The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

[radon]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Finally, someone has played the "persecution of Galileo by the Catholic church" card. I'm glad that's finally out on the table. :rolleyes:

Scientists (and all of us) have access to DATA. Scientist create models that seem reasonable and which are consistent with the DATA. DATA does not a testable theory make however. No DATA exists on what will happen in the future. Multi-variate, statistical models, with a multiplicity of assumptions (and likely a multiplicity of unaccounted for physical parameters - that make the model incomplete at best) have inherent limitations IMO.

I recall a TV interview several years ago (1999 I think), when Clinton's EPA secretary, Carol Browner, was being questioned by Larry King or someone about the evidence for GW and she kept reiterating one piece of the DATA, namely that 1998 was the hottest year on record. She was so adamant about that as if that was enough to prove this 'grand' theory. Incredible.
Let's see how she has been rewarded for her efforts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner

Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change

In office January 22, 2009 – Present

His point was that Galileo's position was backed by observation.

We are in the middle of a warming trend. There is a hypotheses that is based on a well known physical mechanism as to why this is occurring. It is falsifiable, and consistent with observations.

[c1ue]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

We are in the middle of a warming trend.

A warming trend according to the NOAA's ground stations, but a cooling trend according to GISS and UAH satellite stations.

In any case, as expected, this thread is devolving into the usual half-a**ed 3rd party references and sweeping statements.

Instead please refer to this neat little guide on why AGW is not hardly proven by anyone - with handy flow chart references for almost all of the so-called AGW support written thus far in this thread:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarmi...ok_2-22_lq.pdf

To save some time, I've posted the entire robotic stimulus/response cycle for everyone's enjoyment:

agwfordummies1.bmp

agwfordummies2.bmp

Notice all the old, tired debate techniques - AGW is peer reviewed, blah blah blah.

[wayiwalk]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Today's forecast for the sun: Hot and dry with a high near 11,000 and 0% chance of precipitation.

Tonight's forecast: Nighttime forecasts will not be available for the next 7+ Billion years.

Extended forecast: Continued hot and dry, with little or no precipitation throughout the 10 Million year extended forecast period.

You are funny - channeling George Carlin's weather forecast!

But seriously - when modeling a system like the earth's weather, and with the goal being something that is temperature - the end point conditions must include the primary source of energy - the sun. You take the sun away and I could tell you the temperature on earth in 100,000 years. Not being able to accurately predict the temperature of the sun as a function of time - how the heck can we predict the weather here? You can come up with a range (low, high) but then we'd be talking about global warming OR cooling.

[Diarmuid]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

No, in 1492 everyone knew the Earth was round because Magellan had already sailed around it.

Let's talk about another case. The case of whether the universe is centered on the Earth, or the Earth orbits the sun.

Scientists like Copernicus and Gallileo used DATA to show that the Earth rotated around the sun. The Church didn't like that, and society didn't like that. These men and their adherents were persecuted for a view that challenged the dominant paradigm of the day, even though it was based on solid DATA.

Kind of like climate scientists now are being persecuted by so many rabid warming deniers. The scientists have DATA, and the deniers have their belief systems. People don't like to change their belief systems, even if the DATA disprove them.


Now, back to the economics, lots of people keep saying this is some kind of government conspiracy to foist economic regulation on all of us. Get real. You guys listen to too much Rush Limbaugh and watch too much Fox tevee. The scientists are not in the pockets of big corporations. They are seeing the facts and listening to the data to making their best interpretation of what will happen to our climate systems. Not all interpretations are correct or perfect. There is even a chance they are all seeing the data incorrectly, but it is more likely that they are seeing it correctly. Whether right or wrong, the scientists are not in a massive conspiracy.

From my reading and understanding of the science and history behind the orbits of the planets -

Copernicus thought the earth and other known planets at the time orbited the sun, the motion he reckoned centered from the "mean sun" -- the center of the orbit of the earth, which is near to, but not the same as, the sun. He also used numerous epicycles to account for the complex motion of the planets (retrogrades) he was using a model to fit the recorded data, others had developed alternative models to do same, notably Brahe (sun centered solar system) and Ptolemy (earth centered solar system), all of which were relatively accurate systems for predicting planetary motion - Kepler subsequently showed with the use of a new model and Brahe's data the planets orbits were ellipses - my point being, as pointed out on this thread before, many different models can and are used to account for the same data set in science, a consensus on a model does not make it necessarily correct.

On the economics of the issue, it also seems to me in a field such as climate change where monied interests appear to be at the fore of the debate (cap and trade scheme) and today where my trust in fair and balanced reporting in the press and also climate science (Mann and Gore in particular) is defunct, because imo both fields are utterly compromised.

As a layman I find myself now in the unfortunate position where I have to assess and make decisions as to my position on topics such as climate change, economics etc..where I know my knowledge is extremely limited and where my skepticism is at a very high level and so I often now find myself often outside the concensus position, I know also my skeptism plays a heavy role in how I form these opinions, for better or worse. Some of the subsquent decisions I have to make particularly economic ones, also have real life implications for my family and I and so this sometimes weighs heavily on me.

aside: (one of the reason I so value itulip, even though I may not agree with everyting in the forum. I at least believe, on the main, the views expressed, come from a position of intellectual honesty. An osasis in a dessert of bullshit.)

I believe many others also face the same dilemma, I think this in some ways is one of the tragedies for society in the crisises (economic, ecological in particular) in which we find ourselves in today, when trust in reporting, science, governance and many other areas are taking such a battering, with implications for the present and near future and will take us collectively some time to recover from .

[radon]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

A warming trend according to the NOAA's ground stations, but a cooling trend according to GISS and UAH satellite stations.

In any case, as expected, this thread is devolving into the usual half-a**ed 3rd party references and sweeping statements.

Instead please refer to this neat little guide on why AGW is not hardly proven by anyone - with handy flow chart references for almost all of the so-called AGW support written thus far in this thread:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarmi...ok_2-22_lq.pdf

To save some time, I've posted the entire robotic stimulus/response cycle for everyone's enjoyment:

[ATTACH]1828[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1829[/ATTACH]

Notice all the old, tired debate techniques - AGW is peer reviewed, blah blah blah.

A cooling trend like this?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
It doesn't look like cooling to me.


To save time i've linked a rebuttal from some random website I found on Google:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008...t_novel_no.php


Notice all the tired old debate techniques no evidence exists, misrepresenting someones position, blah blah blah..

[yernamehear]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

So here is some empirical data that I think you agree is factual:
1) The atmospheric temperature at the earths surface is rising. (Measured directly)
2) CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. (Measured directly)
3) CO2 reradiates IR. (Measured directly in Laboratory)
4) Some materials on the earth absorb IR and increase in temperature. (Measured directly)
5) The chemical reaction of burning hydro-carbons has as a product, CO2. (Measured directly in Laboratory)

Burning hydro-carbons -> CO2 to atmosphere -> IR reradiation -> IR absorption -> increase in temperature.

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.- A. Einstein

Or: "A theory should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"- Unattributed restatement
:cool:
"1) The atmospheric temperature at the earths surface is rising. (Measured directly)"
Yes, the temperature of the earth is rising, DEPENDING on the time frame. Certainly it is since the last ice age. This is a no-brainer, but beware of arguments that cherry pick data, e.g. time-frames.

"2) CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. (Measured directly)" No doubt, however, again, they have risen before in history, and uh-oh, the earth survived.

"3) CO2 reradiates IR. (Measured directly in Laboratory)", Uh, yes, and as Prof. Einstein showed (won the prize for this one), it and all molecules are equally likely to absorb and emit radiation (translation- it's not that simple).

Anyway, you get the idea. The system is way more complicated than any popular media could communicate (to the public). A similar example is the dinosaur extinction theory. For decades it was taught (and is reasonable!) that climate change caused it. But wait! it was climate change caused by a meteorite impact! but wait, recently there are respected professors who say it was a combination of terrestrial climate change + impact + disease.... Translation- it's not that simple.

"There are plenty of predictive models that predict temperature rise with CO2 rise. The interaction between the hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere is one of the most complex interactions that science has ever tried to model. But for the most part, the models have been in relative agreement, although they've underestimated the speed of the temperature rise.

I'm sure you're aware of the vast quantity of papers published concerning the theory. Possibly more than any theory in the history of science. And yet not one paper has ever been published that successfully challenges the basic premise of the theory.

And the predictions and theories SHOULD be questioned. But they should be questioned in the same manor, using the same scientific methodology, in which the theories are presented. If you question the validity of a presented theory, show your evidence and your logic and let it be scrutinized with the same rigor as the presented theory. So far, with the theory of global warming, the deniers have failed without exception.

And the MSM headlines will read; "PREPARE TO MEET YOUR MAKER, WORLD ENDS TONIGHT!".

Note that politically, the human-caused global warming crowd has an ingenious position that is almost win-win. If the world doesn't end, they'll say they saved us, and if it does, they'll say we told you so.

My money is on: The demise of the world by the global warming crowd has been greatly exaggerated.

Good luck to you.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

In any case, as expected, this thread is devolving into the usual half-a**ed 3rd party references and sweeping statements.

Instead please refer to this neat little guide on why AGW is not hardly proven by anyone - with handy flow chart references for almost all of the so-called AGW support written thus far in this thread:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarmi...ok_2-22_lq.pdf

Good post, c1ue

[radon]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

• Good post, c1ue

I spit beer all over my keyboard. It is a fantastic photo. I know you don't trust the data, and have a reason for it. Why does everyone else seem to beat around the bush. Why complain about linking to third party websites then proceed to make people read through 30 odd pages of one? While we are at it why say that we are not in a warming trend and not link a data set that supports the assertion. In all seriousness it is the easiest debate in the world to win. Just link a data set from a reputable source that shows the world is cooling or static over the last couple decades and I'll change my mind.

There are some winners and some losers if the world gets hotter. Russia wins and china loses. Not so pleasant for a chubby uncle with a pork dumpling habit.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Here's some peer-reviewed data for starters:

Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 30, 2009)

Close, but no cigar.

It is not a peer-reviewed paper, it's an "invited review paper" and does not go through the stringent peer-review process. Many Universities will not allow review papers to be used toward tenure.

Some on the physics blogs are calling for the publication to withdraw the paper due to it's many errors. Here's just one of many similar coments;

"It’s garbage. A ragbag of irrelevant physics strung together incoherently. For instance, apparently energy balance diagrams are wrong because they don’t look like Feynman diagrams and GCMs are wrong because they don’t solve Maxwell’s equations. Not even the most hardened contrarians are pushing this one…. - gavin"

[c1ue]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

A cooling trend like this?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
It doesn't look like cooling to me.

*sigh* you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

The link you point to spits up the EXACT SAME GRAPH as the publication I linked to.

And said graph clearly shows that the GISS and IAH data show a cooling from an El Nino spike in 1999-ish. The top graph are the land station data which show a completely different behavior as is already noted.

The link also includes a graph on mean surface sea temperatures which also show a cooling from a spike in 1997.

Given that we're ten years down the road and many CO2 ppm increases later, the correlation of CO2 and global temperatures seems QUITE WEAK.

As for peer reviewed papers, how about this one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1174461

Consistency Between Satellite-Derived and Modeled Estimates of the Direct Aerosol Effect

Gunnar Myhre

In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, the direct aerosol effect is reported to have a radiative forcing estimate of –0.5 Watt per square meter (W m^–2), offsetting the warming from CO₂ by almost one-third. The uncertainty, however, ranges from –0.9 to –0.1 W m^–2, which is largely due to differences between estimates from global aerosol models and observation-based estimates, with the latter tending to have stronger (more negative) radiative forcing. This study demonstrates consistency between a global aerosol model and adjustment to an observation-based method, producing a global and annual mean radiative forcing that is weaker than –0.5 W m^–2, with a best estimate of –0.3 W m^–2. The physical explanation for the earlier discrepancy is that the relative increase in anthropogenic black carbon (absorbing aerosols) is much larger than the overall increase in the anthropogenic abundance of aerosols.

Or is Science magazine also not considered truly peer reviewed? And why does this matter? Because if the variability of temperature due to anthropogenic cooling is less, then so is the anthropogenic warming.

Or in other words, AGW is less than IPCC may think - 40% from this alone.

Again, probably just paranoid little me, but a fine example of how a determined individual with an agenda could easily manipulate a complex subject.

And last but not least: Mr. Hansen

What was his forecast in 1988 vs. actual behavior?

hansen_forecast_1988-no_title.jpg

Doesn't look very accurate to me. And already he was pounding the drum on why we should all go back to hunter gatherer lifestyles.

[raja]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Instead please refer to this neat little guide on why AGW is not hardly proven by anyone - with handy flow chart references for almost all of the so-called AGW support written thus far in this thread:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarmi...ok_2-22_lq.pdf

Thanks for posting this, c1ue.

I'm sending it to all my contacts, also to my Congressional representatives (using my handy file with one-click links to their email -- an easy method which I again recommend be used everyone).
_______________________

Global Warming -- How the Rich get Richer using Your Money

Were you aware that due to recent scientific evidence published over the last few years, many prominent scientists who were once proponents of the human-caused global warming theory have now switched sides.

Over 30,000 scientists, 9,000 of them with PhDs, have now signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence that human-caused release of gases into the atmosphere is causing global warming.

Yet your government is now poised to spend billions of taxpayer money to solve the "problem" of CO2 emissions.

No matter how strong your belief is on this subject, I recommend that you take a few minutes to read the introduction of this brief yet incisive document
. . . .

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarmi...ok_2-22_lq.pdf

[radon]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

*sigh* you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

So link to a data set with a negative correlation.

And said graph clearly shows that the GISS and IAH data show a cooling from an El Nino spike in 1999-ish. The top graph are the land station data which show a completely different behavior as is already noted.

Does it? They explain their methodology on the website:

The GISS analysis of global surface temperature, documented in the scientific literature [refs. 1 and 2], incorporates data from three data bases made available monthly: (1) the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of the National Climate Data Center [ref. 3], (2) the satellite analysis of global sea surface temperature of Reynolds and Smith [ref. 4], and (3) Antarctic records of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) [ref. 5].

It is not land data only as you seem to imply.

The link also includes a graph on mean surface sea temperatures which also show a cooling from a spike in 1997.

Given that we're ten years down the road and many CO2 ppm increases later, the correlation of CO2 and global temperatures seems QUITE WEAK.

Average sea surface temperature is heavily influenced by el nino, this is discussed in detail on the page I linked.

You use a cite a chart of SST anomolies, all positive by the way, to asert that a global cooling trend exists. That chart doen't support it.

As for peer reviewed papers, how about this one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1174461



Or is Science magazine also not considered truly peer reviewed? And why does this matter? Because if the variability of temperature due to anthropogenic cooling is less, then so is the anthropogenic warming.

Or in other words, AGW is less than IPCC may think - 40% from this alone.

Earlier in this thread we saw a paper that implyed we may be underestemating the effect because of unknown feedback mechanisms.

Again, probably just paranoid little me, but a fine example of how a determined individual with an agenda could easily manipulate a complex subject.



And last but not least: Mr. Hansen

What was his forecast in 1988 vs. actual behavior?

[ATTACH]1835[/ATTACH]

Doesn't look very accurate to me. And already he was pounding the drum on why we should all go back to hunter gatherer lifestyles.

You mean this chart?
phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg.jpg

I guess a position is easier to attack if you misrepresent it first.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

As for peer reviewed papers, how about this one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1174461



Or is Science magazine also not considered truly peer reviewed? And why does this matter? Because if the variability of temperature due to anthropogenic cooling is less, then so is the anthropogenic warming.

Or in other words, AGW is less than IPCC may think - 40% from this alone.

Again, probably just paranoid little me, but a fine example of how a determined individual with an agenda could easily manipulate a complex subject.

Congratulations, we finally have someone who quotes from a peer-reviewed journal. At least we're talking real science. But I must say I'm completely puzzled as to why you would choose this article to promote a denialist position. Unfortunately, you completely misinterpreted the publication.

1st, keep in mind the subject of the paper is "Direct Aerosols". Direct Aerosols have an impact on radiative forcing, but not the impact CO2 has.

2nd, Your simplistic calculation that global warming is reduced by 40% because one minor component has changed is completely incorrect and misleading. Also, calculating the percentage change with the numbers you chose is completely silly. It's like being in Chicago when the temperature goes from 1F to 5F and saying the temperature has increased 400%!

3rd, Please look at the negative sign in front of the radiative forcing number for Direct Aerosols. The IPCC estimate of -.5 W/M^2 means that Direct Aerosols actually counter the effects (through light scattering and reflection in the upper atmosphere) of CO2. The authors claim the number should be -.3 W/M^2. Going from a -.5 to a -.3 means total radiative forcing increases by .2. In other word, global warming is actually happening a little faster than what the IPCC originally estimated.

Trying to find a detail that is incorrect, or is being adjusted, and then claiming the entire theory is wrong is a technique the scientific creationists perfected long ago. We don't understand the details of gravity, but the evidence is overwhelming that it's true.

And last but not least: Mr. Hansen

What was his forecast in 1988 vs. actual behavior?

[ATTACH]1835[/ATTACH]

Doesn't look very accurate to me. And already he was pounding the drum on why we should all go back to hunter gatherer lifestyles.

I'm not sure where the graph you link to comes from, but it leaves an uninformed reader with the impression that world temperatures have leveled off and may even be declining. Of course this is not true, so here's a NOAA chart for anyone who might have misinterpreted your chart.

As I said earlier: "But in ALL cases, it can be quickly shown that the graphs are misleading, or the numbers are out of context, or the claims are simply false, which simply begets more misleading graphs, more incorrect numbers, and more false claims."

Now, where was that frustration expressed by EJ and the economic flat earthers...

c1ue: I look forward to your postings on the economic threads. I find them informative and always read them. I hope you can find the time to continue your efforts there.

[Mashuri]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

You mean this chart?
[ATTACH]1836[/ATTACH]

I think it's important to understand that this chart (and most others in the AGW field) are not just raw data but statistical analysis, meaning an interpretation of the data. The problem that c1ue, I and many others have is the politicized and dubious nature of the entities and people providing us their "data" after it has been put through their filters. Hansen is a great example. I can't trust anything that comes from GISS because of Hansen's obvious conflicts of interest and, most importantly, his total lack of transparency. He absolutely refuses to release any raw data to the public for analysis. Want to see the source code for his climate models? Too bad! How about the raw temperature data before it gets "corrected" by his models? No way. This opacity is very incongruent with the scientific method and only garners mistrust.

As for the chart above, ClimateAudit (a real thorn in Gavin's and Jim's sides) points out how a little playing with statistics changes the results:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796

Here's the chart when you set the starting points correctly:



Not only that, but nobody seemed to mention that "Scenario C" involved greenhouse gases not increasing after 2000 -- which didn't happen -- which completely throws Scenario C out the window as inaccurate in its assumptions. To quote:

Mainly, the problem is that the world has not continued to heat up as was expected post 1998, while his Scenarios A and B did continue to warm. The post-1998 climate actually is acting very much like his Scenario C … except, of course, that the CO2 emissions didn't level off in 2000 as in Scenario C.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse'

Just being a simple moron who observes what is happening on this planet, we had the greatest El Nino ever observed in California during the late 1990s and early 2000s. This El Nino was caused by the most spectacular solar activity ever observed. In fact, the solar activity was so large that the northern lights were observed here in central California, where they never have been seen before, at least not in my lifetime.

Since the early 2000s, solar activity has been quiet. Consequently, we have been in the La Nina cycle, and temperatures across California and throughout much of North America have been setting record or near record lows. For example, the winter and spring in the North-east U.S. was the coldest in 37 years, at least according to FOX News.

I was in Victoria, BC during December 2008, and we had heavy snow-pack along with ice fog at night. This was the third coldest December ever in Victoria. The downtown of Victoria with the snow and ice fog reminded me of being in Winnipeg or Edmonton at Christmas.

My point is that the series of years from 1975 to 2005 was an usual series of years. The last four or five years, the La Nina years, would tell a very different story. Please include those years in your graph which purports to show a major warming on this planet.

Also, filter-out the temperatures observed in cities, and the graph would tell a story of less warming. Just use ocean temperatures taken at depth, and your graph would show even less warming.

Naturally, there is some warming going-on on this planet due to the fact that the Earth is emerging from the Ice Age, but that warming is very slight. Don't blame mankind or CO2 for that.

As I said, when you think critically about this data which purports to show major global warming, the data becomes suspect. And the more you think about it, the more suspect the data becomes.