Doubling of CO2 Not So Tragic After All? 747
carvalhao writes "The Register reports on a study from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that claims that new climate models that account for the effects of increased CO2 levels on plant growth result on a 1.64 C increase for a doubling of CO2 concentrations, a far less gloomy scenario than previously considered."
ocean acidification (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification stop calling the huge change taking place "global warming" that make it sounds like nice cozy sauna. The effects are much more complicated.
Re:ocean acidification (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly right, sequestering energy in a highly complex system with millions or billions of feedback loops, produces effects which are difficult to predict and are not intuitive. Increasing energy causes chaotic change. The Thermodynamicist Prigogine spoke of dissipative structures. Adding energy to steady state systems has little effect as the system absorbs the energy up to it's limit, and which point the system becomes perturbed, and goes into chaotic fluctuation (and continues to do so until it arrives at the next steady state.)
Ocean acidification is reflective of a fundamental change in global environment. The "Rise of Slime" [sciencedaily.com] is a powerful indication that the chemistry and biology of our oceans is going through a revolutionary transformation. Even fresh water lakes are showing increasing signs of anaerobic bacterial growth, expanding growth of both cyanobacteria and blue green algae, and acidification.
The accurate term now is climate and ecological change. The wise woods-man knows not to defecate close to where he masticates. It's time the species got that lesson, and stopped using the world we rely on as a toilet. The growing changes indicate wild swings and a system slipping into chaos.
Re:ocean acidification (Score:4, Informative)
Ocean acidification is even more BS than global warming.
We know atmospheric CO2 was hundreds of times higher when this planet had corals and shellfish. Our oceans are alkaline and it would take a tremendous amount of acid to change them just 0.1.
Ocean acidification is even less studied than GHG. It didn't even exist until a year or two ago.
Re:ocean acidification (Score:5, Funny)
Are now the world's largest champagne jacuzzi, yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no coming ice age. As the arctic warms one can expect the jet stream to become more unstable and with warming there is a lot more moisture in the air. While Scotts are suffering because of their proximity to the North Sea from too much snow, Russians are having a relatively mild time of it. If one looks at the global average, last year was tied for the hottest ever recorded during human history.
Pffff Warming ... ice age ... they're both coming (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, we don't actually know *what* causes ice ages (and no it's not the gulfstream) ... the long-term graphs seem to indicate pretty strongly that one is indeed coming :
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/globalchange/images/temp-001.gif [landcareresearch.co.nz] (source http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/globalchange/climate_change.asp [landcareresearch.co.nz])
I mean the graph has jumped 10 degrees downward 10 times like clockwork every 100000-110000 years or so. Seems logical that it will in fact jump again, doesn't it ? Last time it jumped was about 108000 years ago. So it's pretty much bound to jump again. And I repeat, we do *not* know what causes this, and the temperature drops like a stone (weather apparently goes from normal to ice age conditions, meaning permafrost in the northern sahara, and a *very* white Christmas in southern Mexico, while Florida becomes an ice sheet, just to give an idea how extreme this is, in less than 10 years). That's 10 years, triggered by some unknown event, after which America less inhabitable than Greenland. Even the deserts of the middle east will be cold conditions, and harsh winters, at best.
Of course the error margin on these data are like 500-1000 years, which is a lot of time. But while we don't know why or how, *something* is going to trigger an ice age, pretty soon now. But that's "pretty soon" in "very likely in the next 2000 years" ...
Re:Pffff Warming ... ice age ... they're both comi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pffff Warming ... ice age ... they're both comi (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a few problems with your statement:
1) "Climate change" isn't a slogan, it's the name of the problem. A slogan would be "More cars, less land".
2) While the climate does change naturally, it changes naturally on a much slower time scale than we are currently experiencing. That's why scientists usually talk about Anthropogenic Climate Change.
3) There are political movements spawned to fix many different problems, and all of them provide "solutions" for the expected ills of the problem. It wouldn't be a political movement if it didn't propose solutions to the problem. This is expected.
4) Skepticism is good, and thus many people like to think or pretend that they're skeptics. It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who only claim to be skeptics because they do not critically examine their own evidence only the evidence of others.
5) At some point debate has to end, there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow.
6) Ham-handed political solutions always spawn unknown and unintended consequences. The benefits of taking action have to weighed against the risks.
Most of the world would rather be talking about the benefits and drawbacks of different solutions to the problems posed by climate change, however, as long as the so-called debate over whether the problem actually exists it's difficult to have a rational discussion about what to do about the problem. Upton Sinclair wrote in one of his books: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!", and the debate over climate change has certainly demonstrated the profoundity of that statement. At some point, the debate has to end, regardless of how many people would rather that it continue until after they have retired and their salaries are no longer dependent on the problem not being addressed. There will always be a question of how much evidence is enough.
That's something you might need to ask yourself. What would actually convince you that climate change represents a danger to the lives of millions, possibly billions of people?
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively
"It is EASY to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon him understanding it!"
Apparently police officers, lawyers, prison guards... all tend to be against drug legalization. It's not hard to understand... they're jobs depend on it.
Teachers all tend to be against school choice... It's not hard to understand... they like the public school monopoly.
At times I'm amazed. People are so quick to scream about the corporate and military industrial complex. Oh lockheed martin lo
Re:Pffff Warming ... ice age ... they're both comi (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason "global warming" didn't "pan out" is that there are too many idiots around who call BS every time it snows because they can't comprehend that the warming is on average. What "global warming" really means is that you're adding more energy to the system and thereby increasing volatility -- hot places get hotter, cold places get colder, storms get stronger, droughts get drier. It's like how the surface of a glass of water gets less flat when you shake it. But you dumbasses just don't fucking get it, so it got renamed "climate change" to try to help you understand.
Re:Pffff Warming ... ice age ... they're both comi (Score:4, Informative)
1. Regardless of whether you like the term climate change or not, and whether or not your paranoia is justified, climate change is still not a slogan.
2. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record. I'm not sure how this plays into your claim that temperatures are falling. In fact, as I understand it, the 10 hottest years on record are (in order): 2010*, 1998, 2005, 2009, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2001. That list doesn't look much like "temperatures are falling". In fact, NASA [nasa.gov] is predicting that 2012 will likely displace 2010 as the hottest year on record.
3. Carbon taxes would not allow the skimming of profits to private funds and banking cartels. As a "tax" it would be going to governments. Cap and trade, on the other hand, would most definitely result in profit form private enterprises. In fact, I dare say, the whole idea of cap and trade is based on the idea that is better from private industry to profit than for the government to profit from the production of CO2.
4. We should be skeptical of all claims, not just those of people we disagree with. Many of your views, in particular, seem to be wildly out of sync with reality. A little more healthy skepticism of the people who you agree with might help you back to some views grounded in reality.
5. This is a perfect example of why debate has to eventually end. If you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a fraud or con artist then there can only ever be one satisfactory end to a debate. Now imagine there is at least one person who thinks the same way as you on the other side. The debate is now eternal, regardless of the merits of the arguments.
6. You might like to look at some the temperature graphs. The line is still trending upwards. It's true that 1998 and 2005 were the top 2 warmest years on record. However, the average global temperature for 2009 was virtually the same as the temperature of 2005. We expect to see warming and cooling cycles related to El nino and El nina effects. The next year that is likely to experience similar conditions to 1998 is expected to be 2012.
Yes, weather events do kill people every year, however, climate change is making many natural disasters worse and the greatest threats aren't from freak weather conditions but from changes systematic changes in agricultural areas. If once fertile areas are rendered minimally fertile due to repeated flooding, droughts, and pest migrations, it will likely take years (at best) to replace them. War and famine triggered by climate change represent the biggest threats from climate change. It is in our best interest to carefully consider what the consequences of each action is, including the consequences of inaction.
* As 2010 is not yet done, in theory there still remains a chance that it will be the second or third warmest year on record.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, most people fail to make the connection that the primary sponsors of terrorism are currently Saudi Arabia and Iran (Also notable as the top 2 oil exporters). In particular, there are a few oil billionaires in those countries who are deliberately funding radical Muslim jihadists. A dramatic reduction in oil consumption would likely do more to combat terrorism than sending soldiers to the Middle East.
So to U.S. keeps giving money to the primary sponsors of terrorism so they can fight terrori
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:5, Informative)
What accounts for the new ice-age we are entering, with year-to-year glacial expansion, and London's prospective 3rd white Christmas in a row?
Glacial expansion? I'm very interested in a link about growing glaciers. My impression is that most major glaciers (other than East Antarctica, obviously) are shrinking.
Also, keep in mind that London is not the entire world. Amsterdam is also having its second white Sinterklaas in a row (after decades of not even having any white Christmasses), but that means nothing on a global scale. It's perfectly possible for north-west Europe to become colder while the rest of the world gets warmer. Consider that we're at the same latitude as Moscow and Calgary. It's the warm gulf stream that's keeping us warm. Without it, expect an ice age in Europe, despite warming in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
No, not really. This is Europe, not America.
Re:ocean acidification (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh, and I suppose you're a published researcher in a relevant field, and have published rebuttals to all the peer reviewed research that says ocean acidification is a result of increased atmospheric CO2?
No?
Better get on that.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps Prof. Burnhard would enlighten us lesser folk as to why these claims are idiotic. Or maybe one of the moderators who modded the post interesting.
Hopefully (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully reports like this are taken as good news not fuel for the skeptics and deniers.
Doublethink detected!
So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully (Score:4, Insightful)
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
Re:Hopefully (Score:4, Interesting)
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
It's not an unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp. We HAVE grasped it. It's just that Al Gore and friends and politicians who like to hop on the green bandwagon and people who think being "green" is going to stop global warming refuse to believe it.
Now, that's not to say that being "green" (whatever the fuck that means) is a bad thing. There's plenty of other things that can be stopped by producing less emissions, including lowering the amount of smog in the air and indirectly reducing our dependance on foreign energy sources (because god forbid we drill for oil off OUR coast). Global warming just isn't one of them, and this apocalypse that's going to happen in 10 years if we don't drastically alter our energy habits... simply won't.
Re: Hopefully (Score:5, Informative)
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
It is of course always possible that something we don't understand is going on, but the physics of greenhouse gasses seems to be quite well established. There doesn't seem to be a lot of need to look farther, unless you just don't like the unavoidable conclusion.
Re: Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but that doesn't mean that previous scientific conclusions will be completely refuted. Newton's Law of Gravity turned out to be wrong and was replaced, but in practice their predictions are 99% the same. It's only that 1% that required a better theory. The Theory of Evolution has seen a lot of refinements over the past 150 years, but the basics stand. We don't fully understand all the effects and feedback mechanisms behind global warming, but the basic theory that rising CO2 means retaining more heat, is sound.
Re: (Score:3)
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
But surely you see that if it is because of what we do, it is actually more encouraging that if not; because if it is something we do, then there is a chance that we can stop doing it, but if it isn't, then we are powerless.
Also, the important thing has always been that it is happening and we have to do something. If we are causing it, then we have more options as to what we do. The big problem we have with the climate deniers is that their only interest is to stop us from doing anything that will hurt thei
where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:4, Insightful)
If an industry of trillions of dollars is built around something which has not been proved, then those taking in the trillions should have the burden of proof on their backs.
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got a better idea. If an economy of trillions of dollars is threatened by something which has not been proven, then those doing the threatening should bear the burden of proof.
(Or, as a famous environmentalist once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.")
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:5, Informative)
I've got a better idea. If an economy of trillions of dollars is threatened by something which has not been proven, then those doing the threatening should bear the burden of proof.
(Or, as a famous environmentalist once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.")
Absolutely. The safety of burning oil the way we do is predicated on adding huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere will have no detrimental effect on climate.
We've known since Fourier and Arrhenius that on its own increasing CO2 will cause the Earth's surface temperature to increase.
The ball is now in the oil industry's court to prove that there really are feedbacks that will eliminate the negative effects. Unfortunately, the evidence accrues daily that indicates that, if anything, the scientists have been too conservative in their estimations of negative effects.
Tim.
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the article? It said exactly that increased levels of CO2 will be mitigated by increased growth of green plant life, and that the current models are too aggressive in their estimations of negative effects. And this report was not from the oil industry, but from NASA and NOAA, both of whom have been vocal supporters of existing global warming models. Why did you immediately dismiss this new report in favor of scientists who lived one hundred years ago?
Why is it that when someone questions evidence of human caused global warming, he's labeled a "denier" (a term which was intentionally chosen to evoke images of Holocost Denial, by the way) but when someone questions evidence that it's not as bad as previously though, he's not just doing the right thing?
The bottom line is that we don't really know what's going on. Ignoring evidence that doesn't support your claims is just bad science.
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got a better idea. If an economy of trillions of dollars is threatened by something which has not been proven, then those doing the threatening should bear the burden of proof.
(Or, as a famous environmentalist once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.")
By the same token, it's not proven that an economy of trillions is threatened by reducing CO2 emissions. The notion that the economy is "threatened" by climate change or by attempting to cut emissions is a vague form of economic model. Economic models of what might happen if we try to reduce emissions have less rigor than climate models. It can be argued with just as much or perhaps more justification that developing energy efficiency and reducing emissions would have a positive effect on the economy.
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Europe generally has a much smaller per capita GHG footprint than the US, yet their economies are doing just fine (this is especially true of chocolate-making countries). Note that they do this with hydro, nukes, and also with high fuel taxes. (Caveat: GHG "imports" and "exports" -- but if you ding them for the GHG embodied by their imports from us, we get dinged by the GHG from our imports from China.)
2) There are at least two things we could do that would chop our GHG footprint that are hardly economy-destroying -- drive smaller cars, and eat much less beef and pork. 4 legs bad, 2 wings good.
3) The carbon taxes I've seen proposed are relatively small -- enough to motivate industry, but within the range of price fluctuations we've seen for fossil fuel. An example is $40/ ton of CO2 (CO2-equivalent, if you consider methane and nitrous oxides). CO2-ton = roughly 100 gallons of burned gasoline, so $.40/gallon. We'd notice a price jump like that, but it would still be lower than recent price spikes. For comparison, the money we spend/spent (borrowed) on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was in the ballpark of $.70/gallon.
4) There's at least one economically neutral driving-disincentive out there that we could deploy; pay-per-mile auto insurance. The first is a simple economic efficiency -- by buying your insurance per-mile instead of per-year, you obtain the ability to save more money by not driving (the price is nowhere near linear per mile, but this does not reflect actual risk) [clf.org]. I can't convince myself that congestion pricing is also economically neutral, since it is creates a market for one kind of driving (uncongested) by excluding the other kind of driving (congested), but it also discourages driving.
5) We're resistant to somewhat more gung-ho measures, like using bicycles more, because "we're not a dense country". Oddly enough, despite this lack of density there's also "no room for bicycle infrastructure". In fact, many (at least 1/3 of the population, I can't get a perfect answer from census data, but I can get a lower bound) lives in densities of 2000/sq mile or higher. 1/3 of us already live in places where we could drive far less, if we bothered to convert some of our infrastructure away from automobiles. Before-and-after experience in the Netherlands suggests that this is not economy-destroying -- you can cram many more people into a space if they arrive on bicycles (or busses, or trains, or a combination) than if they arrive in cars. More people = more economic activity. The goal here is not one-size-fits-all, "New York is dense, so you can bicycle across Montana" transit planning (that would be stupid), but to steal what works in other countries, and use it where it is appropriate.
6) Improved building codes. Again, steal from Europe. Houses can hold heat better than they do. We're doing better now than we did, but we could do better yet, and the expenses (compared to property, and labor costs of construction) are not that large. Kind of a shame we just had a building boom under the less efficient building codes.
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:4, Insightful)
And I say that lowering the levels of CO2 will cause fairies to explode into flower scented farts. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it won't happen. Or do you want all the fairies to die?
Why should we have to prove your speculations false, when you have no proof that they are true? You are the ones making such wild claims. The best you have are computer models with failed predictions, like the Arctic completely melting by 2006. Your "proof" that CO2 has anything to do with temperature, is that you took a vote (consensus) on it. Sorry, that isn't proof of any kind. If I got a group a school children (student scientists) to vote that pi was 12, would that really make it true?
This sort of reverse proof is how religions work, not science. Until you stop praying to Algore and try to understand what is actually going on, you will be unable to do anything about it. You might as well just throw your favorite spouse and children into the nearest volcano. It would probably solve more problems than anything else you are doing.
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:4, Informative)
And I say that lowering the levels of CO2 will cause fairies to explode into flower scented farts. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it won't happen. Or do you want all the fairies to die?
Got any evidence to back that up? Proven it on a small scale? Some math that makes any kind of sense?
Your "proof" that CO2 has anything to do with temperature, is that you took a vote (consensus) on it.
Only if you look only at the political side of the global warming debate. In science, the warming effect of CO2 is well-established and proven on smaller scales. Please explain why CO2 would behave completely differently on a large scale.
The biggest problem with the effect CO2 has on global warming is that there are also a lot of other warming and cooling effects, and the relationship between those is not always fully understood. And that's what TFA is talking about.
Re:where does the burden of proof lie? (Score:5, Funny)
"And I say that lowering the levels of CO2 will cause fairies to explode into flower scented farts. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it won't happen."
OK, I'll do. Lowering the levels of CO2 from current 380ppm to 280ppm will put them as they were by the year 1800 and it's known fairies didn't explode back then.
Your turn.
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but there is absolutely no evidence for the involvement of CO2 in 'it.'
Wrong. There is plenty of evidence, you just disregard it and consider it invalid.
correlation does not imply causation, it implies connection.
Right. Only we have a lot more than correlation.
Let's look at four steps for demonstrating causality:
1. Temporal ordering? Check. CO2 increase came before temperatures started exceeding their normal variance.
2. Correlation? Check. Temperatures continued to increase, as predicted, with minor variation and regression towards the mean, but that mean continually increased with corresponding CO2 (actually, GHG) increases.
3. Causal Mechanism? Check. Radiative forcing is firmly established, as is the physics and other interactions that back this theory up. We have a lot of very solid work in this area, and our observations match our predictions. If anything, our predictions are overly conservative because our assumptions are so conservative.
4. Eliminate Confounding Variables? Check. We've eliminated every other theory/hypothesis to explain temperature rise. We know the current temperature rises are abnormal and differ from previous changes. We know it's not due to solar variation or (heresy) a decrease in pirates. There may be another confounding variable out there, but nobody has found it or made a serious scientific case in its favor.
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Interesting)
On what basis do you claim temporal ordering?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg [wikipedia.org] shows that the temperature fluctuations PRECEDED the CO_2 fluctuations.
Note: I'm seriously asking. No need to personally attack me or anything; I'm not personally attacking you. I'm assuming you have some piece of evidence other than the ice core data on which you're basing your claim of temporal ordering, and I'm just asking you what that is.
Have a nice day,
---linuxrocks123
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Informative)
The question is, on what is the usual refutation of your point based?
You know, the one that goes like this: something other than CO2 started the temperature rise, but then, after 800-1000 years, the temperature rise caused a rise in CO2, and from that point on, for the next 4000 years or so, the CO2 caused all the further warming, until, again, something which we don't know, caused it all to drop. Therefore, it is all consistent with CO2 as driver, for as you can see, in those 4000 years (whilst temperatures were rising after CO2 had also started rising), the CO2 caused a great deal of warming.
IIRC that's the basic refutation. See how that makes sense to you.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the mechanism is actually quite well known, and CO2 was *not* what started the historical warming cycles. That was known to be Milankovitch cycles - but the problem was that, by itself, Milankovitch cycles didn't seem to have a large enough effect to cause that much warming - it was the right shape, but the wrong magnitude. The most reasonable explanation is some sort of feedback effect, which happens to involve CO2 being released from the oceans due to a temperature increase. All of this stuff has s
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't state it quite right:
See here for a more detailed explanation: http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/
Re:Hopefully (Score:4, Interesting)
correlation does not imply causation, it implies connection.
The first part of this is true - but it's important to bear in mind that the use of "imply" in this statement is not the same as the colloquial use. Imply here means "prove" - correlation does not prove causation. A suggestion for a more accurate way of phrasing the statement that avoids confusion is "correlation does not imply causation, but it is a hint".
I point this out because the second part of your statement isn't true unless you're taking the colloquial meaning of "imply", since it is not true that correlation always means there is connection - coincidence is also a possibility. Taking this meaning (that correlation suggests there is a connection) it would be true in many circumstances to say that correlation implied causation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's controversial now for a few reasons. First, and most importantly, people are asking other people to modify their behaviour because of it. This means that you suddenly have two groups of people (broadly, investors in oil and investors in 'green' technology) who have a vested interest in the predictions being accurate or inaccurate. These two groups both have a lot larger advertising budgets than any group of scientists, and neither really understands the science, so they manage to drown out scientifi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well actually, it would seem the overall message and the science will have changed rather significantly if this study proves close to the mark.
With a couple more centuries before dangerous warming takes place the situation changes drastically. Alternative energy supplies and improvements in scrubbing technology have time to advance in two hundred years. (And the increasing cost and scarcity of fossil fuels might have something to do with it as well).
To say nothing of the modeling capability.
(This is not t
Sadly (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing absolutely nothing in the paper that suggests that the authors have studied any plants at all. They merely extrapolate an effect based on some very large assumptions that plants everywhere can be represented by a few simple parameters in their model. A look at most of the arid regions of the world, demonstrate that these assumptions are wildly optimistic. Ground cover in these regions is shrinking dramatically due to lack of soil moisture.
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?
Who has been proven to be correct? Which deniers have ever stated that doubling CO2 will result in a 1.64C rise? I doubt anyone has said that before. Instead we get a range of responses, such as:
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true. It is just not scientific. It is the same as trying to claim you have ESP because you can accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss 50% of the time.
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true.
I guess my question for you is, why is it so important to you that the factions be in lockstep and monolithic thinkers? The science is not settled, and I don't think ANYBODY would argue that we have an even remotely complete understanding of environment/climate. Not all the "deniers" as you choose to call them believe the same thing. This is pretty standard for any academic field...and what's wrong with that? Furthermore, of your propositions, are any of them mutually exclusive?
For instance, nobody at all argues that human industry has not emitted CO2 over the last 200 years... but how much compared to natural sources? Some people argue that point. Is that mutually exclusive with CO2 not impacting temperature as a causal factor? Are either of those in opposition to CO2 levels responding to global temperature changes? Obviously if those are your arguments, they're not inconsistent with each other.
I read "skeptic" blogs and "established science" blogs on climate change, and frankly I don't know enough to judge much of any of the science, math, or methodology on the merits. I do see a lot of behavior that makes me skeptical about members on both sides. Climate Audit I think has jumped the shark, but the blog's purpose--to get scientists to open up their data, code, and methodology seems perfectly reasonable, and objections (or, the way SOME scientists have responded) to those things do make me question motivations, etc.
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess my question for you is, why is it so important to you that the factions be in lockstep and monolithic thinkers?
Speaking for myself, not the GP, but my main complaint is that most of the deniers I've interacted with aren't even in lockstep with themselves. They vacillate between arguing that the planet is cooling, that the planet is warming naturally due to solar cycles, and that the rising temperatures are causing rising CO2. If you point out the flaws in their argument, many will go on to claim that it's all a socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, restrict freedom, and get more research money.
My main concern is that the majority of deniers DON'T seem to have a cohesive, intellectually honest argument. Their most outspoken leaders frequently misrepresent both science and politics (ala "Climate Gate").
Not all the "deniers" as you choose to call them believe the same thing. This is pretty standard for any academic field...and what's wrong with that?
Other than my point above, I'll also add that very few of the deniers actually currently do research related to the field. I've seen some very prominent MDs and electrical engineers argue that climate scientists are clueless, but within the field there is very little variance. The vast majority of papers I've seen on the subject say, "Oh, I agree with your methodology and conclusions, but you got this little piece slightly off. You need to reconsider this little piece of your model and make an adjustment of 0.003 here." If anything, the field itself is far less divided than many others.
For instance, nobody at all argues that human industry has not emitted CO2 over the last 200 years... but how much compared to natural sources? Some people argue that point.
All available evidence shows that they are wrong. We have multiple lines of evidence, and all signs point towards the preponderance of CO2 and GHG level increases being caused by human activities.
...and frankly I don't know enough to judge much of any of the science, math, or methodology on the merits.
Hey, now we can agree! Very few people know enough to judge the conclusions of a multidisciplinary area like climate modeling. Those who DO know enough are already working in the field. Even retired climatologists may not be trustworthy sources because they may not be keeping up with modern advances ("The evidence sucked when I retired in 1980, therefore it must be false.").
Knowing this, we usually look at a consensus. Every good survey or report I've ever seen has shown an overwhelming consensus within the field that anthropogenic climate change is real. Every survey/petition/letter I've seen proclaiming the opposite has been flawed by including MDs, EEs, DDSs, and other "sciencey" fields to gather more signatures.
Even ignoring a consensus, the conservative approach is to limit emissions until you know with high confidence that emissions are safe. People are trying to establish a 1% confidence level for AGW when they should really be establishing a 1% confidence level for emissions being safe.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Skepticism, I'd argue, is inherently good. Being environmentally conscientious should be a result of good science to be meaningful, not of being on the populist "team green". The moment we take a critical eye off our own views is the moment that our causes lose meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Without ideology we wouldn't have the scientific method.
I find it strange that people think the scientific method is based on a philosophy or ideology. What scientists do is no different from what us common folk do when we debug a program or try to fix a mechanical system: you notice something funny (program gives wrong result, car won't start, water rising in basement) so you or the called-in expert speculates on the cause and then proceed on the basis of that speculation. If the facts don't bear it out, you pause, scratch your head and come up with a new speculation. Repeat as needed.
AFAICT even the most uneducated of us operate the same way in whatever we do. I suspect it's instinct, or at least such a basic result of the exercise of intelligence that no intelligent species could avoid operating that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ever heard of Karl Popper? What we currently call the Scientific Method is not even all that old, and mostly formalised by Popper, a philosopher. It's worth knowing his name, because his thinking has had a huge impact on our thinking.
Wow, what a misunderstanding of the scientific method!
When I started engineering college, among the courses I took in the first semester where Physics, of course, and Philosophy of Science.
In the first Physics classes we learned about the birth of science, the professor took us to a planetarium and showed how the planets moved among the stars. Then he explained about how ancient Greek philosophers influenced European thinking, Aristotle being the most prominent in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance period
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Someone afraid of skeptics, and lumping them with the deniers, is someone pushing a religion, not someone interested in science.
Re:Hopefully (Score:4, Insightful)
I've yet to see an anthropogenic global warming "skeptic" who wasn't just a denier JAQing [rationalwiki.org] off. I mean seriously, what is there to be skeptical about? What part of the IPCC Working Group 1 report is wrong? The Earth is getting warmer, it's due to our carbon emissions, and all that's left to argue about is what the impact will be.
You can kinda sorta be "skeptical" about how negative of an impact that will be, but again I've yet to see anyone who's managed to make a good argument that more carbon and warmer average temperatures will somehow be good for us in general. And no, "carbon is plant food!" [youtube.com] is not a good argument.
Plenty (Score:5, Insightful)
The climate change thing is sold as a whole package, a "You believe all of this or you are a DENIER!" kind of thing. However it is really a series of arguments, and at each level someone might have questions. Even some of the basics there can be some questions about. I mean the most basic is "The Earth is getting warmer, outside of any currently known cycles and over a longer period of time." Ok, pretty strong evidence here, but still there is things to look in to. The temperature recording stations have not been controlled and monitored the way we might hope, the record is not as accurate as we would like. Probably nothing that affects any results but in good science you don't write shit off just because it might be inconvenient. That doesn't mean "Look we found a potential inaccuracy, throw it all out!" but it also doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be looked in to.
A bigger things to question would be all the dire predictions, that a couple degrees in temperature rise leads to massive problems, massive loss of life and so on. This really doesn't have any good evidence and is pretty close to fear mongering. Yes I'm aware there are computer models, appreciate that means nothing. You can make a computer model to say whatever you want, a model is only good if it accurately models things, if it has proven predictive power. There is a lot to question in the "Warming means our DOOM," part of the argument.
An even bigger question would be that in the case that is correct, that cutting emissions is the thing to do. The reason is best as we can tell the Earth has been much warmer, and colder, in the past than it is now. So real good chance that happens again, to think that we are in some magic time of stability where all variation has stopped would be extremely silly. Thus sooner or later, no matter what we do, the temperature will almost certainly shift multiple degrees. If that is truly going to be deadly to us, then the concentration needs to not be on what is causing this change, but how to survive such a change. It does no good to make drastic cuts to emissions and stop this change (presuming that it would indeed stop this change) only to then get hit with a change that humans DIDN'T cause and thus can't stop.
You can very well accept many of the fundamental ideas (like that the Earth is getting warmer) and yet still question the conclusions and policy propositions. This idea that it is part and parcel, that you have to accept EVERYTHING, all the premises, all the conclusions and all the policy without question or your are a DENIER is false. It also leads one to question what the hell is going on. A student of human behaviour immediately recognizes that tactic: That of a con man. That is how people peddling fake crap, religions, and other things that don't stand up to scrutiny do it. They present their show and shout down anyone who questions it at all. They attack people who question because they know their argument does not stand up to questioning. Only blind acceptance of the entire package is acceptable, anything else draws hostility.
As such one may wonder why this is done with regards to climate change. It makes some of us nervous.
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point I don't care about the science. The politics must be stopped.
When big government and big science collude, we all get screwed.
Re:Hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully reports like this are taken as good news not fuel for the skeptics and deniers. Good news because we have a better chance and perhaps more time at managing with increased CO2
Unfortunately, the ongoing meltdown always turns out to be happening faster than the gloomy prognostics prognosticated.
And of course, the deniers already take *everything* as evidence for their views, so the chance that they won't seize on this is essentially non-existent.
The models are crap. (Score:2, Insightful)
None of the climate models have shown skill at prediction, which is the only objective measure by which to conclude that a model is not crap.
Until they can do that, its crazy to formulate policy based on model results. You wouldnt get in an airplane designed by model results as crappy as these.
Re:The models are crap. (Score:4, Insightful)
Weather models (which can easily be objectively checked via existing and coming weather patterns) are an attempt to describe the weather on small scale in great detail)
Climate models (which cannot easily be objectively checked via weather data) are an attempt to describe the average weather in an area over a large period of time. The only evidence for or against is over periods of hundreds to thousands of years as regional or even global averages.
The simple fact is climate models have not existed long enough for them to be checked with any great statistical significance, and they are at a huge disadvantage from human nature because people use weather fallacies to discredit climate all the time.
Just because a climate model predicts lower-than-normal wind patterns, doesn't mean the windiest day on record for isolated regions can't happen during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts periods of colder-than-normal climates, doesn't mean the hottest day on record for isolated locations can't occur during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts cloudier-than-normal patterns, doesn't mean the sunniest stretch of weather on record for some regions can't occur during that period without invalidating the model.
This is exactly what happens on a daily basis though. We have an idea that short-term climate models are getting closer and some are more accurate than others, but we don't have enough data to show statistical significance to even decade-length climate models. If you get to century-or-greater climate models, we have historical data and estimations to work off of, but no empirical "check" data to work off of.
The mere suggestion that climate models are not accurately predicting shows you are suffering from this exact same fallacious logic.
Re: (Score:3)
The simple fact is climate models have not existed long enough for them to be checked with any great statistical significance
Yet you think that even pretend projections can be got with a hundred or so years of weather data?
Car analogy time. What you are trying to do is roughly similar to me standing by the side of a road with blinders on and predicting the eventual destination of the cars that pass by without even turning my head.
There is absolutely no way to check your model, furthermore you are trying to model something that we only understand in the barest of ways. There are so many unknown variables and such a huge amount of
Re:The models are crap. (Score:4, Interesting)
Models are garbage, even hindcasted.
Peer reviewed study here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928 [informaworld.com]
End of story. We should not be making any decisions based on faulty models, and all of the models in use can't even accurately predict the weather that's happened in the past, with verifiable data.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event"
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is"
more snow = global warming
less snow = also more global warming?
Re:The models are crap. (Score:5, Informative)
"You wouldnt get in an airplane designed by model results as crappy as these"
Hate to break this to you but you already do, climate models work on the same finite element algorithims as any other engineering model does when there is no anylitical solution to the equations. Computers have been doing this type of numerical analysis since they were first invented and took over the job of producing artilery tables. Such methods have revolutionised both science and engineering over the pats 50yrs to the point that no major engineering project would dare contemplate not using them.
Are they perfect? - Of course not but imperfect certainly does not mean useless, if it did all of science would be useless.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not interested in what the media reports as fact (particularly the US media), the scientists themselves use error bars to accurately describe the uncertainty in climate models.
"Negative feedback loops are just not mentioned"
The reason negative feed back loops are rearely mentioned is because they are rare in a warming climate and generally overwhelemd by the positive feedb
Assumptions check? (Score:2)
Increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2.
And what if it the precipitations don't increase? Or don't increase enough in areas with vegetation (like mid of the ocean)? Or if the precipitations are high enough to flood and drown the vegetation? What about precipitations during winter?
Yes, yes, yes...the simulation is sooo more precise: it predicts a value with 0.3C lower than the older models. But... errr... what about the confidence levels of the modeling? (not that the older models would have one ready).
Error Bars (Score:5, Interesting)
The abstract itself claims: "By accelerating the water cycle, this feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming, reducing the land surface warming by 0.6C. Compared to previous studies, these results imply that long term negative feedback from CO2 induced increases in vegetation density could reduce temperature following a stabilization of CO2 concentration." [My emphasis] - In other words nature will suck up our excess if we stop pumping into the atmosphere faster than she can cope with it, which has been the assumption for many years.
Disclaimer: I'm not rubbishing the study I think it's a valuable in the effort to reduce the above mentioned error bars. However despite the inference of the summary it does not change the risk assesment one iota.
Re:Error Bars (Score:5, Informative)
What is required before this one model can be said to have changed the risk assesment is for all the thousands of other models to incorporate the effect and come up with a combined result that lowers the expected value. This is not impossible but IMHO is highly unlikely.
Also I quoted something the scientists themselves thought was important enough to put in the abstract, not some jounalist putting their own political spin on the result to make the story more "interesting".
As for the risk of economic harm, numerous reputable economic studies (such as the stern report) have concluded that delaying any action will significantly increase the risk of economic harm. But I'm sure you can find just as many economic studies authoured by lobbyists at right-wing think tanks that say the opposite.
Asking the right question (Score:5, Insightful)
Yah! Finally! Some is asking the right question. Here are the wrong questions:
1) Is the climate warming or cooling?
2) Are humans responsible?
Here are the right questions:
3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
4) When is that going to happen?
Maybe you need to answer the first two questions to answer the last two but if no-one is asking the last two then we're likely to run off half-cocked and implement political policy that does more harm than good. (see, for example, cap and trade).
Re:Asking the right question (Score:5, Informative)
1) Is the climate warming or cooling?
2) Are humans responsible?
Addressed by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I [www.ipcc.ch].
3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
4) When is that going to happen?
Addressed by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group II [www.ipcc.ch].
WGI establishes the physical basis of anthropogenic climate change. AFAIK this is has not been convincingly challenged. WGII attempts to quantify the results, which is of course harder to pin down (and included a notorious inaccuracy [skepticalscience.com] or two). This new study will doubtless help refine the WGII predictions further.
Re: Asking the right question (Score:4, Insightful)
3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
Climate is going to shift; species are going to go extinct; agricultural and hydraulic "haves" are going to become "have-nots", and vice versa; nations will have new things to fight about; we're going to have to move all our coastal cities to higher ground; maybe a few other odds and ends.
4) When is that going to happen?
It's in progress now. Don't know when the shooting is going to start, but the effects seem to consistently outrun the predictions, so you should expect the shooting to start sooner rather than later.
Re: Asking the right question (Score:4, Interesting)
I stand by those claims. If you're not aware of what's happening on your planet, I'm not the one that needs to dig out a newspaper.
Uh huh. Citation please. Last I checked, newspapers were a poor source of information on such things. I blame global warming for that.
Re:Asking the right question (Score:4, Insightful)
The four questions you raise have been discussed ad-nausem for the last 20yrs, your "finally" comment only serves to demonstrates you haven't been paying attention to the science or the politics.
Re:Asking the right question (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the only worthwhile question is:
If we stop spewing so much CO2 (and equivalent) into the sky, will the climate stop changing as rapidly as it has been the past few decades?
We have absolutely no science that says "No", and plenty that says "Yes". Reducing our GHG emissions will protect the relative stability of the climate upon which our civilization depends. With far better certainty that we ask to do anything else we do on the scale of the globe or billions of people.
Even if it only raises temperature 1.64 degrees (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Neat fact:
Raising the partial pressure of CO2 exponentially results in a linear increase in the pH.
This is because the Concentration of CO2 in the water is determined using Henry's Law, a linear relationship between partial pressure in the gas and liquid concentration. At the relevant concentrations the concentration of H+ is linearly related to the concentration of CO2 in the water.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well if you think a little about life in the oceans, you will quickly recognize that most of them produce skeletons of some kind, most based on calcium salts. Skeletal formation and for many reproduction will not occur if the pH drops even a fraction of one pH unit (pH is a logarithmic scale). If you have ever enjoyed shirmp, crabs, shellfish, or fish, most of which feed on such organisms, not to mention need to produce their own calcium-phosphate salt, you can begin to understand why this needs to be a v
Re: (Score:3)
They account for an increase in vegetation (Score:3, Informative)
Good models. Bad Models. It doesn't matter ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Register has an agenda (Score:3)
They have a pretty crazy AGW-denier agenda. Models have long taken into account the effects of plant growth
Re:The Register has an agenda (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208085145.htm [sciencedaily.com]
This is a much better summary. Also, the OP misquotes the 2X CO2 value as 1.64. The study found 1.94C, and a decrease of 0.6 compared to the model without the feedback. Even 2.6 is on the low end. With some recent work on cloud feedbacks, 4C is more likely.
Everyone here is a vegetarian, right? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Just want to verify that everyone who is full-on convinced about the negative effects of climate change is a vegetarian. ... you've already made the switch, right? Cause you wouldn't want to be hypocritical.
Well, we all know that on the Internet hypocrisy is the greatest and most venal sin. And you've opened my eyes to the fact that people are selfish and screw around, so that absolutely makes it ok for us to double the level of atmospheric CO2. This logic couldn't be more solid.
The truth is that people
Re: (Score:3)
OPs point IMHO is that there are significant things we can do today to solve this problem without legislation, but even some of the staunchest advocates of CC refuse to do those things.
We all agree that there are actions we can take to solve the problem. This is obvious. Where we appear to disagree is in our belief that these actions will actually be taken without some outside incentive.
These people are showing that they don't really care to do what's necessary to fix the problem; instead they'd rather
Passionate scepticism (Score:3, Interesting)
There's nothing like a climate debate to revamp people's passion for scientific scepticism. Oddly it doesn't seem to happen with other topics. Let's recap:
Burnhard (1031106) calls ocean acidification a "ridiculous Green bandwagon" and lumps it in with other "idiotic claims" [slashdot.org]. Modded interesting.
Rockoon (1252108) states that "All of those previous models are crap, but so too is this one most likely crap." [slashdot.org]. Modded insightful.
Mashiki (184564) lets us know that "Models are garbage, even hindcasted." [slashdot.org]. Modded interesting.
Let me add further scepticism: Unless you cite a paper that you published in a peer-reviewed journal to back up your claim, you don't get to dismiss models that have been accepted in peer-reviewed journals.
Re:Passionate scepticism (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously OA is the next big Green scare. I can't believe you're such an idiot as to not see this for what it really is: political activism.
Re: (Score:3)
Still not seeing any citations, but perhaps you should be reviewing your own examples. The hockey stick has been confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence:
McIntyre 2004 [agu.org] claimed that the Mann 1999 [psu.edu]'s hockey-stick graph shape was a result of the analysis method used (principal components analysis), and was not statistically significant. However, the National Center for Atmospheric Research reconstructed (Wahl 2007 [ucar.edu]) the graph using a variety of techniques (with and without principal components analysi
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people on the "IPCC panel of unanimous experts" aren't climate scientists either.
You do Jiu Do?
Re:1,64? (Score:5, Funny)
No, dumbass, that's celsius coordinates.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Err... you mean the models the conspiracy theorists like to believe exist, which would link solar activity to global warming? The ones that would've predicted a decline in the warming trend over the last solar minimum. A decline that, well, didn't happen?
*Those* models?
Mars & Venus (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
A brief primer on qualitative versus quantitative argument.
Qualitative: The Earth, Mars, and Venus are all getting warming. The only apparent link they share is that, ultimately, all of their heat comes from the Sun. Therefore, the output of the Sun must be increasing.
Quantitative: We should measure the changes in solar output, compare this to the temperature changes on all three planets, model the very different climates of all three planets, and see where this analysis leads us.
Simpler quantitative: Hey,
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. government is planning to build a giant machine to block the sun, their last and greatest enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
The U.S. government is planning to build a giant machine to block the sun, their last and greatest enemy.
You mean... to block the oracle [wikipedia.org]... now that sun is no longer?
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, but the Reg have a track record about reporting on papers in completely dishonest and misrepresentative ways.
Re: (Score:3)
No such thing was "determined", in either case - only questions raised about the solidity of the evidence.
In fact, the 1996 claim is now more solid than ever [washingtonpost.com], and the 2010 claims are far from disproved at this time, only questioned.
Naturally your own creditbility suffers no such doubt.