not happening.  But even if it is, it's less than claimed and not caused by humans.  But even if it is caused by humans, warming is actually a good thing, so we need more of it.

Seriously, there are camps claiming all of those things, with small numbers migrating from the left to the right.

Don't forget the "it's being caused by humans and is bad, but there's no feasible way to make it stop" group, which I think is probably the most reasonable objection of them all. Once there is a definite plan that will certainly work on the table, and it's rejected anyhow, I think that will be the point where you can call it case closed on people wanting the planet to suffer.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 22, 2018, 11:55:05 AM
Them too.  Of course, there is a huge difference between those saying "there is no feasible way to make it stop" and those saying "I am unaware of any feasible way to make it stop".  The former group often uses that unfounded certainty as an argument against everything, including research, unfortunately.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: rightleft22 on August 22, 2018, 01:51:48 PM
And the group "I am unaware of any feasible way to make it stop" and refuse to contemplate any economic sacrifice 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on August 22, 2018, 02:03:45 PM
The irony, of course, is that there is one obvious "feasible" way of stopping global warming, and it is the default method if we do nothing.

Reduce the human population until we are not significantly adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

In about 100 years or so, we will have reduced our CO2 output to about what the natural systems can absorb.  The only question is whether we are going to do it deliberately, while trying to maintain our standard of living, or by the chaotic reduction in our standard of living and total population by the natural processes of war, famine and pestilence.

The only choice we have is how we want to do it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on August 22, 2018, 02:24:23 PM
In about 100 years or so, we will have reduced our CO2 output to about what the natural systems can absorb.  The only question is whether we are going to do it deliberately, while trying to maintain our standard of living, or by the chaotic reduction in our standard of living and total population by the natural processes of war, famine and pestilence.

The only choice we have is how we want to do it.

Our ability to predict what technology in 20, 50, or 100 years will be like is pitiful. It could range anywhere from 'somewhat like now but with better computers' to flying saucers, cold fusion, and quantum teleportation communications. In 20 years Skynet might be in charge and the matter would be out of our hands anyhow. My personal guess is that technological means will present themselves to help deal with the issue without the need for economic austerity programs. Switching over the clean energy sounds like it will happen in not too long, and I'm also hopeful about artificial means of withdrawing carbon from the atmosphere.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 22, 2018, 03:01:26 PM
And the "why should we stop it if other countries are worse and we'll lose business to them?"

I also think that on the other side, the "no turning back" arguments are unfounded. Everything from algae to atmospheric scrubbers to nuclear winter could reverse the trend.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 22, 2018, 10:47:52 PM
On the topic of public awareness of facts, I just came across a cute thread about the original of the 1980's game Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego, which PBS claimed was created as a result of surveys showing that average Americans had a distinct lack of knowledge of geography.

A few things to consider in this era of "specialization" and a bazillion different things that can clutter your attention outside of the "Traditional knowledge tests" or centuries past.

Don't confuse lack of "general knowledge" about something with "lack of intelligence." That said, a lot of that information is disheartening all the same.

But when you also consider a sizeable portion of the American population(I'd bet it is more than 6%) has never traveled much further than 60 miles from where they live right now, it puts that lack of Geographical knowledge into a bit of perspective. It isn't relevant to their life, so they don't bother with it, which means even if they DID know it at some point, that information has since been allowed to erode and disappear over time.

Arguably, it probably could be said for that particular subset, given it almost takes effort to NOT travel more than ~100 miles from your place of birth in this day and age(and there is probably another subset that only traveled further than that because they were "forced" to due to School/work/parents, but never on their own initiative). They probably just simply never were that interested in travel to begin with, and as such their interest in things beyond their immediate vicinity has always been rather low from the start, so geography probably wasn't one of their favored subjects.

Which likewise is a VERY common manifestation of issue present in politics. Most Americans are disenfranchised, they may still vote, but don't really think their vote matters. As such, they may have opinions, but at the same time, a lot of comes back to that Geography example: Most political issues aren't relevant to their daily life, so they largely ignore it as background noise aside from the occasional, often anecdotal, event which happens to "stick out" for them personally.

That anecdotal encounter with a media report may later turn out to be have been "bad information." But by then it's too late, they've noticed it, it's been internalized, and they're not paying enough attention to learn differently anyhow.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 22, 2018, 11:00:56 PM
And the "why should we stop it if other countries are worse and we'll lose business to them?"

I also think that on the other side, the "no turning back" arguments are unfounded. Everything from algae to atmospheric scrubbers to nuclear winter could reverse the trend.

I'm more part of the above mentioned group.

Why take measures to ostensibly "make it less bad" when "less bad" is likely to make a "noise level" change in the outcome, if any at all, according to their own models. And that doesn't even touch on the likelyhood that in the meantime, that "lost economic growth" from increased costs using green energy sources is going to present in the form of "Economic activity moved to third world nations, causing an even larger explosion of economic activity in those areas, and consequently, even more CO2 emissions than were prevented in those '1st world nations' as a consequence of doing so."

This also ignores the boogeyman that they keep bringing up that it is going to take centuries for natural processes to bring CO2 levels back down to even the level seen in 1900. Or that from already emitted CO2, their models predict increasing levels of warming over the next century. And that's under the "Human CO2 emissions reach 0 tons/year starting tomorrow" scenario.

Which then begs the question, if we're going to still be warming, and the climates going to keep changing, how are we going to pay for all the things that'll need to be done to adjust to those changing conditions? We're going to need strong economies to make that work without leaving a LOT of people destitute in the process that didn't need to otherwise.

Basically, I'm okay with researching more efficient and cleaner power sources. I'm okay with investing in their deployment. I'm not okay with mandating their use if doing so is likely to result in somebody deciding to shift more production capacity to India or Kenya where they'll just build more (non-CCS) Coal Fired Power Plants to meet the increasing demand for power.

That's just shooting yourself in the foot.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 23, 2018, 12:53:38 AM
So you'd be willing to accept Beijing levels of air quality as long as it meant we could compete better with them for manufacturing? Or the environmental damage caused to extract ever more fossil fuels? Apart from any climate change there are tons of reasons to ditch burning things for power.

And don't look now, but one of the biggest polluting and manufacturing countries, China, is targeting 20% clean energy by 2030. The US is currently at 10%, and I don't believe we have any target. They are building a 100 square mile floating solar farm. Suckers.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on August 23, 2018, 01:07:55 AM
And don't look now, but one of the biggest polluting and manufacturing countries, China, is targeting 20% clean energy by 2030. The US is currently at 10%, and I don't believe we have any target. They are building a 100 square mile floating solar farm. Suckers.

Clarification needed: Define "Clean Energy" in this context? Do you mean non-CO2 emitting, or do you mean "renewable" instead? Because I'm pretty sure that Nuclear IS on the table for China's goal of 20% "Clean Energy" by 2030.

And if Nuclear Reactors are on the table, 20% of the power grid being "Clean" is almost insultingly easy. In fact, if you include Nuclear in the "Clean energy" category, the US already exceeds that goal, as it still comprises about 20% of our electrical power generation capacity as of 2017. Hydroelectricity also provides another 7% of our power generation. So that 27% "Clean Energy" even before we get into wind, solar, and biofuels.

edit:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=electricity_in_the_united_states

17% of US power generation was accomplished by "renewable energy sources" in addition to 20% from Nuclear Power. So depending on how you want to define "Clean Energy" We're arguably at 37% already.  8)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 23, 2018, 07:20:52 AM
Quote
China, is targeting 20% clean energy by 2030
According to Wikipedia, renewables, if you include hydro, and nuclear, already make up 25% of Chin's current electricity generation... maybe that's inclusive of transportation?  I think there's an apples to oranges issue somewhere.

China uses nuclear to generate only about 5% today, so there's plenty of room for growth there. Where they also have room for growth is in per capita use, as US residents each use (on average, including industry) two and a half times the amount of electricity as each resident of China; since China's goal is energy independence, and the country is fossil-fuel poor, it's going to be forced to get creative with renewables.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 23, 2018, 09:12:03 AM
From the original article:

Quote
To help reach the 2030 goal, China is betting big on renewable energy. It pledged in January to invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($367 billion) in renewable power generation -- solar, wind, hydro and nuclear -- by 2020.

So nuclear is part of the plan.

There's a question here about total energy versus electricity generation as well. Nuclear is 20% of electricity, but if you include transportation, cooking, and home heating it is obviously less.

Quote
Renewable energy resources currently supply about 11% of total U.S. energy consumption.

EIA Total energy (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/)

Nuclear is 9%, so yes it seems I did mix some apples with oranges declaring 10%, so thanks for the clarification.

The original point is that China is making huge moves toward non CO2 emitting energy sources. They don't seem very concerned that it will gut their manufacturing, in fact many of their strategic moves are designed to move themselves out of manufacturing and into other economic sectors. They don't want to build stuff, they want to own stuff.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on August 23, 2018, 11:01:05 AM
Quote
Or that from already emitted CO2, their models predict increasing levels of warming over the next century. And that's under the "Human CO2 emissions reach 0 tons/year starting tomorrow" scenario.

IIRC, it more of a matter of years rather than decades for the released CO2 to cause it's maximum warming.  I think you're exaggerating the effects a bit.

More importantly, though, it means that any CO2 we add to the atmosphere now will increase the amount of warming we expect.  Yes, we are stuck with even more warming than what we are experiencing now from the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but putting more CO2 simply means that we are ensuring it will be even warmer than what we have made it so far.

I mean, if we can all agree that hotter summers, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, increased wildfires, increased droughts, increased flooding, ocean acidification and the rest are bad, I would think that we could also agree that making them all worse is even worse, regardless of the reasons. ;)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on August 23, 2018, 11:14:42 AM
Quote
I mean, if we can all agree that hotter summers, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, increased wildfires, increased droughts, increased flooding, ocean acidification and the rest are bad, I would think that we could also agree that making them all worse is even worse, regardless of the reasons.

I think that depends. If your household budget is in deficit and your credit cards are maxed out, you won't be able to solve it by skipping lunches, in fact that may be counterproductive.

I think committing to a partial or even symbolic solution is not very smart. For instance, we could go on a rampage and track down every last incandescent light bulb and replace them immediately with LED. What a good move right? Except that this would make no material difference whatsoever. Plus, you're not spending the money on something more creative or effective. Plus, you're spending CO2 on their manufacture and shipping.

Nobody is making that particular proposal, of course, nobody is that stupid. It is a straw man only to make the point that making something slightly better doesn't do anything, so every proposal must be subject to a cost/benefit analysis.

This is why I'm begging the people trying to make policy for climate change to focus instead on the co-benefits that share similar solutions. This article is a good example of what every single person who wants CO2 reduced should be talking about as the primary drive.

Quote
There are large, and immediate, economic co-benefits from reducing CO2 emissions, by far the largest of which is the mitigation of air pollution which is now a major challenge for cities across the world.

Fossil fuel combustion emits both CO2 and particles less than 2.5 microns in size (‘PM2.5’), which is the major contributor to deaths from air pollution. The economic cost associated with mortality from air pollution is large, amounting to several % of GDP for many countries.

In China for example, the economic cost of the 1.23 million air pollution related deaths in 2010 amounted to 9.7-13.2 % of China’s GDP. In the US the cost of 103,027 air pollution deaths was equivalent to 3.2 – 4.6% US GDP.  In the UK 23,036 air pollution deaths cost the equivalent of 4.6-7.1 % of GDP.

Substituting low-carbon energy for fossil fuels would help to mitigate this impact and create large benefits.

The graph below plots the range of benefits from this substitution in 15 large CO2 emitters in 2010 for every tonne of CO2 abated. It shows the range of avoided PM2.5 damages per tonne of CO2 abated in US$ 2010.

article (http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/economic-co-benefits-of-reducing-co2-emissions-outweigh-the-cost-of-mitigation-for-most-big-emitters/)

In other words, climate change could be completely out of our control, not caused by humans, not related to carbon --- and it would still be an economic benefit (not cost) to reduce CO2.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on August 23, 2018, 01:08:19 PM
That sounds like David Brin's TWOTDA--Things We Ought To Do Anyway.  That should be the baseline for negotiations on what to do about climate change.

Of course, that is a bridge too far right now for deniers. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-trumps-rules-on-coal-fired-power-plants-differ-from-obamas) :(

The thing is about doing token actions which have no major effect is if we can't agree on the easy, token actions, how will we ever agree on the hard solutions?  :'(

If allowing each country to determine its own goals to reducing CO2 (the Paris Accords) is too onerous, how will we agree on setting the absolute limits we will need to to finally address the problem?

Getting countries to agree to on token actions has the benefit of getting them to agree.  Once that hurdle is overcome, then we can work on the actual steps necessary to make the necessary limits to CO2 emissions.  But if we don't take that first step, then it is that much harder to take the next.

And if we refuse to take even the token steps because they are not effective, then we are empowering those who don't want to take any steps at all.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 24, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
One more reference to Tom Schelling, for no reason whatsoever, except I read it last night in the alumni magazine:

He put in his will that his Nobel Prize medal was to be sold and the proceeds donated to the Southern Poverty law Center, which I think is pretty cool.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 28, 2018, 06:26:32 PM
Always be skeptical of polls where there is no incentive to answer honestly or put effort in.  "Mischevious Responders" (deliberately wrong answers) are quite common - and likely exceed the 6% threshold, as do kids who could do something but don't out of laziness ("Insufficient Effort Responders").

How about, always be skeptical of consensuses where a wrong answer or inadequately supporting a "consensus" can get you ostracized and your grant money deleted.  Lol.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 28, 2018, 06:32:40 PM
Global warming itself is not happening.  But even if it is, it's less than claimed and not caused by humans.  But even if it is caused by humans, warming is actually a good thing, so we need more of it.

Seriously, there are camps claiming all of those things, with small numbers migrating from the left to the right.

Or how about the, it's a settled scientific fact that humans are causing global warming, therefore we need to enter into massive economic redistributions that actually end up harming the environment group.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 28, 2018, 08:49:01 PM
Quote
How about, always be skeptical of consensuses where a wrong answer or inadequately supporting a "consensus" can get you ostracized and your grant money deleted
It's not just hard to believe, but is counter-factual, to claim that petroleum companies would stop funding 'research' that disputed the "consensus".

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 09:37:41 AM
According to one source I looked at, Exxon as an example had it's scientists publish research fully supporting human caused climate change, but it also provided millions to groups that disputed climate change (estimates vary, but it looks like it was less than $10million a year).  Meanwhile, the US government is spending something like $2.5 billion on research. 

So you have a "little" point here, but for a climate researcher (Exxon's contrarian funding, for example, funds advocacy groups not necessarily research groups) you really can't rely on petro dollars to support  you.  Not to mention, you'd immediately be deemed "discredited" no matter how rational a case you make for going against the consensus.

So it's not counter-factual to say risking funding sources that are multiple orders of magnitude greater is not a real consequence.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 29, 2018, 12:03:05 PM
This is the same US government where Republicans control the legislature and the executive branches, and whose members continue to this day calling climate science a hoax, right?  Why do you simply assume all of that money is earmarked to support one line of investigation only?  Especially since you go to great lengths to rationalize the petro dollars, even going so far as to ignore that they hid their research that supported AGW for decades...
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 12:12:01 PM
DonaldD, why don't you point out the major university or major government grant recipient that is publishing research that opposes AGW.  There's no reason the US government could not do so, but it's really not doing so, which again largely moots the point you are making.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on August 29, 2018, 12:26:18 PM
Actually, there is another interpretation of the reasons why, but I'll leave it as an exercise for the class.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on August 29, 2018, 04:22:06 PM
Always be skeptical of polls where there is no incentive to answer honestly or put effort in.  "Mischevious Responders" (deliberately wrong answers) are quite common - and likely exceed the 6% threshold, as do kids who could do something but don't out of laziness ("Insufficient Effort Responders").

How about, always be skeptical of consensuses where a wrong answer or inadequately supporting a "consensus" can get you ostracized and your grant money deleted.  Lol.

And yet it still gets hotter...

You have to wonder why the climate is so darned concerned with that grant money. ;)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on December 17, 2018, 09:05:31 AM
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/16/676913451/deep-seagrass-bed-could-stall-climate-change-if-climate-change-doesnt-kill-it-fi (https://www.npr.org/2018/12/16/676913451/deep-seagrass-bed-could-stall-climate-change-if-climate-change-doesnt-kill-it-fi)

For Pete. Addressing the legitimate concern that conservation efforts don't get enough attention in the climate change debate.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 17, 2018, 11:59:10 AM
Some interesting links for those interested in reducing carbon, and the impact of the Paris treaty.  Unfortunately the first link, doesn't track the EU as a whole.  Early reports are that their carbon emissions are up this year, though they are still down from 1990 (the US is close to even to 1990, but down from it's mark in 2000.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8 (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8)

Interesting to me that China appears flat the last couple years, when the Paris accord and the international reports seem to think it would still be going up.  Worth checking out (especially, if there's any self reporting involved by the Chinese).  Chinese pollution has more than swallowed all gains from first world reductions.  And even if the US did a 10% reduction from 1990 levels, that would be completely swallowed by a 5% increase in China.

Here's a light analysis saying China's emissions were really growing in 2018.  It also reminded us that the Chinese "commitment" in Paris was to try to hit peak emissions in 2030, which means substantially more carbon in the world.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/390741-chinas-rising-emissions-prove-trump-right-on-paris-agreement (https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/390741-chinas-rising-emissions-prove-trump-right-on-paris-agreement)

Here's a link that demonstrates why I don't trust Politifact.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/18/environmental-protection-agency/are-greenhouse-emissions-down-under-donald-trump-e/ (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/18/environmental-protection-agency/are-greenhouse-emissions-down-under-donald-trump-e/)

While there's little about the analysis that I find troubling, the top line rating is "half true" on this statement:

Quote
Are greenhouse emissions down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

Yet, here's their "money" quote on the analysis:

Quote
In other words, emissions declined under Trump, but the rate of decline slowed compared to the late Obama era.

So "in other words" they concluded the statement was actually true but could not seem to limit themselves to the facts.  They could just as easily have said, True, but rate is declining.  They also ignored that the economy and manufacturing both picked up in the Trump era, which means those slight declines are against a back drop of more productivity (which almost certainly means an improvement in the rate of pollution versus production - something that should be celebrated not derided).

I rate Politifact's decision to manipulate the context as intentionally misleading.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: rightleft22 on December 17, 2018, 12:39:14 PM
I like how the Concrete companies are working on finding better way to make Concrete and use Carbon. I’m also encouraged by what I’m hearing about break through's in battery design and energy storage. I think that is going to be the key.

The economy of the future is not going to be driven by Oil. We can fear that however its going to happen. I don’t even think its about being Green or climate change but that it makes economic sense to invest in doing things better when we know better. In the short-term innovation may be experienced as costing us however in the long term it could be a win win for the economy and environment.

I wonder if the fear of change is due to the fear of employment and that the future is going to require everyone to be adaptable.  My job already does. I could be angry and demand to bring back the good old days of type writers and land line phones, but I’d be out of work… and bitter.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 17, 2018, 01:06:18 PM
Speaking of context:

2016 - CO2 emissions - metric tonnes per capita
China 7.45
US 15.56

So, every person in China could effectively double their CO2 emissions and still have less of an effect on global climate than the average resident of the USA.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on December 17, 2018, 01:09:07 PM
The economy of the future is not going to be driven by Oil. We can fear that however its going to happen. I don’t even think its about being Green or climate change but that it makes economic sense to invest in doing things better when we know better. In the short-term innovation may be experienced as costing us however in the long term it could be a win win for the economy and environment.

I agree, I just wish we didn't have such a large subset of the population who wants to cling to it for as long as possible. It only enriches Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Probably the single largest thing we could do to undermine those countries internationally would be to poor billions of dollars into batteries, electric cars, smart grids, and alternative energy sources. Remove the high demand for oil and several of those economies would basically collapse without the need for sanctions.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on December 17, 2018, 01:18:25 PM
Speaking of context:

2016 - CO2 emissions - metric tonnes per capita
China 7.45
US 15.56

So, every person in China could effectively double their CO2 emissions and still have less of an effect on global climate than the average resident of the USA.

This doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison to me, considering that the USA is completely industrialized, whereas I suspect a huge percentage of China isn't. I just read that something like 575 million or so of the Chinese population lives in "rural" areas, versus 813 million in "industrial areas". I don't know this offhand, but I'd ask how many of the rural residents are significant consumers or producers of anything that creates CO2 emissions. We're not talking about 'rural Americans', who are on the power grid with plumbing, buying stuff from Walmart and eating meat; we're talking about the people who still haven't upgraded from how things in China were before, like when not everyone in the family even had clothes. So these numbers don't appear very telling to me. A better metric would be how much CO2 China produces compared to the population that would fall under a standard curve of American industrialized well-being. This could be anywhere from filthy rich down to poor people (by our standards), but very likely shouldn't include anyone we could call so destitute that American economic labels for them are meaningless. Maybe the USA would still come out ahead of China even if you took this into account, but then I'd ask about what percentage of each population appears where on the poverty graph. The more the wealth is concentrated in few hands the less the national population number matters.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 17, 2018, 02:37:52 PM
Speaking of context:

2016 - CO2 emissions - metric tonnes per capita
China 7.45
US 15.56

So, every person in China could effectively double their CO2 emissions and still have less of an effect on global climate than the average resident of the USA.

I think if you go back in this thread, though it could be another, you can see the debate on using the misleading per capita statistic.  The best measure is pollution per unit of production, that encourages maximum efficiency and would help to move production to the cleanest producers.

As I've said before, replacing 100 units of US production that generates 200 units of carbon, with 100 units in China that generates 600 units of carbon, is a complete loss for the world.  The fact that they have "per capita" capacity is a bizarre claim to make.  If you're really interested in cutting global carbon, which is the only measure that would be helpful for climate change you can not simultaneously argue for statistics that would mask massive increases in carbon for less overall efficiency.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 17, 2018, 02:52:36 PM
Seriati, don't you also have to take into account that China should be allowed to raise their standard of living, which means that they are going to consume more energy. This includes growing numbers of private automobiles.

I don't see where we ought to take the approach that because they are late to the party, they have to work out of a different index.

If you want to avoid shifting to dirty manufacturers, whether in a different country or the same one, well that's why there are many people who support a carbon tax to build that factor into product cost. I don't want to break down any one proposal, just that it conceptually does that job.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 17, 2018, 02:57:36 PM
Well TheDrake, I can respect the economics argument, but if someone is one here telling us that there will be irreversible damage if carbon is not cut, the idea that the Chinese can blow up the savings of the rest of the world has to be addressed.  The Chinese economy is not in need of being propped up, and if you buy the argument that they are entitled to destroy the planet to get to some target per capita level, then what do you do when, India, Indonesia, South America, Africa and the rest of Asia all make the same claim?  If carbon is critical can we afford to let it go to 10 or 20 times more to let them catch up?

Fact is, there's no reason to encourage dirty factories being built today.  Redistribution should not be the purpose of an environmental policy.  Save the planet, put the true polluters out of business.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 17, 2018, 03:23:17 PM
Haven't we already blown up the savings of the word - meaning the most industrial nations and historic polluters - and therefore owe something to Indonesia? I feel like any "fair" look has to account for a number line that starts in the late 19th century. If the roles were reversed, wouldn't you be demanding that levels shouldn't just get frozen where they are? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

In a crisis, doesn't everyone have to do what they can without a concern about who is "winning"? Stores might give away water during a natural disaster, I guess you could look at that as redistributing wealth. Personally, I'm still in favor of a Manhattan Project level of action on clean tech with the US government in charge and the patents released to the public domain. Then everybody in the world can have us to thank for averting disaster. As it is, China is outspending us 3:1 on clean tech.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 17, 2018, 03:31:30 PM
But what is the "crisis" in your example?  If 'everyone has do something' to save the environment, China can't be allowed to do what it's doing.

If, however, the "crisis" is the economic difference then yes punishing the west to prop up the third world makes sense.

But using the environment to justify an economic policy that hurts the environment is too much for me.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 17, 2018, 04:23:57 PM
Are you "punishing" the guy who carries the most sandbags in a flood? You have to do what you can to get the best agreement possible. If you tell China that they have to hold the line and not add any more output, why would you think they should do so? The only other choice is economic force, and it is a real laugh to think of the US leading an environmental coalition with teeth.

There is some precedent for that, like some of Europe's material laws (like getting rid of lead-based solder). China joined the EU along with California. The rest of the US, not so much. I would imagine that even if China went all-in and stopped their emission climb entirely, US policy would just point to other countries, and so until each and every other country stops going up, I guess we do nothing? The last person to grab a sandbag in the face of rising water.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 17, 2018, 04:48:04 PM
Seriati, I think you will see that going back in any thread, not using per capita information is simply dishonest. There, see how easy that was?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 17, 2018, 05:19:11 PM
Quote
According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.

By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons.

You’re right, it’s so easy:

Quote
According to World Bank data, U.S. per capita carbon dioxide emissions rank 11th among countries. So, we are not the largest per capita emitter, but we do emit 2.2 times as much on a per capita basis as China. But, China has 4.3 times as many people, and that matters from an overall emissions perspective. China's lower per capita carbon dioxide emissions are more than offset by its greater population, so China emits over 70% more carbon dioxide annually than the U.S.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 17, 2018, 05:30:54 PM
is the debate about the question of global warming or the question as to if human activity is a factor in warming?

The debate is how much to punish America.

The climate is changing, as it always has. Global warmists push this idea that it’s always been roughly the temperature of the late 1800’s but the fact is it’s almost always been warmer (we are currently in an ice age). That the planet warms coming out of an ice age should surprise nobody and, in fact, should be hoped for since we don’t want this interglacial period to go back into a glacial period.

CO2 level historically average several times the current level, rising above 4,400 ppm at times in the past. It should surprise nobody that we would trend from historically record low CO2 levels back to the normal averages.

Everything is happening normally, regardless of human activity, which actually is just background noise in the overall climate.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: rightleft22 on December 17, 2018, 05:45:20 PM
Quote
Everything is happening normally, regardless of human activity, which actually is just background noise in the overall climate.

I'm not sure that's a fact. I did a climate project in grade school way back when no one talked about climate change and I very easily, and without controversy, showed how man impacts the environment - including climate.  But that's neither here nor there.

The argument that we should find cleaner and better ways to user our resources shouldn't depend on proving or disproving clement change and man's influence on it. It just good economics.
Any nation that fails to embrace new energy technology is gong to be left in the dark in more ways then one. 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 17, 2018, 06:13:44 PM
Quote
But, China has 4.3 times as many people, and that matters from an overall emissions perspective. China's lower per capita carbon dioxide emissions are more than offset by its greater population,
This is, of course, a silly argument.  It effectively rationalizes every jurisdiction's  actions, because every jurisdiction can be broken down artificially into something smaller than another artificial jurisdiction.  Beijing need not do anything, because Beijing has much less emissions than the United States does. California needs to do nothing because it's emissions are less than Canada's Toronto needs do nothing because it's emissions are less than those of New York. 

You should really think before parroting.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 17, 2018, 06:50:24 PM
Seriati, I think you will see that going back in any thread, not using per capita information is simply dishonest. There, see how easy that was?

I have no idea what you even mean by that.  It's pretty clear though, that if you are serious about the environment you should favor that the factories that can produce a product with the least amount of pollution are the factories that receive the contract.  There's nothing about "per capita" that relates at all to efficiency, it only comes up in the context of a pro-redistribution advocate.

Honestly, explain in any rational way why it helps the environment to produce more aggregate pollution creating products if you do it in a country that has less pollution per capita?  That's just nonsensical.

Again, the only dishonesty is citing to "per capita" and claiming it's about the environment.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 17, 2018, 07:11:41 PM
The argument that we should find cleaner and better ways to user our resources shouldn't depend on proving or disproving clement change and man's influence on it. It just good economics.
Any nation that fails to embrace new energy technology is gong to be left in the dark in more ways then one.

Hear, hear. Focusing exclusively on climate change ignores the benefit of lowering emissions locally. Respiratory issues alone make it a darn good idea. Much of this impact is felt from vehicle emissions in the most widespread way. Even if the carbon output stayed level, you'd benefit from moving the fossil fuel to a centralized power plant that can better sequester carbon than a tailpipe. Vehicle emissions not only impact health, but also buildings and other infrastructure.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 18, 2018, 02:56:14 AM
The "dishonesty" is framing the discussion absent context. China is industrializing. This is happening, and will continue to happen, regardless of any treaty on the environment.  Now, with environmental treaties in place, at least this industrialization will occur with more stringent controls than otherwise would be the case.

Your seeming position is completely disingenuous: unless China commits to keeping the majority of its population in a preindustrialized condition, the USA and other western countries, societies that are already fully industrialized, should not commit to reducing their emissions whatsoever.  It's very convenient.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 18, 2018, 05:54:37 AM
I think the point is that the Earth doesn't care who is killing her. The climate doesn't either. If America stabbed her a hundred times over the last century then it's only fair that China and India each get to stab her a hundred times now? That's just going to kill her all the more quickly.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 18, 2018, 07:21:53 AM
Again, try to come back to reality. It is no more reasonable to expect the average Chinese or Indian resident to settle for a standard of living significantly lower than that enjoyed by westerners, than it is to expect all residents of Western countries to lower their standard of living down to that of the average, say Congolese.

Forget about pretending that you care about "right" and "wrong" - this about effective action in the face of reality.  And the reality is westerners are not about to drop their standard of living to preindustrial levels, any more than is the developing world about to limit itself to relative penury. Given that reality, we work on solutions and compromises from there.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 18, 2018, 08:20:41 AM
Quote
But, China has 4.3 times as many people, and that matters from an overall emissions perspective. China's lower per capita carbon dioxide emissions are more than offset by its greater population,
This is, of course, a silly argument.  It effectively rationalizes every jurisdiction's  actions, because every jurisdiction can be broken down artificially into something smaller than another artificial jurisdiction.  Beijing need not do anything, because Beijing has much less emissions than the United States does. California needs to do nothing because it's emissions are less than Canada's Toronto needs do nothing because it's emissions are less than those of New York. 

You should really think before parroting.

Thus proving that what you really want to do is punish America only, except for California (free pass for your state). That’s really what this is about, Greg demonstrates it well.  The real goal is “economic justice”, that’s why California is excluded.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on December 18, 2018, 08:44:30 AM
Quote
But, China has 4.3 times as many people, and that matters from an overall emissions perspective. China's lower per capita carbon dioxide emissions are more than offset by its greater population,
This is, of course, a silly argument.  It effectively rationalizes every jurisdiction's  actions, because every jurisdiction can be broken down artificially into something smaller than another artificial jurisdiction.  Beijing need not do anything, because Beijing has much less emissions than the United States does. California needs to do nothing because it's emissions are less than Canada's Toronto needs do nothing because it's emissions are less than those of New York. 

You should really think before parroting.

Thus proving that what you really want to do is punish America only, except for California (free pass for your state). That’s really what this is about, Greg demonstrates it well.  The real goal is “economic justice”, that’s why California is excluded.

Could you be any more obtuse to the actual point being made?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 18, 2018, 08:49:36 AM
Ummm... what Yossarian said... or did you sincerely believe you accurately characterized my argument? In which case...  :o
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 18, 2018, 10:33:42 AM
Again, try to come back to reality. It is no more reasonable to expect the average Chinese or Indian resident to settle for a standard of living significantly lower than that enjoyed by westerners, than it is to expect all residents of Western countries to lower their standard of living down to that of the average, say Congolese.

This isn't about 'expecting' the Chinese to do anything.  The policies you favor require shutting down less polluting factories in the first world, so that more polluting factories can be built in China and other places to produce the same products less efficiently.

Western civilization is under no obligation to make itself worse off and hurt the Earth at the same time to arguably make the Chinese better off (and even that argument is based on a misunderstanding of how economies work).  Having the most efficient factories be the most active means that we get the most amount of consumer product for the least environmental burden, ergo there is more to go around - including to the Chinese - for the same amount of pollution.

If we have 1000 pollution to "burn" (forgive the pun), having the US do the production gives us 10,000 products to share, while having the Chinese do it gives us 4,000.  Other than the "benefit" of letting China be the owner of those products, you've made the world 60% poorer with that decision.  What really happens though is that China plans to produce the 10,000 products and dump 2,400 units of pollution out there.  Which is why it's a total lie to claim that your argument makes sense either economically or environmentally.

If you're concerned the Chinese are going to do it anyway, that's still a poor excuse to advocate reducing the cleaner factories.  Instead you should stop buying Chinese products made with excessive pollution and take away their incentive to produce them.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 18, 2018, 10:37:29 AM
Could you be any more obtuse to the actual point being made?

In what way is he obtuse?  DonaldD seems to believe that we should have a guilt about past conduct, and to satisfy that guilt we have to let others do the same bad conduct even if it's "clear" that the conduct will kill us all.  That's just poorly thought out logic, two wrongs don't make a right, and when the two wrongs aggregated are even worse it's just a bad plan.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on December 18, 2018, 11:06:38 AM
Western civilization is under no obligation to make itself worse off and hurt the Earth at the same time to arguably make the Chinese better off (and even that argument is based on a misunderstanding of how economies work).  Having the most efficient factories be the most active means that we get the most amount of consumer product for the least environmental burden, ergo there is more to go around - including to the Chinese - for the same amount of pollution.

No one supports those policies. Generally newer factories are built to be more energy efficient (b/c they can produce products cheaper), even in counties with poor environmental laws (China). One of the reasons that American steel producers have suffered is because they never upgraded their facilities to the more efficient production methods were installed in Europe and elsewhere. So when you talk about American steel mills or other factories being closed they are generally the 50-70 year old factories that aren't as efficient as their newer counterparts, even those in the third world.

Secondly industry is only about 1/5 of total emissions (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)). So focusing your argument solely on the fact that to reduce emissions we have to shut down every factory in America is a strawman. Electricity and transportation both have greater emissions than industry. And if you look at the policies pursued most aggressively they address fuel efficiency and energy production.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 18, 2018, 11:44:29 AM
yoss, I disagree.  Those policies are exactly what's being proffered and exactly what DonaldD's position requires.  Here's an older link on environmental efficiency.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

Not as helpful as a new link, but China is pretty much bottom of the barrel.  This comparison is not the most helpful as it ignores the types of production that occur in certain countries, where some are far less polluting than others.  Even if China is seeking to be more efficient in their flagship factories and programs, they haven't had strong laws (like the US and Europe do) to ensure that those standards are applied to all of their factories.

The pace of US consumer green energy is still accelerating.  We've made a conscious decision to increase our use of renewables, so has the EU.  That's not primarily because of the stick of punishment for pollution.  Nothing about encouraging China to produce dirty factories is going to change that direction. 

Honestly, if your complaint is that modern living is doing most of the damage, that should cause you to resist even more the idea of moving the rest of the world to this standard instead of an environmentally friendlier one.

You are no more going to convince Westerners to live worse than you are going to convince everyone else they don't deserve the same standard of living.  Your best bet is develop high tech green methods of living.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 18, 2018, 03:08:47 PM
is the debate about the question of global warming or the question as to if human activity is a factor in warming?

The debate is how much to punish America.

The climate is changing, as it always has. Global warmists push this idea that it’s always been roughly the temperature of the late 1800’s but the fact is it’s almost always been warmer (we are currently in an ice age). That the planet warms coming out of an ice age should surprise nobody and, in fact, should be hoped for since we don’t want this interglacial period to go back into a glacial period.

CO2 level historically average several times the current level, rising above 4,400 ppm at times in the past. It should surprise nobody that we would trend from historically record low CO2 levels back to the normal averages.

Everything is happening normally, regardless of human activity, which actually is just background noise in the overall climate.

Generally agreed, except with regards to CO2, where there is very clearly a man-made  "signal" present in the increasing CO2 levels, now as to how much impact that increase in CO2 is going to have overall, and if the impact is linear, exponential, or at a diminishing returns portion of the curve regarding CO2, that's an entirely different debate that few seem to be honestly open to discussing.

The funnier one to see go ignored is the matter of water vapor, it is widely acknowledged as the biggest GHG present in the proverbial room, but it gets magically ignored because "it doesn't stay in atmosphere for long" even if it does rather directly contribute to most severe weather events.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 18, 2018, 04:01:58 PM
TheDeamon, that's not why it gets ignored.  It gets ignored because if you include it nothing else can be separated from the noise of water vapor.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on December 18, 2018, 04:35:21 PM
Water vapor isn't "noise".  It is a feedback and is entirely reliant upon CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases (forcings).  It can't stay in the atmosphere on its own and it is directly dependent on forcings to determine how much water vapor is in the atmosphere.

https://enviroliteracy.org/air-climate-weather/climate/climate-forcing-feedback/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 18, 2018, 05:54:46 PM
Water vapor isn't "noise".  It is a feedback and is entirely reliant upon CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases (forcings).  It can't stay in the atmosphere on its own and it is directly dependent on forcings to determine how much water vapor is in the atmosphere.

Except for when we introduce large amounts water to previously arid regions of the world in order to grow crops which happen to release a lot of water vapor as part of the photosynthesis process.

Or how we happen to release enormous quantities of artificially created water vapor into the atmosphere as a waste product in many commercial, industrial, and power generation processes?

My favorite has to be the Hydrogen fuel cells that were allegedly going to save the planet by emitting water vapor as its only waste byproduct.

Even better if that happens to be a hydrogen fuel cell operating in the upper atmosphere.  ::)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 18, 2018, 06:12:16 PM
Ummm... what Yossarian said... or did you sincerely believe you accurately characterized my argument? In which case...  :o
I merely point out that, as you demonstrated, the point of AGW is “economic justice “. Make all the faces you want, won’t change the truth.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 18, 2018, 07:11:02 PM
Right...  So you completely misunderstood what I wrote; the only question is whether you misrepresented my point on purpose, or are simply as dumb as a box of hammers. I specifically pointed out that positions based on some kind of misplaced idea of right or wrong, what you mischaracterize as "economic justice" are irrelevant to addressing the problem or effective policy.

You really should read the words that people write, as opposed to the words you imagine them writing.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 18, 2018, 07:26:52 PM
Not the water vapor argument again... people, just read the literature - you don't need to guess.  Extra water added to the atmosphere will be precipitated out over a period of one to two weeks - not long enough to cause any significant warming. 

Why? Because the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is a function of the heat in the atmosphere.  If you don't first warm the atmosphere, adding water vapor just creates rain and snow.

Now, if you do increase the heat in the atmosphere (say, by increasing the levels of CO2) then the atmosphere will maintain higher levels of water vapor, and that increased amount of water vapor will stay around long enough to itself increase the heat trapped in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: LetterRip on December 18, 2018, 08:52:18 PM
Except for when we introduce large amounts water [...]

Total atmospheric humidity is essentially constant for a given temperature - if the temperature doesn't increase due to a forcing, the water vapor from the sources mentioned simply increases the precipitation rate not the total atmospheric humidity.

There is potentially an impact on local humidity due to changes in point sources - contrails actually decrease daytime temp and increase night time temp (and since H2 produces about 3x the water vapor for the same amount of jet fuel or gasoline - so it could have some impact - that said jets are unlikely to switch to H2 - more likely is synthetic or biogenic jet fuel); cars replacing gasoline with H2 would perhaps increase city humidity and cause some local warming, especially perception of warming (wet bulb temp) but H2 seems to have lost to batteries for ground transport so not likely to ever matter; vegetative respiration causes a local cooling.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on December 18, 2018, 09:33:20 PM
Ummm... what Yossarian said... or did you sincerely believe you accurately characterized my argument? In which case...  :o
I merely point out that, as you demonstrated, the point of AGW is “economic justice “. Make all the faces you want, won’t change the truth.

Talking about "the point of AGW" is like someone talking about "the point of Christmas."  Different people see different points.

Yes, Kyoto and several other sets of laws that pretend to address AGW, really aim more for addressing "economic justice."  Although the result is just as dismal, as you can see from the Ethanol boondoggle, which has more effect of redistributing money from poor people in America to corporations in foreign 3rd world countries.

That doesn't change the fact that human-driven climate change is real.  Just like the fact that the patriot act and other features of our current Rein of Counteterror involve fewer measures to actually fight terrorism, than to turn America into an open air prison where everyone in the 99% eats sleep poops and dies under the all-seeing eye of the almighty Sauron-state, doesn't change the fact that the Pentagon and Twin Towers were hit on 9-11 by an actual enemy.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 19, 2018, 12:17:01 AM
Except for when we introduce large amounts water [...]

Total atmospheric humidity is essentially constant for a given temperature - if the temperature doesn't increase due to a forcing, the water vapor from the sources mentioned simply increases the precipitation rate not the total atmospheric humidity.

Ah but you're ignoring another "feeedback" in the system.

Higher relative Humidty means more "latent heat energy" in the air, which means it cools more slowly than less humid air. Which means a high humidity environment in place of a low humidity one will see a warmer low temperature than it would experience otherwise. (Of course, conversely, it also tends to add resistance to higher temperatures as well)

Of course there even more fun things to contend with, not just humidity, but land use and albedo changes:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/forests-emerge-as-a-major-overlooked-climate-factor-20181009/

Quote
By the mid-2000s, models had improved enough that scientists could more precisely study the role plants might play in the climate system. Fung suggested that Swann try foresting the Arctic in a climate model. Trees are colonizing higher latitudes as the globe warms, so it seemed reasonable to ask what impact they would have on the region’s climate. Other researchers had previously looked into the potential effects of an expansion of northern spruce forests; unsurprisingly, they found that the Arctic would likely get warmer because those trees’ leaves are dark and would absorb more sunlight than virtually any of the tundra, ice and shrubs they might replace. Swann decided to look into what would happen if the encroaching forests were deciduous trees with lighter colored leaves, such as birch or aspen.

In her model, the Arctic did still warm — by about 1 degree Celsius, which was more than she expected. Swann determined that her simulated forests emitted a lot of water vapor, which, like carbon dioxide, is a greenhouse gas that absorbs infrared radiation from Earth and redirects some of it downward. The vapor then caused ice to melt on land and at sea, exposing darker surfaces that absorbed yet more sunlight and grew even warmer. The new forests had set off a feedback loop, amplifying the impact of climate change. The finding hinted at the power that plants could exert over a region’s climate.

In a separate study, Swann turned all vegetated areas of temperate North America, Europe and Asia into forest. Again, this exercise exaggerated something already happening in the real world: Satellite data have shown that these continents are greening as former farmland returns to forest, perhaps aided by enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide and longer growing seasons.

As in the Arctic study, the new trees absorbed sunlight and warmed, adding energy to the climate system. Atmospheric currents then redistributed this energy around the planet. Droughts descended on the southern Amazon and rain fell in the Sahara. These effects were caused by a repositioning of the Hadley cell — the massive conveyor belt of air that rises from the equator, dumps its rain over the tropics, and descends again as dry air at around 30 degrees north and south latitudes, where most of the world’s deserts are. Through the influence of plants alone, the Hadley cell had shifted to the north.

edit to add:

Quote
The historical view that climate science is mainly about physical phenomena still has influence. For more than a decade, climatologists have seen clouds as the biggest source of uncertainty in models. Clouds cool the planet by reflecting incoming sunlight, but they also warm the planet because they are made of water vapor, a greenhouse gas. Models differ wildly on how much clouds will contribute to cooling and warming in the future, and thus whether a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be problematic but manageable, or catastrophic.

But how much rain will fall in a given region, and when, and how much it will vary season to season and year to year, will make all the difference in determining which places will remain livable and which places won’t. And Swann and Fung’s results open up at least the possibility that plants could have as much effect as cloud physics on nailing down the answers to such questions.

Wasn't expecting to see that get mentioned in the article, or that it would be placed side by side with this item.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 19, 2018, 03:39:31 AM
It just seems like if China, India, and pretty much the whole second and third world are to be given a pollution pass then the situation must not be quite as dire as advertised. I understand it's only fair for them to be allowed to pollute as much as we used to but the way global warmists and climate changers seem to be okay with that indicates the world isn't about to end in a great cataclysm as is often portended. It's just hard to reconcile that the world is ending if we don't significantly reduce our standard of living along with massively raising taxes on the one hand with everyone else getting a free pass to pollute on the other. That's a real head scratcher right there. 

Now I appreciate that we shouldn't pollute more than necessary and our efforts to improve our technology to reduce pollution are great and hopefully can be given or sold at a reasonable cost to poorer countries so they can leapfrog over our learning curve mistakes but we should probably try to avoid ending up like France with their sudden overreach.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 19, 2018, 07:19:03 AM
Ignoring? No.  What you have referenced has nothing to do with what was being discussed, with the exception that another forcing, in this case, changing the albedo of large areas by increasing vegetative cover and thereby increasing atmospheric temperature.

As discussed - long term increases in atmospheric temperature would lead to higher humidity.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 19, 2018, 09:11:13 AM
There's no reason why we can't do MORE than some other countries. You know, like how the EU does with us. They didn't decide to scrap Paris just because we decided to be jerks about it.

It seems like this whole line of argument is to generate a policy of economic isolationism so that we can have all kinds of awesome new manufacturing plants.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 19, 2018, 10:42:10 AM
There's no reason why we can't do MORE than some other countries. You know, like how the EU does with us. They didn't decide to scrap Paris just because we decided to be jerks about it.

We actually already do more.  We have for decades been a leader in national level laws and improvements.  We didn't need the Paris treaty to continue that process.

They needed us in the Paris treaty as accounting matter.  Our net decrease lets the "total" increase appear to lower and a real progress.  But that's all it ever was, an accounting trick.  The globe can't be fixed with an accounting trick.  And many of the commitments to that treaty were actually bad for the environment.

Quote
It seems like this whole line of argument is to generate a policy of economic isolationism so that we can have all kinds of awesome new manufacturing plants.

Nothing in what you said follows as a necessity from the line of argument.

The line of argument is that if the environment is critical - and therefore the most important consideration - we should always favor the factories that can produce the most for the least environmental impact.  That's true whereever those factories sit.  What we should not be doing is closing clean factories to open dirty ones, that makes it a lie that the environmental impact was the most important consideration.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 19, 2018, 10:46:56 AM
Quote
The line of argument is that if the environment is critical - and therefore the most important consideration
This is a non sequitur.  I expect this is a strawman that you have internalized so deeply that you are not even aware of it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 19, 2018, 11:59:59 AM
In what way is it a strawman that an environmental treaty should be beneficial to the environment? 

Not what sure you're reading or thinking that you feel comfortable advocating for treaties that hurt the environment based on a need to help the environment?  There's just illogic there, that's not a strawman of my making.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on December 19, 2018, 12:05:54 PM
Quote
It just seems like if China, India, and pretty much the whole second and third world are to be given a pollution pass then the situation must not be quite as dire as advertised. I understand it's only fair for them to be allowed to pollute as much as we used to but the way global warmists and climate changers seem to be okay with that indicates the world isn't about to end in a great cataclysm as is often portended. It's just hard to reconcile that the world is ending if we don't significantly reduce our standard of living along with massively raising taxes on the one hand with everyone else getting a free pass to pollute on the other. That's a real head scratcher right there.

You're assuming here, cherry, that the response to global warming is monolithic and that this is the ideal response.  Both assumptions are wrong.

While just about everyone agrees that global warming is real, there is still no consensus on how to address it.  Ideally, everyone would significantly reduce CO2 output simultaneously.  If we could do this, the problem would be stopped right away.

But as you point out, that would cause a significant reduction is the world's standard of living (not just ours).  And in countries that are barely supporting their populations as it is (both economically and physically), a significant reduction could be catastrophic.

So how do we balance reducing greenhouse gases while not disrupting the economic infrastructure that we all depend on?

That's where we get into these compromise situations.  One point of view is that developed countries, which have put the vast majority of the excess CO2 into the atmosphere over the past one or two centuries, have the obligation to reduce their emissions faster than less-developed countries, since they have already created their "share" and made their money from it.  Another would be for developed countries, that have already made their money from using fossil fuels, to help pay for (or just pay for) cleaner energy plants in less-developed countries.  Both these plans are favored by the less-developed countries, while the more developed countries find them less than ideal. :)

If you don't like either of these plans, please come up with a better plan and then sell it to the less-developed nations.  Because they are not going to sacrifice themselves because of our past mistakes.  If you think there is push-back against ruining the U.S. economy because it may cause higher unemployment and less prosperity, just imagine of what you'd see if it caused massive unemployment and starvation.  :o

There is no head-scratcher here.  No one wants to be the one to hang on a cross for the rest of the world.  But if we don't do something now, we will a hang together in the future. :(
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 19, 2018, 12:50:11 PM
Of course we could just destroy all dirty power plants with smart bombs, I guess that would dramatically lower CO2 emissions and do wonders for ATK and Raytheon in the process. Some cyber warfare could knock out power grids, that would be sure to help out. An embargo on countries could keep them from rebuilding anything.

Meanwhile, we can keep grandfathering in our dirty old plants since we already built em. While we're at it we can talk about expanding "clean coal" like that's a real thing.

Let's not kid ourselves, most of our gains came because natural gas got cheaper than coal, not because we tried to avoid coal out of earth-love. Which is why I think the only possible solution is to make clean energy tech that is cheaper than any CO2 emitting fuel. Nobody is going to do anything to make their standard of living worse in a material way, or to reduce the rate of growth in standard of living.

Which is why it is infuriating to see a 72% cut to renewable programs, like we saw in draft budget documents for 2019 coming out of the white house.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on December 19, 2018, 01:20:38 PM
It just seems like if China, India, and pretty much the whole second and third world are to be given a pollution pass then the situation must not be quite as dire as advertised.

That's like saying, "Well the Bush admin gave the highest priority on 9-11 to getting all members of the Bin laden family safely out of the US," so the damage to the Twin Towers must not be quite as dire as advertised."

or

"The officials who orchestrated putting Japanese-Americans into concentration camps on the west coast also bought up all their property for ten cents on the dollar and are clearly doing it for personal profit, so Pearl Harbor's bombing must not be quite as dire as advertised."

Just because Kyoto was rewritten by a pack of greedy corrupt whores does not mean that human-driven climate change is not quite as dire as advertised.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 19, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
Quote
In what way is it a strawman that an environmental treaty should be beneficial to the environment? 
And these words have nothing to do with the post you are responding to, either. Seriously, read the actual words.  Nowhere did I state or suggest anything concerning whether "an environmental treaty should be beneficial". I simply pointed out that you can't get from "critical" to "most important", and you especially can't get to your implied "exclusively important", so the rest of your argument is without support.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 19, 2018, 04:02:15 PM
Unless I'm mistaken which post was being referred to, there's nothing that's a strawman about what I said.  you were responding to me responding to TheDrake.  Where TheDrake seemed to think that advocating for clean factories to get more production, not less, was equivalent to economic isolationalism.

Or are you referring to your post about dividing and redividing populations with respect to a claim that some don't have to do anything (a claim no one made)?  That's a complete nonsequitor that misunderstands the different environmental impact of different activities, but also the interconnectivity of various life styles.  Is someone truly green if they fill their house with green products produced in plants that produce excessive amounts of toxic waste?  No one on here has stood for a proposition that America and the west should do nothing, which seems to be the point of your comment about sub-divisions, which itself was a distraction in the argument. 

What exactly do you think your own point was?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 11, 2019, 08:07:14 AM
It’s trending to ice age:
Quote
The Sun is now in what appears to be the longest stretch ever recorded, since the 11-year solar sunspot cycle reactivated in the 1700s after the last grand minimum, of sunspot inactivity. This record-setting dearth of practically no sunspots has now stretched to six months in a row.


Quote
Furthermore, the few sunspots we have been seeing have been very weak and short-lived. Though a number have had a polarity assigning them to the next solar maximum, there is solid evidence that many of them would not have been detected during the grand minimum of the 1600s, dubbed the Maunder Minimum. During that grand minimum, which lasted almost a century, there was no recorded 11-year sunspot cycle, and astronomers observed almost no sunspots, using the technology available at the time. Many of the sunspots that have occurred in the last six months have been so weak that it is quite possible they would not have been detected by those 17th century astronomers.

Are we therefore entering a new grand minimum? No one yet knows, and we probably will not know until this upcoming solar maximum unfolds in the next four years. If it is merely weak, it means a grand minimum has not yet begun. If it is so weak however that we only see a scattering of very short-lived feeble sunspots that a 17th century astronomer would have not seen, then a new grand minimum will be upon us.

And as I have noted repeatedly in the past decade in these monthly sunspot updates, the arrival of a new grand minimum, the first since the 1600s, could have important consequences for our climate. Past grand minimums have been accompanied by a cooling climate. In the 1600s they called it the Little Ice Age, with failed crops and some years with no summers at all.

Theres still some real science to do on this but we could very easily be looking at a long stretch of planetary cooling and a second little ice age.

Quote
If we find that a lack of sunspot activity does cool the climate, then every climate model predicting a coming age of global warming will turn out to be very wrong. And those models have not been very right so far.

So stay tuned. We could be in for some very cold times, during which it will become difficult to grow crops, resulting in some famines. If so, we might all be wishing fervently for some global warming.

The next few years will be interesting.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 11, 2019, 08:38:35 AM
If anybody wants to respond to this, note that Crunch's source is Robert Zimmerman's crackpot website (https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/sunspot-update-nov-2019-the-longest-flatline-in-centuries/)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 11, 2019, 08:53:50 AM
Here's a description of how this claim has spread from one website to the next, and why it is wrong:

False claims of a coming ice age spread through ecosystem of unreliable news sites, blogs, and social media accounts (https://climatefeedback.org/false-claims-coming-ice-age-ecosystem-unreliable-news-sites-blogs-social-media-accounts/)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: D.W. on December 11, 2019, 09:38:36 AM
But it's winter time.  We got months of it getting colder and we'll all have forgotten about this until NEXT winter when this thread gets necroed again.  :P
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 11, 2019, 10:42:33 AM
Here's a description of how this claim has spread from one website to the next, and why it is wrong:

False claims of a coming ice age spread through ecosystem of unreliable news sites, blogs, and social media accounts (https://climatefeedback.org/false-claims-coming-ice-age-ecosystem-unreliable-news-sites-blogs-social-media-accounts/)

I found that interesting, though I think the techniques used to generate their criticism apply to all science reporting not just the claims they want to debunk.  Specifically, all media accounts of science "Misrepresent Sources" by taking quotes out of context, and on the climate debate this certainly occurs on both sides.

"Use of imprecise language" again true about all reporting on science.  Journalists and others sharing the information translate it into their own words that are understandable by the readers.  When the translators are not subject matter experts (as they never are) those words as often change the meaning as explain it.

Couple that with wanting to grab snippets that feed confirmation bias and agenda and it's almost never the case that a study supports the articles on it.

I also found the tracking of the story through who published and shared it to be mostly a poisoning the well fallacy covered up with a fancy graphic.  What's the real point there, other than to identify team?

Simply put, if they were going to refute it, they didn't actually put a lot of the on point refutation in the write up.  If you follow the links, it looks like they are refocusing on what the known effects of current low activity would be.  I didn't see, and maybe I missed, where they discussed what seemed to be the main point, that a sustained minimum might have broader effects with the "example" of the 1600s thrown in.  Now don't get me wrong, the example wasn't proven either, and certainly not in a cause and effect manner.  So basically, we have a speculation, being debunked as if it made a scientific claim, and that debunking effectively focusing on low hanging fruit and engaging in logical fallacies.

Lovely.  Easy to see why these kinds of back and forths don't lead to greater trust and understanding.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 11, 2019, 12:07:37 PM
There have been scientists predicting a solar minimum event happening in either this upcoming solar cycle(25), or the one following it(26) since 2004. Of course, there are a few others who predicted it would start as early as the currently concluding solar cycle(24). So we'll have to see.

We do know the trend for the past couple cycles has been diminishing intensity, and the current transition certainly doesn't indicate a likely increase. In fact, just about every forecast I'm aware of expects SC25 to be less active than SC24, what is in dispute is the intensity of the decline. Which isn't to mention that for the ones predicting minimums, there is a split on it being a Dalton or Maunder Minimum type event.

As per wiki, there also is significant dispute as whether or not Solar Cycles even impact the Earth's climate in any significant way, because past solar minimums have also happened to coincide with large volcanic eruption events, so the tendency is to attribute any cooling from those periods to volcanism  instead. (And also consequently suggests there is a possible link between solar cycles and volcanic activity that is yet to be understood)

Of course, how the wiki editors managed to double-think their way through that one I don't know. As they basically went:
1) There is little evidence to support solar minimums impact climate.
2) There is evidence to support that solar minimums impact volcanic activity.
3) This is evidence to support Volcanic activity significantly increases during a solar minimum, and that increase in activity is sufficient enough to impact the climates.  :o

This also ignores the observed behavior regarding Earth's atmosphere during solar cycles. High sunspot activity correlates to thicker atmosphere(more drag on satellites, shorter operational life for low orbiting satellites), while low sunspot activity correlates to the atmosphere "thinning" in that it contracts until it is closer to earth's surface than it would be during a period of high sunspot activity. And atmospheric height is understood to play an influential role in behavior of the jet stream.

"Short"(thin) atmospheric columns cause the jet streams to wander more, while "tall"(thick) atmospheric columns cause the jet stream to become more stable. And of course, an unstable jet stream would mean more occasions for things like a polar vortex to happen.

Which would account for how Solar Cycle 24(December 2008 to present) saw some events which hadn't been very common since solar cycle 20 (October 1964 to March 1976) which appears to have been stronger than SC24, but (SC20) is otherwise the 2nd weakest solar cycle experienced since World War 2. Of course, the media just note that such weather events are "more extreme" than past weather events through the 80's, 90's and 00's, so it must be AGW causing more extreme weather.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 11, 2019, 03:31:07 PM
Solar activity is low, and has been low, for years...
There is no significant El Nino effect this year.
This year is trending toward being the second warmest (or third warmest, depending on data set) in the instrumental and satellite history.

Clearly, that equals an upcoming ice age...
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 11, 2019, 04:11:48 PM
Solar activity is low, and has been low, for years...
There is no significant El Nino effect this year.
This year is trending toward being the second warmest (or third warmest, depending on data set) in the instrumental and satellite history.

Clearly, that equals an upcoming ice age...

And most of that warm bias is over the Oceans(and the arctic specifically). And the oceans are where most the planets heat capacity exists and will take time to release as water retains a LOT more thermal energy than the air does. That transfer doesn't happen quickly.

You are also conflating Solar Irradiance with a broader spectrum of other solar factors(solar wind, magnetic field, cosmic rays, etc). Yes the sunspot cycle has some minor impact on irradiance, but it also impacts a number of other things as well. It is those other things which will warrant watching over the next couple of solar cycles.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 12, 2019, 04:40:53 AM
TheDaemon,

a,) your first paragraph is a non sequitur and
B) You wrote this: "You are also conflating Solar Irradiance with a broader spectrum of other solar factors".  Clearly you are missing the point that I was responding to the silliness posted above  about the 11-year solar cycle - strange that you only made that distinction when it was brought up on a post with which you disagreed...
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 12, 2019, 06:01:56 AM
If anybody wants to respond to this, note that Crunch's source is Robert Zimmerman's crackpot website (https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/sunspot-update-nov-2019-the-longest-flatline-in-centuries/)

No it wasn’t. That’s a weird thing to just make up. You can go to any reputable web site that tracks solar activity and find the current activity.  You guys just got to stop fabricated so much stuff.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 12, 2019, 06:10:24 AM
Solar activity is low, and has been low, for years...
There is no significant El Nino effect this year.
This year is trending toward being the second warmest (or third warmest, depending on data set) in the instrumental and satellite history.

Clearly, that equals an upcoming ice age...

Well, it’s certainly not what the computer models have predicted, is it? Of course, no matter what way the temperatures trend, it’ll always be reported as the hottest ever. Glaciation could creep across the planet and it would still be reported as the hottest ever years. Kind of goes without saying.

It’s not just low activity now, it’s Maunder Minimum low. The kind of low that created years without a summer. To say that the sun is not the majority driver of warming or cooling of the planet is one of the most absurd claims of the warming movement. But, we’ll soon see for ourselves if the solar cycle continues to stay along this path. Hopefully we continue warming, as we’ve done in the decades since the little ice age.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 12, 2019, 06:21:43 AM
If anybody wants to respond to this, note that Crunch's source is Robert Zimmerman's crackpot website (https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/sunspot-update-nov-2019-the-longest-flatline-in-centuries/)

No it wasn’t. That’s a weird thing to just make up. You can go to any reputable web site that tracks solar activity and find the current activity.  You guys just got to stop fabricated so much stuff.

Wait, sorry. I misunderstood this a bit. Posting at 5 am when I wasn’t able to sleep. I read it as George Zimmerman.  It happens. But still, you can go to any other website tracking solar activity and see this so the logical fallacy you’re pushing is just not gonna fly.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 12, 2019, 06:36:55 AM
Quote
Well, it’s certainly not what the computer models have predicted, is it?
Well, yes, it actually is, although "prediction" is not the right word.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 12, 2019, 09:44:43 AM
If anybody wants to respond to this, note that Crunch's source is Robert Zimmerman's crackpot website (https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/sunspot-update-nov-2019-the-longest-flatline-in-centuries/)

No it wasn’t. That’s a weird thing to just make up. You can go to any reputable web site that tracks solar activity and find the current activity.  You guys just got to stop fabricated so much stuff.

I searched the precise language you quoted, and wound up there. You might be ignorant of the original source. You also might find the original science on sunspots that I helped point out, but I fear you won't because it can't help you with your confirmation bias.

Websites will confirm the solar cycle, just not the freakish conclusion that we're having another ice age.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 12, 2019, 10:02:28 AM
Websites will confirm the solar cycle, just not the freakish conclusion that we're having another ice age.

Whether or not the "conclusion" that were heading into another or having another ice age is supportable, what do you think makes it freakish?  There have been ice ages before and they have ended before, without the intervention of any human beings.  Therefore there have to be natural mechanics that cause those results.

Are you asserting that we understand why the prior ice ages started, continued, and receded well enough to be absolutely sure about which solar and/or Earth based mechanics were involved?  I'm really asking on that, I haven't dug deep (and usually when I do I find we don't really know as much as the articles seem to believe).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on December 12, 2019, 10:09:17 AM
Are you asserting that we understand why the prior ice ages started, continued, and receded well enough to be absolutely sure about which solar and/or Earth based mechanics were involved?  I'm really asking on that, I haven't dug deep (and usually when I do I find we don't really know as much as the articles seem to believe).

I think he was simply asserting that rising global temperatures, opening of the north west passage over the summers, melting permafrost, rapidly receding glaciers, melting ice sheets, warming oceans, and a whole host of other climate factors all point to warming. So the conclusion that a new ice age is just around the corner is far fetched unless you have some really good evidence for it.

Does anyone else thing its weird that the crowd most actively denying AGW is also arguing that the sun is at an historic global minimum while all this is happening?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 12, 2019, 10:23:05 AM
yossarian22c, if you wouldn't mind that really isn't responsive.  The posited "claim" is that a sustained minimum caused an extended period of global cooling.  We don't have modern direct observation of that circumstance.  Our best understanding of low cycle activity is that there are specific and observable effects that "have not had those results," though it's tough to be sure on that given we don't really know what the baseline would have been without the low activity (I mean maybe that's why heat gains have never matched with the projected claims, and that may terrify if you consider what could happen if there is a connection and solar activity levels increase).

Our best understanding that there have been global temperatures increases over a period of decades that honestly are relatively modest but that exceed what "should have happened" absent interference by mankind, doesn't really address what happens if say the majority driver is something outside human control and that factor has a significant change.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 12, 2019, 11:06:23 AM
Quote
Our best understanding that there have been global temperatures increases over a period of decades that honestly are relatively modest but that exceed what "should have happened" absent interference by mankind,
That's not our best understanding.  Your mischaracterization as "relatively modest" and weak-sauce attribution put your statement well outside "our best understanding".
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: yossarian22c on December 12, 2019, 11:14:26 AM
Quote
Our best understanding that there have been global temperatures increases over a period of decades that honestly are relatively modest but that exceed what "should have happened" absent interference by mankind,
That's not our best understanding.  Your mischaracterization as "relatively modest" and weak-sauce attribution put your statement well outside "our best understanding".

The total temperature change is relatively modest on a geological time scale. However the rate of change is unprecedented.

https://xkcd.com/1732/ (https://xkcd.com/1732/)

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 12, 2019, 11:51:46 AM
Do I have to do this for you, Seriati? Yes, 70 years of sustained suspension of the cycle was the Maunder minimum. There's nothing in the data to suggest we aren't on a normal cycle, we just happen to be in the normal part of the 11 year cycle that happens to be a low. The data now is vary similar to 2009, the last local minimum. Take a Good Hard Look (http://www.sidc.be/silso/dayssnplot).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 12, 2019, 01:13:27 PM
Have to do it, no, but efforts on education are appreciated it. 

I have to admit, again, I don't know why you think linking to data on the current cycle is relevant to the question I asked (about our understanding around the exact natural processes that must have triggered entrances into and exits from recent ice ages, the older they get potentially the less relevant).  Current cycle data isn't even relevant to the consequences of what an extended cycle (high or low) would do.

It's like the old tale of how Roman legions had to break stride when crossing bridges because if they stayed in step the aggregate impact could shatter the bridge. The same amount of steps and force generates different effects when it's applied in different ways and you get a consequence that isn't clearly telegraphed from the individual events.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 12, 2019, 01:30:19 PM
The whole thread is asserting that we're headed for another ice age, right now. Not that they happen or that it's interesting to study the phenomenon.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 12, 2019, 03:44:58 PM
Quote
Our best understanding that there have been global temperatures increases over a period of decades that honestly are relatively modest but that exceed what "should have happened" absent interference by mankind,
That's not our best understanding.  Your mischaracterization as "relatively modest" and weak-sauce attribution put your statement well outside "our best understanding".

The total temperature change is relatively modest on a geological time scale. However the rate of change is unprecedented.

https://xkcd.com/1732/ (https://xkcd.com/1732/)

Yup, totally unprecedented in the most recent 20,000 years time scale, based on the reconstruction xkcd went with.

When you cherry pick the start point, any argument can be made with statistics and reconstructions.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on December 12, 2019, 03:46:18 PM
So when has the temperature previously changed this quickly and why?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 12, 2019, 03:46:50 PM
The whole thread is asserting that we're headed for another ice age, right now. Not that they happen or that it's interesting to study the phenomenon.

Technically, we're still in an Ice Age, have been for a million+ years now. We're just in a warmer phase of it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 12, 2019, 03:49:45 PM
So when has the temperature previously changed this quickly and why?

If we knew the why, there'd be less dispute about what's going on now.

We know conditions changed, we just don't know enough at this time to determine the how behind the triggers for those changes. But as "natural systems" were causing such changes because AGW certainly wasn't doing it 100+ thousand years ago, it is reasonable to suspect some of those unknown mechanisms may be in play today.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on December 12, 2019, 03:58:23 PM
I fail to see why people should find "unknown unknowns" to be a convincing alternative to a fairly well-established theory.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 12, 2019, 04:11:53 PM
So when has the temperature previously changed this quickly and why?

There's no way to know.  Our data sensitivity once you get back behind directly recorded temperatures is garbage.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 12, 2019, 04:17:40 PM
I fail to see why people should find "unknown unknowns" to be a convincing alternative to a fairly well-established theory.

They're not "unknown unknowns."

They're in the category of "things we know we don't know" we know it happened, we just don't know the why or how behind those sudden changes. Of course being paleclimate and a reconstruction, the AGW crowd handwaves it away when it doesn't help their case.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 12, 2019, 04:28:51 PM
The real brain teaser in much of this however, has to be some recent suggestions that "a warm arctic" so long as it stays within certain temperature bounds(warm enough to not freeze, but cold enough it doesn't thaw everything else on nearby land--easy enough for a salt-water environment), may actually trigger Glaciation, as it provides moisture and energy for snowstorms to accumulate on the adjoining landmass, potentially at a rate where accumulation begins to surpass meltoff(and moves the albedo closer to white). And as land isn't subject to warm ocean currents conveying heat energy from hundreds of miles away...

I'm not holding my breath on that, but I am very curious to see what happens with Solar Cycle 25 and 26. That said, if SC25 is less active than 24, and we're still regularly setting "top 10 warmest years" records in 6 to 7 years, we've probably got a problem.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 12, 2019, 04:35:30 PM
Quote
we know it happened, we just don't know the why or how behind those sudden changes
We don't know that it happened if by "it" you mean changes in global climate at the rate we are seeing today. There is simply no data to support such a statement.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 13, 2019, 09:36:11 AM
So when has the temperature previously changed this quickly and why?

There is evidence to suggest that there have been similarly quick changes. However, this is all done via proxies for gauging temperatures since humans weren’t around with thermometers until very, very recently. The accuracy of those proxies are difficult to compare to the tenth of a degree we currently estimate. So, in the end, your question is impossible to answer and is open to a lot of interpretation.

But, the warming movement only considers global climate as something that was present in the last 150 years so those past periods may not even be relevant to you. 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 13, 2019, 10:20:51 AM
Quote
we know it happened, we just don't know the why or how behind those sudden changes
We don't know that it happened if by "it" you mean changes in global climate at the rate we are seeing today. There is simply no data to support such a statement.

This is known as the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Most, if not all, the arguments promoted by environmentalists have a logical fallacy at its foundation.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on December 13, 2019, 10:27:43 AM
There is evidence to suggest that there have been similarly quick changes. However, this is all done via proxies for gauging temperatures since humans weren’t around with thermometers until very, very recently. The accuracy of those proxies are difficult to compare to the tenth of a degree we currently estimate. So, in the end, your question is impossible to answer and is open to a lot of interpretation.

But, the warming movement only considers global climate as something that was present in the last 150 years so those past periods may not even be relevant to you.

In other words, we can't be sure and we don't know. That's totally reason to disbelieve a fairly well established theory describing something we know is happening and offers a reasonable explanation for it.

You seemed to confused about who is arguing from ignorance.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 13, 2019, 10:34:28 AM
Doubling down on a logical fallacy is known as argument by repetition. Add in a little ad hominem for fun. Just more logical fallacy. Notice the pattern?

Did you know that the hockey stick graph, the “proof” of global warming rate of change, was completely discredited?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on December 13, 2019, 10:41:49 AM
You are aware you've replied to more than one person, yes? There's no repetition going on.

Btw, pointing out imagined fallacies is not arguing.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: rightleft22 on December 13, 2019, 10:47:07 AM
Quote
Doubling down on a logical fallacy is known as argument by repetition. Add in a little ad hominem for fun. Just more logical fallacy. Notice the pattern?

I just can't take this projection seriously. You see this flaw in everyone except the people you support. Trump is the master of the offense/defense by repetition - Trump doesn't really make arguments.  To call this out on others but not the fearful Leader... shrug
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2019, 11:41:15 AM
Quote
Did you know that the hockey stick graph, the “proof” of global warming rate of change, was completely discredited?

Speaking of argument by repetition. It's great that you climate deniers managed to find one bad study and trot it out at every opportunity. It was 20 years ago. Move on.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on December 13, 2019, 12:28:34 PM
Quote
Did you know that the hockey stick graph, the “proof” of global warming rate of change, was completely discredited?

Speaking of argument by repetition. It's great that you climate deniers managed to find one bad study and trot it out at every opportunity. It was 20 years ago. Move on.
Except, of course, the study in question was not even bad, but has been broadly shown to have been 'good' methodologically, as well as accurate in its conclusions.

This is one of those cases where the lie has been repeated so often that it's been embedded into people's consciousness.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on December 13, 2019, 02:10:14 PM
I think Crunch's point on repetition of fallacy is actually valid. Anyone that has looked at the temperature record before human measurements understands that it does not reflect any level of month to month, day to day, year to year or even decade to decade precision.

How then do you conclude that the rate of change is unprecedented?  Challenging someone to point to where it occurred previously to refute your claim, kind of misses the point that there was no way for you to make the claim in the first place based on the data.

Again, climate change is a place where the uncertainty in the science is much much greater than the uncertainty in the people who want to argue about it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on December 13, 2019, 02:22:14 PM
While it may be true that climatologists display a higher degree of certainty about their data than what is warranted, it is a certainty that Crunch displays a completely unreasonable degree of certainty about his denials of the climatologists' claims.

While climatologists research and analyze the data to come to their conclusions, Crunch misrepresents their work and their data to come to his conclusions.  The two are hardly equivalent.

Climatologists do display more arrogance about their conclusions than is warranted.  But it is no where near as much arrogance as Crunch and deniers like him display.  Climatologists' arrogance comes after years of hard work and analysis.  Crunch's arrogance simply comes from ignorance and pure ego.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on December 13, 2019, 02:27:19 PM
How then do you conclude that the rate of change is unprecedented?  Challenging someone to point to where it occurred previously to refute your claim, kind of misses the point that there was no way for you to make the claim in the first place based on the data.

Because we have no evidence for change this quick outside of catastrophic events. It *might* have happened before but you just said we can't know because of the limitations of the data. Not to mention for any such change to be missed in the physical evidence, the temperature would have to spike and return to normal quickly enough not to be visible. By what mechanism would that happen? What evidence do we have today that there will soon be a rapid return to some historical mean?

If you want to supplant an established theory, you usually need to supply an alternative explanation for what's been observed.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2019, 02:29:13 PM
The xkcd link actually explains how you can call it that. Granularity can only hide an unprecedented change if it was brief enough to be offset by a corresponding unprecedented change in the opposite direction. That's highly unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

(NH beat me to it  >:()
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: ScottF on December 13, 2019, 02:30:58 PM
While it may be true that climatologists display a higher degree of certainty about their data than what is warranted, it is a certainty that Crunch displays a completely unreasonable degree of certainty about his denials of the climatologists' claims.

While climatologists research and analyze the data to come to their conclusions, Crunch misrepresents their work and their data to come to his conclusions.  The two are hardly equivalent.

Climatologists do display more arrogance about their conclusions than is warranted.  But it is no where near as much arrogance as Crunch and deniers like him display.  Climatologists' arrogance comes after years of hard work and analysis.  Crunch's arrogance simply comes from ignorance and pure ego.

I would say if you're in the "majority" camp and show anything other than 100% double-down commitment to climate change you risk being run out on a rail, certainly if you're in politics or in any kind of media spotlight. There's no nuance or room for uncertainty of any kind in the cult of Greta.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on December 13, 2019, 04:19:59 PM
LOL, Scott!  You're seriously criticizing AGW supporters for leaving "no nuance or room for uncertainty of any kind!"  ;D

When deniers claim that scientists fake data every day?  When record breaking temperatures come almost every year and deniers say it proves nothing, then turn around and say every snow storm proves that AGW is a lie?  When the same deniers say global warming isn't happening, and it isn't caused by CO2, and it isn't as bad as scientists say, and we can't stop it anyway so why try??

Verses scientists who spend millions of dollars and thousands and man-hours to test and check their theories using supercomputer programs; scientists who make careful measurements of the heat in the atmosphere and the oceans; scientists who check and verify each others works, and argue over the results and the meaning of the results in conferences; these are the people who are part of "the cult of Greta?"  ::)

Deniers thrive on wishful thinking and overblown, unverified scientific hypothesis (or worse).  That is because they have no solid evidence to prove that AGW isn't happening.  So they have to take whatever they can find, no matter how questionable, as their "proof."  Like the desperate hope that sunspots inactivity will cool the Earth enough to compensate for increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  ::)

Fake data, denial of verified facts, multiple excuses, and faith in unverified theories that may or may not happen, verses theories built on verified science, tests of such theories, meticulously gathered data, and peer review and arguments.  Which sounds more like a cult to you?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on December 13, 2019, 06:47:07 PM
Verfied theory? Like atmospheric CO2's potency progressing in a linear manner rather than logarithmic?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on December 14, 2019, 04:43:17 PM
While it may be true that climatologists display a higher degree of certainty about their data than what is warranted, it is a certainty that Crunch displays a completely unreasonable degree of certainty about his denials of the climatologists' claims.

While climatologists research and analyze the data to come to their conclusions, Crunch misrepresents their work and their data to come to his conclusions.  The two are hardly equivalent.

Climatologists do display more arrogance about their conclusions than is warranted.  But it is no where near as much arrogance as Crunch and deniers like him display.  Climatologists' arrogance comes after years of hard work and analysis.  Crunch's arrogance simply comes from ignorance and pure ego.

Arrogance? Pot calling kettle black there? LOL

Here’s a few things I am certain of:

For a long time, I was merely skeptical but willing to listen. But after we passed the deadline to avert doomsday half a dozen times I realized environmentalists pushing AGW were simply crackpots. It’s literally modern day Lysenkoism.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on December 14, 2019, 11:53:10 PM
You were willing to listen once? When was that? On any topic?

Seriously, your whole routine reminds me of Al’s argument that Obama’s only flaw was that he is too patient with those who don’t bow down and worship him (slight exaggeration)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on January 06, 2020, 07:02:23 PM
So, celebrities calling it out:

Quote

Aniston, who was presenting the award, told the audience that Crowe was unable to be at the ceremony in Los Angeles because he was "at home in Australia protecting his family from the devastating brush fires."

"He sent along this message in case he won," Aniston said.

"Make no mistake, the tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate change-based," said Aniston, reading the 55-year-old performer's remarks.

"We need to act based on science, move our global workforce to renewable energy, and respect our planet for the unique and amazing place it is," said Aniston. "That way, we all have a future," she continued to applause.

Yeah, crowd goes wild. Climate change caused these fires! The root cause of this evil is climate change. The AGW crowd laps that drivel up. Why is it drivel? Because:
Quote
More than 180 alleged arsonists have been arrested since the start of the bushfire season, with 29 blazes deliberately lit in the Shoalhaven region of southeast NSW in just three months.

The Shoalhaven fires were lit between July and September last year, with Kempsey recording 27 deliberately lit fires, NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics and Research data shows.

Police arrested 183 people for lighting bushfires across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania in the past few months. NSW police data shows 183 people have been charged or cautioned for bushfire-related offences since November 8, and 24 arrested for deliberately starting bushfires.

Queensland police say 101 people have been picked up for setting fires in the bush, 32 adults and 69 juveniles.

So is it climate change or all those people intentionally setting fires across the country? Does anyone think that a epidemic of arson just might be a cause for these fires? Nah. Gotta be climate changes. It’s science!
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 06, 2020, 07:12:41 PM
So is it climate change or all those people intentionally setting fires across the country? Does anyone think that a epidemic of arson just might be a cause for these fires? Nah. Gotta be climate changes. It’s science!

The "fun" one still has to be the chart I encountered which was a response to alarmist cries in California about "we don't have a fire season any more, we have a fire year."

The chart broke down the wildfire events in California in relation to the primary factor in causing the fire, natural vs man-caused (power lines, arsonists, other human activity directly attributable to causing the ignition event).

Seems the natural fire events still have a season to them. A very clear and very strong seasonal signal at that. What's new is the increasing amount of human encroachment into "natural areas" because humans like to feel like they're "living in nature" after all. Which then leads to drought events not very far outside the normal variation for the area, but humans doing stupid things during said drought conditions which results in a fire being started during some of the most dangerous seasonal wind events (for fire weather) in much of the world.

But nope, it's totally not humans being stupid, its AGW causing all those fires.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 06, 2020, 07:40:47 PM
That really sounds like a lot of arson... It must be the cause.  But wait - here's a question that went unanswered: how many arrests are made for starting bush fires in a 'normal' year? And are all arrests made as a result of people intending to start bush fires, or are some arrests responses to simple irresponsibility?

For instance, camp fires that do not get out of control may very well not lead to arrests; is it possible that the probability of accidental bush fires increases as a function of the dryness of the available fuel, which could very well be partly related to climate changes?

As for 183 being such a big number: in 2016, in Victoria State alone, there were about 230 arrests related to bush fires.  That's not apples to apples, but it suggests that the 183 number might not actually be out of the ordinary.

Also, what's the point of the posts, anyway? To make fun of Aniston and Crowe? It certainly wouldn't, even if 100% correct, mean the human driven global warming is not happening.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on January 06, 2020, 07:41:33 PM
So, celebrities calling it out:

Quote

Aniston, who was presenting the award, told the audience that Crowe was unable to be at the ceremony in Los Angeles because he was "at home in Australia protecting his family from the devastating brush fires."

"He sent along this message in case he won," Aniston said.

"Make no mistake, the tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate change-based," said Aniston, reading the 55-year-old performer's remarks.

"We need to act based on science, move our global workforce to renewable energy, and respect our planet for the unique and amazing place it is," said Aniston. "That way, we all have a future," she continued to applause.

Yeah, crowd goes wild. Climate change caused these fires! The root cause of this evil is climate change. The AGW crowd laps that drivel up. Why is it drivel? Because:
Quote
More than 180 alleged arsonists have been arrested since the start of the bushfire season, with 29 blazes deliberately lit in the Shoalhaven region of southeast NSW in just three months.

The Shoalhaven fires were lit between July and September last year, with Kempsey recording 27 deliberately lit fires, NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics and Research data shows.

Police arrested 183 people for lighting bushfires across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania in the past few months. NSW police data shows 183 people have been charged or cautioned for bushfire-related offences since November 8, and 24 arrested for deliberately starting bushfires.

Queensland police say 101 people have been picked up for setting fires in the bush, 32 adults and 69 juveniles.

So is it climate change or all those people intentionally setting fires across the country? Does anyone think that a epidemic of arson just might be a cause for these fires? Nah. Gotta be climate changes. It’s science!

Since Crunch left out any link, here's the rest of the story:
https://morningmail.org/bushfires-183-arrested-for-arson/

Quote
The boundaries between accidentally and purposefully are unclear because many arsonists don’t plan on causing the catastrophe that occurs. Often there is not an intention to cause chaos and the penalties for accidentally lighting a fire are far less than purposefully lighting a fire.”
Swinburne University professor James Ogloff said about 50 per cent of bushfires were lit by firebugs and impending fire seasons excited them.

Like in the USA, whether a wilderness fire turns into a conflagration has everything to do with Climate, otherwise there would be no "fire seasons."  Has Australia's climate dried out?  Doesn't say.  Are there a greater number of firebugs this year?  The article implies no, that this has been a problem for some time, since they already have stats on them.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 06, 2020, 10:05:18 PM
Like in the USA, whether a wilderness fire turns into a conflagration has everything to do with Climate, otherwise there would be no "fire seasons."  Has Australia's climate dried out?  Doesn't say.  Are there a greater number of firebugs this year?  The article implies no, that this has been a problem for some time, since they already have stats on them.

Dry seasons, even years or decades, come and go. What has changed is the number of people interacting with that very dry environment. Without the human, no wildfire would have happened even with the very dry conditions. All the dry conditions did is put that human in position to unleash much more mayhem than they imagined possible. But that's people being stupid, not climate change.

If it was truly driven by climate change, "naturally caused" fires should be increasing, and happening at more/different times of the year, and that is simply not evident. You could argue that's because the silly humans burned it first, but your're arguing a negative at that point.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 06, 2020, 10:20:45 PM
Quote
What has changed is the number of people interacting with that very dry environment.
Do you have any evidence that this is the case in Australia?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 06, 2020, 10:43:49 PM
Not yet, but give it time, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone compile the numbers.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 06, 2020, 10:51:47 PM
So you just made that up?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 06, 2020, 11:55:06 PM
So you just made that up?

My "evidence" as it was, happens to be a compilation of fire statistics for California which quite obviously is not Australia. I'm making conjecture that what applies for California likely applies to the situation in Auz. Further poking around indicates that's probably exactly so, poor land management practices, much like in California, too much undergrowth, few to new measures to thin it out. Decades of aggressive fire suppression, etc. Sounds a LOT like Cali.

That another person in here was posting about a high number of Arson arrests and other indicators of humans being the cause, not nature, and well... It stands to reason that if someone does crunch the numbers, the wildfires down under only happened because a human caused it. Climate conditions may have put everything else in place, but it is the human that created the proverbial spark.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 07, 2020, 12:18:20 AM
On a different track, but related as I stumbled across it while looking to see if any such numbers had been found for Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event)

Which leads to an interesting off-shoot which we'll have to see play out in the next decade.

Fact: A lot of the "temperature anomaly"(warming) being witnessed by satellite record is largely located in the Arctic Ocean.
Fact: The Northern Polar ice cap has been virtually non-existent during much of the year for several years now.
Fact: Liquid water is generally going to be warmer than cold water.
Fact: Frozen water is less dense than liquid(warmer) water.
Fact: Arctic Sea Ice is understood to have been melted in large part by way of incursion of warm Atlantic Water into the Arctic over several decades. Effectively melting it from below while warmer environmental conditions likely helped melt it from above. (But mostly, it was melted from below, water has a MUCH higher heat capacity than air)

Theory: Arctic Sea Ice was serving as a "cap" on top of warmer water in the Arctic which accumulated over time as it slowly melted its way through the polar ice cap.
Theory: The loss of said Sea Ice has now changed the thermal exchange from involving the melting of sea ice blown in from other parts of the Arctic and now involves a significant ocean-to-atmosphere-to-space interface, which is being observed as warming by orbital and ground instruments.
Theory: This heat exchange was previously unobserved because it normally happens under the ice sheet, which the Atlantic inflows overwhlemed.
Theory: Atlantic flows were particularly warm and strong due in large part to solar irradiance thanks to a series of very strong solar cycles.
Theory: The "Arctic heat" being observed isn't actually evidence of warming in the strictest sense. It is actually evidence of the ocean cooling as it releases heat energy it has stored over the intervening years.

Which brings us to another fact: The flow of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic and thus to the Arctic has been in decline since 2007.
Theory: As the Arctic completes releasing the accumulated heat energy(as the energy in flow is decreasing), the ice cap will begin to stabilize and grow back to what the activists are comparing it against.

Also of note: Some studies are starting to concern scientists as it looks like the Energy Balance for planet Earth, in particular the Northern pole, is running into negative territory. Good news for cooling the planet, problematic for theories of AGW.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 07, 2020, 10:35:16 AM
So you just made that up?

My "evidence" as it was, happens to be a compilation of fire statistics for California which quite obviously is not Australia. I'm making conjecture that what applies for California likely applies to the situation in Auz. Further poking around indicates that's probably exactly so, poor land management practices, much like in California, too much undergrowth, few to new measures to thin it out. Decades of aggressive fire suppression, etc. Sounds a LOT like Cali.
Of course, you'll have to forgive us for not taking your memory of a thoughtful analysis at face value: especially given that your memory, and even initial analyses, tend to be biased and partisan - just like everyone. Of course historical fire suppression has its place in the causes of larger fires, but weighting that above the increased heat and dryness caused by the climate crisis is a result of partisan blinders, either in your memory, by the author upon which you based your conclusions, or in your choice of source analyses.

What is the proximate cause of the Australian fires?  Well, to ignore that the continent is undergoing a historical heat wave concurrent with a historical dry period, and focusing on undergrowth and land use is just silly.  Undergrowth and land use has simply not changed significantly in the past 5 years, yes brush fires have been increasing in intensity.

Is the historical heat and dryness exclusively related to the climate crisis?  No!  There are weather variables that are coming together to make these metrics worse (ocean currents and heat distributions in the Indian Ocean are huge factors in both the heat and the dryness).  But these variables are layered on top of the AGW temperature signal, without which there would not have been record warmth and dryness in Australia this year.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 07, 2020, 03:17:18 PM
Don't know much about the situation in Australia, but thought you may find this interesting.  http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/76f709dc-ccb3-4645-a18b-063fbbf0a899/files/native-vegetation-framework.pdf (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/76f709dc-ccb3-4645-a18b-063fbbf0a899/files/native-vegetation-framework.pdf)

In particular the maps on PDF pages 24 and 25, show an estimate of the change in native vegetation cover from before 1750 to when the report was generated.  It's interesting that most of the land mass shows little change, except the heavily populated areas which almost completely wiped out native plants.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 07, 2020, 03:58:21 PM
What is the proximate cause of the Australian fires?  Well, to ignore that the continent is undergoing a historical heat wave concurrent with a historical dry period, and focusing on undergrowth and land use is just silly.  Undergrowth and land use has simply not changed significantly in the past 5 years, yes brush fires have been increasing in intensity.

Is the historical heat and dryness exclusively related to the climate crisis?  No!  There are weather variables that are coming together to make these metrics worse (ocean currents and heat distributions in the Indian Ocean are huge factors in both the heat and the dryness).  But these variables are layered on top of the AGW temperature signal, without which there would not have been record warmth and dryness in Australia this year.

The "historical heat wave and historical dry period" are actually highly debatable. If you're only looking at a 30 year trend(which the MSM loves to use, history doesn't start until 30 years ago), you're right. but that also provides a context for the fires now being seen--wetter years means more vegetation growth).

If you look at more historical trends, going back in the 1800's, Australia was "unusually wet" over the past 50-ish years. The long-term (100+ years) trend for Australia remains a progression towards wetter, not dryer, even with recent droughts.

Which points us around back to complaints about misguided watershed management practices currently in vogue is Auz because the eco-activists want it that way. So they're not holding water back for dry years like they would have done as recently as 20 years ago. Which leads to "lack of water" problems.

Or the eco-acitivists fighting against prescribed burns in Australia(and winning, unlike their American counterparts), or a regulatory environment that is reported to be actively hostile to landowners clearing "ground clutter" if it takes the form of vegetation. Something not even California is crazed enough to try.

A number of the problems in Australia at present are indeed human caused, just not in the way many would like to believe it to be.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 07, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
Quote
The "historical heat wave and historical dry period" are actually highly debatable. If you're only looking at a 30 year trend(which the MSM loves to use, history doesn't start until 30 years ago), you're right.
What are you talking about?  Here's a hint - Australian temperature anomalies are normally calculated against the 1961-1990 average.

To be explicit ACORN-SAT uses over 100 years of digitised temperature data. Here's a graph of the anomalies for the full, 110-year dataset: Australian Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries)

As you can see, no other year in the Australian dataset even comes close to the temperature record set in 2019. 

As for it not being particularly dry in 2019, which is what is affecting the current brush fire season: well, 2018 was exceptionally dry (the second driest autumn on record (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-06/how-does-the-current-drought-compare/10055414)).  And this year, 2019 was even drier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia#2017%E2%80%93_current_drought). So regardless of whether the last 50 years were on average wetter (they were not - check the link above) the last 2 years have been exceptionally dry. 

I can't see how you would argue that 2019 was not exceptionally dry, or was not exceptionally hot.  The numbers are there to be seen.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 09, 2020, 05:07:03 PM
More data that is relevant to Australia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia

1974–75 New South Wales bushfires   New South Wales 11,000,000 acres burned
1974–1975 Northern Territory bushfires   Northern Territory 110,000,000 acres burned
1974–1975 Queensland bushfires   Queensland 19,000,000 acres burned
1974–1975 South Australia bushfires   South Australia 42,000,000 acres burned
1974–1975 Western Australia bushfires   Western Australia 72,000,00 acres burned

2019–20 Australian bushfire season   
New South Wales
Queensland
South Australia
Tasmania
Victoria
Western Australia
26,000,000 acres burned(5 September 2019 – 09 January 2020)

Yup, this fire season in Australia has no historical precedent down there, not even the fires in the the 1974/75 fire season which burned 10 times as much land(at least, to date), comes close to comparing to the events we're witnessing now. Obviously an event of this scale in Australia must be the result of Global Warming and Climate change and cannot conceivably be within established variability for Australia.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 09, 2020, 05:22:12 PM
Why would you suggest that the current fire season burn extent is unprecedented (especially ironically)?  Nobody else seems to have made that claim.

Are you arguing that since the mid-fire-season extent is not a record, then it could not be hot and dry in Australia?  Or that AGW couldn't be happening because the brush fire extent is not itself record setting?  Seriously, what is the point you think you are making?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 09, 2020, 05:46:40 PM
Why would you suggest that the current fire season burn extent is unprecedented (especially ironically)?  Nobody else seems to have made that claim.

While nobody in here is being histrionic about it, there is plenty of chatter going on everwhere about how the fires in Auz are "clearly the result of global warming" because they're so big, and so destructive. Typically logical fallacy material for a lot of AGW types, where any evidence of extreme weather is proof of AGW, natural variability doesn't exist for them.

You establish "natural variability" in part by going back into history and seeing if a comparable precedent exists. If one does, then logically, more evidence than "on its face" is needed to create a "clear and indisputable" link to AGW. The 1974/75 Fire season burned 10 times as much land as the current fire season has to date, as nobody is making claims that the 1974/75 fire season was a consequence of Global Warming/Climate Change, that means that there is a LOT more ground to cover to generate the desired linkage to AGW(man-caused) climate change.

Quote
Are you arguing that since the mid-fire-season extent is not a record, then it could not be hot and dry in Australia?  Or that AGW couldn't be happening because the brush fire extent is not itself record setting?  Seriously, what is the point you think you are making?

Nobody is disputing it is hot and dry in Australia, what is in dispute is the trend they're trying to assert based on this fire season.

There are other problems as well, Dr. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville explores some of them as well:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/are-australia-bushfires-worsening-from-human-caused-climate-change/
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on January 09, 2020, 06:00:28 PM
I can't comment on the quality of historical fires but there's a difference between a fire that burns through the underbrush and the scorched earth the current fires seem to leave behind.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 09, 2020, 06:29:44 PM
Quote
While nobody in here is being histrionic about it, there is plenty of chatter going on everywhere about how the fires in Auz are "clearly the result of global warming" because they're so big, and so destructive. Typically logical fallacy material for a lot of AGW types, where any evidence of extreme weather is proof of AGW, natural variability doesn't exist for them.

The problem is that those who deny climate change is happening look at events like the fires in Australia in isolation.  "These terrible fires in Australia don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in California don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in Montana don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  The same with heat waves, droughts, floods, powerful hurricanes, etc.  There were almost always worse incidents in the past.

What's happening now is that these almost-worst incidents are happening more frequently.  We have terrible fires in Australia, California, Montana, France, etc.  We have heat waves in France, Australia, California, etc.  We have floods in the Midwest, etc.  And not just regular fires, heat waves, droughts, floods and power hurricanes.  100-year floods every 50 to 25 years; heat records being broken every few years; category 5 hurricanes one after another.   When we look at the historical records, we are seeing upward trends.

Sure, AGW types tend to blame every extreme weather event on AGW.  But deniers tend to ignore the increasing frequency of these very same extreme weather events, and discount all of them as just being incidents of natural variability.

When the variability trends in one direction, that indicates a change.  And something is causing that change.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 09, 2020, 06:30:33 PM
Oh, and here's one of the studies regarding fires/fire seasons in North America:

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/11/2946#sec-2
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 09, 2020, 06:41:38 PM
Interesting to note that the trend of lightning-cause large wildfires is faster than those of human-caused large wildfires (see Fig. S3).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 09, 2020, 07:00:20 PM
Interesting to note that the trend of lightning-cause large wildfires is faster than those of human-caused large wildfires (see Fig. S3).

It is, but at the same time it isn't, when you consider the amount of dead matter that has allowed to accumulate in a lot of our forests and other public lands. Or the invasive diseases/insects which have been killing forests off. More chances for a lightning strike to hit something which is likely to burn because it's been dead and drying out for some time.

Of course, it might also be a good proxy indicator for storms in general intensifying(more lightning in general means more circulation happening within the cloud), which can be attributed to a number of other things beyond AGW, primarily land use changes, but other factors as well.

The problem with the trend line on that particular metric is the limited time-span being covered.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 09, 2020, 07:01:56 PM
Gotta get out there and start raking the forest...
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 09, 2020, 07:11:40 PM
Gotta get out there and start raking the forest...

Not quite that silly, but in areas that haven't burned in a very long time, and aren't being grazed, it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea to go in and "thin out" the undergrowth and possibly a number of trees as well.

https://www.pbs.org/video/inside-the-megafire-uzvhug/
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on January 09, 2020, 11:35:53 PM
Optimism re climate change: the people actually doing something useful:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200109-is-it-wrong-to-be-hopeful-about-climate-change
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 14, 2020, 02:52:47 PM
Quote
The problem is that those who deny climate change is happening look at events like the fires in Australia in isolation.  "These terrible fires in Australia don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in California don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  "The terrible fires in Montana don't prove AGW; there were worse fires in the past."  The same with heat waves, droughts, floods, powerful hurricanes, etc.  There were almost always worse incidents in the past.

What's happening now is that these almost-worst incidents are happening more frequently.  We have terrible fires in Australia, California, Montana, France, etc.  We have heat waves in France, Australia, California, etc.  We have floods in the Midwest, etc.  And not just regular fires, heat waves, droughts, floods and power hurricanes.  100-year floods every 50 to 25 years; heat records being broken every few years; category 5 hurricanes one after another.   When we look at the historical records, we are seeing upward trends.

Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995 (https://earthsky.org/earth/wildfires-summer-2019-esa-world-fire-atlas), and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Grant on January 14, 2020, 02:58:58 PM

Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995 (https://earthsky.org/earth/wildfires-summer-2019-esa-world-fire-atlas), and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

Give me an extremely rough prediction model for global wildfires.  What are the factors? 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 14, 2020, 03:54:47 PM

Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995 (https://earthsky.org/earth/wildfires-summer-2019-esa-world-fire-atlas), and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

Give me an extremely rough prediction model for global wildfires.  What are the factors?

Off the top of my head, drought and heat would be the major factors (to dry out the plants).  Periodic water to allow the plants to grow before drying them out helps, too.

So you would expect more wildfires in areas that become drier as AGW expands the desert zones.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 14, 2020, 05:18:31 PM
Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995 (https://earthsky.org/earth/wildfires-summer-2019-esa-world-fire-atlas), and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

The worst since 1995? Oh my what will we ever do. If only there were records going back even further...
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 14, 2020, 06:38:58 PM
If you got 'em, show 'em.

Otherwise, we gotta work with what we got.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 14, 2020, 06:54:17 PM
If you got 'em, show 'em.

Otherwise, we gotta work with what we got.

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
Year   Fires   Acres
2018   58,083   8,767,492
2017   71,499   10,026,086
2016   67,743   5,509,995
2015   68,151   10,125,149
2014   63,312   3,595,613

...

1952   188,277   14,187,000
1951   164,090   10,781,000
1950   208,402   15,519,000
1949   193,774   15,397,000
1948   174,189   16,557,000
1947   200,799   23,226,000
1946   172,278   20,691,000
1945   124,728   17,681,000
1944   131,229   16,549,000
1943   210,326   32,333,000
1942   208,218   31,854,000
1941   199,702   26,405,000
1940   195,427   25,848,000
1939   212,671   30,449,000

...


1931   187,214   51,607,000
1930   190,980   52,266,000
1929   134,895   46,230,000
1928   175,934   43,542,000
1927   158,438   38,531,000
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: ScottF on January 14, 2020, 08:45:38 PM
Wait wut. We had large scale data collection/aggregation of forest fires in 1927?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 14, 2020, 08:51:11 PM
Whoa, cowboy!  Wayward made reference to global statistics, and in response, you provide numbers for the USA exclusively?  Oh, and from your own link:
Quote
Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 14, 2020, 10:02:30 PM
Whoa, cowboy!  Wayward made reference to global statistics, and in response, you provide numbers for the USA exclusively?  Oh, and from your own link:
Quote
Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.

Because methods and criteria for sourcing is not the same. So in that respect, it's a valid enough point. Unknown sources means possible duplications, or other "bad reports" in the form of "overly generous reporting."

Except there is the matter that data is data, so even with a large margin of error, the historical numbers are absolutely huge compared to modern numbers. Although I will admit that there are problems with data that suggests that an area nearly the size of Minnesota burned in 1930 at least as per their aggregate. Or that an area the size of Indiana(or bigger) was burning with regularity up until the 1940's before it suddenly was restricted to an area a little larger than Maryland during particularly bad years from the 1950's and later.

So I'll agree the early(pre-1940's) numbers are highly suspect. The 1950's numbers are likely to be pretty close to valid, as that was when Aerial resources in the form of Military Surplus bombers converted into tankers started to make an impact on both fire suppression and better information about where the burns were. Considering a lot of these fire burn in wilderness areas that it's highly unlikely that they even now send people out to verify/measure in person the areas that burned vs didn't burn. Most of that is being estimated using aerial recon or satellite imagery, then(1950's+) and now.

But the records we do have are the best we've got. And the problem with the refrain about "fires are worse now than ever before(*)" (* = since their favored record keeping started, typically in the 1980's or later) leaves a problem with cherry picked numbers and very small sample sizes.

And as mentioned before, we're also coming off of the legacy of very aggressive fire suppression starting after WW2 specifically(aerial tankers helped a lot), which lasted into the 1980's. Further compounding that problem is that by the 1980's we hard increasing amounts of human encroachment into those same forests, which meant those areas still weren't allowed to burn because of the "threat to structures"/people which is reasonable enough. But then we further compounded this starting in the 1990's when Activist Conservation groups decided to start waging an increasingly effective campaign against grazing on public lands--which allowed fuel loads to increase even further.

This also ignores that prior to Mr. White Man moving into the area, the Native Americans actually did practice proscribed burns of their own, in order to mitigate the risk of such wild fires. Both here in North America and in Auz. Yosemite National is one such example of some of that, where photos exist of the Park before any real development happened, and the park as it is now. There were extensive meadows that existed when the White Man first photographed the area, those meadows existed because the local Tribe burned that area on a semi-regular basis, to prevent trees from becoming established.

100+ years later in the care of the National Park Service? Nearly all of those meadows are gone now, they've been replaced with Trees.

"Strange, it wasn't this bad 100 years ago." Has all kinds of misnomers in play, most places didn't have 100+ years of fuel load accumulation taking place. Most places didn't have human beings around to be ignition sources during the driest times of the year. And further, even where we do have some data from 100 years ago, you don't want to trust it because the methodology is unknown/suspect. Which makes the claim even more bizzare.

"It's never been this bad before."
"How do you know that?"
"Because our records going back to the 1980's say so."
"Weren't there humans around keeping records prior to that?"
"Yes, but we can't trust them."
"So how do you know things are worse now?"
"Because the damage being observed is so much more extreme."
"Okay, that's valid enough, but that's a qualitative argument rather than a quantitative one. Is more land burning now than burned in the past historically to justify your claim? Or is it simply that the land that is burning now is burning more completely than it did in the past? If it's the former, where are you getting your numbers from as you said you can't trust the data? If it's the latter, how do you know that's not a consequence of bad land-use management practices paired with bad timing with respect to human caused wildfires? You might be looking at a correlation of other data points rather than an indicator of your preferred causation in the form of AGW."
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 15, 2020, 06:56:18 AM
That's a lot of words to avoid admitting that your numbers are for the US only... Supposedly to refute Wayward's global numbers.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 15, 2020, 07:18:56 AM
...but this is all really academic; that there are increasing numbers or amounts of wild fires is just evidence that the planet is warming.  But we already knew that the planet is warming, that 2019 was the second warmest year in all the temperature products, and almost certainly the second warmest year in the past 10,000.

Whether there were other years with greater fire extents won't change that fact.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on January 15, 2020, 07:50:01 AM
Quote
....2019 was the second warmest year in all the temperature products, and almost certainly the second warmest year in the past 10,000.

Really? What was the exact high and the low temperature in 7,500 BC?

Why are you trying to limit it to the last 10,000 years?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on January 15, 2020, 08:17:37 AM
That's a lot of words to avoid admitting that your numbers are for the US only... Supposedly to refute Wayward's global numbers.

Then please provide the global numbers that support the assertion.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 15, 2020, 08:54:00 AM
Wayward already provided the numbers to support his assertion.  Do try to keep up.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 15, 2020, 09:08:30 AM
Oh, and why 10,000 years?  That is essentially the time frame of human civilization.  If you prefer, I could have said "the last 115,000 years" - better?

Here are analyses suggesting the current period is the warmest for the past 100,000 years or so.  Of course it is possible that a single year, or a very small set of years, somehow exceeded those of the past decade - but it is not likely, and would have been exceedingly transient to not have shown up in the analyses.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-earth-roughly-warmest-years.html

https://mashable.com/article/earth-warmest-temperatures-climate-change/
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2020, 10:55:56 AM
Never forget that such a study is a model and therefore untested. Until scientists can repeat results in an experimental setting you should treat any such assertion as a hypothesis, not a fact. In the last 20-30 years there seems to have been a surge in scientific journalism of making sensational claims about single studies or about untested hypotheses as if they are breaking news. Maybe that happened in the 30's and 40's too, who knows, but I've seen it escalating.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 15, 2020, 11:19:35 AM
...but this is all really academic; that there are increasing numbers or amounts of wild fires is just evidence that the planet is warming.  But we already knew that the planet is warming, that 2019 was the second warmest year in all the temperature products, and almost certainly the second warmest year in the past 10,000.

Whether there were other years with greater fire extents won't change that fact.

Temperature products that also often have measurement intervals that can often times have measurement intervals measured in fractions of a second, comparing against historical data sets which may have been doing good to have taken hourly measurements, using mercury, which has a time lag of several minutes.

Or the historical proxy records that they reference, which likely had even more pronounced time-lags than even mercury based thermometer. You're not comparing apples to apples, and we lack sufficient data to be able to tell if we're using the proxies correctly (more specifically, that their error bars are within fractions of a degree)
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 15, 2020, 11:31:13 AM
I think people who spend their lives working in this area will be shocked to learn that there were neither satellites nor mercury thermometers 10,000 or 100,000 years ago...

I also note you misunderstand how using thousands of data points to generate averages can lead to greater precision/smaller uncertainty, even down to fractions of a degree, where single measurement devices have larger uncertainties.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 15, 2020, 12:21:09 PM
I think people who spend their lives working in this area will be shocked to learn that there were neither satellites nor mercury thermometers 10,000 or 100,000 years ago...

I also note you misunderstand how using thousands of data points to generate averages can lead to greater precision/smaller uncertainty, even down to fractions of a degree, where single measurement devices have larger uncertainties.

I think most of the Scientists who work in this area are amazed at the level of certainty people ascribe to many of their findings and their tendency to ignore the error bars.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 15, 2020, 12:34:11 PM
Quote
I think most of the Scientists who work in this area are amazed at the level of certainty people ascribe to many of their findings and their tendency to ignore the error bars.
Ah, but your previous post was questioning the scientists' findings, not how people misrepresented them.

I think it's fair to say that those scientists continue to be amazed at how some lay people continue to assume they understand the scientists' work better than the scientists themselves do...
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on January 16, 2020, 07:38:29 AM
Wayward already provided the numbers to support his assertion.  Do try to keep up.

He provided the temperature for 7500 BC? Really? That exact year? You claim we know precisely what the highest and lowest temperatures were in 7500 BC? I think your desire to be a smartass is outrunning your ability to be honest again.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Crunch on January 16, 2020, 07:43:09 AM
Oh, and why 10,000 years?  That is essentially the time frame of human civilization.  If you prefer, I could have said "the last 115,000 years" - better?

Here are analyses suggesting the current period is the warmest for the past 100,000 years or so.  Of course it is possible that a single year, or a very small set of years, somehow exceeded those of the past decade - but it is not likely, and would have been exceedingly transient to not have shown up in the analyses.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-earth-roughly-warmest-years.html

https://mashable.com/article/earth-warmest-temperatures-climate-change/
h

You pick these because you’re cherry picking. We all know this. You pick an artificially small slice of time that shows what you want and demand that everyone believe it represents the entirety of planetary history. It’s a logical fallacy to do this, and you know that.

Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Kasandra on January 16, 2020, 08:01:48 AM
Oh, and why 10,000 years?  That is essentially the time frame of human civilization.  If you prefer, I could have said "the last 115,000 years" - better?

Here are analyses suggesting the current period is the warmest for the past 100,000 years or so.  Of course it is possible that a single year, or a very small set of years, somehow exceeded those of the past decade - but it is not likely, and would have been exceedingly transient to not have shown up in the analyses.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-earth-roughly-warmest-years.html

https://mashable.com/article/earth-warmest-temperatures-climate-change/
h

You pick these because you’re cherry picking. We all know this. You pick an artificially small slice of time that shows what you want and demand that everyone believe it represents the entirety of planetary history. It’s a logical fallacy to do this, and you know that.

For once I agree with Crunch's truth seeking missile of logical doubtness.  The earth is over 4 billion years old, and we know that in the first 500,000,000 or so years the planet was MUCH hotter than at any time in recent memory (agree?), and it was during that time that life was first put on the earth and proliferated wildly to what is here now.  Compare that to whining that a few species might go extinct sooner or later.  How come you aren't including that in your oh-so-smug claims about global things?

[Drive by, sorry.]
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 16, 2020, 08:05:28 AM
100,000 years is a small slice of time - really? Show me any analyses that go for, say, 1,000,000 years that show decadal rates of increase in temperatures that match or exceed those of the past several decades.

As for the "assertion" - since you injected yourself into a discussion where Wayward made an assertion - actually, the European Space Agency made it - that 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years back to 1995 - you should really understand to what you are responding before you actually respond.

Now, my response was simply that TheDaemon's attempt to refute Wayward's point on a longer time scale failed because his numbers were both regional only (literally including only 2% of the planet's surface) and were also self admittedly non-comparable across the time frame presented.  I don't need numbers to make that point - just the ability to read.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 09:56:49 AM
100,000 years is a small slice of time - really? Show me any analyses that go for, say, 1,000,000 years that show decadal rates of increase in temperatures that match or exceed those of the past several decades.

I'm really  not sure where you think you are going with this, but you do realize that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age right?  I thought that's why you picked "10,000" out of your hat was to (very roughly and inaccurately) correspond to the start of the inter-glacial period. 

There are no decadal rates (other than by assumption) that go back 10k years, there are none that go back 100k years or 1m years either.  But the evidence that we do have indicates that the exit from a glacial period is "rapid" (but what that means, isn't entirely clear).   If you go back 1m years you're going to see at least a dozen entries into a glacial period (which are gradual) and exits out of them (which are "sudden").  It would be stunning if these "rates" of change have no historical precedent against that backdrop.

Quote
Now, my response was simply that TheDaemon's attempt to refute Wayward's point on a longer time scale failed because his numbers were both regional only (literally including only 2% of the planet's surface) and were also self admittedly non-comparable across the time frame presented.  I don't need numbers to make that point - just the ability to read.

You can do is show that a reference doesn't prove that claim.  There's no way to refute the claim without better knowledge (no reason to accept it either).  Even indirect evidence though can be a reasonable proxy where there's a comment element (ie human's changing how fires are prevented and stopped).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 16, 2020, 12:16:00 PM
Quote
you do realize that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age right?
This is shocking! Why didn't anybody tell us this?!?!
Quote
I thought that's why you picked "10,000" out of your hat was to (very roughly and inaccurately) correspond to the start of the inter-glacial period.
If you realize it is not accurate, why would you point it out and then immediately show your assumption to be inaccurate?  I mean, you didn't actually need to make an assumption, since I explicitly stated my rationale in a very recent post, i.e., "That is essentially the time frame of human civilization".  It's also a nice round number ending all in zeroes, just like 1,000,000 does as well.
Quote
You can do is show that a reference doesn't prove that claim.
I'm not sure exactly what this was meant to convey, but if I were to guess, this is exactly what I did: I showed that TheDaemon's reference does not in fact support his claim.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 12:35:05 PM
So you deliberately picked a period of time that is an anomaly to use to make your claim that there are no comparable rates of change?  Apparently even knowing that they exist in periods immediately prior to the period selected and in the historical record.  That makes little sense.

You didn't.  They are indirect support.  You didn't show that they don't indirectly support his claim.  Given that virtually all of climate science relies on indirect support that seems a big problem.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: DonaldD on January 16, 2020, 01:03:52 PM
 ::)

I know you don't understand how 2% of the globe, completely segregated geographically from the rest of the globe, and having substantially different land use practices than most of the rest of the globe, is not necessarily representative of the planet in total, and cannot be used to generalize to the rest of the globe... but other people do. 

For instance, the dust bowl years of the 1930s in the USA - those years were very hot and dry in parts of the USA, but globally, that decade was basically average for the duration of the instrumental record.

Other people also understand that, when a source says "these numbers are not comparable" it is a fools errand to pretend that they are comparable.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 01:20:32 PM
How does your patronizing response stand up to your own reference to the last 10k years when looking at the unprecendented decadal rate of change (that is likely not unprecedented)?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on January 16, 2020, 01:23:53 PM
Where's the evidence that the change is likely not unprecedented?
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 02:13:17 PM
Turns out the European Space Agency has been tracking wild fires across the globe since 1995 (https://earthsky.org/earth/wildfires-summer-2019-esa-world-fire-atlas), and 2019 had exceptionally more fires than in previous years.  Combine this with 2019 being the second-warmest year on record, with 2010-2019 looking to be the warmest decade on record, there is definitely a trend.

The link you reference shows 2018 to 2019, which is where the "exceptional" change in fires is reported.  Not aware that 2018 was somehow a "cold" spot, wasn't 2015-2019 on record as the "warmest"?

Why do I bring that up?  Well there's another interesting coincidence.  The second Sentinel-3 satellite was launched in 2018 (the first in 2016).  The Sentinel-3's have twice the resolution of the satellites (500m) that were used previously by the ESA to measure infrared (1k).  If you take a close look at the numbers produced by ESA you'll see somewhere in the neighborhood of under 250k fires in 2019 and under 150k in 20218 (the chart in your link only shows through September).  Yet the NASA numbers record 13 million for 2003 to 2016 (that's a million per year pace).  Why is ESA only showing 15-25% of NASA's numbers?

The change from 2018 to 2019 is interesting because it's on the same instruments, the changes from 1995 forward are across 3 generations of ESA satellites, and maybe are less meaningful.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 03:04:11 PM
Where's the evidence that the change is likely not unprecedented?

It's kind of tough to say now isn't it?  You're welcome to look at the charts (any google search for interglacial period or ice age will bring up dozens if not hundreds of treatments) that have been  compiled to show the estimates of temperature before, during and after the interglacial periods.  They all pretty much agree that entry into the glacial period is gradual and keeps increasing to a point, and then bam, temperature rapidly rises by a large degree and kicks of off a melting and an interglacial.  How rapid?  no one really knows with any accuracy.  Quite possibly far slower than the current change, but then again, maybe not.  We don't have much in the way of direct measurement to use as a baseline. 

But it seems silly to narrow the scale to just an interglacial period, and then make a claim that something is unprecedented when if could look exactly like the process that occurred almost immediately prior to that period.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 16, 2020, 03:26:20 PM
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on January 16, 2020, 03:50:27 PM
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

I think the question never has been "what will it take to convince you we should protect the enviroment?" I mean, maybe for certain harcore industrialists ('who cares about a bunch of damn trees and monkeys') that really is an issue, but mostly I think people would be for conservation, reducing pollution especially, and 'saving the rainforest' type of ideas. The question is always how much to spend on or sacrifice for those things. Most people want to sacrifice very little, or even nothing. They'll recycle, if it's easy, not messy, and they barely have to lift a finger. They'll throw out trash, if the can is right in front of them. If they have to walk a block then they may throw the plastic on the ground.

What I suspect Seriati is pushing back against isn't the idea that we may need to cut back on emissions or to update our energy sources. I think the pushback comes from "and we need to do it right now! it's an emergency!" I'm not taking a side right now but just pointing out that the pushback seems to come as a result of seemingly high demands being made in the immediacy, but that come along with no short or long-term plans of how this will function economically. And what's more, it seems to lack a sense of what it will achieve towards its stated goal. Even if you obtained 100% full agreement that 'something must be done now' you might still receive pushback on what those steps should be. So far the main plan seems to be to...uh...stop producing, or maybe to just charge people for carbon use and it will stop that way. Presumably along with the general economy. But it's more likely you'd get agreement in the form of "it would be nice to do something, but along what timeframe? 30 years? 50?" The 'RIGHT NOW' refrain is part of the problem, which goes along with the apocalyptic warnings Crunch keeps making fun of.

So it can be tough to see, but 'sit on our hands' is not the only conclusion you might draw from "we will not accept your mandate to DO SOMETHING now regardless of whether there is a functional something on the table, and without knowing what damage the plan might do." Being averse to signficant sacrifice, especially when not even knowing if there will be a payoff, is not irrational. You might say it will prove to be wrong in hindsight, but it's not irrational. Pushback against individual claims may feel like climate science denial to you, but in fact it's a resistance to the entire movement and all the political baggage that comes along with it. I don't think you would find Seriati or TheDeamon opposed to an infrastructure update to the U.S. that featured solar and nuclear power, for instance (I'm guessing!), and a reduction in non-renewable resources. It's a question of what's on the table.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 03:57:05 PM
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

Convince me of what?  No way to "observe non-human climate variance" going forward. 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 04:15:22 PM
By the way, this is an extreme event (at least as far as we understand it.  Take a look at the Younder Dryas and how it  ended (from Britannica):

"The Younger Dryas event (12,800 to 11,600 years ago) is the most intensely studied and best-understood example of abrupt climate change. The event took place during the last deglaciation, a period of global warming when the Earth system was in transition from a glacial mode to an interglacial one. The Younger Dryas was marked by a sharp drop in temperatures in the North Atlantic region; cooling in northern Europe and eastern North America is estimated at 4 to 8 °C (7.2 to 14.4 °F). Terrestrial and marine records indicate that the Younger Dryas had detectable effects of lesser magnitude over most other regions of Earth. The termination of the Younger Dryas was very rapid, occurring within a decade."

Only bring it up because of the statement that it ended within a decade (and therefore would be evidence that such an even it no "unprecedented").  Makes sense given the cause. 
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 16, 2020, 04:15:37 PM
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

Convince me of what?  No way to "observe non-human climate variance" going forward.

Well, I'd be more convinced if they had reliable observation records from a thousand years ago that they could cross-reference against ice cores, soil sediments, etc. As it would give them a reliable cross-check against their predictions for the ice-core samples and the projections they're making with them.

Something they might be able to do in a thousand years, but they cannot do right now.

More realistically, it should be able to be largely validated in another handful centuries depending on the specific location. It's just a matter of waiting long enough for ice from the 1960's and later to be buried in several dozen, if not hundreds, of feet of other snow/ice.   
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: ScottF on January 16, 2020, 04:18:08 PM
 How dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 16, 2020, 04:20:23 PM
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

Convince me of what?  No way to "observe non-human climate variance" going forward.

That we are in a rapidly warming climate, and that something should be done about it. Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 16, 2020, 04:28:25 PM
What I suspect Seriati is pushing back against isn't the idea that we may need to cut back on emissions or to update our energy sources. I think the pushback comes from "and we need to do it right now! it's an emergency!" I'm not taking a side right now but just pointing out that the pushback seems to come as a result of seemingly high demands being made in the immediacy, but that come along with no short or long-term plans of how this will function economically. And what's more, it seems to lack a sense of what it will achieve towards its stated goal. Even if you obtained 100% full agreement that 'something must be done now' you might still receive pushback on what those steps should be. So far the main plan seems to be to...uh...stop producing, or maybe to just charge people for carbon use and it will stop that way. Presumably along with the general economy. But it's more likely you'd get agreement in the form of "it would be nice to do something, but along what timeframe? 30 years? 50?" The 'RIGHT NOW' refrain is part of the problem, which goes along with the apocalyptic warnings Crunch keeps making fun of.

So it can be tough to see, but 'sit on our hands' is not the only conclusion you might draw from "we will not accept your mandate to DO SOMETHING now regardless of whether there is a functional something on the table, and without knowing what damage the plan might do." Being averse to signficant sacrifice, especially when not even knowing if there will be a payoff, is not irrational. You might say it will prove to be wrong in hindsight, but it's not irrational. Pushback against individual claims may feel like climate science denial to you, but in fact it's a resistance to the entire movement and all the political baggage that comes along with it. I don't think you would find Seriati or TheDeamon opposed to an infrastructure update to the U.S. that featured solar and nuclear power, for instance (I'm guessing!), and a reduction in non-renewable resources. It's a question of what's on the table.

That and the matter that "do something" itself, often in respect to what their proposed "something" is, is of questionable effectiveness according to their own models. Those models also fail to account for the other disruptions and environmental(/wildlife) impacts those measures entail if applied at the requisite scale.

Of course, the other side of the dispute is disagreement over claims about how "bad" things will get in the event that the predicted warming does happen. The doomsday scenarios are just that, doomsday scenarios. Would things change? Certainly. Would things have likely changed anyway? Probably, the climate record we have to date indicates change is pretty much inevitable, even without human contributions.

As to Nuclear, I'm all for it. Both Fission and Fusion. I'm highly disappointed that there isn't a stronger "green" push in regards to Fusion research myself. But as it stands, if we want to "decarbonize" using existing technology, the only way it works, with dedicating truly mind-boggling amounts of land to wind/solar, is to go heavy into Nuclear Fission for now.

That most of the Climate Activists don't want to event discuss Nuclear anything, and instead fixate on Solar and Wind, says they're a joke and not looking at it in any depth.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on January 16, 2020, 04:28:40 PM
Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix

Just a point about psychology: I think for many or even most people, when they begin at "too difficult to fix" they are going to immediately revert to "it's not happening" as their belief. I think there are a great many truths in the world that, knowing they are powerless to stop them, people will wilfully refuse to believe are true. In fact they will fight to the death to avoid having to see what they don't want to see. So while I'm sure corporate PR strategies may well take the form of that list, on an individual basis I think denial of various things goes much deeper than just being stubborn. Despair on a subject will make people believe all sorts of things. Real solutions would do more to alleviate this than trying to get people to admit there's a problem (that they can do nothing about).
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 16, 2020, 04:35:05 PM
That we are in a rapidly warming climate, and that something should be done about it. Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix

1) Nobody disputes the warming is happening, the cause is in dispute. (As are some of the methodologies being used to claim the extent of said warming)

2) Yes, how bad it is in dispute and anyone who claims it's only going to be bad has a very high bar to cross on that one.

3) "It's not our fault" was previously covered in #1, but it's also relevant that if we're seeing "natural variability" in play, nothing we do about "our contribution" is going to change anything, because in that case, we had little to do with what's being observed.

4) This goes back to #1 and #3, if it's mostly natural variability in play. We're not just talking about "fixing" our own contribution, we're talking about trying to counter-act mother nature herself. But in order to do that effectively,  we need to understand how Mother Nature is doing it. But as we're stuck in the clutches of the cult of we're doing it, we're not progressing very well on that front.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 16, 2020, 04:49:51 PM
And for another fun thing to throw into the mix:

http://www.plateclimatology.com/
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 16, 2020, 04:53:03 PM
Even if you're at:

It might be bad.
It might be our fault.
This might fix it.

Go ahead and do the thing that might fix it because it might save a lot of lives, and especially if the thing has lots of tangible benefits even if none of this pans out.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 16, 2020, 05:03:39 PM
Even if you're at:

It might be bad.
It might be our fault.
This might fix it.

Go ahead and do the thing that might fix it because it might save a lot of lives, and especially if the thing has lots of tangible benefits even if none of this pans out.

What benefits? Wind and Solar is situational and makes sense in some cases, but they're supplements, not baseline grid. Trying to make them baseline grid has only resulted in boondoggles and energy production that only makes economic sense when granted extensive subsidies.

It requiring a subsidy to be economically viable for grid use tends to say the benefits aren't that great. Although I guess it's good for warm-fuzzies.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 05:45:29 PM
Well, then lets just sit on our hands for the next several hundred thousand years so we can collect enough data to convince you.

Convince me of what?  No way to "observe non-human climate variance" going forward.

That we are in a rapidly warming climate, and that something should be done about it. Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix

You may be confusing me with someone else.  My arguments here, and in the prior forum have been pretty straight forward and have nothing to do with denial. 

1.  The science on warming is less certain than it appears, but it's still the best we have.  2.  The consequences of what will happen are less well understood than the fact of whether or not there is warming.  3.  There are very likely mechanisms that feedback on the carbon cycle (run away greenhouse cycle) that we don't understand and therefore can't model.  4.  And finally, the solutions proffered have nothing to do with saving the environment and will in fact speed up the cycle.  5. Maybe I missed one I've made before, but none of them match what you said other than maybe a doubt that 3 in your list is clear and a belief that "fixing" it as you list in 4 is likely to be just as big of a crap shoot as what we are doing now (we don't understand whether spraying water on the fire is going to put it out (wood fire), or spread it (oil fire) with any degree of certainty).

Any time the same person argues for the necessity of "doing something now" and thinks fairness requires exempting China and the developing world they are an opportunist with a politic motive not someone serious about the environment.   I have no tolerance for signing a politically correct death pact.  Clean producers should maximize their production and put the dirty out of business.  Now if you want to agree on a global cap on CONSUMPTION (not production) then you might get somewhere, but it has to apply universally.

And no matter what it's all guess work about what the target carbon in the atmosphere should be.  There's every reason to believe that it was too low before humans, and reasonable reasons to believe it is getting too high.  We seem to have evolved in an interglatial, survived an ice age and become exceptional in a second interglatial.  Will we do as well if the ice age ends?  Who knows.

One thing is certain, as intelligent beings we can mitigate alot of even radical changes.  We are constantly moving plants and crops and even animals from zone to zone, and lack of mobility is a huge weakness that many plants and animals as a species can't overcome during rapid changes, but that may be mitigated by our own actions if it occurs.

I mean I'm just guessing here, but the most likely thing to occur - going forward - in my opinion is a whole lot of very little, until one day BAM Earth moves to a radically different stasis point.  Given that we're in an Ice Age and most of the reasons for that are not going away, and that Earth obviously has mechanisms to capture and sequester even large amounts of carbon, my guess is that the new statis is temporary (like several thousand years temporary unless we further modify things).  The big risk is that whatever warming we cause triggers a massive auto-correct loop (and there are several out there) and we end up triggering a mini-Ice age.  Those tend to expire and revert to the current stasis expectation, but given where we are in the inter-glacial it's entirely likely we'd just set off the next 100k year glacial period a bit early.

If we actually set off an end to the Ice Age (which doesn't seem sustainable given the current formation and location of the continents) then there would be a new much warmer ice free stasis.  Not fatal to life, in fact life loves those periods, but maybe not ideal for us in particular  Really tough to say, most of the history of land based life seems to have been warmer.  If that were to happen,and it turns out to be temporary (like a couple hundred thousand years), I'd expect you get mass extinctions on both ends of it and massive respeciation thereafter.

It seems really doubtful we could trigger a snowball Earth phase, particularly not if we just keep pumping more carbon out.  But those last few paragraphs are just rampant speculation/fun.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Wayward Son on January 16, 2020, 06:26:19 PM
That we are in a rapidly warming climate, and that something should be done about it. Today its about whether something is unprecedented, but its the standard playbook.

* It's not happening
* It's not that bad
* It's not our fault
* It's too difficult to fix

1) Nobody disputes the warming is happening, the cause is in dispute. (As are some of the methodologies being used to claim the extent of said warming)

2) Yes, how bad it is in dispute and anyone who claims it's only going to be bad has a very high bar to cross on that one.

3) "It's not our fault" was previously covered in #1, but it's also relevant that if we're seeing "natural variability" in play, nothing we do about "our contribution" is going to change anything, because in that case, we had little to do with what's being observed.

4) This goes back to #1 and #3, if it's mostly natural variability in play. We're not just talking about "fixing" our own contribution, we're talking about trying to counter-act mother nature herself. But in order to do that effectively,  we need to understand how Mother Nature is doing it. But as we're stuck in the clutches of the cult of we're doing it, we're not progressing very well on that front.

What you're missing in your thinking here, Deamon, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Which means that, as the concentration increases, it traps more heat, regardless of anything else.

So while much of the temperature increase may be due to "mother nature," our increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere (and the oceans) only makes it even worse. And as we continue to increase the concentration of CO2, it continues to make the warming worse.

It's like saying, "Well, most the temperature rise in our house in the summer is from the heat outside, so it doesn't matter if we turn on the furnace."  ???  If the increase of the heat is bad (and we seem to all agree it ain't good!), then making it worse is worse.

Maybe we can't get the temperatures back to where we want them, but we can make sure it doesn't get any worse because of what we do.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2020, 06:44:58 PM
Earth the biosphere is just saying stop chopping down those trees and trawling those coral reefs. Stop breaking the system. Or everything in the sea will die.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 16, 2020, 07:00:32 PM
What you're missing in your thinking here, Deamon, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Which means that, as the concentration increases, it traps more heat, regardless of anything else.

It's a GHG which has a logarithmic scale on the amount of CO2 needed to produce a given amount of warming. Most of its "warming potential" has already been expended more likely that not. That and your claims are invalidated by the ice core and sediment samples. We've entered ice ages during periods of high CO2(relative to today) being present in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 17, 2020, 01:16:50 PM
What benefits? Wind and Solar is situational and makes sense in some cases, but they're supplements, not baseline grid. Trying to make them baseline grid has only resulted in boondoggles and energy production that only makes economic sense when granted extensive subsidies.

It requiring a subsidy to be economically viable for grid use tends to say the benefits aren't that great. Although I guess it's good for warm-fuzzies.

Not burning things for energy have a ton of benefits, from reducing asthma to mining injuries. I'm willing to subsidize that. You know what you almost never see? A vision of the far future where the people of the galaxy are digging things up and throwing them in a furnace. I don't need to get into what replaces that energy to know that it is bad news and we need to stop it.

Just ask the EPA.

Quote
When fossil fuels are burned, they release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, which contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain. The most common nitrogen-related compounds emitted into the air by human activities are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides. Ammonia is another nitrogen compound emitted to the air, primarily from agricultural activities, but also from fossil fuels. Most of the nitrogen oxides released in the U.S. due to human activity are from the burning of fossil fuels associated with transportation and industry.

link (https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-fossil-fuels)

You know what else would help? Telework keeping cars off the road. And yet this administration is rolling back telework programs.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on January 17, 2020, 01:21:17 PM
You know what else would help? Telework keeping cars off the road. And yet this administration is rolling back telework programs.

Let's face it, though, North America is completely backward when it comes to infrastructure and transit in general. That can hardly be blamed on the current administration, although perhaps they're not helping.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 17, 2020, 01:29:23 PM
"You know what else would help? Telework keeping cars off the road."

Local governments could use the library computer rooms across their county to teleconference the jury selection process instead of having over a hundred people drive downtown in rush hour morning traffic for the cattle call just for most of them to get quickly weeded out anyway.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 17, 2020, 01:32:01 PM
You know what else would help? Telework keeping cars off the road. And yet this administration is rolling back telework programs.

Let's face it, though, North America is completely backward when it comes to infrastructure and transit in general. That can hardly be blamed on the current administration, although perhaps they're not helping.

We have our challenges, but the raw fact is the majority of people working in cubicles shouldn't be on the road at all. And there's a lot of them. And its not just the government, of course, lots of private businesses do it too.

As far as infrastructure goes, most Americans stigmatize mass transit. That limits options.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on January 17, 2020, 01:50:57 PM
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the benefits of co-locating. There's something to be said for being able to go and sit on someone else's desk when you need something from them. Working remotely (or even just at another site) makes it much easier to play hard to get if you don't want to do something.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 17, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
I've seen the negatives of not being physically close, but that's a training thing. If you build a culture of instant messaging, video chats, and screen sharing there's almost nothing different about the experience. In fact, I've worked in companies that embraced this so thoroughly that people 20 feet away from each other would use the remote methods instead of walking down the aisle.

As far as not getting your job done, is it really so hard to not do something whilst sitting in the office? How many people are working, and how many are pretending to work? You should have more sophisticated ways of measuring employee performance than walking down the isle and looking at them sitting in a chair.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: NobleHunter on January 17, 2020, 02:01:33 PM
It's not necessarily about getting their job done, it's about getting what you need them to do moved up their priority list. Phone calls and emails can be brushed off way more easily than someone standing next to you.

You have a good point about the culture thing. We have an instant messenger but I don't think anyone consistently uses it.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Fenring on January 17, 2020, 02:38:31 PM
We have our challenges, but the raw fact is the majority of people working in cubicles shouldn't be on the road at all. And there's a lot of them. And its not just the government, of course, lots of private businesses do it too.

This is a nice idea, but really irrelevant in regards to the issue that North American (both US and Canada) governments either no longer or never did set aside earmarked funds purely for infrastructure upkeep and replacement. I suspect they are always behind the 8-ball in terms of their finances, and between inefficiency, corruption, and lack of foresight they will not put money aside for the future. Then suddenly there's a problem that costs enormous amounts. Technologically we have more options than we used to (like working remotely) but this has nothing to do with government failures.

Quote
As far as infrastructure goes, most Americans stigmatize mass transit. That limits options.

I think in this case if you build it they will come. If it's half-decent. The fact of the matter is they can't or won't build it. Have you seen figures about the exorbitant costs of digging subway lines in America, versus in Europe? And over there they have to deal with issues like historical dig sites, running into centuries old city infrastructure, and other things related to how old some of those cultures are. And yet in America it 'mysteriously' costs multiple times the amount for the exact same project as it would elsewhere. Japan would never tolerate that kind of 'oh well I guess we can't afford it' mentality. Read some stats about the bullet train and you'll see the difference between that and American city transit systems. It's not just the monies available, it's the mentality.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDeamon on January 17, 2020, 03:06:32 PM
I think in this case if you build it they will come. If it's half-decent. The fact of the matter is they can't or won't build it. Have you seen figures about the exorbitant costs of digging subway lines in America, versus in Europe? And over there they have to deal with issues like historical dig sites, running into centuries old city infrastructure, and other things related to how old some of those cultures are. And yet in America it 'mysteriously' costs multiple times the amount for the exact same project as it would elsewhere. Japan would never tolerate that kind of 'oh well I guess we can't afford it' mentality. Read some stats about the bullet train and you'll see the difference between that and American city transit systems. It's not just the monies available, it's the mentality.

Pretty much, the problem isn't stigma in my experience from San Diego and its light rail("Trolley"), as plenty of people used it. Upscale condo complexes were built near trolley stops with proximity to the trolley being a major selling point for the developer. I'm also seeing evidence of that when I visit Salt Lake City.

The problem those systems have in most places is "they can't get you everywhere," use of mass transit creates extra potential delays, or even out of direction travel. Sure it'll get you there eventually, but when it takes two to three times longer to get there via transit over simply using my car, I'm using my car.

Which isn't to mention that if I'm going out to do a lot of shopping, mass transit doesn't have very good options for getting the stuff back. But if I have a car, I just put it in the trunk or backseat and lock the doors, then go back and continue with more shopping, or go catch a movie, enjoy a meal at a restaurant, etc all without needing to spend 40-ishminutes on transit one way, then getting back to home from the transit stop to drop the stuff off, so I can go back out again.

Quote
And of 'oh well I guess we can't afford it' mentality. Read some stats about the bullet train and you'll see the difference between that and American city transit systems. It's not just the monies available, it's the mentality.

Multiple factors in play here. The two biggest ones are "landowner rights" in the United States are the most extensive of anywhere in the world, so if they fight it, the legal fees can be extensive, even with clear eminent domain provisions for transportation. The next giant hurdle then becomes environmental impact assessments and the extensive legal challenges that are often presented that way.

A good example would be California's largely aborted high-speed rail project, where a fair bit of their costs were legal fees due to environmental groups fighting them over where they wanted to build the rail at.

Of course, then there is the additional layer of trade unions and the excesses that the United States in particular seems to have in regards to what those unions get away with in regards to public projects--specifically in New York, California and Illinois.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 17, 2020, 03:31:13 PM
For starters, a subway isn't necessary in most of the cities who don't already have one. A light rail system on the surface is just fine.

We certainly shouldn't be doing more than maintenance on roads in most circumstances. We need to keep the incentives away from passenger vehicles and in favor of mass transit, or not driving at all.

I believe road maintenance and infrastructure is a matter for the States, not the federal government. Texas spent 3 billion on road expansion last year, so you think they need more?

The political problem with mass transit is that young people and minorities are more likely to use it, and well off taxpayers can't ever see themselves using it. Then you have the pushback from suburbs who don't want rail bringing people from the city, they want to build that wall.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: TheDrake on January 17, 2020, 03:47:17 PM
Quote
Pretty much, the problem isn't stigma in my experience from San Diego and its light rail("Trolley"), as plenty of people used it. Upscale condo complexes were built near trolley stops with proximity to the trolley being a major selling point for the developer. I'm also seeing evidence of that when I visit Salt Lake City.

I lived in Salt Lake and loved the transit. It did take about twice as long, but I could watch tv, send email, text, as opposed to staring at asphalt. Especially nice during snow, sleet, and other bad weather. You don't have to chip ice off your car if you leave it at home.

Critical to mass transit is having enough cars that you don't have to make a concrete plan to use it. SLC runs 15 minutes apart, nearing the maximum in my opinion. Boston, 6 minutes at peak times. Austin? 45 minutes and stops at 7pm. Worthless.

Quote
Which isn't to mention that if I'm going out to do a lot of shopping, mass transit doesn't have very good options for getting the stuff back. But if I have a car, I just put it in the trunk or backseat and lock the doors, then go back and continue with more shopping, or go catch a movie, enjoy a meal at a restaurant, etc all without needing to spend 40-ishminutes on transit one way, then getting back to home from the transit stop to drop the stuff off, so I can go back out again.

Leaving the house to shop?  :o

I generally didn't do a lot of shopping. Groceries were "walk two blocks over with your messenger bag". Other in person shopping was so rare that it never came up as an issue.
Title: Re: here comes the next ice age
Post by: Seriati on January 17, 2020, 04:56:53 PM
Have you seen figures about the exorbitant costs of digging subway lines in America, versus in Europe? And over there they have to deal with issues like historical dig sites, running into centuries old city infrastructure, and other things related to how old some of those cultures are. And yet in America it 'mysteriously' costs multiple times the amount for the exact same project as it would elsewhere.

I think you're under-thinking this.  Europe was fundamentally developed prior to the development of any modern transportation.  Most cities have massive areas where everything one needs is in walking distance, little to no parking and narrow streets.  Most cities were surrounded by large undeveloped areas - farms - that historically supplied them with the majority of their consumables.  That's an easy recipe for easy development of mass transit.  Get some place and you don't need a car, want to build?  You can cross moderately to non-developed farm land or other low cost tracks.  Want to build a sub-way?  Non-modern buildings have much less in the way of underground depth and development - you can work closer to the surface.

Compare that to the US, where most cities were planned around cars.  Where housing is largely far outside of the city areas where people work and shop.  In many of those cities the only areas where its easy to walk are "tourist" or bar areas, or large parks.  Take a train to most any of them and you'll find yourself in a location that isn't anywhere near where you need to be, surrounded by massive parking lots and nothing but a roadway with your goal miles away.  Even if you moved it into town center, it's not very likely that everything you're looking for is right there and walking from point to point in a city can be a long or even dangerous idea.    But more so, US cities are surrounded by sub-urbs, where people build homes, not generally by undeveloped lands.  Effectively, the area around a US city is often some of the most expensive real estate there is, with a need to negotiate with or buy out hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of individual plots versus getting rights to transit over dozens of farms.  Building a sub-way?  Only makes sense in the densest and most developed cities, and there you're going under buildings with 5-6 or more levels underground and generally pilings and supports that go even deeper. You're working in an area where the liability for a mistake is through the roof.  Add in the sheer distances involved in the US and it gets even more crazy (Continental Western Europe is a bit larger than Texas, and even with all of Europe and the UK it's still smaller than the US).