This winter is killing two of the biggest scare tactic lies ever told...

[TennTradition]

I have not fully come to a firm conclusion on what I think should be done about greenhouse gas emissions. I have a hard time with this one, honestly. If I knew that America would be willing to help foot the bill to bail out the most affected countries if climate change does happen, then I would be perfectly fine doing nothing until we do see affects. The obvious problem with this is that people can claim *almost any* problem is a result of climate change, and when and how do we act in that case? It is a politically and practically non-viable solution. So, that leaves us with nothing but regret if we do see water shortages and coastal flooding due to increased global temperatures.

As to your last point, there is no disagreement from my perspective. Save, perhaps, the value of LEED designs, but only because a very small percentage of LEED designs actually end up being more efficient (per a presentation Chu gave on campus a bitg ago) - however, this is just a problem with how the design process ends up than with the idea. I also agree that nuclear bears tremendous potential, but the efficiency equation doesn't stop at the reactor and turbine. We also have to consider the social cost and political inefficiencies introduced by the nuclear waste storage problem (and the proliferation threat of reprocessing with a closed or partially closed fuel cycle). I have always been a proponent of nuclear energy, but at the same time I don't have high hopes because I am a realist when it comes to the political challenge.

 

[TennTradition]

Not having read that, sounds like a real toe curler.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Nicely done.

 

[IPorange]

:lol: Not really. Only because I went to UT. :good!:

I have two degrees in a relevant field from UT.

 

[TennTradition]

You were waiting to see someone say "solar minimum" weren't you? :dance2: :lol:

You may also want to re-check out the second paragraph of my response to you about the significance of the temperature change. I posted a few sentences as an edit, and I think you read it before I finished posting them. They are just a few of my late-night thoughts on the subject, so they could be off-base, but I wanted to let you know they are there....

 

[IPorange]

You were waiting to see someone say "solar minimum" weren't you? :dance2: :lol:

NASA - Deep Solar Minimum

Same website. We're coming out of it now, and there is a lag in the climate system due to the properties of water and the size of our oceans. Even with that, we're still warmer than the average over the last few decades. I am really not seeing what you are basing your opinions on. This is all half-truths and card games.

The truth is people have a problem with the implications of GCC, and thus try to find a flaw with the science.

 

[rwemyss]

Who said it was the hottest ever? It's been hotter before, but not since Homo Sapiens have been the only Hominids around. Did you read the FAQ on the site you linked? You'll find it illuminating.

Here's what you are missing in this figure: The x axis stretches back 450,000 years. Human history as we know it is crammed into an eye lash width at the very end of the core. Now, as you can see, by the scale of the graph the increase in CO2 over the last 200 years appears instantaneously (it's a vertical line), and towers above anything in the figure. If you'd like to try the same schtick again, you can dig up the older records that show higher CO2 tens of millions of years ago, but it's hardly relevant. As you can see in geologic history, CO2 rise actually followed temperature rises as it was released through various positive feedback mechanisms, before other climate forcings pushed shifts that led to cooling, and then positive feedback loops occurred that net-stored carbon. NOW, for the first time that we know of, CO2 is being released not as a forcing of temperature range, but actually on it's own. That means the positive feedbacks that occur in the past augmenting warming trends are now kicking in on top of already being in the "warm" part of a Milankovitch cycle, and at levels that are unprecedented in geologically recent times. It's clear that the current situation is unprecedented from your figure. What's going to happen next is likely a, geologically speaking, rapid warming, followed eventually by a cooling simply because certain negative feedback loops do exist that one would think will eventually shift the climate paradigm (this would be even more devastating than the initial warming. Not Day After Tomorrow devastating, but pretty damn bad. This might play out over 200 years or a thousand years, but either way it's going to get warmer in the short (next couple of centuries) term. The trends of the last two centuries aren't even a millimeter on this graph because of the scale. This is a classic example of someone not thinking about the sort of data or scale of what they are looking at. Also, notice the baseline is 1960-1990, which were a warmer 30 year block than the previous 100. Again, this is actually a low-ball. YOU try again.

Michael Mann and his hockey stick try to indicate that we have a climate that is the warmest it has ever been.

Now I have bolded two parts of your post... the first is purely conjecture, as you readily admit, CO2 levels are unprecedented, and you can clearly see from the graph that temperature and CO2 are NOT directly correlated, as you would like to believe or assume.

The other section is about your indication that the 30 years from 60-90 were warmer that the previous 100... based on? Instrumental data? We already know that the instrumental record is highly inaccurate, due to poor devices, and changes to sites (urbanization).

You would be far more convincing if you changed your tone to not be so condescending. Are you a climatologist IP? Neither am I... although I am willing to not act like my opinions are truth... you obviously are not.

 

[TennTradition]

Why is it conjecture to suggest that we are introducing a positive forcing (increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere), where in the past this was only a positive feedback to other warming (CO2 release from the oceans after warming due, for example, to orbital shift)?

 

[rwemyss]

NASA - Deep Solar Minimum

Same website. We're coming out of it now, and there is a lag in the climate system due to the properties of water and the size of our oceans. Even with that, we're still warmer than the average over the last few decades. I am really not seeing what you are basing your opinions on. This is all half-truths and card games.

The truth is people have a problem with the implications of GCC, and thus try to find a flaw with the science.

You say that what I present is half-truths and card games, and act like what you present are facts? Laughable. I have stated that these are my opinions, and that there is so much unknown about how climate works, we cannot KNOW anything... you are the one trying to pass off half truths as gospel.

I will happily get off my soapbox now, having been reminded that most people have made up their mind on where they stand on AGW, and will not budge on that... even if they are shown that what they thought was cut and dry, is anything but.

I would be labeled a skeptic... when you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that we are headed to a catastrophe because we burn fossil fuels, but NOT headed for one if we cut it out... I'll be firmly in your camp.

 

[IPorange]

Michael Mann and his hockey stick try to indicate that we have a climate that is the warmest it has ever been.

Now I have bolded two parts of your post... the first is purely conjecture, as you readily admit, CO2 levels are unprecedented, and you can clearly see from the graph that temperature and CO2 are NOT directly correlated, as you would like to believe or assume.

The other section is about your indication that the 30 years from 60-90 were warmer that the previous 100... based on? Instrumental data? We already know that the instrumental record is highly inaccurate, due to poor devices, and changes to sites (urbanization).

You would be far more convincing if you changed your tone to not be so condescending. Are you a climatologist IP? Neither am I... although I am willing to not act like my opinions are truth... you obviously are not.

Are you saying that CO2 is NOT a green house gas? Because that's chemistry and physics, not conjecture. Are you saying it is NOT at the highest levels in the last 450,000 years? Because you posted the data table, not me.

They are correlated, just not in the way most people assume historically. I was very clear on that in my post, and explained why that is significant.

The instrumentation is never truly "exact," and that is why instrumentation isn't used for global temperature until 1890, when things were becoming more standardized. Urbanization is not a factor, because those sites are not included when they reach a moderate level of development. (if you read the FAQ of the website you got the figure from, it explains this).

My tone is not meant to be condescending. I'm just laying things out as I know.As TT said, there is room for discussion with the degrees of GW and what not, but there really isn't much room for whether it IS or ISN'T happening, or that humans can have no impact whatsoever.

I am a paleoclimatologist.

 

[TennTradition]

I will happily get off my soapbox now, having been reminded that most people have made up their mind on where they stand on AGW, and will not budge on that... even if they are shown that what they thought was cut and dry, is anything but.

This is something that I have a hard time accepting, but it is certainly true. I think that it is because I changed my opinion, so I still disillusion myself to think that offering up what I now know/understand/think will provide a different perspective and a different way of thinking. Yeah, right!

 

[rwemyss]

Why is it conjecture to suggest that we are introducing a positive forcing (increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere), where in the past this was only a positive feedback to other warming (CO2 release from the oceans after warming due, for example, to orbital shift)?

Previously CO2 was released as a feedback from warming, means that warming will follow a CO2 increase? Don't follow that.

About your LEED comments... there wouldn't happen to be a link I can follow to that paper or lecture would there? I'm always interested in LEED stuff. It interests the hell out of me... I'm with you on weighing the other impacts... does that mean you are anti-electric car or hybrid due to the environmental impacts of making the batteries?

 

[IPorange]

You say that what I present is half-truths and card games, and act like what you present are facts? Laughable. I have stated that these are my opinions, and that there is so much unknown about how climate works, we cannot KNOW anything... you are the one trying to pass off half truths as gospel.

I am just saying we know enough to exclude some ideas, such as humans have no influence on climate.

I will happily get off my soapbox now, having been reminded that most people have made up their mind on where they stand on AGW, and will not budge on that... even if they are shown that what they thought was cut and dry, is anything but.

I am not claiming that everything is known with perfect clarity. No scientist would, and don't know if that is ever even possible. But it isn't like there is a lack of consistent evidence or information, either.

I would be labeled a skeptic... when you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that we are headed to a catastrophe because we burn fossil fuels, but NOT headed for one if we cut it out... I'll be firmly in your camp.

So you wouldn't believe in global warming if one "proved to you" that fossil fuels are causing the problem if it were irreversible? What an odd statement. How much of your problem with GCC is the implications, how much is the science? Because I don't like the implications either. It just is irrelevant to the science.

 

[rwemyss]

Are you saying that CO2 is NOT a green house gas? Because that's chemistry and physics, not conjecture. Are you saying it is NOT at the highest levels in the last 450,000 years? Because you posted the data table, not me.

They are correlated, just not in the way most people assume historically. I was very clear on that in my post, and explained why that is significant.

The instrumentation is never truly "exact," and that is why instrumentation isn't used for global temperature until 1890, when things were becoming more standardized. Urbanization is not a factor, because those sites are not included when they reach a moderate level of development. (if you read the FAQ of the website you got the figure from, it explains this).

My tone is not meant to be condescending. I'm just laying things out as I know.As TT said, there is room for discussion with the degrees of GW and what not, but there really isn't much room for whether it IS or ISN'T happening, or that humans can have no impact whatsoever.

I am a paleoclimatologist.

... have you followed the work that has been done checking the siting of GHCN stations? Or the things that are now coming to light on whether or not a site is used for adjusting temperature data? Again, this is not cut and dry.

Here is a recent example of work done checking how GISS has adjusted data from GHCN stations. If you are open minded enough to get through the fact this is written by a skeptic, and look at the facts of how the temperature record has been adjusted, I would be interested to hear what you think about this as an example of the statistical analysis we are using on the instrumental record.
HERE

In all seriousness IP... what in the world do you do for a living as a paleoclimatologist, and what in God's name made you decide to do that?!?! :lol:

 

[TennTradition]

Previously CO2 was released as a feedback from warming, means that warming will follow a CO2 increase? Don't follow that.

About your LEED comments... there wouldn't happen to be a link I can follow to that paper or lecture would there? I'm always interested in LEED stuff. It interests the hell out of me... I'm with you on weighing the other impacts... does that mean you are anti-electric car or hybrid due to the environmental impacts of making the batteries?

As for your CO2 comment, I see what you are saying. So, my first answer is no, the fact that CO2 is released because of warming does not mean that warming will follow CO2 release. However, this is a part of climate science that I am quite sold on. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as its physics tells us, and it does cause more solar energy to be trapped in our atmosphere and cause warming as a result of the energy balance (increased temperature ultimately leads to more solar radiation back to space, balancing out the energy equation). In the past, some perturbation would case warming, this would cause CO2 to be released from oceans, and this CO2 would cause some additional amount of warming. This case is different, as we are introducing CO2 as the initial perturbation. That's my perspective on the issue.

I think that the re-making or re-envisioning of LEED design is a schtick of Chu's, so there is probably something out there. He had some slides when he gave his presentation, but I don't think they were published, per se. If I can find something out there, I will post it for you.

As for electric cars and hybrid cars, I am always advocating life cycle cost (including social costs) analyses on technologies. Actually, I was offered a job in the oil and gas industry to do that for new renewable technologies. However, I think that doing this accurately is a tremendously difficult task....understanding social costs and actual $$ costs of emissions/pollution vs. the social opportunity or savings offered by the technology is not easy at all!

 

[TennTradition]

In all seriousness IP... what in the world do you do for a living as a paleoclimatologist, and what in God's name made you decide to do that?!?! :lol:

I don't know if he does temperature reconstructions, but that is one important task that paleoclimatologists carry out. It may not be sexy, but it is a research thing, and if we are going to understand this issue, it lies near the heart of it.

 

[IPorange]

Previously CO2 was released as a feedback from warming, means that warming will follow a CO2 increase? Don't follow that.

It was a positive feedback, meaning more warming led to processes that released more CO2 (warm sea water can hold less CO2, this but one example) which through it's chemical properties absorbed long wave radiation radiating off of the Earth and ultimately kept it within the Earth system, which warmed the Earth and released more CO2, which absorbed... etc.

That same positive feedback cycle is occurring now (technically it's always happening, just at some points there are other forcings that overpower it, but there is even MORE CO2 in the atmosphere (than any time in the last few million years, as you partly saw on your graph) because we have taken carbon compounds stored within the lithosphere (fossil fuels) and combusted them, releasing them into the atmosphere in a way that would not naturally happen, especially on that scale. And on top of that, we were already near a natural "high water mark" of temperature and CO2 for this particular Milankovitch cycle "bump" as you saw in your graph.

 

[rwemyss]

I am just saying we know enough to exclude some ideas, such as humans have no influence on climate.

Have I not clearly stated that I believe we influence the environment in which we live? Of course we do... but I don't see that we can control it either way. If we stop burning fossil fuels do you honestly believe that will allow us to avoid a climate catastrophe?

I am not claiming that everything is known with perfect clarity. No scientist would, and don't know if that is ever even possible. But it isn't like there is a lack of consistent evidence or information, either.

Oh c'mon... you know with perfect clarity that if you drop an object at or near sea level, it WILL fall with an acceleration of ~32.2 ft/s^2. Climate science is all theory though... and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not willing to say the sky is falling, based on theory.

So you wouldn't believe in global warming if one "proved to you" that fossil fuels are causing the problem if it were irreversible? What an odd statement. How much of your problem with GCC is the implications, how much is the science? Because I don't like the implications either. It just is irrelevant to the science.

It reads like that, doesn't it? What I mean is, I'm not in your camp, because even if you are right and we do something about it, we put ourselves in a disastrous economic situation and still can't survive... so in that bleak picture it doesn't matter to me either way. Does that make any better sense?

 

[rwemyss]

I don't know if he does temperature reconstructions, but that is one important task that paleoclimatologists carry out. It may not be sexy, but it is a research thing, and if we are going to understand this issue, it lies near the heart of it.

... since IP hasn't responded, I'm going to assume that's right for now.

If it is wrong, please say IP... but if correct, does that not mean that some part of your livelihood is dependent on the idea that we are headed for a disaster due to what we are doing via AGW? I mean, who is going to pay someone to do temperature reconstructions and understand climate, if it doesn't mean we're headed toward the apocalypse?

I hope that comes out right as well... this has always been one of my contentions about many climatologists... that their livelihood is dependent on AGW (as a doomsday problem), so why would they admit that it doesn't really matter what we do, the climate will change anyway, and our actions either way can't change that. ???

I'm interested in your response, not looking to start another fight.

 

[TennTradition]

I can see value outside of AGW. For example, seismologists have been out there doing research forever, but they aren't going to stop earthquakes...she's going to do what she's going to do. Also, our ability to predict earthquakes really seems no better than when we started. With that said, earthquakes are going to happen and it helps to understand more about them, in hope that we ultimately can make predictions or somehow mitigate their affects. Climate change is going to happen, whether or not man plays a role, and understanding when it has occurred in the past will help us understand when it may occur in the future, how we might mitigate the effects, and if man could cause additional perturbations to the system.

I can understand your point about climate in this same sense though. If the earth/sun system is going to go into an ice age, it is probably going to do it. Many people are going to die. The earth's climate is going to change. I view it from a point of not making it even harder on ourselves by causing potentially significant problems during the peak temperature periods by escalating the 'peak'. With that said, how big is potentially, how much are we escalating, and what does significant mean! Are we closer to worrying about these peak temperature problems or worrying about an ice age?

 

[rwemyss]

I can see value outside of AGW. For example, seismologists have been out there doing research forever, but they aren't going to stop earthquakes...she's going to do what she's going to do. Also, our ability to predict earthquakes really seems no better than when we started. With that said, earthquakes are going to happen and it helps to understand more about them, in hope that we ultimately can make predictions or somehow mitigate their affects. Climate change is going to happen, whether or not man plays a role, and understanding when it has occurred in the past will help us understand when it may occur in the future, how we might mitigate the effects, and if man could cause additional perturbations to the system.

We haven't spent the kind of money we are looking at to curb emissions, on earthquake resistant buildings though... this is a couple of order of magnitudes bigger, and effects EVERYONE.

 

[TennTradition]

I'm really bad about making a post and then adding an extra paragraph...if you didn't see it, I added another paragraph after this one

As for the post, this has more to do with enacting policy with regard to AGW than it does with research money given to paleoclimatoligists, which is what I took your post to be concerned with.

 

[IPorange]

.

In all seriousness IP... what in the world do you do for a living as a paleoclimatologist, and what in God's name made you decide to do that?!?! :lol:

It looks like I am going to teach at a college level, and do research. I never thought I would do that for a living.

I just sort of fell into it. I originally wanted to be a veterinarian. I took some classes that fed my interest. It's worth noting that I used to be a big skeptic about global warming, and my parents and I still disagree on it. My father lives in Alaska and gives me a hard time about his weather endlessly. He also sends me books like Michael Crichton's State of Fear. All in all, I have to stay sharp.

I took a quick look at your link. It's honestly hard to weigh in with any authority on it. I do know that NASA does respond to these sort of critiques if submitted to them, and he said he is/was going to submit it. Hopefully we can get a follow-up.

It's worth noting that the region he is speaking of has changed in unusual ways over the course of the last century- some of those towns have shrunk, not grown. He didn't seem to consider that angle. It's possible that the discrepancies in adjustments of rural/urban areas was because some of those towns were actually shrinking and thus being reclassified, while others were growing and thus being reclassified. I offer this up not as an excuse, but a possibility. It may also very well be a screw up.

 

[rwemyss]

I can understand your point about climate in this same sense though. If the earth/sun system is going to go into an ice age, it is probably going to do it. Many people are going to die. The earth's climate is going to change. I view it from a point of not making it even harder on ourselves by causing potentially significant problems during the peak temperature periods by escalating the 'peak'. With that said, how big is potentially, how much are we escalating, and what does significant mean! Are we closer to worrying about these peak temperature problems or worrying about an ice age?

Do you remember climatologists indicating in the 70's that we were headed to an Ice Age?

Then it became "global warming", and now it is "global climate change". (I keep forgetting to change from AGW to GCC) :banghead2:

I guess I can go over these things ad nauseam. After this exercise, I am less inclined to yell "Global Warming doesn't exist!" But I am still as inclined as ever to say "we shouldn't change anything, because we don't know what the effects will be either way."

 

[rwemyss]

It looks like I am going to teach at a college level, and do research. I never thought I would do that for a living.

I just sort of fell into it. I originally wanted to be a veterinarian. I took some classes that fed my interest.

I know quite a few that teach at the college level, and it is a difficult life you have chosen for yourself. Good luck.

I offer this up not as an excuse, but a possibility. It may also very well be a screw up.

There's the rub... quite a few of these situations have been coming up, and while it is possible it is just a mistake with how the adjustments have been made, it is starting to look more intentional instead... and that worries me to no end.

I'll leave these at that. Goodnight gentlemen.

 

[TennTradition]

Do you remember climatologists indicating in the 70's that we were headed to an Ice Age?

Then it became "global warming", and now it is "global climate change". (I keep forgetting to change from AGW to GCC) :banghead2:

I guess I can go over these things ad nauseam. After this exercise, I am less inclined to yell "Global Warming doesn't exist!" But I am still as inclined as ever to say "we shouldn't change anything, because we don't know what the effects will be either way."

I wasn't alive in the 70s (born in 80), so I don't remember that. I am aware that it was thrown around. I think that some climatologists were concerned about it, and one reason, I *believe* (don't know this) was because increasing sulfur emissions were causing local cooling effects. However, I don't think that the climatological community ran wild with this or anything...for example, it was not wildly proclaimed in the scientific literature, to the best of my knowledge. On the other hand, the popular print (such as Time magazine) went crazy with it - which is what most people remember.

The argument of not knowing what the effects will be has some weight. We can try to understand what climate is going to do (orbit, solar output, etc.) and how we will affect it (solar radiation and energy balances, for example), which can help us understand what if anything we should do. At some point if we accept we are causing warming, we have to decide whether this helps us, hurts us, or doesn't matter.

We could, of course, take all of this to an even higher degree to consider climate engineering. For example, if we are worried about an ice age, can we design space lenses/mirrors to focus increased solar radiation on the earth and curb the problem (or the opposite in the case of warming). Those are truly scary thoughts considering the chaotic nature of our climate system, no? Yet, if we were about to enter an ice age....I might just be behind it!