Positive effects of Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Sadistic-Savior, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Eventually, but studies have suggested that the current burning of fossil fuels will prevent ice ages for the next half million years. See Archer & Ganopolski 2005.

    Is quantum mechanics speculation? Is the Beer-Lambert Law speculation? Are the Navier-Stokes equations speculation? Is the absorption spectrum of CO2 speculation? Is conservation of energy speculation? If not, precisely what speculation are you objecting to?

    The last time global CO2 levels were as high as they are today and stayed that way for a century or more was in the Middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago. At that time, global temps were 3 to 6 K warmer than today, and sea levels were about 100 feet higher than today. Tell me why you think that result cannot happen this time around. And tell me why that result is nothing to be concerned about.

    False. The scientific consensus on this point is actually pretty good.

    [​IMG]
    Human vs. natural contributions to global warming, according to: Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).

    Exactly the opposite is true. Models are flawed not because we know too little, but because we know so much that not everything we know can be put into a model and still make it run faster than real time. Therefore modelers have to pick and choose what to put in and what to leave out.

    All, and I mean ALL, scientific laws are models. If you don't believe in models, you don't believe in science.
     
  2. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The article says nothing about models. It does say something about measurements. Next time, read for content.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What "lies"?

    There is a vast difference between "our estimates were wrong" and the sort of lies you see from denialists where whole "research" papers are manufactured.

    The first is actually a mark of honesty and integrity. They were wrong in degree and they admit it

    Sor to like a doctor telling you that they do not have to amputate your leg above the knee - they can save the knee - but of course you will have to have the knee amputated next year because we are not going to stop the rot - but at least you will have a knee for a year
     
  4. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The lie is that GW proven science when it is obvious, from that article and other revelations about the GW industry, that the whole field is still being researched. There has been no scientific experimentation with the actual climate to prove any of the claims made.
     
  5. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When was the last time you heard a scientist use the word "proven"? In what paper?
     
  6. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yes, it is. You sound like another goal-post mover. I don't have time for another one of those. Bye.
     
  7. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, climate science isn't an industry at all. RPA1, meet RPA1. You two should get together and decide what opinion you guys have.
     
    l4zarus and (deleted member) like this.
  8. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Climate SCIENCE is funded by tax dollars so no, it is not an industry. Selling carbon credits (for instance) is an industry based on false climate-science claims and the government-sponsored propaganda that the Earth is in danger of warming too much.
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is little doubt in the scientific community that the earth has been warming. There is even little doubt that man has contributed to it. But beyond that, it gets much less clear.

    For instance, people talk about the last years as being the warmest years in recorded history. That is true, but also there has been no warming the last 10-15 years to the point of the warming community now talks about the missing heat. The new ARGO ocean temperature sensors deployed since 2003 show something disturbing for the warming community. Little or no increase in ocean temperatures and in fact may be showing cooling. These things pose problems for the warming community.

    There is consensus in the scientific community about the effects of CO2, but even if it rises to 800ppm the CO2 will only account for about 1 degree of the warming that is not currently happening. The lack of consensus comes from the multiplying effect that the IPCC theorizes. Most of the warming is supposed to come from other things like lack of ice to reflect sunlight or water vapor, yet these are all theories and not supported by observed fact and are in contention.

    Even the modelling leaves a lot to be desired. The IPCC modeled that the rise of 0.7 degrees in the 20 years they studied were caused by CO2, why, because they couldn't think of something else that would cause it.

    What else could cause the rise? Ocean cycles, solar output, continued recovery from the little ice age, land use, etc.

    So there is no doubt that man made CO2 contributes to warming, but there are multitudes of other inputs that can effect the system.

    So yes, you can claim there is consensus, but consensus for what?

    Last but not least, the warming community proposes that only bad things will come out of warming when the opposite is true. Warming is much better than cooling. Breadfruit used to grow at one time in Iceland. If it warms enough, it could again. Since warming effects mostly the northern latitudes and not the equatorial regions as much, this would be good for much of the frigid north while the equatorial south would not be much affected. What would be disasterous is global cooling.
     
  10. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So instead of just admitting you were wrong on the attribution point, are you going to change the subject? Let's see ...

    Yup, changed the subject. And once again you're wrong. See, e.g., Foster & Rahmstorf 2011. After removing the effects of ENSO, volcanoes, and the Sun, warming continues unabated.

    [​IMG]


    Do we need to cover the difference between temperature and heat? I hope not. Do we need to actually read a paper on the so-called missing heat problem? Apparently so. Because then we would discover that missing heat has to do with the difference between oceanic heat content and the TOA energy imbalance during La Niña years. In other words, since the TOA energy imbalance (caused by increasing greenhouse gas) implies the earth must be warming, then what happens to that actually measured extra greenhouse energy during La Niña years, when the surface undergoes temporary cooling? And the answer seems to be: it goes deeper into the ocean, where we don't usually look for it.

    Apparently WUWT tells you the problems, but ignores the solutions. Because the "problem" disappears when you look deeper, just as Meehl et. al. discussed above:

    [​IMG]

    I would be interested to see your calculations on that point. Or are you just quoting somebody else who doesn't know what he's talking about?

    So it's just a theory that ice reflects more light than open sea? It's just a theory that dark things absorb more light than light things? It's just a theory that more heat causes more evaporation? Do you know how silly you sound right now?

    It's not the Sun, since the Sun's output has declined over the past 50 years. It's not orbital forcing, because that's been declining for the last 6000 years. It's not ocean cycles, since ocean cycles don't create heat, they just move it around between the surface and the depths, and the depths are warming too. How can it be land use, when you just said you don't believe albedo changes can cause climate change? It's not cosmic rays, because that's been debunked five different ways. And continued recovery from the Little Ice Age? What the heck does that mean? Are we reduced to violating Conservation of Energy now?

    Science doesn't work by proving what is true. Science works by disproving what is false. And every hypothesis save one has been falsified. The last one standing is greenhouse gas, and as it happens, the extra energy from human-caused greenhouse gas is a perfect fit for the warming we've been seeing.

    There are a multitude of things that could cause climate change. But there is only one thing that has been actually measured to cause the current climate change. And that's the increase in greenhouse gases.

    So why are you trusting your infallible gut, and ignoring the actual evidence?

    Here's the current scientific consensus.
    1. The world is warming.
    2. Human activities are responsible for essentially all of the current warming episode.
    2a. Among human activities, the increase in greenhouse gases is the primary cause of the increased warming.
    2b. Among greenhouse gases, the increase CO2 is the primary cause for increasing greenhouse effect.

    Can I see a quote from anyone who's ever said that? Because it sure sounds like another strawman to me. In fact, if you look at any peer-reviewed study of the effects of climate change, including IPCC, you won't find that at all. What you will find instead is that the bad things outweigh the good things by a wide margin. Would it be too much trouble for you to read the IPCC report before you misrepresent it?

    Reference, please?

    You're assuming temperature is the only effect of climate change, and it's not. Droughts and floods cause crop failure. Crop failure causes famine, which causes political instability. We could be looking at millions or hundreds of millions of climate refugees worldwide by the end of this century. We could be looking a food wars. You seem to be saying that if Amsterdam and Venice are destroyed by the rising sea, that's OK because the Russians will grow more wheat. And I'm saying (and the Pentagon agrees) that climate change will be the greatest national security threat of this century.

    Wake up and smell the coffee.
     
  11. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice spin to justify the lies. When so many estimates are wrong they are lying. They only admit it when they are caught that is not integrity that is getting caught at deception
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for proving my point.

    You really asked a silly question like why warming would be better than cooling? When we have cooling, we have glaciers moving south. How many crops can you grow on one of those?
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, the subject is the positive effect of global warming and I don't think I have changed that.

    Interesting that you provide a graph showing warming that is not actually happening unless you cherry pick data to show what you want. That is probably the funniest yet.

    Why don't you address the issue of ARGO ocean temperatures being flat since their inception in 2003. Since these are actual temperatures and the ocean is considered to be the biggest heat sink, they should apply don't you think?
     
  14. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You were the one who said there is no consensus on the attribution of climate change, not me. And you were the one who was wrong about that.

    Cherry-picking is selecting only the data that proves your point, while ignoring the data that disproves it. For example, there are five datasets by five different groups that compute global average surface temperature: GISS, NCDC, HAD, RSS, and UAH. Four of those five datasets show warming in the past 15 years. If you wanted to cherry-pick, you would ignore the four and think only about the one that's flat. And that's just what you did.

    Here's another example of cherry-picking: concentrating on the short-term while ignoring the long-term trend. Climate deniers do this all the time, because they love to pretend that warming has stopped. You can always do this if you pick a trend that's short enough: it cooled between noon and midnight! Global warming is over!

    [​IMG]

    One way to tell if there is a trend in a noisy dataset is to find and remove the causes of the noise. This involves analyzing more data, not less: in other words, it's the exact opposite of cherry-picking. That's just what Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 did. And you call that cherry-picking? I call that your own self-delusion.

    I did address that issue in my previous post, not once but twice: once by posting a link to Meehl et. al. 2011, and the second time by posting a graph from Levitus. Next time, read for content.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Somehow you think that a measurements starting in 1973 is not cherry picking. How about the last 450 million years that show the cyclical interglacials?
     
  16. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
  17. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If 38 years of temperatures is cherry-picking in your view, then why is 15 years of temperatures not cherry-picking, in your view?

    If you want to go back 450 million years, that's fine with me. But if you go back that far, you have to account for the fact that the Sun was a lot dimmer then than it is now. And if we do that, what do we find? The combination of CO2 and solar output account for pretty much all observed paleoclimate changes. We also find that a doubling of CO2 results in 2.8° of warming, very close to the IPCC's equilibrium figure of 3°. (Royer 2007).

    And while we're at it, since I've addressed your points, please address mine:
    1. Where did you get the figure that 800 ppmv of CO2 will only cause 1° of warming?
    2. Who said that that only bad things will come from global warming?
    3. Who said that breadfruit used to grow in Iceland?
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The history of climate has shown the earth to alternate between a frigid ice house like today to a steaming hot house like during the dinosaurs. We are currently in a mild interglacial during an ice age and it is bound to either go one way or another no matter what we do.

    If you think measuring the last 100 years and making predictions off of it is anyway comparable to defining a "normal temperature" for earth, then go for it. Everyone needs a hobby.

    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Milankovitch cycles

    Ever heard of them?

    And yes, global warming study IS a hobby of mine which is why I know that mankind is currently affecting global climate

    Now again let us ask "Why are you dismissing science that has proven current climate change but believing science that has determined what changes have occurred in the past?"

    Surely if science is right about one aspect they are right about the rest
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should notice if you read what I write, I don't dismiss that man contributes to global warming or that global warming happens. I do consider taking the claims of doomsday with a large grain of skepticism.

    I agree there is some consensus, but unlike many, I do not take that to be consensus on everything, which it clearly is not.

    I am very familiar with modeling since I have been working in computer science since the early 70's so I do know that GIGO. I am also familiar how science can be very political as it is now and especially the IPCC whose very existence depends on AGW.

    It is clear that the modeling has not predicted the current cooling phase yet, after the fact, it is now part of the "new prediction". Lots of back peddling. Convenient.
     
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And now we are back to conspiracy theory - tell me, how the conspiracy actually WORKS

    Please - I would love to know

    Oh! and BTW the IPCC is not the only metanalysis of the science - it is just the most comprehensive and well recognised

    What "current cooling phase" and how did they "fail to predict it"

    Specifics please and not radio shock jock blurb
     
  22. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You would need to have a memory past last week to remember the predictions of doom that did not come about, the predictions of increased hurricanes that did not come about, etc..

    There are plenty of skeptics, but the religion of global warming cannot accept the fact that they exist unless they categorize them somehow as kooks or profiteers. That is what true believers do.

    Politics in science has nothing to do with conspiracy and everything to do with psychology of man. To ignore such things is to deny history.
     
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    NOW I know where you are coming from!

    Riiiight - how to confuse bad journalism with science
     
  24. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately you confuse true belief with science.
     
  25. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And you're not at all concerned about the denier scientists who pick up paychecks from the fossil fuel industry? How very one-sided of you.

    Can you show me any actual evidence of cooling? Didn't think so. It's just your fantasy of what you wish the world was really like, so you can ignore the truth.

    Backpeddling ... hmmm. Is that anything like claiming breadfruit used to grow in Iceland, and then pretending you didn't? Convenient indeed.
     

Share This Page