Global warming proved to be a scam?

[dt3]

No what they mean by that is that they can use data stretching back 800,000 years as part of their temperature modeling and comparison making, not that man made GW was happening back then.

I think you're reading it wrong.

 

[edgray]

I think you're reading it wrong.

What makes you say that?

 

[dt3]

What makes you say that?

I think we're both reading it the way that makes our case. And since I'm a self-absorbed narcissist, that makes your interpretation wrong.

 

[nova]

are you dismissing her argument just because she is young?

Not in the least. Any argument I dismiss will be because its factually incorrect.

Aside from the issues I've identified in prior post, her arguments are very well put together and I agree with most of them. On top of that, she's one of the more well written teenagers I've come across in a while. If I had to give a recommendation based on what she's written here, I'd say to go into some field of science because I think she's got a knack for it. :thumbup

The few conceptual issues just didn't make sense until I realized she was in HS. Up through high school, science is pretty much taught as relatively simple cause/effect relationships. In the real world, there are only a few relationships that are that simple. These days the bulk of science is determining nuances of the complex relationships and which factors can or should be ignored.

Ultimately the debate over climate change and its effects stems from the investigation of these nuances and what the overall interaction is.

Take the arctic ice issue I pointed out where the wind is disturbing the ice causing it to retreat. The simple cause/effect says that if the temp is above freezing, ice will melt, therefore retreating arctic ice is a sign of warming. The more complex answer takes into account the fact there are sublimation effects that vary with sunlight intensity, variations in ocean currents, variations in wind patterns, variations in precipitation patterns and many more factors along with variations in temperature. One or all of those factors can be whats causing the variation in ice extent, and typically its a combination.

Age only plays in because you just don't get to the level where the concepts of complex interaction are explained till at least college (unless you happen to be some child prodigy enrolled in a VERY good magnet school). Honestly thats a sad testament to our school systems because we could very easily get kids a position to be learning these things in high school. :thumbdown

 

[nova]

No what they mean by that is that they can use data stretching back 800,000 years as part of their temperature modeling and comparison making, not that man made GW was happening back then.

So you were hanging around with a thermometer back then so that we have actual calibrated temperature data to compared their model outputs with? Somehow I expect not....

 

[edgray]

I think we're both reading it the way that makes our case. And since I'm a self-absorbed narcissist, that makes your interpretation wrong.

narcissist? well that makes two of us then. Which brings us to a stalemate on that one!

So you were hanging around with a thermometer back then so that we have actual calibrated temperature data to compared their model outputs with? Somehow I expect not....

Yes that's exactly what happened... clever sods, those early men...

Or more likely they can look at things like ice samples and check the levels of CO2 and so forth, look at any fossilised animals and do the same I guess. There's a lot of information stored in all manner of places - Ice, rock, water, bones, soil...

 

[nova]

Or more likely they can look at things like ice samples and check the levels of CO2 and so forth, look at any fossilised animals and do the same I guess. There's a lot of information stored in all manner of places - Ice, rock, water, bones, soil...

There sure are lots of sources and they all require the same thing, a calibration standard. The ways that these sources act as a proxy for some other value and the calibration standard to be used, are not always clear cut and generally accepted.

Like the tree rings who's proxy ability from measured temperature over the last 50 years. They're claimed to be accurate from 1960 back 1000 years but not now. Apparently something magical happened in 1960 that no one is willing to explain, that made trees stop responding to temperature.

My thoughts are, if its not a good temperature proxy now, its not a good temperature proxy at all.

Bubbles in Ice cores may not even be a good indicator of CO2 levels. There is evidence that glacial ice can be semi-permeable to certain gasses, including CO2, meaning the CO2 levels in the bubble may not represent the CO2 levels of the parent air....

 

[edgray]

There sure are lots of sources and they all require the same thing, a calibration standard. The ways that these sources act as a proxy for some other value and the calibration standard to be used, are not always clear cut and generally accepted.

Like the tree rings who's proxy ability from measured temperature over the last 50 years. They're claimed to be accurate from 1960 back 1000 years but not now. Apparently something magical happened in 1960 that no one is willing to explain, that made trees stop responding to temperature.

My thoughts are, if its not a good temperature proxy now, its not a good temperature proxy at all.

Bubbles in Ice cores may not even be a good indicator of CO2 levels. There is evidence that glacial ice can be semi-permeable to certain gasses, including CO2, meaning the CO2 levels in the bubble may not represent the CO2 levels of the parent air....

I see your points but I have faith that the scientists understand these issues. And it's via a large combination of this old data that they can build up a picture of how things were in the past.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

AP? Advanced Placement? Are you still in high school?

I've got an engineering degree with all the math and physics that entails including a couple semesters of partial differential equations and still don't have a complete understanding of the underlying scientific issues. Thats even considering my work background is in data reduction and analysis, computer modeling and feedback control systems.

Somehow I think you need a little more education/experience under your belt in order to really start understanding this. Although for high school you're aren't doing too bad. :thumbup

I think it's funny that you didn't realize I am in high school until after I basically told you--ad that it also proves it means nothing that I am.

I'm confused... since when does having an engineering degree make you know anything more then me about climate change?

Have people invested over 10'000$ in you to learn about climate change?

Weird, because they have me... perhaps I am not as under educated as you think.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Not in the least. Any argument I dismiss will be because its factually incorrect.

Aside from the issues I've identified in prior post, her arguments are very well put together and I agree with most of them. On top of that, she's one of the more well written teenagers I've come across in a while. If I had to give a recommendation based on what she's written here, I'd say to go into some field of science because I think she's got a knack for it. :thumbup

The few conceptual issues just didn't make sense until I realized she was in HS. Up through high school, science is pretty much taught as relatively simple cause/effect relationships. In the real world, there are only a few relationships that are that simple. These days the bulk of science is determining nuances of the complex relationships and which factors can or should be ignored.

Ultimately the debate over climate change and its effects stems from the investigation of these nuances and what the overall interaction is.

Take the arctic ice issue I pointed out where the wind is disturbing the ice causing it to retreat. The simple cause/effect says that if the temp is above freezing, ice will melt, therefore retreating arctic ice is a sign of warming. The more complex answer takes into account the fact there are sublimation effects that vary with sunlight intensity, variations in ocean currents, variations in wind patterns, variations in precipitation patterns and many more factors along with variations in temperature. One or all of those factors can be whats causing the variation in ice extent, and typically its a combination.

Age only plays in because you just don't get to the level where the concepts of complex interaction are explained till at least college (unless you happen to be some child prodigy enrolled in a VERY good magnet school). Honestly thats a sad testament to our school systems because we could very easily get kids a position to be learning these things in high school. :thumbdown

And I have been trained differently. Most of my sceintfic education, especially in climate change, has been through outside programs. In field operations and education.

I hate in class science, because I agree with you. It's not taught the way it should be, as a complex subject that is difficult to understand. Ad there is nothing more bogus then the scientific method.

Many people dismiss climate change, without realizing it is to complex to come up with the correct answer (is it real or is it not) without years of study and education. Because it's so complex, it is easy to leave stuff out and trick people into thinking the way you do; or to simply make them think your smart by taling in a technical way, using words they don' understand, unreputable data that doesn't really back up your data in the end--but because you sound so smart, they believe you.

That's why I look at climate change with a high enough probability of being real, to do something about it, because we risk so much when we don't.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Try not to change the subject when I point out your errors. You were talking about arctic sea ice not Greenland, Antarctica or inland glaciers.

Here's a nice graph showing that just as I said, we have gained some ice extent in the last couple of years. If we are currently gaining extent year over year, by definition there is no loss acceleration.



Here's a video based on NSIDC data showing arctic ice extent from 1979-2009. Notice just how typical things look year after year.

YouTube - Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009

Again, here's video of the wind patterns disrupting the arctic ice.

YouTube - Arctic ice driven by the wind not global warming

Now if you want to talk about the large ice masses of Greenland, Antarctica and inland glaciers, then we most certainly can talk about them. We can talk about the physical mechanics of these ice masses, the time lag of ice accretion, melting and glacier motion and the impact of climactic variations 100s and even 1000s of years ago on the current state of the ice mass along with how all those and other complex factors can play into ice mass growth or decline just as much as a simple change in average temperature....



Other than the fact southern ocean is colder than normal according to NOAA, you're 100% right.

Who the said anything about polar bears? My understanding is that polar bear populations were poorly documented and understood before the 1970s and that the information we have since then has been of a population recovering from over hunting. Given those facts, what exactly is a "normal" population of polar bears? Is it possible that the recovering population overshot the carrying capacity of their habitat and is now correcting? What sort of cyclical patterns (short and long term) does the population undergo?

I'm not about to deny an easily quantifiable fact, but until the answers to those and quite a few other questions are known and well understand, I'd be very hesitant to attribute the decline to any particular factor.



You know what? It might also have a lot to do with the fact we had a relatively strong La Nina event over the last year or so which has a strong correlation with low rainfall in south central TX (along with other areas) and high rainfall in north TX. How much you wanna bet conditions reverse when the El Nino thats firing up right now get going?

Considering TX state climatological records only go back to 1895, saying "its the worst drought ever" isn't saying all that much. When you've only been paying attention for a relatively short period of time, its rather ridiculous to assume that anything you haven't seen before is outside the norms. It may be a rare occurrence but entirely within the normal bounds of the system.



I could predict a drought in TX sometime in the next 20 years and probably be right too. Doesn't mean I know WTF is going on with the climate of the world, just that I know its typical that TX has a major drought every 15-20 years on average.

And what about all the predictions that have been made that HAVE NOT come true? To ignore those is to fall into confirmation bias...



Show me some evidence that disease is spreading outside of third world countries. Spreading disease in third world countries with horrible sanitation, prevention and health care is nothing new.



In the complex interconnected dynamic system that is the world, there are plenty of other potential explanations for a lot of what you claim is connected to climate change, you're just choosing not to admit to them. As far as magnitude, its probably better to rely on the satellite temp data(UAH orRSS) which shows a continuation of the slow steady warming thats been observed for a long time, rather than looking to other phenomena with rather tenuous connections to temperatue.

First, evidence that ice is indeed disappearing:

Greenland Ice Mass:



Time series of ice mass changes for the Greenland ice sheet estimated from GRACE monthly mass solutions for the period from April 2002 to February 2009. Unfiltered data are blue crosses. Data filtered for the seasonal dependence using a 13-month window are shown as red crosses. The best-fitting quadratic trend is shown (green line). (Velicogna 2009)



Ice mass changes for the Antarctic ice sheet from April 2002 to February 2009. Unfiltered data are blue crosses. Data filtered for the seasonal dependence are red crosses. The best-fitting quadratic trend is shown as the green line (Velicogna 2009).

Glaciers



Annual change in global glacier thickness (left axis, meters of water equivalent, m/yr) and cumulative value (right axis, m), based on surface area-weighted mass balance observations. Dates of major volcanic eruptions are shown, since stratospheric aerosols have a cooling effect on climate. Red arrow highlights volume rate change (source: NSIDC) .

Arctic Sea Ice



September Arctic Sea Ice Extent (thin, light blue) with long term trend (thick, dark blue). Sea ice extent is defined as the surface area enclosed by the sea ice edge (where sea ice concentration falls below 15%).

Why Antarctica's Ice is Increasing:

The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole strengthens cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent. The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production. Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation which cause less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted.



Figure 5: Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean (top). Sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). (Zhang 2007)



Polar Bear Argument:

First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.

Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.

Both populations are considered representative of what will likely occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)


Lastly, I'm not going to respond to the rest of you're arguments, simply because there is no solid logic or evidence, on you're side, to back them up, and I really just don't want too.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

There are a lot of people who would dispute that given the the prior correlation between solar activity and climate variation and our recently very active sun. There's also the fact that we've been steadily warming since the end of the "little ice age" before large scale industrialization and emission of CO2.

Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began.

Seriously, just WTF makes you think a climate system that has proven itself relatively stable for longer than we as a species have been alive, will suddenly become unstable simply because we are changing the gain on one single feedback path that is known to have an exponential decay in effect?

Because, we are creating a viscous cycles. The climate has never changed (in our history of climate changes, of course) due to carbon before. There will be many carbon feedbacks from perma-frost melting, droughts & fires detroying forests, etc.

We add carbon to the atmoshpere, the atmostphere warms, causing this to release more carbon, we also add more carbon, causing the atmoshere to warm, and more carbon is released from the atmoshpere... thiis ecomes a cycle that wuikcly goes out of control, of natural bounds. eventually, carbon saturation could break this cycle, the only problem is: We don't know at what point this will happen.

The environment has natural checks and balances, but creating a man-made environmental catastrophe could easily over ride these balances--simply because it isn't natural. And I know, eventually, in a few thousands of years, the earth will probably go back to normal. But there is a good chance we could have gone extinct by them.

I'm not overly worried about the earth's future, just our future.

Again, the climate is changing. That is fact. The question is how much are we contributing.

So why did you just make me respond to an argument that sea ice isn't melting implying that you are arguing the climate is indeed not changing?

As we run out of oil, the price will go up and people will develop new technologies and new habits to mitigate its effects.

You don't get the f idea here. We are going to have to do what I am saying anyways: Find green energy, so we might as well do it now, so we can prevent climate change from happening if we are indeed causing it.

To force half-assed solutions to an as yet non-existent problems is to force waste on humanity at large, potentially taking resources from future technologies that really could solve future energy issues.

How would jump starting the search for a solution now, cause us to develop less technology in the future, I would think it would make us develop that same technology--but faster...

Every option you listed has very real and very serious problems that limit their applicability.

I agree, which is exactly why we are not currently utilizing them. And is also why I am suggesting we start researching them and investing in them so we can get them to work.

The question has to be changed to "what is the cost vs the benefit." Don't fall into the trap that these changes have no cost, especially if they are mandated changes outside what is economically viable.

Last I checked, but riskig political, economic, and environmental collapse is a bit more important to worry about then "Are we getting what we are paying for?"

 

[Dakota Jim]

Leave them alone Bri, they KNOW the earth is flat.....:24::24:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Leave them alone Bri, they KNOW the earth is flat.....:24::24:

I know, I tried, but they just won't let me leave them alone... dammit!

 

[nova]

Hey, GW, remind me not to say any more nice things about what an intelligent young person you are. You take it too much like an insult... :jk

I'm confused... since when does having an engineering degree make you know anything more then me about climate change?

I have never said I knew more about you than anything, but you do keep making statements that patently and easily provable false and then changing the subject instead of addressing it. The arctic ice extents and the temperature of the southern ocean being the two main examples. I attribute that tendency to your current lack of formal higher education. No professor is going to let you skate by with that in a class, in fact I was destroyed more than a time or two in the middle of class for similar shenanigans until I realized I better have my shit straight before opening my mouth.

An engineering education provides you with a strong math and physics background along with serious analytical and problem solving skills. The application is different but the conceptual building blocks are very much the same.

On top of that I've managed to acquire real world experience in simulation and modeling, test data reduction and analysis and verification and validation testing of models.

Have people invested over 10'000$ in you to learn about climate change?

Weird, because they have me... perhaps I am not as under educated as you think.

None, I do it for free because I find it interesting, a challenge to understand and something different than what I do on a daily basis. You're not going to find many people that read academic journal articles for funsies but I do pretty regularly. I am a consumate Geek with a capital G... :jk

As far as $$ invested to do whatever, well, my company has and continues to invest quite a bit more than that in me to keep those afformentioned skills sharp, skills that apply very readily to the science of climate change.

In any event, people invested many millions more than that in the "ClimateGate Crew" for them to "learn about climate change" only to have them fuck around with it, so the amount of money you get is not really something to brag about.

Besides, its unbecoming of a lady to brag... :jk

And I have been trained differently. Most of my sceintfic education, especially in climate change, has been through outside programs. In field operations and education.

Glad to see some young people taking the right direction at least.

Many people dismiss climate change, without realizing it is to complex to come up with the correct answer (is it real or is it not) without years of study and education.

There is no question about climate change occuring. It is undoubtably happening. There is exceedingly high confidence in the satellite temperature measurements and they show warming.

The questions are thus:

1. What is the magnitude of the warming

2. What are the primary contributors to the warming and in what proportion?

3. Which of these factors is caused by humans and what percentage of the change is attributable to them?

4. Are there any of the human caused factors that we can change?

5. Should we change any of them and if so by how much? Humanity may benefit from a slightly warmer world, given historical precedent from slightly warmer periods.

6. If we do make changes, are the climate changes happening quickly enough to warrant drastic expensive action or can we take a longer term track? (Being a problem solver this is where a lot of my interest lies)

That is the ultimate debate because we have gone far past a purely scientific issue and have delved into the realm of public policy, which requires looking at far more issues than the pure science would by itself.

That's why I look at climate change with a high enough probability of being real, to do something about it, because we risk so much when we don't.

We don't know what the risk is because as of yet, I haven't seen anyone do a full, open cost benefit analysis to help answer the 6 questions I posed above.

 

[nova]

First, evidence that ice is indeed disappearing:

Greenland Ice Mass:



Time series of ice mass changes for the Greenland ice sheet estimated from GRACE monthly mass solutions for the period from April 2002 to February 2009. Unfiltered data are blue crosses. Data filtered for the seasonal dependence using a 13-month window are shown as red crosses. The best-fitting quadratic trend is shown (green line). (Velicogna 2009)



Ice mass changes for the Antarctic ice sheet from April 2002 to February 2009. Unfiltered data are blue crosses. Data filtered for the seasonal dependence are red crosses. The best-fitting quadratic trend is shown as the green line (Velicogna 2009).

Glaciers



Annual change in global glacier thickness (left axis, meters of water equivalent, m/yr) and cumulative value (right axis, m), based on surface area-weighted mass balance observations. Dates of major volcanic eruptions are shown, since stratospheric aerosols have a cooling effect on climate. Red arrow highlights volume rate change (source: NSIDC) .

Arctic Sea Ice



September Arctic Sea Ice Extent (thin, light blue) with long term trend (thick, dark blue). Sea ice extent is defined as the surface area enclosed by the sea ice edge (where sea ice concentration falls below 15%).

Why Antarctica's Ice is Increasing:

The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole strengthens cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent. The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production. Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation which cause less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted.



Figure 5: Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean (top). Sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). (Zhang 2007)

Show me where I have disputed ANY of that. You made a statement about accelerating loss of arctic sea ice which was patently false and I called you on it. I'm not talking about greenland or antarctica or anything else, JUST arctic sea ice.

Polar Bear Argument:

First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.

Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.

Both populations are considered representative of what will likely occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)

Congratulations, you can cut and paste things I already knew without addressing the point. If you don't have a good handle on what normal population trends look like, how do you know what abnormal is?

Lastly, I'm not going to respond to the rest of you're arguments, simply because there is no solid logic or evidence, on you're side, to back them up, and I really just don't want too.

Congratulations on joining the Church of Climate Change. My opinion of you is slipping lower and lower.

You right, there's absolutely no evidence that La Nina might cause a drought in TX. No evidence whatsoever. Better call the guys at FSU and tell them that....

And there's no evidence that the southern ocean is running cold. NOAA has no clue what they're talking about with that BS SST data do they?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Nova, this is why I hate debating with people like you. You are nitpickey little pisses of shit. No one cares about at least 80% of the points you are making becuase if you look at the big picture they don't mean anything.

You're trying to win a debate, not bring new points to the table or discuss climate change. And as long as you're doing that, I am not going to take the time to respond half as well as I can. This is why I haven't wanted to debate with you since this thread started. I don't like you're through process of "Prove the debater wrong, I am right about everything"

Quoting everything I say and making ungrounded remarks is just annoying to me. I don't respond, because it's just a waste of time. I have seen everything you are saying 300 times before, and I just don't have the energy to continue to full heartedly debate back.

Just go away. I only respond to you because I have been having an interesting discussion with others in this thread that I wanted to keep going. but you are just a complete and total waste of time--sorry.

And if you continue to mock me and try to force me to type of half assed responses that I know can easily be torn down--I'll simply put you on ignore.

Bye.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Take for example, the fact that you attacked me for saying that 'arctic sea ice is decreasing.'

Even if it isn't, what do you prove about climate change by proving that it isn't? The majority of ice is still dissapearing--so for the big picture, climate change, it doesn't matter.

You only responded that to attack the debater, not the debate, and therefore I see no reason to respond.

You get where I am coming from yet? When I debate with people like you, half of what I read is a waste of time.

 

[nova]

Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began.

Quick, you better go tell NASA GISS that the sun isn't having an effect on the trend, they don't seem to know it...

Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change,

NASA - Solar Variability: Striking a Balance with Climate Change

Because, we are creating a viscous cycles. The climate has never changed (in our history of climate changes, of course) due to carbon before. There will be many carbon feedbacks from perma-frost melting, droughts & fires detroying forests, etc.

We add carbon to the atmoshpere, the atmostphere warms, causing this to release more carbon, we also add more carbon, causing the atmoshere to warm, and more carbon is released from the atmoshpere... thiis ecomes a cycle that wuikcly goes out of control, of natural bounds. eventually, carbon saturation could break this cycle, the only problem is: We don't know at what point this will happen.

The environment has natural checks and balances, but creating a man-made environmental catastrophe could easily over ride these balances--simply because it isn't natural. And I know, eventually, in a few thousands of years, the earth will probably go back to normal. But there is a good chance we could have gone extinct by them.

Except absolutely none of that has EVER been demostrated. The empirical observations of the forcing effect of CO2 indicate that the positive feedbacks in the system do not outweigh the negative feedbacks, thats why we see warming somewhat lower than what the response curve to CO2 would indicate and the exponential decay response to CO2 is not going to change just because you're putting more carbon out there.

You talk really big about going and learning these things for yourself so go grab a math, feedback controls and a physics textbook, do your own analysis of the available temperature data. You can very quickly prove to yourself that the final response of the system to CO2 is not an unstable system.

I'd recommend "Feedback Control Systems" by Phillips and Harbor if you don't have one...

So why did you just make me respond to an argument that sea ice isn't melting implying that you are arguing the climate is indeed not changing?

I didn't make you do anything. Its not my fault if you infer something incorrect from what I say.

I said direct, that at this point in time., we do not have an accelerating loss of arctic sea ice. The ice extent has increased over the last couple years. If the extent is increasing by definition you don't have an acceleration of loss.

On top of that, I made the statement that NOAA and several other groups have aknowledged the large dips of recent years were due to shifting wind patterns and I even provided you with satellite video of the phenomenon.

I did not say nor imply that climate is not changing, I've said repeatedly that it is. The satellite temp data shows that clearly. My points are only to challenge the claim that it is accelerating.

You don't get the f idea here. We are going to have to do what I am saying anyways: Find green energy, so we might as well do it now, so we can prevent climate change from happening if we are indeed causing it.

Be that as it may, its still not a good idea to force the change. Thats the same flawed logic that leads people to think we should drop a $10/gallon tax on gasoline in order to spur people into using alternatives. Great idea except for the economic collapse and overall loss of wealth that would actively prevent future development.

How would jump starting the search for a solution now, cause us to develop less technology in the future, I would think it would make us develop that same technology--but faster...

Its called dead weight loss. Go look it up in an economics text. Its what happens when you forcibly re-allocate resources from where the market deems them most useful to where some entity deems them most useful. Without economically viable solutions, thats the only way those resources will be allocated for that development.

There's also the issue that only gov't can do that re-allocation and historically gov't is piss poor at selecting "The Next Big Thing" that will actually be a viable solution for the public at large.

I agree, which is exactly why we are not currently utilizing them. And is also why I am suggesting we start researching them and investing in them so we can get them to work.

Here's another area where the benefits of an time, experience and a full engineering education help. It shows you reality.

We engineers can do a lot of neat things but:

1. There is no engineering solution to making the wind blow. Sorry, just doesn't exist.

2. There is no engineering solution to providing locations for hydro dams.

3. There is no engineering solution to creating geothermal areas out of thin air.

4. There is no engineering solution to the response time of nukes. The minimum response time is dictated by the physics and we can't change that.

5. There is no engineering solution to making the sun shine everywhere all the time for solar to work. Not to mention the other climate concerns of large scale solar. Whaddya think providing large areas of shade for moisture to accumulate in does for the climate of the desert?

They can supplement fossil sources, but never fully replace them. You want a replacement, then we're going to have to go nuclear fusion, which is finally seeing the viability light at the end of the tunnel.

That energy source would let us do all sorts of neat things, like catalyst reclamation of CO2 from the atmosphere into useable liquid fuel. Kills more than a few birds with one stone.

But at this time, given the observed rate of warming and absent new evidence, there is no reason to dictate a change on anyone and incur all the problems that causes.

Last I checked, but riskig political, economic, and environmental collapse is a bit more important to worry about then "Are we getting what we are paying for?"

Bought into the wholesale catastrophe argument have you?

I'll say this one more time, there is absolutely no evidence that we are approaching wholesale catastrophe any time soon. None. There have been prior points in history where the climate was more than a bit warmer than it is now and humanity did just fine, in fact we did a little bit better.

Trust me when I say people were a lot happier with the plenty from long warm growing seasons of the MWP and the Roman Warm Period than they were with the starvation from cold related crop failure of the dark ages and little ice age.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Wish you had read my post before you spent all that time writing that.