Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Touring Mars]

This is back of the envelope stuff, but even without any other data than that graph the temperature getting a bit warmer than it is now doesn't seem surprising to me. At all.

It isn't just the magnitude of the change that is important, but the rate at which it is projected to occur - a temperature rise of between 2 and 5 degrees in the space of one hundred years would be very unusual indeed.

Note that the scale varies tremendously throughout the graph shown above. In segment one (500-100 million years ago) the scale is 1.5 million years per pixel - sure, there's a rise of some 13 degrees C in there, but it occurred over a period of 50 million years. In the Pleistocene (1000-20 thousand years ago), the scale is 3150 years per pixel - note that even the sharpest/tallest peaks are 4-5 pixels wide, corresponding to a temperature increase of about 8 degrees over a period of around 15,000 years (or 0.05 deg C per century)... in the Holocene, (20 - 0 thousand years ago), it's 64 years per pixel. You will be hard pushed to find another instance of a temperature rise of up to 5 degrees in one century.

Understanding past climate change is crucial, but it is arguably not all that useful to make comparisons too far back in time when the planet was a very different place. Arguably, the most meaningful and useful comparisons can be made only within the bounds where reasonably high resolution data is available e.g. the last few hundred thousand years.

 

[Imari]

It isn't just the magnitude of the change that is important, but the rate at which it is projected to occur - a temperature rise of between 2 and 5 degrees in the space of one hundred years would be very unusual indeed.

Would it? How do we know that?

The pre-recordkeeping historical temperature record isn't accurate to those sorts of timescales, and the recent increase is basically from the start of the instrumental temperature record to today. You can't look at one line and say it's steep with nothing else to compare it to.

On the other hand, we have some data from pre-recordkeeping sources, which point to the earth having just turned around from some of the lowest average temps in recent times right about the time that record keeping started in 1850. Of course there's a massive increase, they started measuring when it was relatively cold.

Now maybe that trend carries on and we're all in hot water. But the models that they use for this stuff are still iffy at best, because there are so many things we don't know. And there's no historical data to suggest that this is hugely out of the ordinary.

It's not that hot. It may get hot, but I'm far from sold that it's a foregone conclusion. Mostly because people resort to rhetorical tactics instead of bringing out actual reasoning and arguments, which is never a good sign in scientific matters.

There's a lot of warning signs that are well worth keeping an eye on, but that's about it.

Note that the scale varies tremendously throughout the graph shown above.

I'm well aware.

You will be hard pushed to find another instance of a temperature rise of up to 5 degrees in one century.

I'd go further than that.

I won't find one at all, because the geological temperature data isn't that accurate. There isn't one in the modern record, and it's impossible to find one further back than that.

Arguably, the most meaningful and useful comparisons can be made only within the bounds where reasonably high resolution data is available e.g. the last few hundred thousand years.

I agree completely. Tell it to @Dotini. He provided the reference period, I was merely pointing out how it didn't really support the claim that the climate now is beyond the range available in that period.

Myself, I'd probably stick with you. Anything beyond where we have reasonably accurate data is useless, and even then there really needs to be at least somewhat comparable conditions. As we ideally also want data on important things like the sun and so forth, the useful data is probably restricted even more than that.

Realistically, probably the best data we have is only for the last few thousand years, maybe. And that's not a big data set for a system as complex as the climate, especially when it hasn't been monitored particularly closely for the vast majority of that time. Which is why I get so wary of people trying to draw big conclusions from not much data. We've seen how the IPCC projections have changed over the years as they gained data and refined their models.

 

[Dotini]

Sure. So between 300 years ago and ~500 million years ago?

So in what way is the climate now not behaving within the acceptable range defined by your reference period?

If we're taking anything inside that range as reasonable variation, then the current levels of carbon dioxide are fine. CO2 is ~400ppm now, and so for pretty much all of that period has been much higher than that no matter what model you use to extrapolate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

So in what way is the climate now not behaving within the acceptable range defined by your reference period?

I'm not making any claims about climate behaving within an "acceptable" range. However, what I am trying to do is understand and explain the fundamental drivers of climate. And I thank you for your excellent charts which I will refer to later.

Disregarding for the moment such unique events as supernovae, planetary collisions, major comet and meteor impacts, etc, I'd like to look at recurring cycles in the quest to understand and explain climate. I'm sure we all appreciate daily and yearly cycles, and even Milankovitch cycles of potential climate forcing through orbital variations in eccentricity, axial tilt and precession.


Past and future Milankovitch cycles. VSOP allows prediction of past and future orbital parameters with great accuracy.

— ε is obliquity (axial tilt).

— e is eccentricity.

— ϖ is longitude of perihelion.

— e sin(ϖ) is the precession index, which together with obliquity, controls the seasonal cycle of insolation.

—

is the calculated daily-averaged insolation at the top of the atmosphere, on the day of the summer solstice at 65° N latitude.

— Benthic forams and — Vostok ice core show two distinct proxies for past global sealevel and temperature, from ocean sediment and Antarctic ice respectively.

The vertical gray line shows current conditions, at 2 ky A.D.
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


Over the last few years I have been researching solar cycles and geomagnetic field reversals as data necessary to understand and explain our climate. I will leave that for later, but will now introduce what I believe to be potentially one of the most fundamental cycles. That is the orbit of our Sun and solar system around the galactic center. The Sun is the biggest dog in our solar system, but it is small fry in the big sea of stars in the Milky Way.

It takes the solar system about 240 million years to complete one orbit of the Milky Way. (The Sun is thought to have completed 18–20 orbits during its lifetime.)

We know the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, with distinctive variations in the stars, molecular gas, dust and interstellar plasma among the rotating spiral arms. But the key thing to note is that our solar system is not fixed in any one arm, but in roguish fashion orbits through all of the arms, visiting each, and the spaces in-between, in turn.

In 1852, an astronomer named Alexander(?) came to an understanding that our galaxy had two arms. Ever since, a polite debate has raged between the proponents of two arms or four. It's hard to know because we can only view our galaxy edge-on.

Lately the argument has taken a turn for four arms.

Spiral map of the Galaxy by Urquhart et al. 2013 (image credit: Urquhart et al. 2013, R. Hurt, the Spitzer Science Center, R. Benjamin).
http://www.universetoday.com/120183/astronomers-bypass-visible-light-to-map-the-galaxys-structure/

This artist’s illustration of our Milky Way galaxy shows newly discovered clusters of young stars shrouded in dust. Image via NASA
http://earthsky.org/space/new-map-confirms-four-milky-way-arms


In the last 600 million years, there have been 10 distinctive geological eras:
Cenozoic, ~65 million years, the current era
Cretaceous, 70
Jurassic, 60
Triassic, 30
Permian, 55
Carboniferous, 65
Devonian, 50,
Silurian, 40,
Ordovician, 65
Cambrian, 100

These average to one era every 60 million years, which equates to the 60 million year average between a passage of our Sun through one the four galactic arms to another on its 240 million year galactic orbit.

A perusal of the data presented in the last few posts may tend to corroborate traces of these 60 and 240 million year cycles. Or not. See for yourself. The notion that climate changes quite dramatically on average every ~60 million years is one to take seriously.

 

[Imari]

I'm not making any claims about climate behaving within an "acceptable" range.

Well, that was the question I asked and what you quoted when you replied.

I asked how the climate would behave without humans, you said like it did before 300 years ago.
I asked for some more definition on that, you said like the period between 300 years ago and ~500 million years ago.

Which is still horribly vague, and I don't understand how this foray into stellar phenomena does anything to make it clearer. If you don't want to discuss it, just say so. And consider not replying to questions you have no intention of addressing next time.

I thought it would be interesting to clarify what people actually thought the climate should be like, since the whole point of climate change is that it's not behaving how people think it should. I'm very hesitant to even begin to attempt to describe how the climate should behave, myself, but a lot of people are so adamant that climate change is a big thing that they must know how the climate should be without humans.

However, what I am trying to do is understand and explain the fundamental drivers of climate. And I thank you for your excellent charts which I will refer to later.

Disregarding for the moment such unique events as supernovae, planetary collisions, major comet and meteor impacts, etc, I'd like to look at recurring cycles in the quest to understand and explain climate. I'm sure we all appreciate daily and yearly cycles, and even Milankovitch cycles of potential climate forcing through orbital variations in eccentricity, axial tilt and precession.


Past and future Milankovitch cycles. VSOP allows prediction of past and future orbital parameters with great accuracy.

— ε is obliquity (axial tilt).

— e is eccentricity.

— ϖ is longitude of perihelion.

— e sin(ϖ) is the precession index, which together with obliquity, controls the seasonal cycle of insolation.

—

is the calculated daily-averaged insolation at the top of the atmosphere, on the day of the summer solstice at 65° N latitude.

— Benthic forams and — Vostok ice core show two distinct proxies for past global sealevel and temperature, from ocean sediment and Antarctic ice respectively.

The vertical gray line shows current conditions, at 2 ky A.D.
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


Over the last few years I have been researching solar cycles and geomagnetic field reversals as data necessary to understand and explain our climate. I will leave that for later, but will now introduce what I believe to be potentially one of the most fundamental cycles. That is the orbit of our Sun and solar system around the galactic center. The Sun is the biggest dog in our solar system, but it is small fry in the big sea of stars in the Milky Way.

It takes the solar system about 240 million years to complete one orbit of the Milky Way. (The Sun is thought to have completed 18–20 orbits during its lifetime.)

We know the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, with distinctive variations in the stars, molecular gas, dust and interstellar plasma among the rotating spiral arms. But the key thing to note is that our solar system is not fixed in any one arm, but in roguish fashion orbits through all of the arms, visiting each, and the spaces in-between, in turn.

In 1852, an astronomer named Alexander(?) came to an understanding that our galaxy had two arms. Ever since, a polite debate has raged between the proponents of two arms or four. It's hard to know because we can only view our galaxy edge-on.

Lately the argument has taken a turn for four arms.

Spiral map of the Galaxy by Urquhart et al. 2013 (image credit: Urquhart et al. 2013, R. Hurt, the Spitzer Science Center, R. Benjamin).
http://www.universetoday.com/120183/astronomers-bypass-visible-light-to-map-the-galaxys-structure/

This artist’s illustration of our Milky Way galaxy shows newly discovered clusters of young stars shrouded in dust. Image via NASA
http://earthsky.org/space/new-map-confirms-four-milky-way-arms


In the last 600 million years, there have been 10 distinctive geological eras:
Cenozoic, ~65 million years, the current era
Cretaceous, 70
Jurassic, 60
Triassic, 30
Permian, 55
Carboniferous, 65
Devonian, 50,
Silurian, 40,
Ordovician, 65
Cambrian, 100

These average to one era every 60 million years, which equates to the 60 million year average between a passage of our Sun through one the four galactic arms to another on its 240 million year galactic orbit.

A perusal of the data presented in the last few posts may tend to corroborate traces of these 60 and 240 million year cycles. Or not. See for yourself. The notion that climate changes quite dramatically on average every ~60 million years is one to take seriously.

Which is an interesting idea, but there are some flaws in this.

Firstly, to my knowledge the arms are generally considered to rotate as well. So if your theory is based on the Solar System entering or exiting the arm structures it's not going to be an easy multiple of the orbit around galactic centre. It's going to be a factor of the orbital speeds of both the Solar System and the spiral arms. The only way you end up with something like 60 million years is if the Milky Way spiral arms are basically stationary.

Wiki says that the spiral arm rotation period (pattern speed is the term) is somewhere between 220-360 million years, so if the sun is going at 240 million years it's going to take a long, long time for it to transition between arms. Somewhere between about a billion years and never.

Secondly, you need a mechanism. Without a proposed mechanism, it could be purely coincidental. Is it because of changed energy flux? Or is it just because the arms are denser in material and the Earth is more likely to have a significant impact with an extra-solar body? Or something else entirely?

Thirdly, there's 60 million year patterns in the graphs I posted? You'd have to point it out, it's not obvious.

 

[Danoff]

Secondly, you need a mechanism. Without a proposed mechanism, it could be purely coincidental.

Very this.

 

[LeMansAid]

Agreed on the non-answers @Imari.

Let me put this question out there:

What would be the normal expected range of climate variation on Earth without any human impact?

If humans were removed entirely from the planet, and the populations of every other species on Earth were bumped a bit to compensate for the fact that the ecosystem has just lost a sizeable chunk of biomass, how would you expect the climate to behave?

..... asks what the Earth's native tolerances are - like how a machine might be expected to cut within say a +/- 0.28mm accuracy tolerance. Observe a 0.32mm sway, and one would rightfully suspect something's out of whack. There is however a danger in supposing that a +0.25mm sway will continue it's course and breach the tolerance, as an adjustment (if it's even possible) will throw the negative (-) tolerance out. This is why a macro view of the machine's behavioural history is vital. Asked "What is the tolerance of this machine?", "Whatever it used to be." is a non-answer.

I assume the analogy is blatant enough for most, or all.

I'm not smart enough to know the answers, but I am smart enough to not act as if I do. I'm suspicious of anyone that has anything to gain from any view point, and suspicious of anyone that thinks that any one of those with something to gain is their ally.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Former IPCC delegate Dr Indur Goklany, a science and technology policy analyst for the U.S. Department of the Interior, calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide, which he says has many benefits for the natural world and for humankind. World renowned theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, has written a forward for Dr. Goklany's recently published report to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, saying, among other things:

“To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,”

http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-doomsayers-ignore-benefits-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions/

Full report here in PDF form

 

[Imari]

Freeman Dyson is awesome. He's one of those scientists a bit like Feynman, who really doesn't give a rat's what anyone else thinks and is just happy to call a spade a spade. And has the standing to be able to suggest something that's counter to the norm without looking like a total fruitcake.

That he's a freaking genius helps too.

 

[homeforsummer]

http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-doomsayers-ignore-benefits-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions/

Full report here in PDF form

There's a few problems I have with this report, having had a scan through it.

While there's a supposed increased yield in crops, and I agree with the reports supposition that an increased or stabilised yield leads to stable food prices, it doesn't address whether despite better yields, there's a net loss in plantlife and biodiversity from human deforestation activity.

All things being equal, a set quantity of land devoted to crops will only be able to absorb so much CO2 before it reaches some sort of saturation level. In that time, yield would increase and stabilise, but without devoting more land to crops (which results in an increase in human activity - irrigation*, machine use, reduction in land for other flora and fauna) the numbers for increased yield would eventually slow down.

There's only so many times you can harvest the same field and see greater returns from it, and at that point, the field's ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 will reach its limit. If someone on the other side of the world is cutting down trees at a faster rate - reducing their ability to absorb CO2, and either burning them (releasing CO2) or turning them into products (creating CO2) - there will still be a net increase.

In the interests of neutrality (in this post, rather than in the report), the report does point out that there's a greening of land across the globe, not just in terms of crops, but rainforests and other ecosystems. Perhaps this goes some way to making up for it, though it still isn't clear whether the 14% increase in productivity of global ecosystems makes up for a decrease in other areas. This data (if it exists) isn't quoted.

That said, the report's diagram of greening of the earth does appear to have a quite significant flaw, which is that while ecosystem productivity is increasing in many areas, they're areas that aren't strictly beneficial to humankind other than in their (limited) ability to absorb CO2. The rainforests in South America and Africa aren't any use for crops, for example, nor are the vast swathes of taiga and tundra across northern Russia, Alaska and northern Canada.

Likewise, it naturally doesn't illustrate the areas that are becoming less suitable as fertile land as a result of increased temperatures and drought - places like the western United States, Australia, huge areas of the Middle East and increasing areas of the African rainforest on its borders with the Sahara. I'd applaud the effects of anthropogenic global warming if it meant increased biodiversity, lush rainforests and greener land, but those don't seem to be the only effects. Part of the Amazon getting greener doesn't solve humankind's food requirements.

It also seems dismissive of localised effects, continually quoting global averages. Ocean acidification from increased CO2 apparently isn't a problem, since it's happening only very slowly on a global scale. That's undoubtedly the case - just like it's the case that global warming happens only very incrementally, yet some areas are suffering at a much greater rate than others. In terms of the oceans, acidification is affecting areas like the Great Barrier Reef than it is, say, the central Pacific.

Erroneously concentrating on the bigger picture at the expense of localised issues is like expecting someone to die of old age when they've just had their throat slit. (Edit: And to expand this analogy, considering that results must always be assessed on their contextual merits, ignoring the bigger picture by concentrating on something too localised is like suggesting someone needs a haircut when they've just had a heart attack...)

And there's some weird, incomplete assessment of certain facts - like suggesting extreme weather isn't a problem since deaths from such events have gone down (they have, but it does ignore that with better planning, better weather prediction, better evacuation plans, and better healthcare than before, people are more likely to survive extreme events than in the past), or that death from disease has decreased (better access to disease-preventing drugs than before, even in poor areas), means they aren't still problems affected by climatic conditions.

And if there's just one more teensy problem with the report, it's the fact its publisher, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is inherently not an impartial observer. It's so not-impartial that it owns a subsidiary to lobby for it, since as a charity its impartiality breaches Charity Commission rules. It also refuses to publish details of its funding. Declaring such things should be obligatory in these kind of cases, to ensure organisations can't hide conflict of interests.



* The report does cover irrigation demands, but is essentially unspecific about the benefits of CO2 here: "It is unclear whether the increases in water-use efficiency have helped increase runoff and water availability for human uses. This is because changes in runoff can result from changes in a host of factors in addition to the physiological and morphological responses of stomata due to increased carbon dioxide."


Slightly off-topic, I find this subject fascinating. It makes me wish I'd spent my degree on a related subject. Not that I don't enjoy creating lots of emissions as a day job

 

[Imari]

There's a few problems I have with this report, having had a scan through it.

While there's a supposed increased yield in crops, and I agree with the reports supposition that an increased or stabilised yield leads to stable food prices, it doesn't address whether despite better yields, there's a net loss in plantlife and biodiversity from human deforestation activity.

Should it?

I mean, when you're making the point that CO2 makes plants grow more, talking about human deforestation seems almost completely unrelated. Deforestation will occur at whatever rate humans see fit, independent of CO2 concentrations. And plant growth rates will be proportional to CO2, completely independent of deforestation rates. Plants can't grow if they get chopped down, but it doesn't affect the statement that the rate of growth will be increased with higher CO2.

I don't see that there's a problem that the report didn't address a point that is not related to their main claim.

All things being equal, a set quantity of land devoted to crops will only be able to absorb so much CO2 before it reaches some sort of saturation level. In that time, yield would increase and stabilise, but without devoting more land to crops (which results in an increase in human activity - irrigation*, machine use, reduction in land for other flora and fauna) the numbers for increased yield would eventually slow down.

It's true. How close to that maximum are we now? How much space for increase is there? Because the report seems to suggest that a lot of crops respond pretty well to CO2 levels above what we have now, which would make me think that there's a fair way to go before we max out a field.

Likewise, it naturally doesn't illustrate the areas that are becoming less suitable as fertile land as a result of increased temperatures and drought - places like the western United States, Australia, huge areas of the Middle East and increasing areas of the African rainforest on its borders with the Sahara. I'd applaud the effects of anthropogenic global warming if it meant increased biodiversity, lush rainforests and greener land, but those don't seem to be the only effects. Part of the Amazon getting greener doesn't solve humankind's food requirements.

Naturally? You mean that the fudged the data, or that the data that they're collecting doesn't show it?

I see a lot of green, a tiny sprinkling of red, and a whole lot of white that presumably means "no data". What with it being pretty tough to get greening figures for every block of land in the world, even if you divide it into big chunks.

It also seems dismissive of localised effects, continually quoting global averages. Ocean acidification from increased CO2 apparently isn't a problem, since it's happening only very slowly on a global scale. That's undoubtedly the case - just like it's the case that global warming happens only very incrementally, yet some areas are suffering at a much greater rate than others. In terms of the oceans, acidification is affecting areas like the Great Barrier Reef than it is, say, the central Pacific.

Erroneously concentrating on the bigger picture at the expense of localised issues is like expecting someone to die of old age when they've just had their throat slit. (Edit: And to expand this analogy, considering that results must always be assessed on their contextual merits, ignoring the bigger picture by concentrating on something too localised is like suggesting someone needs a haircut when they've just had a heart attack...)

Depends on how the system works. Is the climate like a human, where if one key part is even slightly disrupted it brings the whole system down? Or is it more robust than that?

I don't think that there's anything wrong with taking a generalised view. If there are specific local effects that you think have significant impact that would alter the global perspective, then raise them. Acidification may affect the GBR, but how does that change the global picture? Does it change the global picture, or is it just a small yet highly visible effect?

And there's some weird, incomplete assessment of certain facts - like suggesting extreme weather isn't a problem since deaths from such events have gone down (they have, but it does ignore that with better planning, better weather prediction, better evacuation plans, and better healthcare than before, people are more likely to survive extreme events than in the past), or that death from disease has decreased (better access to disease-preventing drugs than before, even in poor areas), means they aren't still problems affected by climatic conditions.

I agree. This stuff is weird. I don't like it, to be honest. It feels like just taking cheap shots. A report like this shouldn't be taking shots at the other side, because there shouldn't be another side. They should be presenting the information that they have in an impartial manner, and I think that they've done a pretty 🤬 job of it.

All the politics and name calling should be left out. Unfortunately, the report has sort of painted itself into a corner from the get-go by presenting itself as "the things that the catastrophists aren't telling you about CO2". Which is in a certain sense true, this side of the science gets ignored a lot in favour of sexier things like floods and starvation. But they can't and shouldn't present themselves as adversarial. It doesn't work.

And if there's just one more teensy problem with the report, it's the fact its publisher, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is inherently not an impartial observer. It's so not-impartial that it owns a subsidiary to lobby for it, since as a charity its impartiality breaches Charity Commission rules. It also refuses to publish details of its funding. Declaring such things should be obligatory in these kind of cases, to ensure organisations can't hide conflict of interests.

Ah, ad hominems. The internet would be a quiet place without them.

Why not just stick to pointing out the errors in the facts, instead of resorting to mud slinging?

 

[DK]

Ah, ad hominems. The internet would be a quiet place without them.

Why not just stick to pointing out the errors in the facts, instead of resorting to mud slinging?

If it's OK to question the integrity of climatologists because they get government funding, surely it's OK to question the GWPF's integrity because they won't reveal their funding sources? This is on top of being chaired by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher, who described man-made climate change as "pie in the sky".

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't see that there's a problem that the report didn't address a point that is not related to their main claim.

Given their main claim is essentially that increased CO2 is healthy for plantlife, I would have thought it quite relevant to address what happens if we're removing more plantlife than we're helping grow. It would present a balanced argument, at the least.

It's true. How close to that maximum are we now? How much space for increase is there? Because the report seems to suggest that a lot of crops respond pretty well to CO2 levels above what we have now, which would make me think that there's a fair way to go before we max out a field.

We may well be - I'm simply questioning what might happen when we do.

Naturally? You mean that the fudged the data, or that the data that they're collecting doesn't show it?

Whichever it is, it results in a report based on incomplete data.

Depends on how the system works. Is the climate like a human, where if one key part is even slightly disrupted it brings the whole system down? Or is it more robust than that?

I don't think that there's anything wrong with taking a generalised view. If there are specific local effects that you think have significant impact that would alter the global perspective, then raise them. Acidification may affect the GBR, but how does that change the global picture? Does it change the global picture, or is it just a small yet highly visible effect?

Again, it could be either - but ignoring significant localised effects seems akin to saying "hey, look how cool that house is!" while the one across the street is burning down.

Ah, ad hominems. The internet would be a quiet place without them.

Why not just stick to pointing out the errors in the facts, instead of resorting to mud slinging?

So you're saying that a report published by a charity whose charitable status has been called into disrepute for non-impartiality isn't relevant to the report's impartiality?

I'm honestly quite surprised you've reacted so strongly to me pointing it out. I'd go as far as saying it's essential to question the integrity of a scientific paper, whatever subject it covers.

 

[Imari]

Given their main claim is essentially that increased CO2 is healthy for plantlife, I would have thought it quite relevant to address what happens if we're removing more plantlife than we're helping grow. It would present a balanced argument, at the least.

See, that's the thing. Scientific reports are not journalism.

There's no such thing as "present a balanced argument" in a scientific report. The idea is to present the facts relevant to the claim you're making. If that claim has evidence that is overwhelmingly one sided, then one doesn't go looking for alternate explanations. One simply presents the evidence and the reasoning, and if it turns out to be flawed then someone will publish a counter-study or a rebuttal.

You seem to be misinterpreting what they're claiming, despite that you've accurately described it above. The title of section 2 is "impacts of carbon dioxide on biological productivity". Cutting down trees has nothing to do with the impact of carbon dioxide on biological productivity. Plants are more or less productive at various levels of carbon dioxide completely independent of whether humans are cutting down the rainforest.

I don't see how you're not getting this.

We may well be - I'm simply questioning what might happen when we do.

You see, this is the problem.

Earlier in this thread, I asked what the climate is supposed to look like. Nobody could answer. You suggest that there's a problem with hitting maximum yield from a given piece of land, I question whether that scenario is actually feasible in the near future, you don't know.

There's a problem when your arguments are simply based on imagining the worst case scenario without any idea how likely they are to happen.

Whichever it is, it results in a report based on incomplete data.

You've never done science. Data is always incomplete.

Admittedly, that one more so than most, but you're talking about gathering data for the entire planet. There are reasonable logistical problems with that.

If you think that they've intentionally omitted or falsified data, then that's a problem. If they simply have a data set that could use more data, then that's not necessarily a problem. There are implications that can be read from incomplete data, one simply has to be careful that one's error bars are appropriately large.


I will say that I'm extremely unhappy with how they've presented the information. The whole report is at about the quality that I would expect of a first or maybe second year university student. That figure that they have of the greening of the earth on page 10 is tiny, and they do not reference it properly. I assume that it's this:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/6/4/3263/htm

If that's true, then I don't see how that data can be used to generate the graph that they have. There's nothing like that in the Zhu & Myneni paper, which is China only.

Honestly, I'm pretty suspicious of that whole section. But I have reason to be, having attempted to research where the data came from and found significant flaws. You've just looked at it and gone "nope". You don't think that kind of approach is a problem, just dismissing anything that you don't like the look of?

Again, it could be either - but ignoring significant localised effects seems akin to saying "hey, look how cool that house is!" while the one across the street is burning down.

Enough with the extremist analogies.

If there's a problem, then point out specifics. You're playing the media trick here of using analogies to shape people's perceptions to how you want them to be, without actually providing evidence that those analogies are appropriate.

I asked you to identify significant localised effects that would impact the global picture. You haven't done so. Does that mean that there aren't any, or that you just don't know of any?

So you're saying that a report published by a charity whose charitable status has been called into disrepute for non-impartiality isn't relevant to the report's impartiality?

I'm honestly quite surprised you've reacted so strongly to me pointing it out. I'd go as far as saying it's essential to question the integrity of a scientific paper, whatever subject it covers.

No, I'm saying that impartiality doesn't matter to a scientific paper. A scientific paper makes specific scientific claims. These claims are either reasonable or they're not.

We're not taking anyone's word for anything. I mean, it's a pretty safe bet that this "paper" has never seen peer review outside it's own organisation, so the whole thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt right there. There's no assumption that the claims within have been reviewed by independent experts in the field, it's just information that is provided and needs to be assessed.

I'm dubious of Goklany's agenda, and I'm dubious of the GWPF's agenda. But the scientific claims that they're providing can be analysed independent of where they came from. There's no need for ad homs.

If you're responding to one of my posts here, you address the specific points within it, no? You don't say "oh, it's that crazy Imari again, just ignore him", even though you may think it. If you disagree with what I say, you point out where I'm wrong and why.

Why is that report different? Can we not treat it the same way as we would a post on the forums? Address the points, list the inaccuracies and the reasons for them, and go from there. We've already found that they're either fudging the greening data or at the very least they're not giving proper sources, which is bad in itself. What more is there?

 

[homeforsummer]

See, that's the thing. Scientific reports are not journalism.

There's no such thing as "present a balanced argument" in a scientific report. The idea is to present the facts relevant to the claim you're making. If that claim has evidence that is overwhelmingly one sided, then one doesn't go looking for alternate explanations. One simply presents the evidence and the reasoning, and if it turns out to be flawed then someone will publish a counter-study or a rebuttal.

You seem to be misinterpreting what they're claiming, despite that you've accurately described it above. The title of section 2 is "impacts of carbon dioxide on biological productivity". Cutting down trees has nothing to do with the impact of carbon dioxide on biological productivity. Plants are more or less productive at various levels of carbon dioxide completely independent of whether humans are cutting down the rainforest.

I wouldn't say I'm misinterpreting what they're claiming - as you note, I've accurately described it as above. I probably am looking at it too journalistically though, which is why I'm unsatisfied that the report is cherry-picked to make one aspect of global warming look good at the expense of considering the negative aspects.

You see, this is the problem.

Earlier in this thread, I asked what the climate is supposed to look like. Nobody could answer. You suggest that there's a problem with hitting maximum yield from a given piece of land, I question whether that scenario is actually feasible in the near future, you don't know.

There's a problem when your arguments are simply based on imagining the worst case scenario without any idea how likely they are to happen.

Where am I imagining a worst-case scenario? I'm only questioning what might happen if there are limitations to the effects they're describing.

Incidentally, I didn't say "I don't know" to whether there's a problem hitting maximum yield on a piece of land, nor whether it's feasible. Of course hitting a maximum is feasible, unless the laws of the universe break down. And if there's a "problem", it's not that we'll eventually hit some maximum yield figure - I'm sure that'd be great in the meantime - it's whether the loss of fertile land from warming effects in other places leads to a net decrease in yield.

Data is always incomplete.

Fair enough.

But I have reason to be, having attempted to research where the data came from and found significant flaws. You've just looked at it and gone "nope". You don't think that kind of approach is a problem, just dismissing anything that you don't like the look of?

If I was just saying "nope", I'd not have taken the time to look through the report. I'd certainly not have written my original post about why I had problems with it. Does my original post honestly look like I've dismissed it out of hand, or does it look like I've taken the time to find areas that don't quite look right and given explanations as to why I think that's the case?

If it's the former then perhaps it's my wording. Though I like to think that I'm relatively good at getting the whole "words" thing right.

I asked you to identify significant localised effects that would impact the global picture. You haven't done so. Does that mean that there aren't any, or that you just don't know of any?

The specific you asked me to point out was in the post you originally quoted. Marine reefs. Acification from CO2, ocean warming from... warming (both lead to bleaching and eventually death), and extreme weather events from changes in climatic conditions (which can destroy reefs damaged by acidification/warming). This report (2008) suggests almost a fifth have been lost since original observations began, with another 15% at risk 10-20 years from the date of the report.

Reefs act as coastal barriers to erosion, are rich in biodiversity, and from a human point of view, they're fairly good for tourism. You could dismiss the latter as something that impacts the global picture I suppose, though since many reefs can be found in quite poor areas of the world so the problem there is economic rather than climatic.

No, I'm saying that impartiality doesn't matter to a scientific paper. A scientific paper makes specific scientific claims. These claims are either reasonable or they're not.

Again, fair enough. I can probably chalk this up to my desire to see balance.

If you're responding to one of my posts here, you address the specific points within it, no? You don't say "oh, it's that crazy Imari again, just ignore him", even though you may think it. If you disagree with what I say, you point out where I'm wrong and why.

Generally, I think I've done that. I'd not have bothered to post in the first place if that wasn't my intention. I can find better things to do with an hour than skim through a report on CO2 and leave a post about it on a gaming forum, with less chance of getting grief about it, but I thought it'd be adding something to the discussion.

In some ways, I'm surprised - given you've subsequently pointed out issues with the report yourself - that you didn't attempt to do similar. If it took my post for you to actually open the report yourself, then I suppose this has done some good.

Actually, if I can address this specifically for a moment rather than in context of this discussion, I quite enjoy your posts here, and in the God thread and others, because they're always well thought-out, articulate, and intelligent. I rarely post in this section of the forum any longer because I usually enter the thread to find out someone like you, Famine, Danoff, TM or someone else has addressed an argument far better than I could have.

However, also addressing this specifically, I'd suggest it's hypocritical to spend several paragraphs describing why I shouldn't use ad hominem arguments, and then implying I'm an idiot by using sentences like "I don't see how you're not getting this" and "You've never done science". This discussion could easily have done without them, and your point would have come across equally well.

 

[Imari]

In some ways, I'm surprised - given you've subsequently pointed out issues with the report yourself - that you didn't attempt to do similar. If it took my post for you to actually open the report yourself, then I suppose this has done some good.

No, I was reading it already, but I'm only about halfway through. I'm reading it a bit at a time because I want to limit the amount of brain damage that I suffer from facepalming at their awful mock-scientific style.

However, also addressing this specifically, I'd suggest it's hypocritical to spend several paragraphs describing why I shouldn't use ad hominem arguments, and then implying I'm an idiot by using sentences like "I don't see how you're not getting this" and "You've never done science". This discussion could easily have done without them, and your point would have come across equally well.

Fair point. I apologise.

 

[homeforsummer]

No, I was reading it already, but I'm only about halfway through. I'm reading it a bit at a time because I want to limit the amount of brain damage that I suffer from facepalming at their awful mock-scientific style.

Heh. As hinted at previously, I wish I had a little more time to scan through things like this sometimes. The concept isn't lost on me that with such a vast volume of (often conflicting) information, any attempt to base governmental policy on warming-related processes must be a nightmare.

Fair point. I apologise.

No worries 👍 Like you've illustrated - not entirely innocent of it myself!

 

[Dotini]

Interesting datapoint: Antarctica is gaining ice mass faster than it is losing it.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/N...arctic_Ice_Sheet_greater_than_losses_999.html

This map shows the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons. Credits: Jay Zwally/ Journal of Glaciology

 

[BobK]

Interesting datapoint: Antarctica is gaining ice mass faster than it is losing it.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/N...arctic_Ice_Sheet_greater_than_losses_999.html

This map shows the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons. Credits: Jay Zwally/ Journal of Glaciology

That data can't possibly be correct. It contradicts the IPCC's finding which are, of course, sacrosanct and beyond questioning. Crucify them for being Climate Change Deniers!

[/sarcasm, for those who don't realize it.]

 

[CodeRedR51]

That map is 7 years old though?

 

[squadops]

Climate change alarmists have been around a lot longer than 7 years.

 

[Danoff]

I hate that these studies are so publically consumed and commented on. As I keep mentioning, this is a new area of research - in its infancy compared to so many others. This study shows an increase in ice in some areas that is outpacing the decrease in other areas. 50 years from now we'll have antacrtica's ice flow mapped 1000 different ways and complicated computer models that explain everything. Right now a lot of smart people are scratching their heads about many things when it comes to climate that in a few more decades will be taken for granted as common knowledge.

I still think we all need to just give them breathing room to work. This story is all over the news, and it really shouldn't be.

 

[Touring Mars]

👍

I had a quick look at the paper before I left work and I was mostly just impressed at how a question like this can even be addressed, let alone the fact that there exists the technology and the scientific know-how to actually do it (or at least begin to).

It is also wise to exercise caution in putting too much weight into a single piece of evidence when it is clear that no single piece of evidence is going to be a smoking gun in an issue of such complexity. The fact that Antartica is gaining more ice than it is losing is not necessarily a sign that global warming theory is a crock (although it does appear to contradict at least one finding of the IPCC), but the comparitive rate of ice loss and ice gain over time is important.

If, say, Antartica is gaining mass at a slower rate than in the relatively recent past, then that would appear (at least in a very simplistic way) to support the idea of climate change (as opposed to flatly contradicting it, as some people appear to believe it does). Indeed, this is a key part of their conclusions, which is that if the rate of ice loss from various sources continues to increase without a compensating increase in snowfall, then Antartica will start to loss ice faster than it gains it in about 20 years time.

 

[squadops]

The media has been trying to scare us with global climate change for the last 100 years, some days we are going to freeze and other days we'll burn. Everyone has an agenda it seems and expecting the populous to simply ignore the press until the scientists figure it all out is not an option.

 

[Imari]

The media has been trying to scare us with global climate change for the last 100 years, some days we are going to freeze and other days we'll burn. Everyone has an agenda it seems and expecting the populous to simply ignore the press until the scientists figure it all out is not an option.

Sure it is. Everyone would be better off if we all ignored the vast majority of the media, who are at best misleading and at worst actively malicious.

I mean, do you really need to read about ten things that this climate scientist doesn't want you to know? I say we go throw some clogs into the hamster wheels of the internets.

 

[squadops]

A utopian option maybe, I'd like to place the blame on the media alone but I know better than that.

 

[Imari]

A utopian option maybe, I'd like to place the blame on the media alone but I know better than that.

I'm not placing the blame on the media alone, I'm just saying people would be better off not believing everything they're told. Especially by people who have a lot of incentive to misrepresent the truth.

I'm not a fan of simply accepting people's stupidity.

 

[Jawsers]

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

Here's a link to the actual paper itself.

Jay Zwally says this about his findings, "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

Also this came out very recently too.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112

 

[Dotini]

They put the activists under arrest, not the deniers!

One of commenters said this, "If Climate Skeptics are allowed public expression, the terrorists win..."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/france-puts-green-activists-under-house-arrest-ahead-135654386.html
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - France has put 24 green activists under house arrest ahead of the United Nations climate talks, using emergency laws put in place following the Paris shootings, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said on Saturday.

Cazeneuve said the activists were suspected of planning violent protests at the talks which kick off on Sunday, a day ahead of the opening ceremony, and run until Dec. 11.

The conference, also dubbed COP21, is seeking to agree a deal that signals a break with a rising reliance on fossil fuels, blamed by a U.N. panel of scientists for causing more floods, heat waves and rising sea levels.

"These 24 people have been placed under house arrest because they have been violent during demonstrations in the past and because they have said they would not respect the state of emergency," Cazeneuve said in a speech in Strasbourg.

Following the Nov. 13 attacks on Paris in which 130 people were killed, the French government declared the state of emergency, banning public demonstrations and giving police extended powers of search and surveillance.

"These people have no connection at all with the terrorist movement, but our forces need to be totally focused on the protection of the French people," Cazeneuve said, saying any serious public disturbance would distract police from their fight against terrorism.

He did not specify how long the activists would remain under house arrest, but French media reported that they would be confined to their homes for the duration of the U.N. conference.

 

[Imari]

They put the activists under arrest, not the deniers!

One of commenters said this, "If Climate Skeptics are allowed public expression, the terrorists win..."

They put the people with a history of violence under arrest. Good to see that you're staying impartial though.

 

[DK]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more mention of the ongoing conference in Paris on tackling climate change.