The Upside of Climate Change

[dimreepr]

Shelagh do you think swapping threads like this improves your position? if so, how?

Edited December 29, 2015 by dimreepr

[Shelagh]

dimreepr, please answer my question. Thank you.

[Ophiolite]

dimreepr, please answer my question. Thank you.

You are scarcely entitled to ask someone to answer questions when you have meticulously avoided doing so in the other climate thread.

 

These threads are meant to be about the science of climate change. You have ensured that they have become about you, your dishonesty, your hypocrisy, your rudeness, your delusions and your ignorance. Congratulations!

[Shelagh]

You are scarcely entitled to ask someone to answer questions when you have meticulously avoided doing so in the other climate thread.

 

These threads are meant to be about the science of climate change. You have ensured that they have become about you, your dishonesty, your hypocrisy, your rudeness, your delusions and your ignorance. Congratulations!

I won't throw a wobbly if dimreepr doesn't answer my question. It was loaded question, anyway, and I never answer loaded questions.

[Strange]

If climate change isn't caused by CO2, will the present climate models be replaced? If so, by what?

 

Good grief. Climate change IS caused by CO2.

 

But you don't believe it is; so why on Earth would you think it is a good idea to spend money on reducing it?

 

That is about as intelligent as an adult who knows the tooth fairy doesn't exist but puts an extracted tooth under their pillow expecting to find sixpence in the morning.

[swansont]

If climate change isn't caused by CO2, will the present climate models be replaced? If so, by what?

 

Climate models aren't predicated on the change being caused by CO2. Climate models simply take all of the effects that we measure and combine them. CO2 being the cause is the conclusion, not the assumption.

 

If it's not CO2, then what's causing it? Science doesn't shrug its collective shoulders at "it's natural". The various energy sources and sinks can be (and are) studied.

[Shelagh]

Climate models aren't predicated on the change being caused by CO2. Climate models simply take all of the effects that we measure and combine them. CO2 being the cause is the conclusion, not the assumption.

 

If it's not CO2, then what's causing it? Science doesn't shrug its collective shoulders at "it's natural". The various energy sources and sinks can be (and are) studied.

In the mid 1980s, a group of researchers at the University of Strathclyde were involved in a computer science research project. They used expert system technology to devise a program that could perform the same task as a cheese tester in a cheese factory. In order to build a system with a set of rules and knowledge base, the team asked the expert to explain how he decided on the maturity of the cheese. The tester explained the tests that he performed on the cheese. These tests became the expert system rules. When they tested the system against the real expert, the results were not the same. They asked the tester if he did anything else that they hadn't incorporated into the program. After trial and error, the deciding factor turned out to be smell. When the tester crumbled the cheese to check the consistency, gases were released. These gases determined the maturity of the cheese.

 

When you say that CO2 is the cause of global warming, it is possible that CO2 is not the deciding factor; the real cause may yet to be discovered. I have an open mind about global warming and the underlying cause. I feel that there are still a lot of unknown factors.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Shelagh

[swansont]

In the mid 1980s, a group of researchers at the University of Strathclyde were involved in a computer science research project. They used expert system technology to devise a program that could perform the same task as a cheese tester in a cheese factory. In order to build a system with a set of rules and knowledge base, the team asked the expert to explain how he decided on the maturity of the cheese. The tester explained the tests that he performed on the cheese. These tests became the expert system rules. When they tested the system against the real expert, the results were not the same. They asked the tester if he did anything else that they hadn't incorporated into the program. After trial and error, the deciding factor turned out to be smell. When the tester crumbled the cheese to check the consistency, gases were released. These gases determined the maturity of the cheese.

 

When you say that CO2 is the cause of global warming, it is possible that CO2 is not the deciding factor; the real cause may yet to be discovered. I have an open mind about global warming and the underlying cause. I feel that there are still a lot of unknown factors.

Maybe it's unicorns.

[Shelagh]

... or narwhals.

[kisai]

 

 

When you say that CO2 is the cause of global warming, it is possible that CO2 is not the deciding factor; the real cause may yet to be discovered. I have an open mind about global warming and the underlying cause. I feel that there are still a lot of unknown factors.

 

By all means, please research and bring to light these unknown factors, because Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is insufficient to convince people.

[Strange]

In the mid 1980s, a group of researchers at the University of Strathclyde were involved in a computer science research project. They used expert system technology to devise a program that could perform the same task as a cheese tester in a cheese factory. In order to build a system with a set of rules and knowledge base, the team asked the expert to explain how he decided on the maturity of the cheese. The tester explained the tests that he performed on the cheese. These tests became the expert system rules. When they tested the system against the real expert, the results were not the same. They asked the tester if he did anything else that they hadn't incorporated into the program. After trial and error, the deciding factor turned out to be smell. When the tester crumbled the cheese to check the consistency, gases were released. These gases determined the maturity of the cheese.

 

When you say that CO2 is the cause of global warming, it is possible that CO2 is not the deciding factor; the real cause may yet to be discovered. I have an open mind about global warming and the underlying cause. I feel that there are still a lot of unknown factors.

 

I'm not sure that analogy works. There you had a model, based on all the known factors, which failed to produce the expected results. And also that model was not based on cause and effect but rather on correlations.

 

Climate models are quite different. For one thing, they do produce the expected results (as you said, the world is very old and this gives us a lot of data to test models against). The effect of CO2 is not based on an observed correlation ("oh look CO2 and temperature have both gone up") but on the well-known underlying causes, in other words the physics. These effects were predicted long before it became a problem: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

[dimreepr]

dimreepr, please answer my question. Thank you.

 

 

I’m unclear as to why you’ve singled me out to answer your question, since it was directed at Strange; but OK if you insist.

 

AGW IS caused by increased CO2 and the climate IS changing because of it. The present climate models will, likely, be replaced by an improved climate model.

 

Now your turn, please answer ALL the questions DIRECTED at you.

Edited December 30, 2015 by dimreepr

[Shelagh]

I'm not sure that analogy works. There you had a model, based on all the known factors, which failed to produce the expected results. And also that model was not based on cause and effect but rather on correlations.

 

Climate models are quite different. For one thing, they do produce the expected results (as you said, the world is very old and this gives us a lot of data to test models against). The effect of CO2 is not based on an observed correlation ("oh look CO2 and temperature have both gone up") but on the well-known underlying causes, in other words the physics. These effects were predicted long before it became a problem: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

Arrhenius thought that burning fossil fuels would protect against the possibility of entering a mini ice age. Modern climatologists argue that the burning of fossil fuels will destroy the polar ice caps with subsequent devastating effects on global climates. The antithesis to Arrhenius's predictions:

 

Arrhenius' absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:

 

"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat." (p46)

"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses." (p51)

"If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°." (p53)

"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries." (p54)

"Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." (p61)

"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." (p63) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Edited December 30, 2015 by Shelagh

[ajb]

I do not see the relevance of Arrhenius' 1896 study of greenhouse gases, other than he was the first to study such effects. This reminds me of attacks on relativity by going back to the first papers by Einstein who was doing very pioneering things. We do not care what Arrhenius predicted or not, scientists have taken his ideas and refined them, retested them and so on. Any attack on greenhouse gases and their potential for climate change should be based on modern findings.

[Strange]

Arrhenius thought that burning fossil fuels would protect against the possibility of entering a mini ice age. Modern climatologists argue that the burning of fossil fuels will destroy the polar ice caps with subsequent devastating effects on global climates. The antithesis to Arrhenius's predictions:

 

No. That is exactly the same thing: more CO2 = warmer.

 

How blinded by political prejudices do you have to be to think that warming is not the same thing as warming. Extraordinary.

 

But also, you complain that we need better models. We now have better models, which is why we know that older fears about an ice age were mistaken. And of course, in future, we will have even better models (as some of your own links and quotations confirm).

[Shelagh]

I do not see the relevance of Arrhenius' 1896 study of greenhouse gases, other than he was the first to study such effects. This reminds me of attacks on relativity by going back to the first papers by Einstein who was doing very pioneering things. We do not care what Arrhenius predicted or not, scientists have taken his ideas and refined them, retested them and so on. Any attack on greenhouse gases and their potential for climate change should be based on modern findings.

I'm sorry if you feel that greenhouse gases are under attack. A 97% concensus can hardly feel under attack from the remaining 3%!

[ajb]

I'm sorry if you feel that greenhouse gases are under attack. A 97% concensus can hardly feel under attack from the remaining 3%!

 

You have an annoying habit of just making nonsense statements for some unknown reason.

 

Any attempt that you or others make on greenhouse gases, climate change or anything else in science should be based upon modern findings. Trying to go back to the earliest papers on the subject is not really the right way to go, though one should be aware of these works. We have learned so much more since Arrhenius' 1896 study: this is also the point made by Strange.

[Strange]

I'm sorry if you feel that greenhouse gases are under attack. A 97% concensus can hardly feel under attack from the remaining 3%!

 

I think it was a reference to your ignorant claims that climate change isn't due to CO2. You have made it clear that this is based purely on your political beliefs not on any evidence or science.

 

If you think CO2 is not relevant, then you should present some science to support that.

[Shelagh]

No. That is exactly the same thing: more CO2 = warmer.

 

How blinded by political prejudices do you have to be to think that warming is not the same thing as warming. Extraordinary.

 

But also, you complain that we need better models. We now have better models, which is why we know that older fears about an ice age were mistaken. And of course, in future, we will have even better models (as some of your own links and quotations confirm).

Yes, yes, I accept that CO2 is seen as the main cause of warming by both past and present climate scientists. As you say, "older fears were mistaken", which suggests that present-day fears could be just as mistaken.

[ajb]

I think it was a reference to your ignorant claims that climate change isn't due to CO2.

Exactly, and any confusion in the literature around 1900 is not really going to cut it as evidence.

 

 

As you say, "older fears were mistaken", which suggests that present-day fears could be just as mistaken.

Indeed they could be. As we learn more the fears may change, not nessisarily for the better. Science is not 'set in stone' in that respect.

 

However, you should be aware of the great advances that have been made in computer modelling of the climate. It is naive to think that the science is greatly off: indeed today we really explore the 'probability space' and place estimate on confidences. The subject is maturing all the time and I doubt anyone really thinks that climate change will be good for everyone.

Edited December 30, 2015 by ajb

[Strange]

Yes, yes, I accept that CO2 is seen as the main cause of warming by both past and present climate scientists. As you say, "older fears were mistaken", which suggests that present-day fears could be just as mistaken.

 

He wasn't mistaken about the warming. Neither are climate scientists. After all, we have much better models now.

 

You have still presented nothing to support your claims other than your wish it weren't true. You are, of course, free to bury your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening. But that sort of wilful ignorance is not a challenge to the science.

[Shelagh]

Exactly, and any confusion in the literature around 1900 is not really going to cut it as evidence. Indeed they could be. As we learn more the fears may change, not nessisarily for the better. Science is not 'set in stone' in that respect.However, you should be aware of the great advances that have been made in computer modelling of the climate. It is naive to think that the science is greatly off: indeed today we really explore the 'probability space' and place estimate on confidences. The subject is maturing all the time and I doubt anyone really thinks that climate change will be good for everyone.

... but people are motivated by hope. Resistance to climate change can have amazing results:

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Shelagh

[Strange]

... but people are motivated by hope. Resistance to climate change can have amazing results:

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Do you mean that the result of climate science is too depressing and might make people give up?

 

So you think we should not do any research on climate change and just hope that everything will be OK?

 

And why do you think people need to "resist" climate change if you don't believe it is real?

 

How are people going to "resist" climate change without accurate information about the causes, how large the consequences might be and therefore what actions might be needed to mitigate and adapt to these changes?

 

That is like suggesting we can address famine by not doing any research into better agricultural practices.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Strange

[ajb]

... but people are motivated by hope. Resistance to climate change can have amazing results:

I do not really see your point here. Climate change is real, most likely coursed by human activity and will impact the global population in many different ways.

[Ophiolite]

But that sort of wilful ignorance is not a challenge to the science.

It is a serious challenge to my patience.