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

[radon]

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

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 inconguent with the scientific method and only garners mistrust.

I acknowledge that this is a legitimate complaint and pythonic cow raised it in a different thread.

What c1ue has been doing is cherry picking worst case scenarios from charts and creating straw men. His are not arguments against AGW.

[c1ue]

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

You mean this chart?


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

First, Hansen himself only showed Scenario A in his testimony before Congress in 1988.

So yes, a position IS easier to attack if it is misrepresentation to begin with. :rolleyes:

Secondly, Scenario C is actually what Hansen said would happen if all his proposed radical save the planet CO2 crap were implemented.

The point is: Scenario A - the exponential model - was used to scare politicians and the public.

Scenario B - the linear model - is possibly more correct but maybe not: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2621 for some commentary.

And Scenario C is what would happen if all of Hansen's eco-nazi crap were undertaken.

Well, more than 2 decades later both 'B' and 'C' are clearly more correct than 'A'. Correct me if I am wrong but I'm quite certain Hansen's eco-Nazi crap hasn't been implemented hardly anywhere.

Maybe we're going to Scenario C even WITHOUT all the eco-CO2-nazi crap.

But either way again the question arises: is manmade AGW due to CO2 REALLY that big a deal?

In other word, global warming is actually happening a little faster than what the IPCC originally estimated.

Uh, perhaps your reading comprehension is different than mine.

If there is less anthropogenic cooling than assumed, conversely there is also less anthropogenic warming which was previously cancelling out the 'extra' cooling.

Why? Because the models assume a balance between the warming and cooling. Tipping the cooling down means ALSO tipping the warming down. Are you sure you aren't the one with the journalist degree?

So what you say? Well, if the AGW is less, then maybe the doomsday 3 to 5 degrees being threatened is much less. And the need for radical CO2 control equally less.

But the key point is still the same: AGW to the degree of global catastrophe is still not proven. There are STILL major refinements going on and thus I STILL cannot see how climate projections via computer models should be used to dislocate major portions of economic existence everywhere.

So perhaps you don't like my applying simple math to AGW religiously held beliefs, but there you go.

There is STILL NO SMOKING GUN

[Starving Steve]

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

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.


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.

Back to this graph again, where is the record cold year from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philipines (sp?) ?

I remember that year, 1991, the year that Mt. Pinatubo erupted, we had snow on the ground in August in Edmonton. It was not so much that it kept snowing, it was so cold in August that the snow would not go away. For two weeks, we had winter in August.

I remember fall of that year. It was -33F in Edmonton on Halloween complete with a bone-chilling ice fog. (I don't count wind chill ever, no real Canadian ever does.) I had to take my kids out for trick-or-treat; that was quite an experience!

Everywhere on Earth had record cold, not just Alberta. Where is that year on your graph, the year of the spectacular sunsets?

Here is what happened in 1991, worldwide, when the Earth cooled:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/index.html

Be sure to read the section way down below on temperature, weather, and climate effects. And this article comes from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Your graph shows just a minor and brief decrease in world temperatures--- a decrease which was smothered-out by a trend of broad increase in world temperatures. Yet, that was the year of record cold; the year that crops failed or were damaged by cold, worldwide.

In the U.S, 1991 was the year with the third coldest summer on record. And in Canada, Alberta had no summer. Yet, this year is smothered-out on the graph above..... Something is fishy with this data, or else much of the temperature data is from urban areas where buildings affect temperature readings outside.

[radon]

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

First, Hansen himself only showed Scenario A in his testimony before Congress in 1988.

So yes, a position IS easier to attack if it is misrepresentation to begin with. :rolleyes:

You are confusing Patrick Michaels straw man with Hanson's testimony.

Hanson's graph:
hansenfig3a.jpg


Michaels graph:
michaelsfig3a.png

A link to the paper published in 88:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/...ansen_etal.pdf


So yes, you are misrepresenting his position.

Well, more than 2 decades later both 'B' and 'C' are clearly more correct than 'A'.

Hansen would agree with you.

Hansen-2006.png

[santafe2]

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

There is STILL NO SMOKING GUN

Let's assume for a moment that we agree on this. There either is a case for AGM or there is not. We either prepare for it or we do not. This gives us 4 cases to examine.

• In the 1st case where AGM is false and we don't prepare, everything is good. It was a red herring and we ignored it, life is good.
• In the 2nd case, AGM is true and we're prepared. We've redeployed our resources and we're as well prepared as we can be. It's not as good as the first scenario but it's life and we deal with it and congratulate ourselves for seeing the issue.
• In the 3rd case we're prepared but AGM is false. We've wasted resources chasing a demon that does not exist. We've wasted resources and we have to admit we're wrong.
• In the 4th scenario AGM is true and we've not prepared. The disaster is monumental. Seas rise, weather is unpredictable and human population fails.

I'm conservative to a fault. I consider your POV gambling. I'm not willing to take the risk your POV assumes and I continue to invest in lowering our energy footprint. I am case 2 and 3, you are case 1 and 4. For me, case 1 does not obviate 4. You're tossing the dice and hoping for the best, I'm preparing and hoping you're right but still sure you're wrong and all I'm losing is money and bragging rights. If you're wrong it's disaster, it's the end for many of us. Maybe you'll throw a 7 but I'm not willing to bet my family on it.

[c1ue]

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

You are confusing Patrick Michaels straw man with Hanson's testimony.

Hanson's graph:
Attachment 1839


Michaels graph:
Attachment 1838

A link to the paper published in 88:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/...ansen_etal.pdf


So yes, you are misrepresenting his position.

Unfortunately the Congressional Record for 1988 is just outside of access via electronic record (1989-).

But there are numerous anecdotes where Hansen pointed to Scenario A as the most likely and therefore the urgency of action correspondingly higher.

Even this paper which Hansen himself directly contributed said:

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/1...#xref-ref-13-1

The congressional testimony in 1988 (13) included a graph (Fig. 2) of simulated global temperature for three scenarios (A, B, and C) and maps of simulated temperature change for scenario B. The three scenarios were used to bracket likely possibilities. Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality,” because it assumed rapid exponential growth of GHGs and it included no large volcanic eruptions during the next half century.

Either way - you still have failed to reconcile the fact that actual behavior is much closer to the 'best' case scenarios WITHOUT ANY GLOBAL CONCERTED CO2 LIMITATION ACTION than the Scenario A worst case.

While I can certainly understand a scientist looking at a menu of scenarios, I cannot condone a scientist using a worst case of said menu to prod for public action - especially when said action directly benefits said scientist's own prestige and fame. It has been quite clear since 1988 that the worst case models upon which Hansen supposedly based his conviction on the need for immediate and drastic action on WERE NOT RIGHT.

And again - while certainly I have no issue with working towards refinement and improvement of said modeling and theory, I do have tremendous antipathy toward basing drastic actions on half-a**ed guesses.

Let's assume for a moment that we agree on this. There either is a case for AGM or there is not. We either prepare for it or we do not. This gives us 4 cases to examine.

• In the 1st case where AGM is false and we don't prepare, everything is good. It was a red herring and we ignored it, life is good.
• In the 2nd case, AGM is true and we're prepared. We've redeployed our resources and we're as well prepared as we can be. It's not as good as the first scenario but it's life and we deal with it and congratulate ourselves for seeing the issue.
• In the 3rd case we're prepared but AGM is false. We've wasted resources chasing a demon that does not exist. We've wasted resources and we have to admit we're wrong.
• In the 4th scenario AGM is true and we've not prepared. The disaster is monumental. Seas rise, weather is unpredictable and human population fails.

I'm conservative to a fault. I consider your POV gambling. I'm not willing to take the risk your POV assumes and I continue to invest in lowering our energy footprint. I am case 2 and 3, you are case 1 and 4. For me, case 1 does not obviate 4. You're tossing the dice and hoping for the best, I'm preparing and hoping you're right but still sure you're wrong and all I'm losing is money and bragging rights. If you're wrong it's disaster, it's the end for many of us. Maybe you'll throw a 7 but I'm not willing to bet my family on it.

SF2,

According to what you wrote - which is a variant of Pascal's Wager - we should all pay just in case we are wrong. Because the consequences are so large that there is no reason not to.

So, are you Catholic?

Because an eternity in hell even at a near zero possibility is not worth risking.

The converse of Pascal's Wager is that all rapscallions will refer to the highest possible penalties just to ensure at least some compliance with their scheme.

In a similar vein, any number of other half-a**ed radical solutions would have been undertaken for any number of doomsday scenarios: horse dung inundating cities (Ban all horses from cities!), global cooling (melt the Arctic Ice Cap! (sic Newsweek), worldwide famine due to overpopulation a la Malthus and Ehrlich, etc etc.

In the latter Ehrlich said:

A general answer to the question `what needs to be done?' is simple. We must bring the world population CO2 under control, bringing the growth rate to zero or making it go negative.

Thank you, I'd rather not.

[raja]

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

Let's assume for a moment that we agree on this. There either is a case for AGM or there is not. We either prepare for it or we do not. This gives us 4 cases to examine.

• In the 1st case where AGM is false and we don't prepare, everything is good. It was a red herring and we ignored it, life is good.
• In the 2nd case, AGM is true and we're prepared. We've redeployed our resources and we're as well prepared as we can be. It's not as good as the first scenario but it's life and we deal with it and congratulate ourselves for seeing the issue.
• In the 3rd case we're prepared but AGM is false. We've wasted resources chasing a demon that does not exist. We've wasted resources and we have to admit we're wrong.
• In the 4th scenario AGM is true and we've not prepared. The disaster is monumental. Seas rise, weather is unpredictable and human population fails.

I'm conservative to a fault. I consider your POV gambling. I'm not willing to take the risk your POV assumes and I continue to invest in lowering our energy footprint. I am case 2 and 3, you are case 1 and 4. For me, case 1 does not obviate 4. You're tossing the dice and hoping for the best, I'm preparing and hoping you're right but still sure you're wrong and all I'm losing is money and bragging rights. If you're wrong it's disaster, it's the end for many of us. Maybe you'll throw a 7 but I'm not willing to bet my family on it.

There are numerous disasters that might happen . . . by your logic a case could be made for preparing for them all.

What makes more sense to me is that we should only prepare for those things that would have a high negative impact and also a high probability . . . because it would be impossible to prepare for all threats.

That brings us right back to the question, what is the probability of AGW . . . .

[santafe2]

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

That brings us right back to the question, what is the probability of AGW . . . .

The probability of AGW at current CO2 levels is unknown. But with the do nothing plan we'll reach well over 450ppm by 2050. Then maybe it will be obvious to everyone...:rolleyes:...or maybe not and we'll just keep doing nothing until we're up over 1,000ppm and we're pretty sure that will heat things up nicely.

But let's also look at other issues. The probability of fossil fuel caused air and water pollution is 100%, the probability of peak oil is 100%, the probability of a lapse or end to US energy security is quite high, the probability of food shortages is high, etc., etc. The end of cheap oil and cheap electricity will bring about swift and unpleasant changes. Of all of these issues, apparently AGW is the only one our politicians are willing to address but it aims us down a road we need to take.

If we spend this money in the name of AGW abatement and it turns out we're incorrect, it will still serve to lessen pollution and create a more secure food and energy source for the US. In the US the equivalent of 120,000 US homes started providing their own energy with solar in 2008. This year it will be closer to 200,000. It will be a million homes a year in the US within a very few years - and I'm not counting wind farms.

To give you some sense of the scale of wind installations in 2009, Indiana alone has installed in the first quarter of 2009, more wind power generation than all of the solar panels installed in the US in 2008.

The key driver for these changes in energy sourcing is rising CO2 counts and the idea that somewhere between 450 and 1,000ppm, it's really going to get warm on earth. As I said before, I'm not a gambler so I'm happy these changes are taking place.

[Starving Steve]

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

The probability of AGW at current CO2 levels is unknown. But with the do nothing plan we'll reach well over 450ppm by 2050. Then maybe it will be obvious to everyone...:rolleyes:...or maybe not and we'll just keep doing nothing until we're up over 1,000ppm and we're pretty sure that will heat things up nicely.

But let's also look at other issues. The probability of fossil fuel caused air and water pollution is 100%, the probability of peak oil is 100%, the probability of a lapse or end to US energy security is quite high, the probability of food shortages is high, etc., etc. The end of cheap oil and cheap electricity will bring about swift and unpleasant changes. Of all of these issues, apparently AGW is the only one our politicians are willing to address but it aims us down a road we need to take.

If we spend this money in the name of AGW abatement and it turns out we're incorrect, it will still serve to lessen pollution and create a more secure food and energy source for the US. In the US the equivalent of 120,000 US homes started providing their own energy with solar in 2008. This year it will be closer to 200,000. It will be a million homes a year in the US within a very few years - and I'm not counting wind farms.

To give you some sense of the scale of wind installations in 2009, Indiana alone has installed in the first quarter of 2009, more wind power generation than all of the solar panels installed in the US in 2008.

The key driver for these changes in energy sourcing is rising CO2 counts and the idea that somewhere between 450 and 1,000ppm, it's really going to get warm on earth. As I said before, I'm not a gambler so I'm happy these changes are taking place.

If you are concerned about 400 parts per 1,000,000 which seems to me to be minute, to say the least, stop breathing out carbon.

If you really want to do something PRODUCTIVE to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, plant huge trees like sequoias or redwoods or cedar trees. These trees will love the carbon and reduce the carbon in the atmosphere.

As for 120,000 homes having solar power that provides for all of their needs, please get off of the marijuana high. Solar power may help a bit in water heating in the desert, but that is about all. And that is just a tiny bit of help, not much.

For the most part, solar power is a real sad joke--- especially if you get off of the marijuana high and sober-up.

Windmills are another joke. Tidal power another cruel joke--- I can speak from experience about what a joke tidal power is because I live next to a tidal power station in East Sooke, BC. ( It produces no power to speak of, and BC now imports power from the Pacific North-west states.) Another sad joke is geo-thermal power--- unless you live by hot springs. Another joke, but not quite as sad as these other means of producing power, is burning garbage for power.

There are two ways out of the power shortage mess: hydro-electricity and nuclear power. If you would tolerate carbon emission, natural gas would solve the problem too.
The best solution is nuclear power.

[santafe2]

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

As for 120,000 homes having solar power that provides for all of their needs, please get off of the marijuana high. Solar power may help a bit in water heating in the desert, but that is about all. And that is just a tiny bit of help, not much.

For the most part, solar power is a real sad joke--- especially if you get off of the marijuana high and sober-up.

Windmills are another joke.

Don't be hatin' Mr. Starving...:rolleyes:...best laugh I've had on iTulip in a while, thanks. Please, never let the facts get in the way, they'll just ruin your punch lines.

[yernamehear]

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

C1ue, you're usually an astute observer, so the lack of analytical depth in this statement surprised me coming from you.

Most regular scientists are not saying anything about dieoff due to CO2 accumulation. What they are saying is that when ocean levels rise, it will cause massive readjustment of human civilization, 40% or more of which is located in coastal areas. It will cause drought in some areas, like the Southwestern USA (Lake mead is drying up - what will Ca do for water?). It will cause more intense hurricanes. It will cause more anomalous and extreme storms in both summer and winter. All of those things are already happening, as anyone who listens to the news knows. And in the future, these weather "anomalies" will get more intense, inflicting greater damage on human societies.

But when 40% of 6 billion people become displaced from their homes by rising oceans, that's going to be a massive adjustment for everyone. Think Katrina on a global scale.

The Earth will survive, and life will go on for at least some of the Earth's inhabitants. But that doesn't mean the adjustment period will be fun or easy.

Lake Mead situation is another one of those complicated events. A significant portion of it is due to overuse of the Colorado River water.

[santafe2]

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

Lake Mead situation is another one of those complicated events. A significant portion of it is due to overuse of the Colorado River water.

Most Westerners have at least been to Lake Mead and many have spent time on the water. For anyone who appreciates the vast and expansive views the desert affords, it's an awesome experience. From the nearly 600 foot depth of water at the dam to the 100 mile length of the lake this water world in the middle of the desert is testament to our engineering capabilities.

Mead is down over 100 ft. in 9 years. I haven't been there since we moved out of California and regularly vacationed on various parts of Mead but it must look quite different. I understand Las Vegas will need another primary source of water if it drops much further.

I'd have to check sources but if memory serves, this 100+ foot drop is about 1/2 the total water reserves. Could we consider not growing rice in California? That seems like a product we could import at a reasonable price.

Maybe we could do without front and back lawns or golf courses in the desert so we could maintain a reasonable water level at Mead.

When we lived in LA we used 15,000 gallons of water a month. The average household in Las Vegas uses 13,000 gallons. Here in Santa Fe we use about 3,500 gallons a month and by all accounts, we live just fine.

The good news is that the lake is finally getting to the trigger point where the federal government can step in and let people in LA and Las Vegas know they live in the desert and better start acting like it.

[flintlock]

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

Don't be hatin' Mr. Starving...:rolleyes:...best laugh I've had on iTulip in a while, thanks. Please, never let the facts get in the way, they'll just ruin your punch lines.

I'm still laughing at that quote.

[flintlock]

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

Related link:

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsSt...=104031&cat=12

[jeremyr]

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

There a plenty of climate scientists who do not believe in man made global warming. The fact that 30 years ago they predicted we were headed to the next ice age is proof that it is not an exact science. We as humans make the mistake at looking at data only in relation to small time peiods.In the grand scheme of things 100 or a 1000 years is a relatively short period of time. I also find it interesting that most meterologists who study the effects of weather and climate in the REAL world application are skeptics.I also find that most "liberals" or "progressives" like to have a cause or believe that they are doing something "for the greater good". The doomsday climate change scenario fits their profile to a tee.

I agree the climate change is used as a political tool to implement new government controls and new tax schemes. Even if you believe in man made global warming you need to look at how much impact changing Co2 output would have on the world.

Looking at the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill that is now being considered by Congress, CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005. In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 million metric tons (mmt), so 83% below that would be 1,020 million metric tons or a reduction of 4,980mmtCO2. 4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year. In other words, even if the entire United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of less than three-thousandths of a ºC per year. A number that is scientifically meaningless.

See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ming/#more-376