Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:06pm:


Which assumptions do you mean /have trouble with?

Climate science is statistics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:13pm:



Well the biggest assumptions I have seen are declared, and relate to the source of error is in determining what the emissions will be between now and 2100 or whatever.  That's why we require different scenarios.

Can we take this up in a different thread?

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:31pm:


Historical climate is based on the statistical treatment of data. That part is correct - but to infer that Climate science is just statistics is like saying that  Economics is just statistics.

Neither statement is true.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:01pm:


You inferred that analogy all on your own. I didn't say at any stage that Climate Science is like Economics.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:20pm:

I think I'll steer totally clear of any psychosexual implications in that last remark.

And therefore all conclusions by climatologists are false.

Except the ones soren lorenson agrees with.

Mozz, you are getting apoplectic again - a sign that you are letting fancy run away with you, again.

Der Speigel is not exactly a 'denialist site'. ANd no matter how often you declare it, there is NO "overwhelming accumulation of evidence pointing towards anthropogenic climate change".

Secondly, if extreme right wing christian fundamentalist morons in the mot secular of countries can block action on Rudd's greatest moral challenge of our time and make him into one of the cowards he deplored so loudly a year ago - well, then you shouldn't bugger with extreme right wing christian fundamentaisl morons, don't you think? Their power is greater than you think. So watch out.

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:31pm:

Well done, soren. For once again demonstrating so vividly that you have absolutely no idea.

How would you describe the weather, do you think? You might start with the temerature? Well soren, temperature is an average. I could explain this mathematically, but what would be the point?

The fact that it is an average doesn't make it less real. How about you stick your head into a pot of boiling water and comfort yourself with knowing that temperature is only an average? Tell you what, I'll put the same amount of heat into a bathtub, and since you insist that weather, and therefore temperature, is absolute, we'll experience the same sensations, no?

Better still, wire your postieror to a power point and switch it on. You'll be fine, because the electrical potential of 240V shooting up your AR5E is 'only' an average. Good luck.

Paella wrote on May 28^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:


And 50 times in every second, there will be no electrical potential difference, so what are you complaining about?   

I am insisting that the question is not only irrelevant, but also really really stupid.

So I guess tsunamis are unscientific as well? They are certainly not objects. Neither are avalanches. Nor is fire, or heat in general. Electromagnetic radiation is not an object. Radioactive decay is not an object. This is fun, I could go on. Electric charge, magnetic fields, gravity!

No physical object - no science hey? Good effort soren.

- and here's what the Royal Society actually said:

http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

- A bit of a difference  hmmm.

So it's just the judgement of Lord May that's really at issue?

Paella wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 5:05pm:


Because each of them is an identifable phenomenon or individual, interchangable occurences of them (fire, electrical charge) can be identified. You can't do that with climate unless you conflate it with weather which, from memory, is a big non-no.

Climate science is computer modelling - that is to say, stats.

Paella wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 5:40pm:



No. You get the point.

Paella wrote on Jun 5^th, 2010 at 3:00pm:


temperature is a measurement of a phenomenon.

It's the red star on khaki background with you, isn't it? It there to make sure and to remind us all that you are always wrong. i

Way to go!

Having preened, you two can now glow. Beautiful!

Quote:


But how isn't climate? Climate is the measurement of several phenomenons occuring in a given area over an extended period of time. If the phenomenons in unison occur in a certain way, we categorize the region that they are occuring in to be of a particular climate. We use this information frequently; in the sense that if we are travelling to Florida, we pack board-shorts and t-shirts rather than fur coats and sable hats.

Climate is ultimately founded upon the measurement of several real physical phenomeons; humidity, temperature, rainfall, wind and pressure. I don't understand at all how just because it is a statistical measure taken over an extended period of time that, therefore, we are unwise or incapable, of making inferences based upon statistical trends of those measurements on what form they are going to take in the future.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2010 at 9:15am:



Measuring , even though it is part of the scientific method, is not substitute for it. We do not undesrtand the global climate despite the millions of measurments over the years.
All we can do with the measurements is subjct them to statistical analysis by computer models loaded up with the data plus a whole lot of assumptions and hypotheses.  This is no substitute to experimentation either.

Paella wrote on Jun 6^th, 2010 at 4:44pm:



You can devise repeateble experiments for both of your examples (one you have supplied already). Not for global climate.

Paella wrote on Jun 6^th, 2010 at 9:16pm:



Your theory is based on repeatable (and REPEATED) experimentation. Global climate theories don't.

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2010 at 8:08am:

Now hang on there old chap! A short while ago it the problem was that climate forecasting is wrong because it's all based on these new fangle model things, and modelled predictions were, you insisted,  wrong per se. But now, apparently, modelled predictions can be right, but they are only reliable once the models have been thoroughly tested! Well at least we can agree on that, what! But the problem we have now is that you seem to have retreated, old boy, into one of those comfortable leather armchair areas of subjective assessment: for it doesn't matter how accurate or otherwise climate model predictions may turn out to be, one can always say the model needs more testing, no? Now as it happens, I've personally, always been a bit suspicious of that universal law of gravitation business. Who's this Newton chap think he is anyway? Hasn't earned his stripes in my book. Besides, I dropped another one of those damned cups this morning and the confounded thing flew off into the damned ceiling!

Quote:

Yes:
Quote:

What's the problem? As I demonstrated with gravity, all scientific prediction is based on modelling. That's how it works. By inferring that "all we can do is ..." you are implying that this is somehow less rigorous than "real" science. You're wrong.

Quote:

No. You didn't. Which is just as well because it's wrong. Actually, you were insisting that science only applies to "physical objects", remember?

Quote:

Do you have any evidence that climate model assumptions are not empirically tested? (Here's a hint, the answer will be no.)

Quote:

Ummm, sustained cooling, to state the bleeding obvious. Go be a good boy and find some evidence for it will you. But do be wary of the existing attempts. I would like to think that one of the things you've learned in this forum is that they're all a crock. I wish you good luck, and keep in mind that I and many others will ge genuinely and sincerely elated if you should succeed. As, no doubt, will my children, and their as yet unborn children. But I'll stop. You've got work to do.

Quote:

Well done, you've figured out why climatology relies so heavily on modelling. That doesn't mean the assumptions aren't subject to empirical testing though, does it.

The only conflating I can see is that you seem to be conflating the definitions of conflate and confuse.

Nevertheless, there are very few fields in which I am actually qualified to talk about, but it just so happens that one of them is theoretical modelling. It was you who introduced computers into the discussion. I have been since wondering what exactly it has to do with anything. It's as though you think a 'computer' model is somehow mystically different to any other form of theoretical model.

A computer is a tool you can use to construct a model. Other tools you might use are calculators, pencils and a shitload of butcher's paper. But a theoretical model is a theoretical model, regardless of how it's built. When I predict that upon release my cup will accelerate towards the Earth's centre of mass at approximately 9.81 metres per second squared, I am using a theoretical model just as surely as if a climatologist predicts that the West Antartic ice sheet will be approximately 25% depleted in 2065.

Neither Newton's universal law of gravitation, nor the Antarctic climate in 2065 'depend' on computer modelling. They don't 'depend' on any sort of modelling whatsoever. The predictions that we make with regard to gravity and Antarctic climate do depend entirely on modelling. I'm sure you suspect that if you hold a cup at eye level it will fall when you release it. But you can't prove it in advance of doing it. You cna't actually be 100% certain what is going to happen. But your brain can make a very well defined prediction of what is going to happen. How? With the model it has built to help it predict what happens when you let stuff go.

All of our predictions are built with models. It's the only way we can predict anything because we cannot, by definition, have any kinetic experience of, or direct contact with the future. The phrase 'model based prediction' is a tautology. It is a nonsense to attempt to invalidate or call into question the validity of a prediction purely on the grounds that is is based on a model. And the question of what tools were used to build a model is entirely irrelevant.

If you want to invalidate a prediction, you can test it empirically (which I would seriously discourage in the case of the Western Antarctic ice sheet) or you can test the modelling behind the prediciton. Please feel free to do just this, it's a vital part of the modelling process and it's damned expensive getting someone to do it. So if you want to do it for free go right ahead. No one will mind a bit. No one. But do be a bit more specific. To just say 'Oh it's a computer model', is lame at the very best. More to the point, it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of not just how science works, but how the human mind forms conclusions.

Exactly! You've got it (Almost: the picture of a pipe is not a prediciton, but I guess you could use it to predict what a pipe might look like).

You could add that a climate forecast is not the climate.

If you have the actual result, you wouldn't need to predict it, would you. But we don't have the actual result, terain, pipe, weather, climate, falling cup, whatever. So we use models.

I won't smoke the picture, but the picture might be useful when I am next looking for a pipe to smoke. And as it turns out, I am looking for a pipe to smoke: I've heard that you are able to predict the winner of last year's Melbourne Cup with no more information at your disposal other than the actual result! Outstanding. After we smoke that picture, umm pipe, we'll collect our winnings and hit the town!

When they were handing the wits out you must have got there a bit late, so they gave you a crappy set.

But at least you beat Grendel, for whom they could only spare a half of one. So you should aim a bit higher than to emulate his ripostes.

Paella wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 8:16pm:


I think Grendel was actually starting to think before he left the forum.  I almost felt regret after explaining that he didn't really understand the basics of radiative forcing and that he was arguing from an untenable position. I'll say this for Grendel - in his last few posts he was actually trying to understand the basics.

I actually don't think Soren is dim-witted by any means. It's just that the Energy companies have succeeded extremely well  in spreading confusion among the general populace.

Paella wrote on Jun 10^th, 2010 at 11:09pm:




Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........................

Paella wrote on Jun 6^th, 2010 at 4:44pm:



It is not inaccurate if if you share a fundamentally Christian worldview. But if you are, say,  a Mohammedan, then your prediction is based on a wild misunderstanding of the universe:

"One of the core tenets of Islamic philosophy is that everything in the universe is continously being upheld by Allah. Thus, a stone does not fall to the ground due to (secular) gravity, it falls because it is the will of Allah. Was Allah to change his will, the stone might just as well fly upwards tomorrow, for Allah is considered to be upholder of all things, and thus able to do anything he desires. The implication is that in principle it it futile to search for consistent behaviour and natural laws, for any such laws could be reversed by Allah without notice."

Paella wrote on Jun 16^th, 2010 at 4:46pm:


The subject remains the same: the reliability and/or universal acceptability of models. Your model of gravity is not accepted by people who swear by  completely different model.

muso wrote on Jun 17^th, 2010 at 8:03am:


Good work, Muso, I liked your spread on -
Climate Change (Global Warming) Explained

I have pasted  this  quite a lot in 'Climate Science proof of  'debates. I like this explanation;

Don't expect science to come up with 'definitive proof' of climate change. It can't. Science makes observations, then develops theories based on those observations, and then make predictions based on those theories. If those predictions don't come to pass, they adjust their theories until their predictions more accurately reflect the observations. In this way scientific predictions evolve as new observations are made. At this stage the vast majority of observations are consistent that human activity playing a major role in causing climate change. If YOU want to bet that the scientists are wrong - be it on YOUR head if they are right!!! And if they are wrong, we can all save a truck load of money by cutting down on our wasteful energy-consuming life styles

You wouldn't read about it: climate scientists right

Chances are, you have not heard much about Climategate lately, but last November it dominated the media. Three weeks before the Copenhagen summit, thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were published on a Russian website.

The research institute was a leading contributor to the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and some of the leaked emails showed the scientists in a poor light.

The scandal was one of the pivotal moments in changing the politics of climate change. What seemed close to a bipartisan agreement on an environmental trading scheme collapsed with Tony Abbott's defeat of Malcolm Turnbull. Within months the Rudd government lost its nerve on what the former prime minister called ''the greatest moral and economic challenge of our time''.

By casting doubt on the integrity of the scientists, Climategate helped puncture public faith in the science, and probably contributed to Labor's political panic. The echo chamber of columnists reverberated with angry and accusatory claims. In Australia, Piers Akerman said: ''The tsunami of leaked emails ... reveal a culture of fraud, manipulation, deceit and personal vindictiveness to rival anything in a John le Carre or John Grisham thriller.'' Later he wrote: ''The crowd that gathered in Copenhagen were there pushing a fraud.''

Andrew Bolt thought that ''what they reveal is perhaps the greatest scientific scandal'' of our time. ''Emails leaked on the weekend show there is indeed a conspiracy to deceive the world - and Mr Rudd has fallen for it.''

Miranda Devine wrote: ''We see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity.''

The ramifications of Climategate were immediate. The climate unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, was forced to stand down. Three inquiries were set up to examine the scientists' conduct.

The first, a British House of Commons select committee, reported in March that the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remained intact. The second, a science assessment panel, set up with the Royal Society and consisting of eminent British researchers, reported in April.

Its chairman, Lord Oxburgh, said his team found ''absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever'' and that ''whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly''.

The third, set up by the university itself, published its 160-page report two weeks ago. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of the CRU scientists, ''we find that the rigour and honesty [of the scientists] as scientists are not in doubt''. Importantly, it concluded: ''We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.''

In other words, nothing in the emails undermined the research of the climate scientists. Like the other two, the inquiry found aspects of the scientists' behaviour that fell short of professional standards - ''failing to display the proper degree of openness''.

While not fully excusing their behaviour, one has to appreciate the embattled position of scientists who received a steady stream of obscene and abusive emails and constant public attacks on their integrity.

After the leaks, Jones, now reinstated, received death threats and said he had contemplated suicide.

You might imagine the media would be keen to report on authoritative conclusions about allegations it had found so newsworthy in December. But coverage of each of the reports has been non-existent in many news organisations and in others brief or without prominence.

The newspapers that gave greatest play to the allegations tended to give less attention to the findings. The columnists who gave greatest vent to their indignation have not made any revisions or corrections, let alone apologised to the scientists whose integrity they so sweepingly impugned.

Even at the time, it was clear much of the coverage was more attuned to maximising sensation rather than to reporting with precision. The sheer number of leaked emails, for instance, was sometimes taken as proof of the scale of the scandal, as if they were all disreputable.

It is a common criticism of the media that it prominently publishes allegations, but gives less coverage to the prosaic facts that later refute them. But rarely is the disproportion so stark. Rarely has such an edifice of sweeping accusation and extravagant invective been constructed on such a slender factual basis.

Rarely does it do such damage.
Link -
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-clima...
===========
But, in the interim, the timing and ferocity of the attacks meant that climate change was severely dented and mitigation was postponed for possibly 4 years or more.

The questions is who were those who stood to gain the most, from these outcomes?

That said, those in opposition are unlikely to change their stance.

Even if one or both Ice Poles were to substantially melt, the opposition would simply say it has happened before & it will happen again, Which is actually true, but not when there were 7 billion humans on the planet & not with humanity contributing so much to bring it on!

Soren wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 3:13pm:


Well there was actually a long extended period in which there was no polar ice. The CO2 levels were elevated too at that time. (surprise surprise)

Around 20 million years ago, Antarctic ice began to grow. The CO2 levels over the last 20 million years showed a very gradual downwards trend from probably around 450ppm. Superimposed on that was orbital variation aka Milankovich Cycles.

There were some changes in the orbital variation roughly 1 million years ago, when it changed from a 41,000 glacial cycle to a 150,000 year cycle. We're just starting to get ice cores from that 1 million year horizon from Vostok now.

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 12:12am:


Yeah. We were lucky as a species to make it through the Mt Toba eruption. That's one of the reasons all human beings are so closely related today. Some estimates put the lowest population at about 3,000.

Nevertheless population is not everything. In terms of carbon emissions, 100 poor Africans have the same carbon footprint as one Westerner.

This site might interest you. I've linked it once before, but I really like the cool presentation. Press Play once it loads.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Good post.  For me there are several very scary things on the horizon. One is the phosphate crunch. We rely on chemical fertilisers to get sufficient yield to feed 7 billion people.

We can get phosphate from other sources apart from mining of course, but it's a question of rate of production and cost of production. Some of teh technology may take decades to develop.

Like anything else, it's very cheap just to dig it out of the ground, and we can extract it at a relatively fast rate. However we are very rapidly running out of phosphate deposits.

Prior to the GFC, Phosphate increased in price from US$40/tonne to US$430/tonne in just 14 months. That's an increase of 1000 percent.  

Like Crude Oil, the phosphate price has fallen, but we'll be back to square one when we get sustainable economic recovery.

Climate check-up 'screams world is warming'

A report on the world's climate has confirmed that 2009 was one of Australia's hottest years on record and provides more evidence of global warming.

Three hundred scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association compiled the report, which the association's data centre chief Deke Arndt says paints a compelling picture.

The list of last year's extreme weather events includes a flood in Brazil that left 376,000 people homeless, heavy rainfall in England that damaged 1,500 properties and three intense heat waves in Australia, one of them coinciding with the Victorian bushfires that killed 173 people.

South Australia and New South Wales had their warmest year on record as La Nina conditions changed to El Nino.

Maximum temperatures were generally above normal throughout Australia, adding up to the second hottest year since temperature started being record in 1910.



"Each of the last three decades has been substantially warmer than the decade before it," he said.

"On a decade scale, that is very clear. The 1980s was the warmest decade on record as of December 31, 1989, but every single year in the 90s was warmer than that decade's average temperature."

"What this data is doing is screaming that the world is warming, and that cannot be driven by any single individual or even a small set of groups, because the evidence is there to see - there are lots of groups doing this stuff," Mr Thorne said.

The scientists say the warming is due to greenhouse gases and while there were signs of human fingerprints, the report was not designed to attribute blame.
Link -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/29/2967433.htm
========


That said, the trend does seem to be in and I will stick my neck out and say that a Global Population of 7 Billion people ARE IMPACTING ON CLIMATE CHANGE!

muso wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 10:01am:


All true, but energy use is but a symptom of wanton materialism and consumption - and humans will need to bravely and promptly address same, lest we should prematurely earn collective Darwin Awards...

So, we need to stop irrationally worshipping and feeding the insatiable and destructive 'Growth Fairy" - and denounce the propaganda of his evil twin, the 'Good Greedy Witch of the West'...

Equitist wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 10:10am:


How do you see the best way of addressing that problem? People like to watch documentaries about all this gluttony..... on their new Plasma HD Televisions which account for a sizeable proportion of increased domestic electricity load. And guess what? I have an HD tevelision too, although it does use LED  technology.

Maybe we should start a new thread on how to reduce energy demand.

'Way out of whack' weather produces record hailstone

(CNN) -- A South Dakota ranch worker who found a record-setting hailstone says the chunks of ice falling from the sky sounded like "big bricks" being thrown at his house.


Leslie "Les" Scott found the record-breaker, which is almost the size of a soccer ball, last week. It's been been officially declared the largest ever recorded in the United States, in terms of both diameter and weight. The hailstone measured 8.0 inches in diameter, had a circumference of 18.62 inches, and weighed one pound, 15 ounces, according to the NOAA National Climate Extremes Committee.
Link -
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/07/30/record.large.hailstone/?hpt=C2#fbid=EqTS9N8...
===========
Now, that's a hailstone!

It's not just simple cause and effect. The reasons for the vast majority of the increase in CO2 concentration is anthropogenic - burning fossil fuels, manufacturing cement and clearing tropical rainforest.

On Methane,  I don't know where you get the 25 and 33 for Methane, but I'll explain that in a moment.  Methane is at the ppb level, so the decomposition of methane doesn't contribute too much to the rising CO2 level. That is negligible in the scheme of things.

What you should really have said about methane is that for a given concentration, methane had a global warming potential between 7 and 62 times that of CO2. It depends a lot on the actual time frame because methane doesn't linger as long in the atmosphere as CO2 does.

Now because the CO2 atmospheric concentration is much higher than that of methane, the actual effect of methane is lower than that of CO2:

As the ocean gets warmer, its ability to dissolve CO2 reduces, so less of the released CO2 is absorbed into the ocean.  

Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but it tends to drop out in the form of rain unlike CO2.

Let me know if I've improved your understanding or worsened it  

muso wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 9:47pm:



You've worsened it...
What you basically said (again) is that Methane causes more heating, and faster than Co2 does...

Yeah I already said that...
Co2  may 'hold' heat for longer, but methane creates heat faster..

On a stove, simmer(Co2) holds the pot at a lower temp over time, while a setting of high(methane) causes the pot to come to the boil...

Which is a more immediate problem, or has a more imediate effect???

Boil, or simmer????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 11:15pm:


Not quite. It might be more effective than CO2, but there is currently much less of it in the atmosphere and the overall effect is that it causes less heating than CO2.
Gas        Concentration *  GWP  =  Total Warming Effect
CO2:          395            *    1     =       395
CH4:               1.8        *  25     =        45

The current warming event is not, in truth, detrimental to humans...

The various Homo Sapien species evolved in condition that were much warmer than today...
If anything, the current global average temperatures are several degrees celcius below the optimum for human life.
We, as a species, can adapt to higher temperatures...it's lower temperatures that cause problems for humans...

All the 'life will die if the average temperature increases by 2 degrees C' stories are complete rubbish....
Before the last Glaciation the temperatures were as much as 10-20 degrees C higher than now.....That is when the hominids first evolved

During the Roman Warm Period(2.5-3 C warmer than now) is when all the great civilizations like the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Romans flourished....But during the last Ice Age Glaciation is when humans very nearly died out....

We are NOT adapted to low temperatures, but to mild or high temperatures....
We are currently moving out of a period of LOW temperatures and into a period of more mild or high temperatures....

mozzaok wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 5:51pm:



How can you claim that the only gas in the whole 'Greenhouse Gas' cocktail that is 'bad' is also the only one that is necessary for the continuation of life on Earth?????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 5:09pm:


If it was all about temperature then things would be just dandy, but it's not.

First of all it's about rate of change - rate of change of ocean acidification and rate of change of temperature.

You need to check your sources on the Roman Period. They're wrong, that is from a global perspective. You're probably quoting Plimer. He has a few howlers in his book.

Quote:


That was quite a few glaciations ago. You're talking about at least 2 million years BP. Homo Sapiens didn't even exist then. Let me check that data and clarify what you're saying.


However, things were starting to get a bit boring around here with all the resident denialists keeping clear.

You are very welcome. Expect some of your points to be disputed though.

orexis leonis magnus est  

mozzaok wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 5:51pm:


What 8 billion people are you talking about???
We haven't reached 8 billion YET, and probably won't until about 2023....

All the 'environmentalist' groups are against 2 things, industry and population.....so there's a good chance we will NEVER reach 8 billion population....

The whole 'luddite'(AGW) concept is designed to a) Destroy industrial manufacturing, and return us to agrarian, non-technological farming and b) reduce the population to 'sustainable' levels....
THAT is the whole purpose behind the AGW/CC ideology....to make ALL humans live in communes and grow their own food, make thier own clothes and relinquish all maunfacturing, medicine and technology....

muso wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:36pm:



The 'rate of change' is NO higher than it has been at any number of times in history....

The 'usual' rate of increase/decrease of temperatures throughout history is 1-2 degrees C per century.....

The rate of 'change' since 1850 has been 0.7-1.5 degrees C per century....In other words....right in the middle of the 'normal' range for temperature change...

So NO different to the changes (up or down) in temp that have happened at any other time in history....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 6:42pm:


The problem we face is not so much the conditions now, but those between now and the end of the century. You have a problem with projecting the population to 8 Billion? and a period of 13 years?

muso wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 7:22pm:


Hmm 'so wrong that it's amusing'???
Ok try this:
"the mid-Pliocene was similar to today in terms of the positions of the continents and oceans and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, but global warmth was distributed differently. During the mid-Pliocene, temperatures at high northern latitudes, above 70°N, were as much as 10°–20°C higher than today, but tropical temperatures were near the same. Understanding the much warmer mid-Pliocene climate, then, has the potential to unlock the secret to climate sensitivity. The past may indeed be the key to the present. "

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008EO490001.shtml

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 7:42pm:


Ah - so now we're talking about the mid Pliocene. I thought you were talking about the Eemian before.

The Eemian was about 1-2 degrees warmer than current, and is supposed to be very similar to the projected climate around mid-century, if not slightly milder. Below the Alps, the temperature was about the same as current. The sea levels for this period were about 6 metres above today's sea level.

You're probably quoting Plimer I'd say, or quoting somebody who is quoting "Heaven and Earth"

The mid Pliocene was about 3.5 million years ago, and that was over 30 glaciations ago.  

I know my hominids, and that is indeed the period when hominids were starting to evolve.

Yeah - it was warmer then, but not 10-20 degrees warmer (maybe around 2 degrees).  The atmospheric CO2 was a tad higher too - around 450ppm.

What's your point? There were no CO2 spikes similar to today's during the mid Pliocene. It all happened very very slowly.

Actually, that link you gave me just confirmed what I said:
Quote:

Quote:


You know me better than that. My point was that the situation was very different from today. Today we have almost 7 billion people clinging on for survival. Back then, there were no human beings.

Don't you find it strange that your original text quotes temperatures 10-20 degrees warmer than present, yet the paper it links to says 2-3 degrees?

Are you not starting to smell a rat? Is your BS meter starting to alarm.

Plimer's book is full of such inconsistencies.

The majority of workers consider that the medieval warm period was a local warming, not a global event.  The proxies tend to support that. All this came about as a result of some work that was submitted to the first IPCC report in 1999. It was all that was available at the time. Since then there has been a plethora of studies that confirm that the Medieval Warm period was local in scope.

All I ask you to do is to read both sides of the account, and if you have more than a rudimentary grasp of science, it will become obvious who's lying.

A number of people have dissected Plimer's book, not from the perspective of Anthropogenic Global Warming advocacy, but because of the shoddy science and downright lies involved.


Kurt Lambeck, earth scientist and president of the Australian Academy of Science says this:
Quote:


I think we saw an example of that in your earlier post.

OK I see it now, and I misread your original post. Context is everything. A simple thing like presence or absence of a polar ice cap can make all the difference to high latitude temperatures, and it's a good indication of what temperatures in these latitudes are likely to be like mid century. Think about air blowing off a polar ice cap, then think about what happens to the temperature of that air when the ice cap is no longer there.

This is borne out by the fact that temperature rises near the poles have risen far more than anywhere else. For a while, this was not explainable, but paleoclimate studies like this one help to explain how this happens and improve our models for high latitude climates.

Global temperatures however were 2-3 degrees higher than current during the Mid Pliocene.  

Do you notice the title of the paper?

It's Pliocene Role in Assessing Future Climate Impacts

If we  go back far enough in time to an age when CO2 levels were higher, we can get some ideas about the likely future climate.

The issue is not about whether life on Earth survived under warmer conditions in the past.

It's all about the impacts of  global warming on the world population. For example, a 2 degree global warming will drop rice production and wheat production yields dramatically.

It's all very well to say - just move the growing areas further North, but high latitude soils are generally very thin and lacking in humus. If we had more time, we probably could adapt. Again, it's the rate of change that will be an issue, and the effects of permanent glaciers reducing in size until the annual melt water is too low to sustain current agricultural production.

The fact that temperatures were higher 3-4 million years ago is cold comfort.

Now which one CAME first, again?

Was it the chicken or the egg?

Or, perhaps, it was that pesky Rooster?

In any event, I do see some correlations between -
Population
GHG Emissions
& Temperature

muso wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 4:00pm:


It is often argueable, what is cause & what is effect or what is the Chicken & what is the Egg.

However, in the current case, the Global Fertility rate actually started to pick up during the Great Depression (around 1933) and then the Great Humpfest exploded after WW2, Peaked around 1956, before officially ending in 1964.

So, the Population Growth actually started first, then after another 8 years WW2 began in 1941 and Western countries deficits went thru the roof, to fund the war effort.

After WW2, Deficits & Debt slowly came under control, as the Fertility Humpfest went into overdrive and the Baby Boomer BOOM had started, but it was not until the 1960's that the Global Economy really started to fire up, as the increasing Boomer numbers started to spur Demand .

It would take until 2005 for the Baby Boomer Boom, to then go BUST, as the Boomer initiated Demand Growth, started to weaken!  

I think someone else on this board may have claimed that Innovation/Technology is born in & of iddleness, but I believe it would be more correct to say that the Baby Boomer Boom was born in & of the iddleness, of the Great Depression.

In fact, it could be said that it was the Great Depression, which begat the Great Baby Boomer BOOM, which finally begat the Great Boomer BUST!  

Btw, I haven't got a more current graph readily available, but I think it was just over a thousand ton increase in Fossil Carbon Emissions, per 1 Billion increase in Human Population.