Essay

So is there any authority you accept. The evidence is there, but what meaning can it have unless it is collectively understood. ~ This quote is from the end of page 3, but to continue.... Apparently not, but is it the evidence or the authority that you can't accept? ~

But you don't seem to accept, or even understand, the authority that science or the scientific method generates. Plus, your authority to further question anything seriously seems to be constantly diminishing. ~

Okay, maybe I should have been more clear. It is the wisdom to see what the accumulated evidence suggests. It is the experience to know what evidence is needed, how much evidence is needed, and what evidence is still needed. And most important, it is the capability to rely upon only well-validated evidence, when consolidating and organizing all the evidence. That is how an understanding greater than any one person can expect to achieve is realized. Do you think there is "NOT solid evidence to back up the authority" of the IPCC or the many scientific and technical organizations around the world? ~

No, it is addressed to you, as the quote function shows, based on your answer to beecee. And you still seem to confuse the authority of accumulated wisdom, experience, and validation with personal and political authority. Do you not use medicine and technology before personally understanding and testing it yourself, or do you listen to society's accumulated expertise? ~

I had not heard that new rule. When was it added to the scientific method? Or are you just making it up as you go? Argument from authority is a fallacy. So far the only counter argument has been from authority and, yes, I reject that. You seem to be confusing the authority of the scientific method with the authority of individuals or institutions. The whole idea of science is based on learning from those who have gone before (and then been confirmed, or at least not falsified). Their "authority" comes from the reproducible results, verifiable observations, and explanatory/predictive power of their efforts ...rather than from their personality or position or preferences. ~ p.s. If you are not familiar with the phrase, 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' here is a quick snippet from the internet:

There are many models you could look at. Search "radiative conductive models" for some of the simplest planetary heat balance equations, or check out these examples of climate models (with code provided) that you can manipulate like a tax calculator, such as: http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Layers/ But I suspect these are not the sort of models you need (as others first tried to point out). Wikipedia may be leading you astray, with its focus on a model, it seems to me. Perhaps at this school level, the "model" is just the hypothesis itself. Essentially you need to find something that you can measure, which is affected by something else that you can also measure. Your model is the proposed relationship. You're not trying to test any of the "Global Circulation Models," I hope. But you should search those also, for some perspective. I think the first suggestion, about changes in growing seasons or movement of growing/climate zones, would be the best bet. Or how about change in the Arctic, since it is more dramatic pronounced (as was predicted over 30 years ago)*. Hint: one of the most significant consequences from this era of "climate change" is the unprecedented rate of change, relative to tens, or even hundreds of millions of years, of "normal" climate change. Compare the extreme "PETM Event" with this past century's rate of change. The null hypothesis would be about how the current rate of change is not unusual, I suppose. ~ Edit: Search the topic of "Phenology" for many project ideas related to global warming. * citations available if you're interested.

I included the picture to show that hockeysticks also abound throughout global change research, but only as a way of suggesting that Mann's hockeystick shouldn't be surprising. If you want to pursue those graphs, we could start a new topic. Otherwise, we could move on to the point about Mann's famous graph, and how it is still a valid graph. The original hockeystick has been superseded by other more extensive and accurate studies, I'm fairly sure; and they show the same results, don't they? Maybe I've missed some new research or conclusions, so please (anybody) post new information that will correct my general understanding of the situation.

Do you mean you want the original source of the data, which the IPCC then vetted and collected for presentation; or do you mean you don't trust the embedded address of the image?

If you will 'right click' on the picture, you can copy the image address: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-1.jpeg So, it appears to be from the IPCC's AR4 report, in Switzerland.

Though not persuasive, I was aware of the report’s online controversy, and my impression of what actually happened was mostly formed through occasional updates from the mainstream science journals. If I recall correctly: Somebody questioned part of the hockeystick data, which had been adjusted to compensate for the effect of the “recent” rise in CO2 on tree growth. That happens in science—where somebody will challenge some data or methods or conclusions—and it’s the way science is supposed to work. The work was examined and reviewed, as is normally done in science, and Mann’s accounting for recent tree-growth changes was found to be valid. And those changes were also verified later by other researchers. Due to the controversy, that subset of data under scrutiny was removed from the final, as well as updated versions, of the hockeystick graph. But even when the questioned data was removed from the final report, the overall shape of the graph remained the same—as a hockeystick. Did you know that? Though questioned, the famous graph was never invalidated in the real world. And it remains valid to this day in the world of verifiably-sourced information. Other reconstructions of temperatures over the past few millennia show a similar hockeystick pattern—as do graphs of our greenhouse gas emissions. ~

Interestingly, it may have been easier to get to the location of these fossils, from Africa, around 5.7 million years ago. "The Mediterranean Salinity Crisis (MSC) ...began approximately 6 million years ago (MYA) and lasted until around 5.3 MYA – a time span of well over a half million years." "Scientists believe that by 5.59 MYA, the ocean floor had been raised high enough to become an area of land that completely separated the Mediterranean from the Atlantic Ocean." The timing suggests Crete and Africa may have been more closely linked when those imprints were made. ~

Here is an example where the Univ of Michigan compares "other influences" to a baseline excluding the other influences. ~

Ingesting electrons (and holes) occurs with all foods, doesn’t it? Think about salt. Supplementing the diet with medicinal charcoal should provide some graphene, since the char is essentially like "inertinite" macerals, and thus contains graphene. Fig. 7. Structure of biochar with different functional groups present on its surface (Adapted and redrawn from Brennan et al., 2001; Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). ~

The Pope might suggest that AGW is intrinsically linked to the level of consumption by that population, rather than the actual level of human population. It is the footprint of the population, for good or bad, that makes the difference. As the Pope said in his encyclical, Laudato Si: “The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world.” –161 “The impact of present imbalances is also seen in the premature death of many of the poor, in conflicts sparked by the shortage of resources, and in any number of other problems which are insufficiently represented on global agendas.” –48 The Pope also mentions how certain populations “…need to acknowledge the scandalous level of consumption in some privileged sectors of their population….” –172 “In the end, a world of exacerbated consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms.” --230 "What is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis." –197 Ultimately, I think you’ll agree that…. ”There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.” –118 “The poor and the earth are crying out.” –246 ~

Greenhouse gases can be considered a type of pollution, but the toxic effects of pollutants directly on organisms and local or regional ecosystems is usually a separate topic from the global effects of climate change caused by human activity. Some pollutants, such as soot or sulfates, can also contribute to climate change. Some greenhouse gases can have toxic effects on organisms or ecosystems, so the definitions can be problematic. Is there a specific homework problem you are working on, or are you asking about these questions in general? ~

Here is a good introduction. Just click on "Schedule" for a list of links to each lecture. The first five chapters seem to cover the questions you are asking about. Plus, the "Toy Models" link is fun to play with too. ~

Here's a review for the video from your post: Some people can't (or don't want to) view videos, so a short summary and/or some quotes would be nice, and iirc, technically it is required by forum rules. Since the review doesn't have the solution that you mentioned, could you provide a quote or summary that explains this part about "how to solve global warming?" In addition to what you've mentioned above, some scientists have also figured out ways to convert CO2 into graphene, for building materials, or even converting CO2 into fuels. Plus there is the old traditional method of turning CO2 into charcoal (via pyrolysis of biomass), which has many co-benefits including the great improvements to sustainable agricultural practices. Workable answers are available, but (socio-politically) workable implementations are not yet widely enough available. ~

There seem to be many mechanisms that drive evolution, or at least the rapid development of specific adaptations, beyond the regular rate of “new trait” development that comes simply from random mutations. Mechanisms for human genomic rearrangements: [2008] Mechanisms of change in gene copy number: [2009] I recall reading about a mechanism that duplicates certain genes and then transposes the copies to a new location where they then undergo extra mutation, while the originals maintain normal function, as in the 2009 link above. This was, iirc about 6-8 years ago, thought to be unique to humans and one other primate, and the genes affected were located in an area associated with development of the digestive tract during embryogenesis. This seemed especially interesting at the time, after also having heard that some of the same genes used during embryogenesis of the digestive system were also used later during gestation in the embryogenesis of brain systems. So istm, pressures to change diet could affect brain development in more than just a nutritional manner. === Googling the terms, indel human unique mechanism of action, brought up the 2008 link above, plus other interesting links. Following a suggested term from that search, “fork stalling and template switching,” brought up the 2009 link above, plus other.... Searching other terms from within these two links, such as recombination hotspot, should be even more interesting. ~

See? You're still treating the emergence of complexity as a totally random event, instead of seeing how complexity emerges fairly easily out of any system composed of simple, diverse, robust, chaotic parts. Do you see the big difference? ~

Sure, it is not simple to create a protein, or any complexity, but the beautiful complexities and stability are built up from simple parts following simple rules. And there is not much diversity among those simple parts and rules, but just enough to make things interesting and unpredictable. Being "robust" is just a measure of how strongly the simple parts will resist change and how strongly the simple rules will stay the same. Being "chaotic" refers to the freedom for parts to mix and match in different ways and times, but also within certain relatively strong yet simple limits. And out of that simple chaos, stable complexity is born, the beauty of proteins and planets and people is born, and a diversity much much more vast than the puny diversity of the original parts is also born. ...or words to that effect ~

That can't be right, unless you are just talking about random processes, instead of unidirectional, natural processes. Actually the laws are not too many, and they are all fairly simple, acting directly and immediately. There are many examples showing that stable complexity will emerge whole, out from any limited but energized collection of simple, diverse, robust, and chaotic “building blocks.”

...just to set the record straight: Runaway greenhouse heating is NOT in the headlines, or bylines, of climate science. The idea that warming would “continue unabated” is not what any climate scientists are worried about. It is only the rise of a few degrees (or a few more) that would be significantly catastrophic enough for scientists —as well as informed policy makers—to be significantly concerned about. === There is ONE major exception to this statement about how: “There is NO point …for at least 400,000 years that the Earth's climate is anything faintly ‘normal’ or unmoving.” There is no point.... Except for the past 10,000 years, where we have only varied (around a fairly level average of 15C) by about +/- one degree. For ten thousand years now, our climate has not varied globally more than a few degrees, fairly slowly over hundreds or thousands of years; from the mid-Holocene climate optimum or Roman warm period or the Medieval Warm Period to the various intervening “dark ages” or cooling periods such as the Little Ice Age. Over more than 500 years, between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, the average temperature change was only about one degree C. And now we’re facing several degrees or more, over just decades, which also includes unprecedented* ocean acidification, all of which will persist or get worse for centuries to follow! That is why there are some “panic stricken headlines” around to see. *unprecedented…since before we first walked upright. === Now.... We're headed off into warmer territory, above our long "level average," into temperatures seen only briefly during the last Eemian interglacial ...or more likely temperatures higher than those. ...or for a longer view: ...fairly level, relatively, but now ...we will be heading up steeply to levels not seen for millions of years! To quote the National Academies Press: "At current carbon emission rates, Earth will experience atmospheric CO2 levels within this century that have not occurred since the warm “greenhouse” climates of more than 34 million years ago." ...which would look sort of like: ...relative to previous interglacials. This would be back to a climate that hosted a vastly different flora and fauna; back to a climate that existed before agriculture or honeybees or even primates had evolved ...or could evolve to survive. ~

This comment shows how mistaken your perspective on climate science is, because the theory (about how rising CO2 levels will cause climate warming) isn’t based on “the changes we observe.” The theory is based on well-established physics. The changes we observe are simply confirming the theory. ~

...hopefully, by the time we need to think about excess biochar, our carbon emissions will be much lower and the critical balances restored, so the program could be scaled back to some "maintenance" level. But.... This is the sort of "geoengineering" we need to be doing! It can help undo several of the hazardous geo-changes that civilization has already engineered, increasingly, over the past several millennia*, centuries, and decades. Restoring our croplands and rangelands, as well as restoring the CO2 balance, is key to sustainably feeding billions of people as this century unfolds. It is like biomimicry, or maybe that should be called "ecomimicry," in that this sounds like geoengineering that helps restore the base of the food chain. ~ *per Ruddiman hypothesis

...not sure how it is done, but consider that creating a one carat diamond by placing "carbon atoms next to each other" with optical tweezers would require the placement of 1022 atoms into the proper configuration. And placing one atom per second would take a little over 300 trillion years! ~