EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sickkiee
Japan607 Posts
| ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/climate-cynicism-at-the-santa-fe-conference/#more-10297 I talked to another participant recently and he mostly made the same points: contrarians (~) dont have a consistent alternative hypothesis as to why the Earth is warming, they also very often refer to ad hominem attacks and they often use falsified data. Even for those who do not agree with this personal assessment, the article might be interesting best, w | ||
|
LeibSaiLeib
173 Posts
On December 19 2011 13:09 SerpentFlame wrote: What do you think happens to all the CO2 we release then, which has almost doubled atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution? CO2 is a pretty well-documented greenhouse gas, and the laws of physics are anything but ambiguous on this one. Tell me what you think solid proof would look like. That theory is like god, everyone belives it but everything remains theory, noone knows what will happen, its all pure specualtion at this moment. And at this time, even if we get 3 degrees higher global temperature, its still relatively cold compared to the longer past. Coudnt find good diagrams by googling to show what a joke it is comparing last 100 years is and complaining about it (compared to like 100 milion years), got some good ones at ocmputer but too lazy to spend 1 hour tryin to find the same in the internet. NOTE: I am not saying that we shouldnt worry about it and investigate, i am just saying keep researching it, but turn your attention to other things, wich Nature dosent know how to cope with (human bullshit), nature has coped with far far worse things over and over and over again then the few more CO2 in the air. Ofcourse in 1 year somone might make a discovery theory wich will say complete opposite lol, you never know. There was time when there was 50 000 ppm of CO2 in the air lol. | ||
|
Xiron
Germany1233 Posts
| ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
On December 19 2011 15:25 Sickkiee wrote: In the next 20 years we shall see if this is truly a problem or not. In 20 years, if Climate Change is true indeed, the world might very well be underwater | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 20 2011 00:27 Xiron wrote: Hi W, I'd just like to know how you came to studying geosciences and why you are dealing with global warming as your profession. If I imagined for a second that I was a PhD in geosciences, what would I want to achieve? Do you set your goals as high as to 'find the solution that will let mankind live a bit longer?' That would be drepressing, wouldn't it.. Because even if you did, humans won't change. We are like Ninja Turtles without eye slits in their masks. hi xion, i did study physics more by chance because I was interested in how everything works  I moved from physics to geosciences / math because I thought my time spent in this research would be potentially more useful to others.my goal is just to live a good life with a good job that fulfills my intelectually and that does not incorporate "selling out". I might go away from science at one point or not, time will tell  best w | ||
|
kushm4sta
United States8878 Posts
Basically people have not proved that the average temperature will keep increasing given a constant rate of carbon emissions. Also something that upsets me is the habit of alarmists, not you though, to say that it's wrong to even discuss denial arguments. 98% of scientists agree with global warming but only 90% of climate scientists agree with it. Obviously denial is frowned upon in the scientific community despite there being many serious arguments for it. | ||
|
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
| ||
|
pRo9aMeR
595 Posts
Also, it made it much easier to see the whole flow of the thread. Just wanted to stop in and say "good job OP!" keep up the great discussion! | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:21 LeibSaiLeib wrote: + Show Spoiler + Climate change is one of the least problems for humanity atm, ofcourse it can change with new findings. Climate change is pretty solid fact, but is it caused by humans? Noone has solid proof of that. And thats about global, ofcourse cuting down 250k square kilometers of forest will turn the place into desert, and changes local climate. Or mount Kilimanjaro, some people say climate change has destroyed the glaciers on it, but the fact is that it was caused by cuting down the forests and stoping the water circulation thro evapotranspiration (you could fill 1/3 of sahara with rainforest, and it will be able to sustain itself). I study hydrobiology and paleolimnology makes current climate warming panic look like a foolish joke. Nature can handle climate change, but it cannot handle massive ammouts of chemicals, heavy metals etc in their circulations (water, carbon, nitrogen etc). And ofcourse the destruction of ecosystems, wich wont restore for thousends of years. These are the real dangers, climate chance is a joke compared to those. Nature WILL survive climate change with realtive eas, compared to the other dangers caused by humans. Can add to my knowledge all biofuels so far have failed miserably (in some cases you need to spend 1 t of oil to produce 1 t of bioethanol), but there is one chance. Biggest potential is in the algea, but to squeezing the oil out of them is extremeley energy costly. But some laboratories in USA are currently working on cyanobacteria, who will extract oils from themselves, so it floats, and you can easily harvest it, but its still young research field. yes yes, bad english And ofcourse theres also the homo sapienses civlization suicide in near decades, but thats more of a moral, philosophycal question. But extremely serious non the less, specially when USA is turning into totalitarian police state. EDIT: i allraedy regret posting, since i am still a student and my knowledge is limited, but i have my fair share of free seimars and lectures about the subjects. But still i get some of the things wrong. Thats why shoudlnt really post, just read, but oh well i am human lol. That's not true. Climate change, in particular drastic variations in global and local temperatures are natural phenomenons we need to prepare for as much as rain or hurricanes. The problem is many people and an entire industry BELIEVE the Earth will warm till the end of our existence until we pump trillions into reducing CO2 emmissions, which is not only ludicrous but inhumane. Putting the science aside and looking only at the economics and risk management, it's a horrible investment to tax CO2, force expensive "new energy" on the public, or expect the third world to develop without coal or oil. | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
On December 13 2011 11:42 gogogadgetflow wrote: I'm glad to see a climate scientist respect the merits of adaptation compared to mitigation. I just find it hard to believe that anyone who compares the actual dollar cost estimates of adapting to (2 - "x") est. warming over the next century to the dollar cost of mitigating "x" degrees through government policies, would favor any increase in government policies on carbon use at all. I wonder if you are familiar with Bjorn Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist." Furthermore, its difficult to formulate reasonable policies when the IPCC (to name the most obvious source) hardly even knows what its dealing with. Climate models are nowhere near where they need to be before we can lean on them to toss away Billions of dollars on climate policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, climate guru but isnt there *recent* and *significant* doubt cast on our understanding of [CO2]'s forcing effect on [H2O]. I understand you want to talk science not politics (policies), but if you are going to take it upon yourself to make people understand CO2 emissions raise global average temperature (a no-brainer), shouldn't you feel responsible for PROVING the effect carbon emissions have on the earth is significantly detrimental to mankind (its currently impossible to prove at all, let alone pin down a number) and for PROVING (let us take a hypothetical instance where every nation at Kyoto signed and adhered to the Kyoto protocol.) that postponing warming from 2100 to 2105 is worth a cost of $180 billion annually. I guess I understand why he never answered this - he put himself ina position where he had to defend his livlihood. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 20 2011 00:37 Keyboard Warrior wrote: In 20 years, if Climate Change is true indeed, the world might very well be underwater It very well might be. A extra-solar mass might hit the sun and cause all sorts of trouble in 20 years, too. Asteroid might wipe out a couple cities. We might have another world war. Enumerating extreme worst-case possibilities without any probabilities and supporting evidence is vacuous. If OP wants to defend the underwater in 20 years prediction, I'd love to see it. I echo gogogadgetflow's thought in having a economic argument for why we should care. There should be an examination of the many geo-engineering options available but unproven. I wouldn't bet money on any of them. Yet, those aren't area of competence for OP, so much of the discussion is doa. The only things to really discuss are natural climate variability, forcing feedbacks, and climate modeling. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On December 19 2011 15:25 Sickkiee wrote: In the next 20 years we shall see if this is truly a problem or not. I'm sure there were people saying the exact same thing in 1991... | ||
|
themask4f
138 Posts
| ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On December 20 2011 18:42 themask4f wrote: + Show Spoiler + I was watching this piece of propaganda the other day and it got my blood pumping http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXNFl6Ft5Hk&feature=plcp&context=C32bf80dUDOEgsToPDskLnZ29e93o44ncJsMvzkCHq I love how when anyone talks about climate change and global warming they show polar bears. Shows a complete lack of understanding. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 15 2011 10:04 Capook wrote: How about this one, from a genuine "skeptic" (yours truly). I'm only "skeptical" about some aspects of the science--my main gripe is with the policies advocated by most climate change people. It's clear that the earth is warming, and from basic physics it seems likely that co2 is the cause. But that's not too interesting for policy. What matters is how much the warming will continue (say, global mean temperature in 2050), and what the environmental consequences will be. To answer these questions requires simulating the entire earth, which is basically impossible. The current models contain hundreds of fudge factors that must be fit to past data. They all do it in different ways, and their predictions diverge rapidly. Also, the predictions of a single model often changes wildly (well outside the statistical error bars of the previous model) when new physics is added. This is because--as everybody knows--the overwhelming source of error is systematic, in that the included physics is not correctly modeled and much physics known to be relevant is not included. In no other field of science (certainly not mine) would the quantitative results of such simulations be taken seriously, and yet in climate science policy documents you see statistical error bars slapped on results of whatever the latest simulations are (with some averaging over different models), and pedaled as scientific predictions to world leaders. Here's what I would want to see before quantitative simulation results can be considered reliable. For each model, train on only 1/2 the available data, and then verify that the remaining half is reproduced before making predictions. Verify that all secondary aspects are reproduced as well (such as measured ice melt rates, etc.). For each code, verify that each time new physics is introduced, the results remain consistent with previous results. And across all codes, make sure that agreement remains within statistical error bars for each code. I have seen two climate simulation presentations made for physicists, and none of them showed any of this. I have also directly asked some experts and none could produce such tests. I therefore assume that these criteria are (roundly) not satisfied. In that case the simulations can be regarded as providing further evidence for the hypothesis that co2 caused and will continue to cause warning, but can not be used to infer anything quantitative about the future. Great stuff. I'd settle for making the code for models publicly available. Only then can the model results be reproducible and interested individuals can attempt to run the models themselves. Otherwise, the model creators only give the rest of us a choice between trust and distrust. The verification steps that you are suggesting are diagnostics. They are used to convince oneself and anyone who has access to the code and its diagnostic tests of the accuracy of the models. If the model creators have not run those tests themselves, it's very hard to believe that they should have any confidence in their own model's projections. As an additional comment, the use of 1/2 of the available data to predict the remaining half is very ambitious. It'd require foreknowledge of unpredicted forcings like volcano eruptions, solar variations, and CO2 concentrations. It'd be enough to examine the sensitivity of the model parameters to the data by training it to different time periods. If the parameters are highly sensitive and fluctuate wildly, then the modelers haven't achieved stability in model parameters. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 20 2011 16:06 gogogadgetflow wrote: I guess I understand why he never answered this - he put himself ina position where he had to defend his livlihood. I did not answer the post because a) most of the points have been talked about earlier, see OP, b) I tend not to answer if someone calls me "climate guru" and c) I am just busy at the moment due to end of the year work all around But to be comprehensive anyway: yes, I am familiar with Bjorn Lomborg, he does reasonable science for most parts of this work but I dont believe all his conclusions, that would be a point by point discussion, though. no, I dont know of recent significant doubt of our CO2 forcing understanding on H20. We are very certaint of the direct CO2 influence, less certain on the follow-up feedback of water vapor. That is something that is very well described in the IPCC AR4 (that I believe many people who criticize it have never read. it is freely available here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html ) last point: I try to answer questions, dont try to make people believe anything. It is quite clear that long-term consequences of massive climate change are detrimental to Earth (maxium temperature in tropical regions that allow for agriculture, sea level rise + ). I am not an expert to judge from which level on it might be detrimental to which countries, it will be a complicated, regionally diverse response and countries with money will be able to adapt better than others. This postponing penalty is the most egoistical point in the full discussion I have ever heard of. The long-term goal of any policy of any government should be sustainable growth / development, in the sense that Earth will stell be operable after our and potentially the next generation. Kyoto or any related attempt to reduce global emissions is just one attempt to transform a economic system that ignores external costs (i.e., climate change, pollution, human rights in other countries) into one that is slightly more sustainable. I am a natural scientist and not an expert on the best way to do this, I am open to suggestions. I am fairly certain though, that business as usual will not be the way to go Best and thanks to all constructive comments in this thread, I consider it a great success story so far, W | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 20 2011 22:58 TanGeng wrote: Great stuff. I'd settle for making the code for models publicly available. Only then can the model results be reproducible and interested individuals can attempt to run the models themselves. Otherwise, the model creators only give the rest of us a choice between trust and distrust. The verification steps that you are suggesting are diagnostics. They are used to convince oneself and anyone who has access to the code and its diagnostic tests of the accuracy of the models. If the model creators have not run those tests themselves, it's very hard to believe that they should have any confidence in their own model's projections. As an additional comment, the use of 1/2 of the available data to predict the remaining half is very ambitious. It'd require foreknowledge of unpredicted forcings like volcano eruptions, solar variations, and CO2 concentrations. It'd be enough to examine the sensitivity of the model parameters to the data by training it to different time periods. If the parameters are highly sensitive and fluctuate wildly, then the modelers haven't achieved stability in model parameters. just concerning the code thing: most models are available for free, see for example MIT GCM http://mitgcm.org/ (if you write an email to the team that holds true for most models, they are usually on a repository and changed daily, and therefore not just available in the net), they can still probably not easily be used by interested individuals due to the lack of high performance computing facilities for that interested individual. I was part of a big model development effort, and it takes 3 hours to compile the most current version of the model on a 8000 processor super computer, and literally months to run it for a significant time. It takes new PhD students and scientists weeks to months to be able to run these models, so it is _not_ just a question of model availability. Additionally, data is free! See for example hadcrut temperature time series raw date (at the bottom of http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ ). Most model output is freely available, if you google CMIP3 and CMIP% data you will get access to all data from the current run of the models. Model documentation is free. (see for example MIT general circulation model again http://mitgcm.org/; I am not from MIT, just mentioning it because it is very well documented) hope that helps, w | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 19 2011 15:25 Sickkiee wrote: In the next 20 years we shall see if this is truly a problem or not. I dont agree completely. a) one of the many times mentioned cycles in natural variability could lead to a plateau type development that masks much of the underlying warming b) many of the more dramatic consequences are long-term in the sense, that they wont be visible in 20 years (see sea level rise) and additionally, from a robust management perspective: the amount of CO2 that we emit in the next two decades will be in the atmosphere for a long time, it will make changes in global emission behaviour much more diffcult best w | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4923 Posts
On December 20 2011 23:30 dabbeljuh wrote: It is quite clear that long-term consequences of massive climate change are detrimental to Earth (maxium temperature in tropical regions that allow for agriculture, sea level rise + ). What do you consider long-term? The consequences of climate change are likely detrimental because the change happens so quickly, who knows what would happen if nature would have the time to find a new equilibrium. (the idea that we live in some kind of climate optimum is strange to say the least) Not that there will be something like an equilibrium reached anyway: CO2 dissipation rates are highly disputed, a rough estimate of several centuries is given most of the time. For comparison, the melting of the antarctic ice shield could take up to several millenia. So what we introduce is basically perpetual climate change for the next thousand years or so. | ||
| ||
